Via VirtueOnline:
I. Open Letter to Greenbelt on its invitation to Gene Robinson in 2009 and now Peter Tatchell in 2010
April 29th, 2010
Dear Greenbelt,
I am writing in relation to two concerns.
The first has to do with one of the speakers you brought to Greenbelt last year, Gene Robinson, Bishop of New Hampshire. I expressed various concerns which I flagged beforehand, and which, after I heard him, I believed were well-founded. To be fair, last August Robinson's sexual ethic appeared to be that of the 'evangelical' gays, essentially traditional, binary, 'stable'. Well, he is either on a trajectory or was self-censoring. Now he admits that there are many sexual 'orientations' out there and all need to be legitimated and allowed 'out'; the LGBT are but the first cohort. As he has put it at a recent TEC bishops' event, 'There are so many other letters in the alphabet ... so many other sexualities to be explored'. As far as he is concerned it is time now to move beyond the restricting, indeed non-inclusive, nomenclature of 'GLBT' (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgendered) 'orientations'. (http://www.tsm.edu/News_and_Events/Grant_LeMarquand_Speaks_to_TEC_House_of_Bishops.html)
'Progressive' thinker that he is, perhaps Robinson's views have changed, but it has been a clearly articulated tactic of the GLBT movement to operate incrementally and not speak of - or sometimes even to deny in public - the larger strategic goal of a wholesale re-making of human sexuality. Against the background of this larger picture, it seems altogether more likely that he has now made the judgement that the time is right to move on in public from the privileged GLBT focus and paradigm.
Greenbelt may well have invited Robinson as one who would represent what has become the most acceptable face of the GLBT movement, but his more recent statement suggests that to do so was to let in something of a Trojan horse. Would Greenbelt have invited him to advocate on behalf of an open-ended list of other 'orientations'?
In fact, in the name of the thoroughly commendable objective of 'exploration' and 'robust engagement', 'Christian' Greenbelt is facilitating, perhaps inadvertently, a wholesale revamping of sexual morality...merely one step and stage at a time. If that is not its intention it needs to think in terms of trajectories and begin to spot likely unintentional consequences. An uncensored and honest debate about human sexualities - for that is what is out there - and the Christian faith is one thing, but giving a high profile to the gurus of trendy causes is something quite different. In this respect Greenbelt merely facilitates the gayification of Christian sub-culture, all the while reassuring an anxious church that nothing has changed - except that at least some actually practice the love ethic of Jesus.
And of course the real irony here is that under the new PC regimes which most of us now operate, either silence or tacit support of the GLBT cause is demanded while dissenting points of view are threatened by loss of employment etc. Recent cases are Lillian Ladelle, Gary McFarlane and Theresa Davies. The very ideal Greenbelt keeps assuring us it aspires to - honest and robust engagement - is annihilated in this process.
*****
http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/2010/04/29/ii-open-letter-to-greenbelt-on-its-invitations-to-robinson-and-tatchell/#more-28260
II. Open letter to Greenbelt on its invitations to Robinson and Tatchell
April 29th, 2010
My second concern relates to the further gayification of Greenbelt through its invitation to Peter Tatchell (among others). Indeed, inviting Tatchell is more of the same. In his essay, 'The ABC of Sexual Health and Happiness', from the book, Teenage Sex: What Should Schools Teach Children? (Hodder & Stoughton/Institute of Ideas, June 2002) and which is posted on his website, Tatchell asserts that 'All Sexualities [are] Equally Valid'. Naturally the three mentioned are those already 'out' - heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality (http://www.petertatchell.net/). What about the others?
Tatchell's views are far removed from Christian ethics. In the same essay he notes that 'Although monogamy is usually the favoured option, open relationships can also be rewarding ... Abstinence has its advantages, but so does promiscuity. Marriage is a must for many, but not for cohabiting couples who see love and commitment as more important than legal formality. While oral sex is the ultimate thrill for some, a majority get greatest satisfaction from intercourse - and a few get it from rubber and bondage.'
How do these views stack up with Christian sexual ethics? They don't. Nor do they stack up with the latest scientific and sociological research on sex, marriage and family. See for example the work of psychiatrist Miriam Grossman's You're Teaching My Child What? A Physician Exposes the Lies of Sex Education and How They Harm Your Child (Regnery 2009), Dr Joe McIlhaney Jr and Dr Freda M Bush's Hooked: New Science on how casual sex is affecting our children (Northfield 2008), and sociologist David Popenoe's 2008 study, 'Cohabitation, Marriage and Child Well-being: A Cross-National Perspective' (http://www.smartmarriages.com/uploaded/Cohabitation.Report.Popenoe.08.pdf).
Moreover, Tatchell argues for the age of consent (AOC) to be reduced to 14. Consider the following extract from his lengthy interview with 'Lee' ( 'I'M 14, I'M GAY & I WANT A BOYFRIEND'; http://www.petertatchell.net/):
[PT] When you ran away from the children's home, where did you go? "I used to stay with this paedophile that I met in the gardens. He was okay. There was no pressure for me to have sex, but I did. I had sex with him because I wanted to feel loved and respected".
What do you think of that man now? "Well, he didn't beat me up or hurt me like was happening in the children's home".
And what do you think about paedophiles in general? "It depends on what kind of paedophiles", says Lee. "Those who have sex with little kids should be strung up by the bollocks. The paedophiles I knew always asked me if I wanted sex. They didn't pressure me. If you consent to having sex with a paedophile, it's fine. If you don't, it's not".
How can a young child understand sex and give meaningful consent? Lee admits: "The really young ones can't. But I was 12 when I first had sex with an adult man. I knew what was happening. The other boys I know who had sex with men were in their early teens. They understood what they were doing".
Perhaps your friends were particularly mature for their age. Most young people are not so sophisticated about sex. "They shouldn't have sex then", according to Lee. "And other people shouldn't take advantage of them. No one should be having sex with a child who is very young or who has emotional and mental problems. You could have a relationship with them, but not sex - not until they are old enough to understand the responsibilities involved".
Many people worry that the power imbalance in a relationship between a youth and an adult means the younger person can be easily manipulated and exploited. It's a concern that Lee acknowledges: "Yeah, that can happen. It's wrong. But that doesn't mean that every kid who has sex with a man is being abused".
The drift here indicates something of the thinking behind Tatchell's AOC views. But it also indicates that for Tatchell, informed consent is the issue, not age, with (for us) worrying implications in relation to issues of paedophilia and pederasty.
I have noted with interest the self-censorship displayed on the Greenbelt website in connection with Tatchell's visit. Earlier comment enthused that he was '[e]ngaging, inspiring and intriguing, [and] this interview provides much food for thought, especially if you have Peter down as just a militant queer rights campaigner. He is that, and impressivley [sic] so. But he's so much more, too.' Now, we have the rather more sedate description of him as '[b]orn in Australia in 1952, Peter is best known as a controversial campaigner on issues of sexual freedom and human rights.' What happened to the real, raw Peter? Or is the AOC reduction what Greenbelt has in mind in relation to Tatchell's commitment to 'sexual freedom'?
I believe that both Gene Robinson and Peter Tatchell are bad news for the church and for Greenbelt. Greenbelt does much that is good and even excellent. Why spoil it with such as this? In the light of the above, I would very much appreciate an explanation of your invitation to Peter Tatchell for 2010, given your invitation to Gene Robinson in 2009. You will recall the specific concerns we raised about ensuring that equal air time was given to orthodox Christian perspectives. On the face of it it seems that our concerns have fallen on deaf ears.
In the light of the above, we are very concerned and alarmed. We would like to meet with you because we believe this is damaging to both Christian witness and the health of the nation. Among our questions are what are the proper parameters for a Christian arts festival? What is appropriate balance and in particular, appropriate balance in this case? We expect that those who are also associated with Greenbelt as sponsors will be interested in the answers to these questions, as will the wider Christian public.
We hope to hear back from you by 4 May at the latest.
Yours sincerely,
Lisa Severine Nolland, MCS MA PhD
Anglican-Mainstream.net Web Consultant
*****
http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/2010/04/29/iii-a-reply-from-greenbelt/ III. The reply from Greenbelt
April 29th, 2010
Thanks for your email of Thursday 22nd April. Each year Greenbelt hosts speakers with varying and sometimes contrasting views on a whole range of subjects. At any one time, we also ensure there are a range of lineup items taking place, thus allowing festival goers to pick and choose that which they feel comfortable with.
END
No comments:
Post a Comment