A leading member of the Church of England who believes some gay people can be counselled to suppress or possibly change their sexual orientation is helping to select the next archbishop of Canterbury.A non-denial denial, methinks.
Glynn Harrison, emeritus professor of psychiatry at Bristol University, is on the Crown Nominations Commission, which will recommend a successor to Rowan Williams, to be approved by the prime minister and the Queen. His role on the 16-strong commission has alarmed some liberal Anglicans who fear it could deepen divisions over homosexuality in a church riven by the issues of holding gay civil ceremonies in churches and the consecration of gay bishops.
In a statement through the church, Harrison stated that he did not believe in a "gay cure" and had himself never offered formal counselling or therapy.
I assume Professor Glynn Harrison' presence on the commission is to provide 'balance' as the Faux News cable channel provides 'fair and balanced news'. Sometimes there are not two rational sides in a situation to present to provide balance, and when that is the case, then why search out a phony balance?
From the American Psychological Association:
Since 1975, the American Psychological Association has called on psychologists to take the lead in removing the stigma of mental illness that has long been associated with lesbian, gay, and bisexual orientations. The discipline of psychology is concerned with the well-being of people and groups and therefore with threats to that well-being. The prejudice and discrimination that people who identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual regularly experience have been shown to have negative psychological effects. This information is designed to provide accurate information for those who want to better understand sexual orientation and the impact of prejudice and discrimination on those who identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual.The church should be leading the way advocating for the removal of the stigma attached to LGTB sexual orientation, rather than being dragged kicking and screaming into the way of justice and equality by secular institutions.
H/T to Simon Sarmiento at Thinking Anglicans.
Happy Easter, Mimi!
ReplyDeleteJust to be clear -are you saying that people who take a traditional view on this subject should not be represented on the CNC?
That's what I'm saying, Tim.
ReplyDeleteSorry about the double posting - I'm not sure how that happened (iPhones still baffle me at times...).
ReplyDeleteBut to get back to the subject in question - you are a member of the No Anglican Covenant coalition, which has a masthead slogan of 'Anglicans for Comprehensive Unity'. WHat exactly does 'comprehensive unity' mean?
Tim, it's way past time for the church to discontinue enabling prejudice. At the last General Synod, the two archbishops in England were still dragging their feet about making women bishops real bishops, and that's not to speak of their words and actions pertaining to gay folks. 'Comprehensive unity' does not mean enabling injustice and inequality.
ReplyDeleteRight, so it's not really 'comprehensive', then, is it? Miriam-Webster online says that 'comprehensive' means 'covering completely or broadly'. But if what you mean is 'covering all views *except* traditional evangelical and catholic', then you are not covering completely or even broadly. The No Anglican Covenant coalition, after all, is trying to be a big tent for world Anglicanism, and a sizeable section of world Anglicanism takes a traditional view on the subject of homosexuality. If there is no place for them in the Coalition's view of the future of Anglicanism, then surely the Coalition should say so, rather than claiming to be comprehensive.
ReplyDeleteTim, we've been through all this before. What's the point of going through it all over again, and we still won't agree? If 'traditional evangelical and catholic' means excluding folks from full and equal membership in the Body of Christ, then I don't want their views included in the discussions and decisions about the next ABC. I call it bigotry. Why not include a return to slavery in the discussions? It's in the Bible.
ReplyDeleteThe Guardian indicates that Harrison was elected to the Commission by General Synod's House of Laity, as one of the House's three representatives on the Commission, in 2007. At that time the conservative evangelicals were a stronger force in GS than they are at present (the re-election bid of their most prominent spokesman, Chris Sugden - one of Akinola's handlers at Dar-es-Salaam - was defeated last year). As elections to the Commission are for a five year period, presumably Harrison's membership expires later this year.
ReplyDeleteGay reparative therapy has been rejected by the British as well as the US professional psychiatric/psychological associations. Earlier this year, Lesley Pilkington, a British psychotherapist, was stripped of her license to practice by the British Association of Counsellors and Psychotherapists. Lord Carey; the former Bishop of Rochester, Rt Rev. Michael Nazir-Ali; and the Bishop of Lewes, Rt Rev. Wallace Benn (round up the usual suspects), have written to the BACP in support of her saying the therapy “does not produce harm”.
The Crown Nominations Committee leaked like a sieve during the 2010 search for a new bishop of Southwark, to the detriment of Jeffrey John's candidacy. No serious attempt seems to have been made to root out the source of those leaks. Now one wonders again who might have done it.
ps Comments to the Thinking Anglicans thread you link above are already interesting. I shall be very surprised if they do not continue to be so over the next few days.
ReplyDeletepps Come on, Tim - you know better than this.
ReplyDeleteGood riddance if Harrison has to go. I'm not mincing words any longer. The anti-gay folks are in their last gasp, but they have not yet let go.
ReplyDeleteBy all means, lets be comprehensive...so where is the white supremacist who believes people of color are of a less intelligent sub-species; and where is the misogynist, the one that believes most women are witches and should be burned at the stake. And wheres the representative anti-Semite who knows the Jews crucified Christ (and control the world economy)...if you don't think these bigots would be appropriate, why do you think the homophobe deserves a place at the table? God bless you, Mimi.
ReplyDeleteAnd all three of these imaginary bigots represent "traditional" ways of thinking...
ReplyDeleteWhat Renz said.
ReplyDeleteBrava chere Mimi
ReplyDeleteTim, with all respect, my sense of comprehensive unity is that as a member of the Body of Christ, I may worship with, pray with, and even be in fellowship occasionally with individuals who consider me deficient or morally disordered for being created a gay man by God. however, when those same individuals insist on trying to include others from inclusion in the Body of Christ because of those same opinions i have an issue WITH THEIR BEHAVIOR.
David, thank you for not comparing me with white supremacists, witch-burners, and anti-Semites.
ReplyDeleteI am not excluding anybody from the body of Christ. Everyone is welcome to participate in our parish, no one is turned away. We have gay couples, and we have people who take a traditional view. They take communion together and they work in mission together.
Lapin, I'm glad you know what I know; some days I'm not sure myself. One thing I do know now that I didn't know this morning: I know that what Mimi means by 'comprehensive' excludes many of my sisters and brothers in Christ (I do not include myself in that group because I am not sure of my own views on the subject). I did not know this before, and I will now go away and chew on it.
A blessed Easter to you all.
I second Renz's comments.
ReplyDeleteI can remember when good devout Bible believing Christians used to explain to me the story of Noah's son Ham as Biblical proof that God intended the races to be separate and that the darker races were inferior. Indeed, with the advent of desegregation, these folks felt every bit as alienated and singled out as the anti-gay faction feels now in a world where sexual minorities are increasingly accepted.
I agree with Mimi. This issue is settled as far as I'm concerned. After almost 50 years of arguing over this issue in the Episcopal Church, and after more than a century of clinical and psychological work on homosexuality, the consensus is complete.
The burden of proof is now on the anti-gay faction.
Bishop Spong won´t even discuss it anymore...¨the consensus is complete¨...many of us have lived incomprehensible abuse already...and survived. Seems complete enough to me too.
DeleteTim, I did not compare you directly to the imaginary historical bigots...
ReplyDeleteBy the way, the church version of "some of my best friends are..." meme is a bit stale.
If they put a racist on the committee to balance those who advocate for full inclusion of all races, there would be a firestorm but it is just fine and dandy to have someone who believes that teh gays can be cured of their 'sickness' on the committee. I am so sick of this nonsense. I am tired of other people deciding whether I am sane/fit to be a part of the church and on and on and on. We are not living in the 19th or 20th century any more. We are fully in the 21st.
ReplyDeleteIf they put a racist on the committee to balance those who advocate for full inclusion of all races, there would be a firestorm....
ReplyDeleteExactly.
Thanks for all the comments. Yours, too, Tim, but I can't help but think of 'traditional view' as a euphemism for anti-gay.
Tim
ReplyDeletereading what everyone has written, i am unable to read anyone comparing you to 'white supremacists, witch-burners, and anti-Semites' those individuals were simply cited as examples of the challenges to inclusion.
as in any discussion, some of the individuals sharing here- myself included, are doing so from lives which included the painful experience of our Church asking us to wait in a crucified place for an indeterminate season, for the good of the Church, while 'the Church' decided what to do with us.
i'm afraid i don't see the connection between the commendable inclusion within your own parish and what is going on with the nomination committee. fact is, while an individual who appears to have made his professional reputation- at least in part- on the debasement of God's LGBT creation is involved in the selection, the committee appears not to have made the slightest effort to include representation from either our straight allies or indeed of a LGBT member of the Church. it is only my personal sense of this, but it is that unfortunately, those 'in charge' consider us irrelevant and this cannot bode well for the future of either this process or the future of the Church imho.
Well said, David. Jesus said we must each take up our cross and follow him. He did not teach us to lay crosses on the shoulders of our brothers and sisters. In fact, Jesus spoke harshly to the Pharisees about laying heavy burdens on others without lifting a finger to help them.
ReplyDeleteThank you!!!
ReplyDeletePerhaps we should make the Professor Glynn Harrisons of this world write on the chalk board this phrase until they get it: "The we of God IS in the difference.
Maybe not. They might be writing for a very, very long time.
Tim is a good man, so I'd like to explain my perspective to him.
ReplyDeleteTim, I assume you are a straight man who is, (or has been) happily married.
Putting this man on the committee is the equivalent of putting someone on the committee who says to you, Tim, "who you are, as a straight man and loving husband, is wrong, and I think you can change or at the very least be celibate, and give up this fundamental part of who you are, this sense of a "we" who are greater than the "you or I" and all the humble beauty that you have found in this relationship because giving yourself to a woman, is wrong. You can choose to be straight and at least should give up any hope of love or commitment to a woman, because *I* think it is wrong, regardless of the testimony of your own experience."
And elevating this man's perspective, against all science, against all experience of actual GLBT people, to be one of 3 on the CNC is a slap in the face of real people and our reality.
This isn't saying "I disapprove". It's saying, "who you are is NO ONE."
Harrison was not "put on this committee". For better or worse he is there as an elected representative of General Synod's House of Laity.
ReplyDeleteOh Hell. We Americans know that a person holding Mr. Harrison's stated opinions wouldn't be allowed on the vestry of St. Nowhere.
ReplyDeleteI mourn for the predicament the C of E is in right now, but we can't fix it for them. Covenant, resistance to women bishops, refusal to bless gay parterships,absurd episcopal statements: let's recall that Episcopalians in the US don't have any obligation to support this idiocy, and, I'd add, heresy. We'll be there for them when they come to their senses.
Whoa, IT. Eloquent!
ReplyDeleteLapin, then Harrison was 'put on the commission' by a vote of the laity.
John D, our friends in England don't want us to abandon them. They're fighting hard now, and they can use our help.
As per Renz and Counterlight above, I too remember - it seems such a very short time ago, actually - the lengthy justifications from Scripture for keeping the races separate, and the Curse of Ham laid on the black folks, which meant they were destined to be "hewers of wood and drawers of water" for the rest of (white) mankind until Judgment Day.
ReplyDeleteAt which time, I suppose, they would all file politely into the colored waiting room with the colored water fountains and the colored rest rooms (I remember those vividly too), and wait their turn.
Plus ca change . . . .
I would guess that Chris Sugden's Gafcon-creating, conservative evangelical faction, which in 2007 was riding high in the immediate wake of the coup it helped engineer that February at the Dar-es-Salaam primates' meeting, specifically selected Harrison and backed his candidacy for the Commission with a view to his throwing a spanner in the works should the name of any known gay candidate have been proposed for the episcopacy.
ReplyDeleteOCICBW.
But I doubt it.
Everyone knows I'm old enough to remember Jim Crow. It was not pretty.
ReplyDeleteLapin you're probably right about Harrison's election. Times have changed, and I doubt the outcome would be the same today.
The more I think about the justifications given for excluding LGTB people from positions in the church, the less sensible the justifications seem. The importance attached to 5 or 6 biblical passages which are themselves open to different interpretations just don't make the case.
I doubt it too, Mimi. Last year, way before the current "Covenant" fiasco, Chris Sugden failed to win re-election to GS as an Oxford diocese lay delegate.
ReplyDeleteSorry, that should have said,
ReplyDelete"You can choose NOT to be straight ...."
or
"You have chosen to be straight...."
IT, thanks. I made the leap. :-)
ReplyDeleteGoing ALL the way back to the first post (sorry I'm late to the party---still catching up from having been away last week!):
ReplyDeleteJust to be clear -are you saying that people who take a traditional view on this subject should not be represented on the CNC?
Tim, I *reject* the assertion that a homophobic POV is "a traditional view on this subject". Ironically, the notion that one can change a "homosexual orientation" to "heterosexual orientation" could NOT be more modern.
It's precisely because the concept of "sexual orientation change" is SO novel (AND unsupported by facts!), that person holding such a perspective is (while entitled to their opinion) too eccentric for this body, the CNC, w/ the responsibility to the ENTIRE Church By Law Established.
JCF, indeed, the idea that a person can change one's sexual orientation is certainly not traditional.
ReplyDelete