Dear Churches of Northern Ireland: My slice of the equality cake

Here are a few of the statements made by churches in Northern Ireland in relation to the Equality Commission decision of action over Ashers Bakery.

First the Presbyterian Church in Ireland:

The Convener of the Church and Society Committee of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, the Very Rev. Dr. Norman Hamilton, has issued the following statement:

"I want to express deep concern on behalf of our Church at the apparent decision of the Equality Commission to take further steps towards legal action against the owners of Ashers Baking Company.

"In a situation where a business has clearly stated that it is willing to serve any customer irrespective of religion, sexual orientation or political belief, it surely is totally unjust to attempt to compel it to be involved in promoting causes which in conscience are against the owners’ strongly held Christian beliefs. There ought to be much more scope to exercise freedom of conscience in such situations, and as a society we need to strive for 'reasonable accommodation' in situations where there is a genuine conscientious problem.

"Such an apparent decision by the Equality Commission is not only very unhelpful in the particular situation in question, but it potentially undermines and shuts down the kind of respectful wider debate and discussions that are necessary. The Presbyterian Church in Ireland wants to encourage thoughtful, gracious and yet rigorous discussion about how Biblical faith should relate to equality legislation. Indeed, we recently held a well-attended day conference, entitled 'Equality, freedom and religion'.  There is a need to think through what a God honouring and Biblically faithful approach to equality, human rights and freedom should look like in our ever changing society. There is a need for Churches and Christian people to engage with these issues and indeed be to the fore in promoting such equality and human rights. However, decisions such as that apparently taken by the Equality Commission, far from assisting in such necessary engagement, in fact makes it significantly harder. This is a deeply regrettable failure of civic leadership by the Equality Commission." 6 Nov 2014

The Evangelical Alliance added this:

"Ashers Baking Company have been all over the news this week .They have indicated that they won't bow to renewed pressure from the Equality Commission who have decided to take them to court for declining to make what has become known as 'the gay cake'. The Christian run bakery declined to make a cake supporting gay marriage because it was against the directors' religious beliefs. Listen to a discussion of the case on BBC Talkback here.

"I believe the Ashers case could have serious ramifications that many in the media and elsewhere don't seem to have grasped. It isn't about a 'gay cake', in fact it has very little to do with sexuality or gay rights – the McArthurs who own Ashers did not know the sexual orientation of the customer. The Equality Commission have now written to Ashers saying they are not only guilty of discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation but also religious and political opinion. The issue is that if this case is lost, religion will have been effectively banished from the public square. Significant political freedoms will also be lost as the Equality Commission decides which political and religious views are acceptable and which are not." 7 Nov 2014

The Methodist Council on Responsibility:

"We are deeply concerned about the decision of the Equality Commission to support legal action against Ashers Bakery following that company’s decision to refuse to make a cake with a slogan supporting gay marriage.

"It is our belief that at the centre of this dispute there is the matter of conscience for Ashers.

"We commend the company for their willingness to take a stance for the sake of conscience.

"If Ashers Bakery should suffer as a consequence of taking this stand how bizarre that the commission action would have been in the name of 'equality'." 9 Nov 2014

Update 13 Nov 2011 from the Church of Ireland

"Two key issues form part of the debate: discrimination and freedom of religious conscience. The Church of Ireland recognises and commends efforts to combat discrimination. In 2012, the General Synod affirmed '[a] continuing commitment to love our neighbour, and opposition to all unbiblical and uncharitable actions and attitudes in respect of human sexuality from whatever perspective' The Church is also currently actively engaged in constructive dialogue through its Select Committee on Human Sexuality in the Context of Christian Belief. What is not at all apparent in the Ashers case, however, is that there is a charge of discrimination to answer. It seems clear that the service was declined, not because of the sexual orientation of the customer but because of the particular political message requested upon the cake. 

"It is a serious concern that the freedom of religious conscience that the law affords to all people has also been challenged by the Equality Commission's decision. The owners of the baking company were upholding their adherence to the traditional Christian view on marriage as being between one man and one woman. In fact this position was affirmed by a majority of the General Synod of the Church of Ireland in 2012, and is the legal position in Northern Ireland. It is of real concern that a conscientious choice made by the owners of a small business, which reflects such a position, has been branded discriminatory and made the subject of heavy–handed legal action. The Church and Society Commission would encourage gracious and sensitive dialogue around this issue as we move forward."

Of these only the first one from the PCI talks about a wider issue, the EA hint at it but only in so far as it encrouches on them. Now if the churches think they are under attack you should try being a gay Christian in Northern Ireland.

If I post anything religious on my tweeter or Facebook timeline I have gay activists attacking me for supporting the churches or being soft on them, if I post something about LGBT equality I get attacked globally. If I post something that mentions both well it is like all hell has broken loose.

I would be more willing to accept the point of view of those in Christian circles on the recent Ashers dilemma if they did actually acknowledge that there is a grey area legally in all of this. That for a start Ashers had taken money for the order as a deposit and later rescinded that order. That also there is no disclaimer on Ashers website that you personalised celebration cake design may be subject to subsequent refusal because of its design. Nor do they acknowledge that part of the legal framework of this country does not allow discrimination on the perceived or actual sexual orientation of a patron by any company.

However, by ignoring certain issues in this case, with some church leaders disengaging with the LGBT community and others talking about it threatening dialogue they are all taking the wrong approach.

There is a wider issue and many LGBT Christians within your denominations have been crying out for your church leaderships to have that meaningful conversation. Notice I'm saying conversation not a monologue as Equality, freedom and religion as mentioned by the PCI actually was. The good Samaritan wasn't the one from across the road who looked at the injured man and assessed that things were fine and carried on at haste, he was the one who came over and sat down next to him, dealt with what was the matter and stayed with him while recovery took place.

Update (13 November) My issue with the subsequently issued Church of Ireland statement is there quoting the legal position as it currently stands in Northern Ireland. We have a complex equality equation here in Northern Ireland but can anyone truly separate religions freedom from political expression on the issues of LGBT equality in protestant circles. The fact that nationalist politicians have distanced church from state is to be applauded but more and more we are seeing the protestant denominations weighing in having political say on such issues. Support of marriage equality is not an illegal political opinion to have, unlike say national socialism, and indeed it is one that many within the churches also support and hold. Nobody is normally expecting the suppliers of bespoke objects they create for them to endorse the sentiment, merely take the money and trade and provide the service, anything further than that is asking someone to sponsor your idea.

The Methodists believe the centre of the issue is a matter of conscience, but when a matter of conscience is based on a precept that excludes others you are missing the whole point of your gospel to lover everyone, no caveats, no matters of conscience. Maybe the centre of this matter does lie elsewhere, many in the LGBT community hate the church and all it stand for. They hate things being done in the name of churches by politicians in Stormont to block LGBT equality legislation.

The others feel like their appeals for their own churches to actually take action, to listen to the grievances and concerns of those who experience both sides is not happening, or ignores actions they have promised, especially when issues like this come to a head. You can say all you want that you are not homophobic but when you language talks of reasonable accommodations, serious ramifications, and taking a stance for the sake on conscience, when only only one side benefits you are actually homophobic. It is like what Fr Tim Bartlett said you want the right of all people, in this case Christians, to freedom of conscience to be vindicated. That is not a good way to go about equality.

Yes I agree with all the churches that there is an issue here. But I do not agree they their freedom of conscience is under attack to the same extent that they continue to have undo and overbearing influence of those of faith and without over civic matters and therefore the freedom of conscience of others.

The Evangelical Alliance's Response to Vicky Beeching

You may have seen the news that Christian rock singer-songwriter Vicky Beeching came out the other day.

In her interview with Patrick Strudwick in The Independent you can see the harrowing measures that Vicky went to to pray away the gay, get rid of her attraction to people of the same-sex and even though , as she says, it wasn't something that was directly taught, it was something that somehow as a Christian she felt she had to be ashamed of and hid away. There is even the harrowing tale of the meeting where she feels the need to go forward for prayer and have those feelings prayed away. That is an experience that I can fully empathise with as I went through the same sort of experience one time at the end of a meeting that I was leading worship at.

Today the Evangelical Alliance has responded, as an ex member of the Evangelical Alliance it is the sort of response I was expecting. Instead of listening to the concerns of Vicky and the many others of us who have struggled and been vocal about those struggles, they immediately strike back with someone who claims to only have had positive experiences. Like Vicky many of those that struggle come to the point where we realise that the way to stop our struggles is not to be ashamed of failing to do away with our feelings, but to realise that we are made and loved by God.

I'm not doubting that Pastor Ed Shaw, who the EA are using as their frontman, on this issue has had a lot of positive experience, but I do doubt that universally "rather than looking down on [him] they've looked up to [him] –wanting to benefit from [his] perspective." Now I know some of my evangelical friends do have that reaction, but that is the people who have known me well, but even that is not 100% inclusive.

There are others some who do not know me at all, some who know me reasonably well, who say just because I speak up for LGBT members of our churches that I have no right to say the things I say. I should just keep schtum. Rather than wanting to learn from my perspective or even listen to it they want to silence me and the others that I know of, and speak for who are not prepared to have their voices heard.

My own church the Presbyterian Church in Ireland said 7 years ago that is would listen to people with "same-sex attraction" (their phrase) and give them a safe place in which to address their issues, amongst other recommendations. But I have yet to seen evidence that this has been done. In the meantime of course when I felt that the anti same-sex marriage campaign had over 2 months of publicity in the vestibule of the church (using some very un-Christian language against Lynne Featherstone) making me feel uncomfortable being there. That instead of understanding, an apology or listening there was censor in the one ministry I was providing, a lecture and failure to address the issues at hand.

The latter is sadly more likely to be the response within Evangelical Church leaderships. It may not be the case among evangelical friends many of whom give me unconditional support, but that was based on years of me being able to fit in under the radar and not being fully open about myself. It ignores that fact that I struggled through my teenage years and 20s with thoughts of suicide or running away from it all. Not knowing who to turn to, bottling everything in. Many I know have been unable to bottle it in long enough to be confident in their own relation with God, and that is the problem.

Vicky like myself has come through many struggles. She even had the added pressure of losing her livelihood potentially as a result so kept it in during those Californian concerts ahead of Proposition 8.

Rather than automatically jump to preach mode I wish that the EA, churches and others actually do listen, and also look at the texts they keep quoting with an open eye, not the way their have been translated and mistranslated down the years.

Oasis and the Evangelical Alliance

I have been a member of the Evangelical Alliance (EA) in the past. I have even attended their Evangelist's conference alongside people like Steve Chalke (founder of the Oasis Trust). Indeed I have worked alongside Steve Chalke (even sang an embarrassing song at him as an introduction) and Oasis and know the sort of work they do.

I am saddened to have read today that after 27 years of membership EA have discontinued Oasis's membership. Several of my friends have worked in various capacities with Oasis in the past including planting churches in some of the poorest boroughs of the country, helping with homeless people and other projects. Indeed I know some of them got involved in the Olympic boroughs long before Stratford become a fashionable place to be. Oasis have issued their own measured response to this decision.

However, as someone who welcomed the comments of Steve Chalke last year, and as someone who feels ostracised by the Christian community he grew up in, led in and was heavily involved in (even after coming out) I want to address the issue from my personal standpoint.

The reason for this action from EA can be traced back to this article written by Steve Chalke back in January 2013. In in Steve says:

"This article is not about those issues [regarding same-sex marriage] . Firstly, they are domestic whilst what I address here is of global importance. Secondly, I’m worried that, in the UK and elsewhere, the noise of the arguments around gay marriage will cloud and confuse the real question facing the Church around the world: the nature of inclusion. I am convinced that it is only as the Christian community grapples with this that we will find wise answers, not only regarding gay marriage, but also to related questions around the Church’s wider attitude to gay people."

One thing that in my association with and knowledge of Oasis which goes back some 25 years is that they have always worked on the edges of our society. Places and people that many Christians do not feel comfortable about going. As some who like Oasis has knelt beside the homeless on the Strand in the small hours of the morning with warm, sweet coffee I know that the stench is something that many Christians have in the past run away from without considering the needs of the individuals.

While the homeless bear a physical stench many evangelical Christians in the UK seem to also smell a metaphorical stench when it comes to people who have same-sex attractions. In his article Steve went on to say:

"One tragic outworking of the Church’s historical rejection of faithful gay relationships is our failure to provide homosexual people with any model of how to cope with their sexuality, except for those who have the gift of, or capacity for, celibacy. In this way we have left people vulnerable and isolated."

I know only too well from personal experience that I have felt just this way, very vulnerable and isolated. Being a Northern Irish Christian who was gay certainly added to that sense of isolation in the late 80s. For a while I was a self loathing homophobe as a result coming very close to ending my own life as the church seemed to condemn me at every turn, that was even though I was celibate.

Steve goes out to lay out some of his reasonings based on scripture, a lot of which is similar to the journey I myself had to go on, firstly to accept myself and secondly to know that others could accept me for who I am. You see I know of others within evangelical churches who have not been strong enough to stand up to the vulnerability and isolation that they find themselves in. Some are no longer with us, taken from this world by their own hands. It is almost as if the Church members themselves had taken part in the Levitical code and put them to death.

However, too often those people were not known to the church as having laid with another man, they were too scared to tell them that. Why is that?

The reason of course is that as Steve said such people are left vulnerable and isolated. They have nobody to turn to. Yes some churches have their guidelines for dealing with such things, but most of these are set up for the individual to fail, fall short of the standard that is set, so they feel more isolated, more vulnerable that someone will find out. Those churches that try to be inclusive instead fail because when those people fail they face consequences instead of love and support. Of course individuals are different and can be different, but as with New Testement times there are overreaching hierarchies who set out the standards of the Church and associated organisations.

Steve Chalke and Oasis have always reached out to those on the edge of our society. There was someone in the New Testement who did just the same thing. He like them was not understood by the religious authorities for doing that, but he offered unconditional love to the outcasts those with contagious diseases, the tax collectors and sinners, the prostitutes etc.

They are doing just that by looking at how we approach those with sexualities other than heterosexual within our churches, or who we want to welcome into our churches. That is something that Christians should be doing.

Is this a case of history repeating itself?

Bisexuality and a lesson for the Evangelical Alliance Northern Ireland

Speaking in The Newsletter today the public policy officer of the Evangelical Alliance Northern Ireland (EANI) David Smyth said:

"While Saturday was a day of celebration for some, it was a concerning day for many. 

"Christian opposition to same-sex marriage was never just about protecting churches. It's always been about the wellbeing and welfare of family and communities for generations to come.

"The whole idea of "equal" marriage comes from a premise that many outrightly reject, that marriage is an inequality to be corrected.

"This change in marriage law was argued on the grounds of equality and love.

"What about 'equal marriage' for the bisexual person who is 'banned' from being able to marry both their male and female partners?"

First a definitions for Mr Smyth:

bisexual (baɪˈsɛksjʊəl) adj

1. sexually attracted by both men and women from freedictionary.com

Note this is merely the attraction to both sexes. Under no definition of bisexuality will you find that that attraction is to two people of opposite genders simultaneously or concurrently. Bi-sexual people have the same propensity to monogamous relationships as any other individual, indeed 89% of those in a ten year study in 1997¹ found that to be the case. Considering the number of unfaithful straight people who are cheating on their wives and partners this is probably about the norm, but something that the EANI would probably want to sweep under the carpet.

Another fact about the new marriages that came into law in England and Wales at the weekend is that there is still the point in the ceremony where anybody present knows of any lawful impediment why they cannot be married. This includes an non-dissolved marriage or civil partnership to another individual (even the one that is standing opposite them). So the current law does not allow for anybody to be married to two partners of different genders, they would be subject to the same bigamy laws that apply to heterosexual couples.

What Mr Smith appears to be worried about is polyamorous relationships. Definition time:

polyamory (pä-lē-ˈa-mə-rē) noun

the state or practice of having more than one open romantic relationship at a time  from Merriam-Webster.com

You will notice here there is no reference to sexual orientation of the couples involved. However, there are plenty of examples of such relationships in the bible all of which are one man with two or more wives and/or concubines.

However, the one thing that does strike me from this statement is actually the line which says, "it's always been about the wellbeing and welfare of family and communities for generations to come."

Now I certainly have the support of my family, whether as the gay son, brother, cousin or uncle. However, my well being is often under threat from those in the church who condemn me or them for giving that support to me. The same applies to the other LGBT people I know who have grown up and exist in or on the periphery of church life.

Now by outrightly rejecting the idea of marriage equality as the EANI are they also condemning those in the church who are LGBT to a lifetime of singleness without love, or into a marriage with someone they are not attracted to (damaging to two people long term and their family). In doing this are they also condemning love that those individuals may find how can this be good for the wellbeing and welfare of those in families that they claim they want to help.

I have been to a number of funerals in churches in recent years where one of the children of the family and their same-sex partner have been present. Some of these churches are members of the EANI, they are there to offer support to the whole family even the gay child and their partner (whether in a civil partnership or not). This is looking after those LGBT church members and those on the fringe support for their well being and welfare, yet somehow the church wants to continue to fail them day to day on the matter of love.

However, single people in the church after they reach a certain age are always getting asked by the church who and when they are going to marry. There is pressure from well meaning church members to pair up to both spinsters and bachelors at least while they are still in their 30s and 40s to pair up. Yet when you are gay and get asked are you not married yet, the fact that the true reason is because you're not allowed to be married here, is liable to draw a mixture of reactions.

I say mixture as unlike what Mr Smyth ascertains there is not outright condemnation of marriage equality. There are people within the churches even here in Northern Ireland who feel for those LGBT people that they know in person and their inability to be treated equally in this regard.

So while it may be a concerning day for some when equal marriage was brought in throughout England and Wales:

1. It is not condemned outrightly by all in Northern Irish churches
2. Polygamous marriage is a separate issue and not solely a subject for bisexuality so should not be used as an argument against for monogamous same-sex marriages.
3. If you are really concerned about families and their members wellbeing and welfare support equal love and let them marry the person they love, not condemn them to hatred and denial of support.

¹Spalding, L. R., & Peplau, L. A. (1997). The unfaithful lover: heterosexuals’ perceptions of bisexuals and their relationships. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 611-625.