We will remember them: Oswald Cawley 22 August 1918

In addition to remembering my family members who died in the Great War, as this is a political blog I shall also be looking at the men who while still Members of Parliament signed up for the war and paid the ultimate sacrifice.

The first in this series is The Hon. Oswald Cawley. He was the fourth and youngest son of Frederick Cawley who in January of 1918 had been elevated to the house of Lords as 1st Baron Cawley after serving as MP for Prestwich since 1895 and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancashire from 1916-18.

His youngest son Oswald had stood as a Liberal in the by election to succeed his father.

New Addition to the next PCI Hymnal

Gay Communicant Hokey Cokey 

In a relationship out, 

Out of relationship in, 

In, out, in out, profress it all about, 

Unless we doubt your credibility when you are in love, 

That's what it all about.

Words The Doctrine Committee 2018

Tune Trad.

My Presbyterian Ecumunication

Well today it appears to be official, I am no longer allowed to be a full member of the Church I grew up. The church that the majority of my ancestors have been members of since their families came to Ireland. The church that several of my forebears have had leadership roles in.

Today the Presbyterian Church in Ireland has ruled that anybody in a same-sex relationship cannot be a full member of the church and also that their children cannot be baptised. Even though my full communicant membership was denied when I was not in a relationship and haven't been in one since my return from Scotland it doesn't seem to make a difference. I'm that noise in the corner that causes a ruckus.

I get quoted the texts from the New Testament about temple prostitutes/bed mates, the Greek/Roman tradition of pederasty or puer delicates as being the same as homosexuality. Yes there are cultural references to the verses that are quoted from the New Testament which leads us to the Old.

Of course we have Leviticus and again some of these were ceremonial in a similar way as worship to Baal or other pagan gods. But of course in the New Testament Jesus said he  had not come to abolish the Law and the Prophets but to fulfil them. By that he meant to provide the grace and forgiveness. Peter in his vision saw that all the unclean regulations from the Old Testament were not unclean under this fulfilment of grace. Even the Presbyterian Church doesn't come down hard on others who break the law in other ways. As one minister pointed out in this morning discussion they are picking out one group.

The church itself had set up Pastoral Guidelines which would have included a safe space for LGB members to discuss matters with the church. None of the recommendations at the end of that have ever been implemented. Very little, if any formal consultation has taken place with LGB Presbyterians ahead of this decision. Judging by my Twitter and Facebook feeds from many of the LGB Christian and indeed Presbyterian influencers none of us had any input apart from with individual ministers.

The Presbyterian Church itself has been a major contributor to the state of my mental well being. Its exclusion of me, its judgement of me are things that the Chaplin of Ulster University Rev. Cheryl Meban pointed out when raising the amendment to remove the policy. It is something I have talked about in the past, I don't want to go into it again here.

Just before the formal vote was taken, some light-hearted banter happened between the moderator and clerk about needing a resolution for a cup of coffee. Earlier in the debate someone had warned that the world was watching, by their insults at such a serious time in the live of some Presbyterians you shall know them. Making today even worse with how light heartedly they appear to take this decision.

When the church turns on its own updated #DavidFord

This evening I looked up the first time I posted about this. It appears to have been 3½ years since the news first broke about David Ford was called by some in Second Donegore Presbyterian Church to step aside as an elder in their Kirk Session.

It appears that the debate over his position has finally reached the highest appeal court within the Presbyterian Church in Ireland (PCI). Their findings to many outside the church will make confusing reading. The Templepatrick Presbytery of which 2nd Donegore is one of the congregations have resolved to remove him from congregational duties within the church. Yet he remains an elder of good standing within the church.

The first part of this appears to be because the other ruling elders in the congregation disagree with David's view on seeking to allow civil same sex marriage within Northern Ireland. The second would appear that David's actions have done nothing to bring the church into disrepute with his stance. For the second I am thankful, but for the first I continue to be saddened by the church I grew up in and to some extent appears to continue to lack grace, understanding or a willingness to listen to members of their denomination who are LGBT+.

I have chronicled before my own experiences within the PCI (follow the label) so I'll not go over it here. But I am not the only family member of an elder/elders within the PCI who is LGBT+. Nor for that matter am I the only LGBT+ person who has been hurt by the attitude of the PCI or some of those within it. You notice here that I say some as others are prepared to look more deeply, listen more actively and seek to understand. To those who include David Ford, Stewart Dickson and Naomi Long amongst them I want to say thank you and keep on acting like Christ on these issues.

For those who continue to ignore the PCI's own pastoral guidelines for people with "same-sex attraction" (their term obviously not mine. I challenge you to show me in the Hebrew or Greek the verses that back up your position. I don't want you to stand behind the English translation of multiple complex words into the one catch all. After all I didn't think we made our ministers study Greek and Hebrew at Theological College so they would not be able to discern the true meanings of words not life in ignorance and from that be intolerant.

Presbyterian Church in Ireland seek to redefine victimhood

I am saddened to read the statement of the PCI in light of the decision made by over 62% of those who voted in Marriage Referendum in Ireland. So much so that I feel it needs a few comments from me.

The Presbyterian Church in Ireland has issued the following statement on the result of the Marriage Referendum.

Commenting on the result the Very Rev. Dr. Norman Hamilton, Convener of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland’s Council for Church in Society said, "We are deeply disappointed and saddened that the Constitution will no longer reflect the historic – and Christian – view of marriage that it is exclusively between one man and one woman; the position the Presbyterian Church in Ireland upholds and maintains. The Constitution of Ireland only came into effect on 29 December 1937. On the 17th June 1996 the referendum on the 15th Amendment allowed for Divorce in that constitution and indeed "Divorce does not prevent you from getting married in the Presbyterian Church" - Getting Married in the Presbyterian Church in Ireland

"The issue before voters was an intensely emotive one and to express the historic view of marriage during the referendum campaign often brought hostility and rejection yes and indeed some of the comments from Very. Rev. Dr. Norman Hamilton appear to have not been following the Pastoral Guidelines on Same Sex Attraction. We hope that those who continue to uphold this view will not be marginalised or demeaned. We would also encourage all Christians to love their neighbours – as the Bible calls us to do – particularly those with whom we might disagree and if demeaned, to turn the other cheek, for Jesus' sake. Wow! In recent days I have received a number of comments from "Christians" that demean me, as have straight friends who have supported the cause. I called on Christian groups to stand up against these so called Christians pouring oil on the flames with their words and have heard nothing from that end, this line appears to ignore the demeaning that has been going on from the side of the Churches in recent days and it is bit late to call on loving of neighbours, without clearer instruction,

"While the result is a significant change for Irish Society, as a Church we will continue to reach out to all people, whatever their situation, as all are equally welcome. I have written previously that currently my past experiences over this very issue have made me feel less than welcome. If anyone from the PCI wants to actually enable a safe space to talk about these things with Presbyterians who are LGBT I would welcome that action point being followed through from the pastoral guidelines and would be willing to contribute.

"Whilst reaffirming our understanding of marriage as exclusively between one man and one woman, we pray for wisdom for the Government and urge it to consult faith groups over the coming months as it formulates the necessary subsequent legislation." I trust that the Irish Government will do the same as those of Scotland, England and Wales and leave the option for Faith Groups to come to their own decision on whether they carry out same sex marriages. While the PCI may currently be that way minded other faith groups should have the same freedom of religious expression that they themselves want. Because here is the thing LGBT groups are not trying to force churches to marry them, they want them to choose to marry them, but they only want the barriers to be taken down to allow civil marriage and truly welcoming faith groups to carry them out.

Presbyterian Church in Ireland: No appetite to fulfil own pastoral guidelines on gay issues

Idaho sticker with the PCI's Union College in background

In today's Newsletter there is article which looks at why the Presbyterian Church in Ireland (PCI) is not looking to follow swiftly on the heels, or maybe not follow at all, the Church of Scotland in its acceptance of openly gay clergy. It comes under the heading "Presbyterian figures stress little appetite for gay Presbyterian debate".

Sadly I would have to concur. Long term readers will remember over 5 years ago I wrote about my own experiences as a gay Presbyterian. I also wrote about the PCI's own pastoral guidelines especially and have on a number of occasions shared my dismay the failure of the PCI to even honour the recommendations from those guidelines. For clarity I post them here:

Recommendations That the General Assembly -

• 1. adopts the guidelines and advocates their use and practice within the Presbyterian Church in Ireland. 

• 2. strongly state that attitudes and approaches within our congregations that, 'victimise or diminish human beings whose affections happen to be ordered towards people of the same sex' are unacceptable. 

•  3. encourage repentance for the occasions when persons with same sex attractions have been treated in ways severely lacking in grace within the Presbyterian Church in Ireland and that the Assembly encourage an attitude of grace and mercy to be actively shown to all who struggle with different aspects of their sexuality. 

•  4. continue to encourage our congregations to 'Create an environment of love, acceptance, patience, forgiveness and grace.' 

•  5. ask that the Board of Social Witness (BSW) to investigate the possibility of creating 'a safe space' for people struggling with their sexuality and that funding be sought to create such a safe space. 

•  6. ask the BSW and Board of Youth and Children’s Ministries to cooperate in updating the 'Loving in the Real World' youth resource to include more instructive material on the area of same-sex attraction.

• 7. encourage the possibility of the establishment of parents' support group/s to help parents who are struggling with the issues surrounding children who have 'come out'.

So not only have the PCI not been showing an appetite to get involved in the gay debate the Board of Social Witness have yet to report back about the possibility of creating a safe space within the church for these issues to be discussed, nor has any support group been set up. Nor can I find an up to date version of Loving in the Real World reflecting the points raised. So far from having to follow the Church of Scotland that seem lethargic when it comes to taking action on their own recommendations on the issue.

Indeed for the past seven years since they resolved to pass these Pastoral Guideline there has been a lack of action on these action points and any debate on the issue can at best be described as a monologue and certainly not a dialogue with those lesbian, gay and bisexual members who may still be sitting in their pews or those who, like me, have left as they no longer feel welcome or accepted (as in point 4).

All that aside, however, retired minister the Rev Donald Watts former clerk of the Irish Presbyterian Church’s General Assembly does say:

 "I think the much bigger debate is our acceptance of people who have a homosexual orientation within the church. 

"I think the clergy debate is a bit of a distraction from the much bigger issue."

I hope he is right, but for the time being I think the PCI find what they believe the bedroom practices of those with same sex attraction has been a distraction to even consider them as individuals, believers and humans. The debate on clergy in my opinion is just a red herring as to the inactivity of the PCI to get involved in this debate with anyone it actually impacts.

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.

Moderator-Elect calls for gay Presbyterians to be celibate

I had rather a full day yesterday and was unable to blog about my comments to one of the first public utterances of the Moderator-Elect of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, the Rev. Dr. Michael Barry. Rather shockingly within a day of his election he focused not on social justice, poverty or mission but appears to have spoken strongly on the issues face LGBT people within his flock. As one of those Presbyterians who has been driven from his family's church because of attitudes, assumptions and failure to listen I feel I have to speak out.

While I didn't blog about this yesterday I did find time to post a comment on the Belfast Telegraph news story.

So the next Moderator can only read as far as the first part of verse 7 of First Corinthians 7. If he reads the rest of the verse he will see that even Paul says that not everyone has the gift. I'm sure that Mrs Berry is evidence that he himself does not have the gift he is saying that all LGBT Presbyterians must possess.

However, I have one question for him. In verse nine after Paul talks about celibacy he goes on to say:

"But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion."

therefore why is so opposed to gay people finding the right person for them, to be able to love them and not burn with the passion that Paul warns us is actually worse than trying to remain celibate when we don't have the gift? 

Let me explain further.

The Moderator-Elect was quoting the church line from their pastoral guidelines:

"We welcome all people into the Church, but we would have a problem with those who are involved in a gay relationship because we believe the Bible teaches that is against the word of God.

"We would encourage people who are gay to live a celibate life."

Now the only passage of the scripture that talks about celibacy comes in 1 Corinthians 7.

 Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. I say this as a concession, not as a command. I wish that all of you were as I am. But each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.
 
Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

Verses 5-9

This is a bit of context of where that call comes from. First it was so that all believers could devote themselves to prayer. But Paul realised that Satan would be able to tempt man from that because of their lack of self control. Somehow the Moderator-Elect, himself a married man with two daughters, clearly lacked the self control to devote himself to prayer in this way.

But next note that Paul called celibacy a gift and something that not everyone would or could possess. Yet the Moderator-Elect not only thinks that gay Presbyterians will have more self control that he himself has to pray, but also will all be granted the gift of celibacy.

There is a warning from Paul at the end of that passage and it is to those that cannot control themselves. That warning is that rather than lose control you should marry rather than burn with passion. So my question to the Dr Barry in my comments above.

When asked about conversion courses, like the one recently held in Ballynahinch Baptist Church he said:

"Personally, I am not convinced that that is possible.

"I think the whole origin of where gayness comes from is still up for debate and I would be a bit concerned at being dogmatic one way or the other.

"Certainly we'd want to help people who are having difficulties with their sexuality to live in such a way that is honouring to God."

Now apart from some of the language of the above such as "origin of where gayness comes from" this is a wishy washy non-statement. Personally I no longer have any difficulty with my sexuality, the problems I had were when the church, the Presbyterian Church, told me in my youth that what I felt was wrong. However, when I accepted that "I was wonderfully made" just like any Christian, and in the verses above that I realised that if I lacked self control I should find someone to settle down with. I want to live within my sexuality in a way that is honouring to God, just the way I see that happening differs from the hierarchy of the Church I was raised in.

Also there seems to be a lack of acceptance that a gay person actually may be celibate when they come towards the church. My personal experience was that it was assumed that I was sexually active at the time that I sought to rejoin after returning from Scotland. This was not the case, I was an advocate for equal marriage, but I didn't want that forced upon a faith group that didn't want to carry them out. Of course that doesn't mean that I don't ask questions of the PCI, I'm allowed to, while they may have driven me out I still consider it somewhat my church.

I do have one final comment to make about Dr Barry's comments. It actually comes from section 3.6 of the Pastoral Guidelines mentioned above:

When we condemn homosexual practice in isolation or single it out as somehow worse than other sexual practices outside of heterosexual marriage then we demonstrate homophobic attitudes.

Sadly on his first utterances as Moderator-Elect he appears to have singled out homosexual practice in isolation. Has he therefore demonstrated homophobic attitudes?

The document listed a need to change:

11.1 Within our church there is the need for both repentance and greater understanding. This calls for education, careful listening and discussion. 

 

11.2 Likewise there is the need for those who have same sex attractions to grasp that it is not easy for those who wish to be genuinely caring yet maintain Biblical integrity without giving the impression that in doing so they are rejecting the person. 

 

11.3 In every way it is easier to stand at the side of the road, or in the pulpit, or 'on air' and shout condemnation. But it does not win hearts or minds. And it certainly does not show the pastoral care of Jesus Christ.It may be uncomfortable for some, but it is better to sit down and talk - but listen first.

I have yet to hear of any such process taking place within the PCI. Nor have I yet heard of any of the seven recommendations that came out of those Pastoral Guidelines being implemented. 

What I would do is call upon Dr Barry to carry out such a listening exercise, I would be happy to be involved in such an enterprise. It has been seven years since the Pastoral Guidelines were published and I for one (and I know of others from within) who feel that the PCI are not listening.

When the church turns on its own

So it appears that Second Donegore Presbyterian Church in Antrim want to turf out one of their elders. The problem of course comes when that elder happens to be the leader of one of the parties in the Northern Ireland Assembly and also the Minister of Justice.

For it is the church of David Ford that apparently has some calling for him to step aside as an elder. Of course being involved in religion and politics doesn't mean you have to take the churches line on everything does it? I mean we live in a democracy and not a theocracy.

Of course being a church elder means that someone is meant to care for those that come across his path, now I know for a fact that David Ford has come across a number of gay people in the course of his parliamentary work. In fact I'm sure the leader of the Yes to Fairer Votes campaign in Northern Ireland fitted that description, if you really must box people. But he, that individual, was also a fellow Presbyterian and the son of not one but two elders in the Presbyterian Church. The reaction of the one who was at the time that I came out I have mentioned before.

Now Christians are all for saying that they will love the sinner and hate the sin, yet they don't want gay Christians to talk about being gay in front of them. They also don't want us to tell them that we have found someone we love, and they certainly would rather we burned in lust as singletons rather than enter a committed relationship.

Therefore I have a few questions to Second Donegore.

Are you prejudging all LGBT people with the worst extremes whereas most of us just want that one person to love? Do you really want to cause Presbyterians who are gay to confound sin upon sin as they try and fit in with what you will accept of them? Would you want them to marry in a sham ceremony to a person of the opposite sex to potential hurt that person and any children when they later admit to who they are? Or you rather that they were honest at the start?

One final thing before you go casting stones. Are you really loving all sinners equally, or are you condemning some more heavily than others so that they cannot stand being around you and your judgemental attitude?

What Mr Ford is doing is casting aside that judgemental attitude and looking at the wider picture. Offering protections for those like Second Donegore who oppose same-sex marriage, while at the same time offering protections to the desire of those elsewhere who want to be treated equally. After all we are all sinners when we stand before God are we not?

Update 24 April 8:30 David Ford has stepped aside from his duties as an elder in the Presbyterian Church at this time.

As I said last night it is sad that the church should hold our politicians to account in this way. There are plenty of things that politicians have to legislate for that are contrary to a literal reading of scripture, but those that are religious and in politics often realise that there are times that they have to reach out and make a change. The bible after all does lay our rules for how to treat slaves and the anti-abolition movement was as much part of the church as anything else. The same applied to the civil rights movement in the USA, white Christians did not want to have mixed-race rmarriages sanctioned or there to be integration. They looked in disgust at those who looked like them who advocated change, much like that elder member of the congregation [correction] quoted in the article did of Mr Ford.

Correcting the Covener of the PCI General Board

I read in today's Newsletter that both the Catholic and Presbyterian Church have formed an unusual alliance to oppose equal marriage, whether a civil marriage or a religious grouping that wishes to do so, in joining the attack on the Scottish Parliament.

I do have one issue with Dr Donald Watts the Convener of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland's General Board. The Newsletter says that when he wrote to the Westminster Government in March that:

"Dr Watts said he was writing on behalf of the most representative body of the church, the general board"

Sadly for Dr Watts this is not the case. The PCI's own website describes the General Board as:

The General Board is the most widely representative body under the Assembly, with over 160 members. This includes Assembly Conveners and Presbytery Clerks. This Board deals with both routine and exceptional matters that fall between meetings of the General Assembly; and may issue public statements on behalf of the Church. It may also deal with matters that concern two or more Boards, or matters that do not fall within the boundaries of a particular Board's work. It can call ministers to work as chaplains in hospitals, prisons and the Armed Forces and assesses the suitability of all appointments outside the Church's jurisdiction to which a minister may be called by some other Board. 

In 2012 the General Assembly had over 1,200 delegates  representing every congregation both clergy and session. This is the most widely representative body in the PCI. But the issue by being dealt with by the General Board was therefore not raised in the more public forum of the General Assembly where they would have been some descent possible to the course that the church decided to take.

Not losing my religion, but my church may lose me

The REM song Losing My Religion sprung to mind yesterday morning as I stormed out of church. Not that I am losing mine but certain lines stuck out.

That's me in the corner
That's me in the spotlight
Losing my religion

When I am in the bad we do sit down in the corner after we have finished playing waiting for the sermon. That was where I was yesterday morning, in the front pew next to the West door. Although I was furthest into the pew by the time we had all set down instruments and headed out. So in essence I was in the corner and in full view of most of the congregation.

That was where I was when the prayers of intercessions mentioned the evil of equal marriage, asked to pray for our lawmakers that they would come to their senses. There was me who had made sure that those very lawmakers were not forcing any church to do anything their didn't want to do in bringing this forward.

You see the issue I have is that I'd love God to be involved in helping me find someone that I can love, helping me find someone that I can spend the rest of my live with, and if possible and both of us agree invite God to the wedding if there is one. Of course that is something that I still couldn't do even if civil marriage is equalised. But my church doesn't even want me the option of getting civilly married.

I thought that I heard you laughing
I thought that I heard you sing
I think I thought I saw you try

There is no thought about any of these statements all of these did happen. You see I may have stormed out during the prayer but I snuck in just behind the  door I'd stormed out of to listen to a lot of the sermon, which yesterday was on marriage. I could go off into an Alanis Morissette song there ironically, but I won't. When then had been announced earlier I was half thinking how much of that could I listen too calmly.

There was laughing, from the congregation at a few jokes that were hurtful to anyone present who may have been homosexual. I did hear them and the laughter and was in tears, when I did hear that.

The reason I did hang around is that there was one more song. Both our worship leader and the drummer had come out after me to see if I was okay. You see there are people in the church who do care about the hurt this is causing. The drummer is someone I have known for years, he grew up a few doors down from us, he was behind me age wise within the Boys' Brigade and was another decent runner, he is now an elder in the congregation so might well have been at the meeting where my application for membership was discussed and voted down. Because they had done that and said come back in we need your bass for the last song I didn't just dander across to Costa for a coffee.

Having said that the words of the last song were too much for me at one point. Having noticed the hypocrisy and cherry picking of the sermon to meet one meaning I just couldn't carry on playing for a few bars.

Then there was the try from the minister to say he understood that I was upset but that he didn't want to hurt me. It was rather too late for that, I was already getting hurt by this escalation of attacks on marriage equal poeple as a gay christian but also as one of the poeple who had got this issue dealt with in a sympathetic way for churches in the first place.

I'm not losing my religion, nor my faith, but my church is most likely on the verge of losing a bassist if that is all I was to them.

Apparently I'm a leper now #lgbt

According to a conference that is being held in Orangefield Presbyterian Church I am a leper. The conference in organised by Core Issues who encourage reparative therapy for LGBT people who struggle to reconcile this with their faith.

The opening quote inside their literature make horrific reading (emphasis mine)

Failure to live out the reality of Jesus Christ’s presence in the common life of the church with those who struggle with same sex sins is a disease of epic proportions, a malignancy that
spreads throughout the Body and resurfaces as the Evangelical, Biblebelieving church attempts to deal with other sin issues. This failure is merely symptomatic of other deeper issues within the body, diseases that are not so easily identifiable nor that carry the same stigma or bigotry: spiritual complacency and ambivalence, hypocrisy, unaccountability and Biblical ignorance.”
- The Lepers Among Us

Of course where does that stigma and bigotry come from?

This has spurred me to write the following email to the Presbyterian Church in Ireland's Board of Social Witness and the congregations involved.

As someone baptised into Trinity Presbyterian Church, Bangor where I currently attend I am appalled to learn that the Rev Jim Reynolds is holding a conference entitled:

The Leper Among Us: Homosexuality and Life in the Church 

on the premises of Orangefield Presbyterian Church and on the Sunday shall be preaching at Hamilton Road Presbyterian Church.

The title of such a conference victimises and diminishes LGBT people which seems to be in direct contravention of recommendation 2 of the Board of Social Witness's Social Issues and Resources Panel Pastoral guidelines Homosexuality (March 2007).

Fails to "encourage our congregations to ’Create an environment of love, acceptance, patience, forgiveness and grace." as in recommendation 4 as above.

In creates the feeling of unsafe spaces in these two congregations and potentially others in the PCI, when recommendation 5 called to create a safe space, which I believe has not yet been achieved.

The controversial methods espoused by Rev. Reynolds are things that I would never expect to a member congregation of the General Assembly to host. As one of the LGBT attendees of the PCI (currently not a member due to your guideline) maybe I am a Leper in your eyes. I am already excluded from full membership. Maybe you would want me to sound a bell and stay outside the building on a Sunday. Maybe you'd like me to get an extra long lead so that I can play my bass guitar to help lead worship so as I do not come inside the precincts of the building.
Of maybe both the congregations involved will take the time available to live up to recommendation 3 in the pastoral guidelines:

encourage repentance for the occasions when persons with same sex attractions have been treated in ways severely lacking in grace within the Presbyterian Church in Ireland and that the Assembly encourage an attitude of grace and mercy to be actively shown to all who struggle with different aspects of their sexuality.

I'm hurt by the failure of adherence to your own pastoral guidelines. I'm hurt by the lack of action on those recommendations from 2007. I'm hurt by the treatment of LGBT members by the congregations to be associated with someone who names them lepers within. These actions are lacking in the grace that the Board of Social Witness recommendations sought to deal with. 

Irish Presbyterian sets off on its trajectory

Former moderator of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland the Very Rev. Dr. Stafford Carson has written on his blog about the resolution, which I blogged about yesterday, that was passed yesterday by the General Assembly concluding:

"By passing this resolution, PCI has not only distanced itself from the trajectory taken by the Church of Scotland, but has indirectly affirmed its position on the qualifications required of those holding office in the church, believing that the Bible is clear in its statements on God’s will for us with regard to sexual relationships."

He calls it a good debate, but the debate appears not to have taken into account any views from the gay Presbyterians in Ireland, merely the men and women who lead the church.

So there you have it folks clearly the bible does teach us clearly about sexual relations. If your brother dies without a son you must take your sister-in-law as a wife, if you refuse the elders will be coming after you (Deut 25:5-9). All those fights outside pubs, be care ladies if to you reach out and grab a man's genitals your are about to lose the hand (Deut 25:11-12). Of course the rhythm method is also seen as evil in the eyes of the Lord (Gen 38:6-10) keep in there guys when making love to your wife. Or if soldiers masturbate or have a wet dream in the night they have to sleep outside the camp (Deut 23:10) actually that one might work.

You see there are plenty of example yet the church is het up about the act rather than whether is carried out in a caring scenario. Isn't it better to be monogamous and in love with one person than denied even that and therefore consumed by lust (1 Cor 7:9).

So the church has set off on its trajectory, where and what next for me?

Is Irish Presbyterianism resolute against theological look at homosexuality?

Did I say two years, I clearly meant two weeks so Andrew Page was right when he tweeted to me that I'd probably be revisiting the issue of gay clergy in the Presbyterian Church sooner.

Idaho sticker with the PCI's Union College in background

Of course this week is the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland (PCI), the denomination that I currently attend though am not a member of, because of my sexuality. However, tensions have arisen from the fact that the outgoing Moderator the Very Reverend Dr Norman Hamilton reported to the General Assembly of the PCI in Belfast about his visit to the mother church's General Assembly in Edinburgh. He said that there is a widespread view that the traditionalist position in Scotland on the ordination of those who are gay or lesbian was rejected for what was described as the "revisionist" position. Before going on to say:

"Those who are advocating this latter position included one minister who spoke warmly of the contribution that bisexuals and those who are transgendered can make to Christian ministry, whilst another spoke of how the Bible had been shown up to be wrong in the past and that we now know better.


 "The traditionalist view was articulated by many in The Kirk, and by every visiting delegate who spoke, myself included, and there is no doubt that many of those who hold this position in the Church of Scotland seemed seriously demoralised and deeply apprehensive about future developments."

As one of those whose contribution to Christian Ministry* is welcomed in the PCI, but even my confession of faith nor willingness to contribute to church funds in not enough to be a full communicant member. People have from a young age thought that I should go into the Ministry apply to Union College (pictured) and see where God would lead me. Of course from my teen years I had my own struggle with myself and my own view (or was that my churches imposed view) of my own sexuality. It was a struggle that I've blogged about before that took me over a decade.

So while of course there may not be a clamour within Irish Presbyterianism I doubt that I am the only LGBT Presbyterian who has been excluded from full membership as a result of the pastoral guidelines of the PCI published in 2007. Those guidelines did point out 7 keys recommendations, the final four are key:

4. continue to encourage our congregations to 'Create an environment of love, acceptance, patience, forgiveness and grace.'
5. ask that the BSW to investigate the possibility of creating 'a safe space' for people struggling with their sexuality and that funding be sought to create such a safe space.
6. ask the BSW and Board of Youth and Children’s Ministries to cooperate in updating the Loving in the Real World youth resource to include more instructive material on the area of same-sex attraction.
7. encourage the possibility of the establishment of parents' support group/s to help parents who are struggling with the issues surrounding children who have 'come out'.

Today a resolution that is highly critical of the Church of Scotland looking at the theology of same sex attraction is being by the Very Rev Dr John Lockington (Moderator in 1999), and Lurgan minister the Rev Nigel J McCullough. The Church of Scotland having decided to have theologians look into the issue such a resolution if passed is merely not even going to let the subject be spoken about.

Does such a stance show love, acceptance, patience, forgiveness and grace?

Read also Former Moderator Very Rev. Stafford Carson's blogpost on the Church of Scotland General Assembly.

* Currently playing bass for services, in the past as a Bible Class Leader, BB Officer, Holiday Bible Club leader and sent out to work on summer and year long missions.

Why I Need to Still Go to Church - Two Years On

It doesn't seem like almost two years since I stood on the Mound in Edinburgh outside the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland to show my support for my friend Rev. Scott Rennie. However, although the vote that day went in favour of Scott's calling to Queen's Cross in Aberdeen there was a later discussion that put a moritorium on openly gay trainees for the ministry and appointing openly gay ministers. News today that the Special Commission on Same Sex Relationships and the Ministry* is to report to next month's Assembly signals an end of that process and a period when those within the church weren't to discuss this further.

What the commission has come up with in its recommendations are two trajectories.The first of which is to implement a ban on homosexuals training to be ministers — despite such discrimination being illegal — while the second is to allow people in a same-sex relationship to train for the ministry but set up a theological commission to come up with a definitive answer in 2013. Therefore one is a full stop to any progress, the other is to allow another 2 years of thinking time.

I've written in the past that my own personal journey and struggle to reconcile my faith with my sexuality took over a decade, "so I don't expect the Church to totally come to terms with things overnight. Although they have had 2000 or so years to get to grips with these issues." Therefore I'm wondering why the need for another two year commission to look at the theological questions. When the commision was established it knew it was facing a two-year moritorium on the issue, they would know that people would expectantly waiting to hear their findings, not only within the church but further afield. So the fact that one trajectory is a clear no and the other is a cloudy maybe is not good enough.

One thing the commission did say is that the church needs to acknowledge that homophobia is a sin, that the church should not be hostile to homosexuality. Also it should not deny those who are homosexual by orientation from being members or taking up positions of leadership.

Why is that a big deal you may ask? As my friend Caron wrote two years ago about her days at University:

"It was clear that [my gay friends] weren't welcome [within the Christian Union] just on the basis of their sexuality. That seemed fundamentally unfair to me and I ultimately decided that if you had to be like that to be in the Church, then I wasn't going to bother, thank you very much."

It was something I myself faced up to earlier this year.Whilst the church I grew up in and am attending again is happy that I play bass in the praise band (and I often get complimented for the sympathetic way that I do after services) I'm not a full member. Despite having become a member there in my teens on my profession of faith, that is no longer good enough. When I went for my membership interview, I was told that my blog had been read, and I was asked as question one, would I consider myself to be homosexual. Of course I would, I see part of what I have to do now as to help those young (and not so young) people who struggle with faith and sexuality issues, sometimes to the point of suicide, or contemplating it. 

At the ned of that interview it seemed to me that it would be far easier as a gay Christian to lie to yourself and to others. To bear false witness and pass all the comments about girlfriends or future wives off as not yet. Rather that allowing me the chance to carry on being happy accepting me as who I am rather than the misery that came with hiding my feelings for so long through my teens and twenties. I'm just glad that the place I was at in my forties enabled me to deal with such rejection, a teenage me might not have still been around after such rejection from the Church family that he had known all his life.

I wait to see what the Church of Scotland decide next month. There is a maybe option, and that is an option of hope for people like me within the Church who Christian and Lesbian, Gay or Bisexual.

* I note that the name of the commission has changed in the two years from one on Human Sexuality an inclusive title to only looking at Same-Sex relationships and the Ministry (lessening the scope).