Condemnation for bishop who called for gay people to 'repent'
Michael Nazir-Ali accused of pandering to hate and homophobia
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
GETTY/UPPA
A partygoer at the annual Gay Pride street march through London (left) and Michael Nazir-Ali, the Bishop of Rochester (right)
enlarge
The Bishop of Rochester has been accused of pandering to hate and homophobia after calling on homosexuals to repent. Michael Nazir-Ali provoked outrage among gay groups when he urged Church leaders to stick to traditional values instead of being swayed by "culture and trends".
While calling for the "traditional teaching" of the Bible to be upheld, the Bishop said of homosexuals: "We want them to repent and be changed."
His controversial remarks were published just hours after more than half a million people, including the Prime Minister's wife, Sarah, took part in the Gay Pride parade in London.
Sharon Ferguson, of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement, condemned Dr Nazir-Ali for making comments that she said would encourage hatred.
"It feeds to the more fundamental individuals who are looking to have their opinions ratified and speak hatefully and behave hatefully," she said.
"His comments are likely to cause more of a schism within the Church of England. He's saying their [gays and lesbians] sexuality is a sin. It's not. It's a gift from God. God made us all."
She added: "He is telling people 'You have to repent' for something they have no control over. It's like asking someone to repent because they have blue eyes."
Peter Tatchell, the gay rights campaigner, said he was "shocked" at the level of anti-gay prejudice voiced by the bishop. "Homophobia is a social and moral evil, just like racism. Bigotry, even in the guise of religion, has no place in a compassionate, caring society," he said. "I call on the bishop to repent his homophobia. His prejudice goes against Christ's gospel of love and compassion."
Labour MEP Michael Cashman accused the Bishop of Rochester of being "selective" about which parts of the Bible he upheld. "When he calls for the closure of all the banks, finance houses and credit card companies because of what it says in the Bible about usury, then I'll take him seriously," he said. "Until then, unless he can say anything good, he should shut up."
In his comments, made to a Sunday newspaper, the bishop said homosexuals should be welcomed into the Church but that a person's sexual nature could only be correctly expressed in a heterosexual union within marriage. His remarks reopened the row over homosexuality that has for years threatened to tear the Anglican Church apart.
He made them on the eve of today's official launch of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans at Westminster Central Hall in London where he is expected to speak in support of the organisation. The UK branch of the Fellowship is regarded by many liberals within the Anglican movement as an attempt to create a church within a church with the aim of heading off moves to ease rules on homosexuality. Dr Nazir-Ali is to step down in the autumn and he is expected to play an important part in the Fellowship's activities.
The Very Rev Colin Slee, the Dean of Southwark and a prominent liberal, was so alarmed by the the impending departure of Dr Nazir-Ali from the See of Rochester that he described it as "clearly a move towards a sectarian alternative church intentionally designed to create turbulence in the Anglican Communion".
Canon Chris Sugden, of the Fellowship, said a message from the Queen will be read out during the ceremony but a Buckingham Palace spokeswoman called it nothing more than a "standard response" to the many requests made to the monarch each year. "It isn't endorsing anyone's point of view," she said.
Zeal of the convert: The Bishop of Rochester
*Michael Nazir-Ali has been one of the most vocal and controversial of bishops of the past decade and has rarely been afraid to speak out.
He was a leading contender to become Archbishop of Canterbury when George Carey stood down but has found himself at odds with Rowan Williams, the incumbent.
The issue of homosexuality has been one of the biggest causes of friction between Dr Nazir-Ali, the Bishop of Rochester, and the liberal wing of the Anglican Church.
In 2008 the rift was so marked that he boycotted the Lambeth Conference, a meeting of Anglican Church leaders held once a decade, because of the row over homosexuality. He is part of an evangelical wing urging the Church to stick to a traditional interpretation of the scriptures regarded by liberals, especially on the issues of homosexuality and women priests, as backward.
This year he announced he would step down as Bishop of Rochester in September to allow him time to concentrate on representing the Church in parts of the world where Anglicans are a minority religion or oppressed.
Born in Pakistan to Catholic parents, he converted at the age of 20 and holds dual British and Pakistani nationality. Appointed the 106th Bishop of Rochester in 1994, he was the first non-white diocesan bishop in the Church of England. Since then he has been a frequent critic of the rise of Islam in Britain.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
If you are homosexual, and not catholic, get off the band wagon.
If you are homosexual, and a catholic, the choice is yours, the church, media, friends or family cannot persuade you to do other than what you want.
Attacking free speech, opinion or gagging expression is the radical way of saying "don't you dare say that"!
Do not use the word Gay, say what you are, homosexual if you have no problem with who you are. Do not hide behind derogitory words, such as Gay, which used to mean open, happy, free willed, but has now been hijacked as a "queer" homosexual term.
If you want to be angry, express your views, kick out at society, please do it is your right, just leave the word gay alone.
Inshallh vocabularly with regain its meaning
If you (the media) didn't give these vile people the time of day, they would only potificate to their natural followers (preaching to the converted, if you will) I can accept some homophob throwing down his pearls in front of 20 white, middle aged and middle class sheep in funny hats, so long as I do not have to read about it.
Ah, but it wouldn't sell papers then...would it?
You report this artice as shock/horror how dare he say that!, well surprise surprise you PC mongs, some people actually agree with him!
personally I think don't repent, burn in hell with satans fiery c0ck up yer a$$, all the more room in heaven for us normal people, but to each his own, at least he is trying to help you turd burglars.
as for going to hell because you have blue eyes! you just carry on kidding yourself whilst drinking from the furry cup.....well done bish, keep up the good work.
I am a gay man and brought up by catholic parents, My parents love me for who i am, and if you read the original text of the bible it does not say homosexuality is a sin. As the years have gone on its been interpreted the way man wants to.
Its about time people gave up on the homophobe and realised that everyone is human no matter of Sex, Colour, Sexual Orintation.
Its states love thy neighbour.
If people want to stick to the bible then lets stone woman for getting pregnant out of wedlock, lets beat our wives for not doing as they are told same goes for our children.
It also says the abortion is a sin even if the lady is raped.
Its upto a woman what she decides not the church.
The church also does not condone condoms whats the fuck is with that.
Its all bollocks and the church will preach what it wants to preach simple as that
So all the homophobes grow up as they saying goes don't hate us cos u aint us.
True findings shows that most homophobes are worried about there own sexuality, they are worried about not being man enough...
"Normal" is when something works according to the purpose it was designed to. If you want to challenge normality, perhaps you also want to challenge laws of nature, the uniformity of the universe and preconditions of intelligibility as well? If so, how can you know that anything is normal, homosexual or heterosexual?
"I am a gay man and brought up by catholic parents, My parents love me for who i am"
Of course they do, and it is wonderful that they do. Similarly a parent will love their child whether they tell lies or not. And this is consistent with the nature of God who bestowed this quality on parents.
" if you read the original text of the bible it does not say homosexuality is a sin."
Do you consider yourself Catholic? If so, what is it that the original text says? Straightforward interpretation says that to sleep with a man as you would with a woman is an abomination. Now does this mean sexual urges or temptations are sin? I don't believe so otherwise everyone who is horny outside of marriage will be committing a sin. However, how one indulges these urges can lead to sin, whether it is lusting after another or seeking some kind of physical gratification.
"Its about time people gave up on the homophobe and realised that everyone is human no matter of Sex, Colour, Sexual Orintation.
Its states love thy neighbour."
Absolutely right. Therefore, every person should be treated with dignity and honour as they are created in the image of God. However, he who doesn't point out the faults in the one whom he loves is not truly loving that person. But they must be left to choose for themselves.
"If people want to stick to the bible then lets stone woman for getting pregnant out of wedlock, lets beat our wives for not doing as they are told same goes for our children."
Are you a Jew living in the times before Christ? If not, this does not apply to you. Those who follow God now live according to the law of Grace, demonstrated perfectly by Jesus in His dealings with the adulterous woman. He did not condone her actions, but He did not condemn her either. He DID say "Go and sin no more." in other words, "if you wish to follow me, you cannot continue to do this." And no where in the Bible is a man told to beat his wife for not doing as they are told, however he is told not to spare the rod with children. God Himself chatises His children because He loves them. He who doesn't discipline His children, does not truly love them.
"It also says the abortion is a sin even if the lady is raped."
If you believe everyone is human no matter what, this also includes an unborn child. If you believe it's ok to murder an unborn child, why do you think it's not ok to stone women for getting pregnant outside of marriage? This is being inconsistent. If homosexuality is not a choice and you should not be killed for it, why do you not acknowledge that such a child did not choose to be born and therefore is not deserving of death?
"Its upto a woman what she decides not the church."
Indeed the choice is the woman's, however her life and her body is not her own. Did she choose to be born? Was she born by the will of man and woman? No, all are born because God allows them to be born. Procreation is only possible because God made it so. As a result, all life belongs to God and all bodies belong to God. It may not be for the church to decide for a woman, but it is certainly down to God to say how a woman should be, whether she chooses to be or not.
"Its all bollocks and the church will preach what it wants to preach simple as that."
Whatever people choose to preach and however they choose to interpret the Bible does not change the truth of the original text. You alluded to the original text which implies you believe they have absolute authority. If you don't believe they do, however, and believe it is all bollocks, why do you take issue how people act on it? Why try and tell people what it says if it is all rubbish anyway?
"So all the homophobes grow up as they saying goes don't hate us cos u aint us."
One does not have to hate something to find it disagreeable. If we should all be tolerant of others choices, why are people not tolerant of the choice not to agree with something?
However by writing in favour of homosexuality and against the Bishops views sells papers.
By opposing Muslim views you get reprisals!
The 'Independent' writers do not attack those who fight back!
I don't see why they have to have a march and advertise themselves. I am constantly bombarded with this where every other person on the TV is a homo sexual. I have mixed in many social groups and have never actually met one. The vast majority are heterosexual. Why do we have to be bombarded with this.
If they want to be perverse, away from normality, would they please do it in private. They may not think they are perverse, but according to the majority, and to the laws of nature, they are.
Not only is it illogical; it's also actually wrong: as other posters have pointed out in this thread, there are documented examples of homosexual behaviour in other animals (though it wouldn't change anything even if there wasn't). And the fact that you have never met a gay person is neither here nor there; arguments from personal incredulity are never very convincing.
I usually find people who frame their reasoning on the so-called 'natural order' are simply using it as a synonym for behaviour they approve of. In your post, rather than simply saying 'I don't approve of homosexuals and agree with the bishop', frankness is substituted for vague threats of 'mother nature' exacting some terrible revenge on your behalf, which is actually every bit as disingenuous as the fire-and-brimstone of the old testament.
The reason gay pride parades still need to take place is precisely because of people like you. The apparent willingness to label those who don't conform to your limited world view as perverts makes it all the more important for everybody else to make the statement that this kind of bigotry is no longer acceptable. And what better way to accomplish this than an enormous street party, which is actually rather good fun too.
Far too many hetrosexuals are guilty of something akin to genocide. And even more are guilty of the sin of omission, of looking the other way. What Hannah Arendt would call the "banality of evil."
Where is the true wickedness here? A preoccupation with a sexual preference, which many forget has nothing to do sexual practices; sexual practices indulged in many couples of different genders. Or is the true sin, the sins of omission. Je accuse...
You could state that every one of us is 'judged and condemned every day' because of our colour, age, disability or whatever, and you could, as you appear to do, hide behind this to justify your sin.
Jesus does not condemn you, but what is wrong requires putting right within us all. And believe me we are all full of more faults than we realise. Homosexuality is just one among many.
the preoccupation with sexuality comes from Homosexuals attempting to pretend their behaviour is correct. This must be opposed, and it is right to do so. You either follow Jesus or you do not, and if you do not it matters not what the Bishop says. Homosexuality is a sin, and those who pretend otherwise must be opposed.
You sanctimonious piety does not make you a better person, Uncle Monty. It makes you a fool and a laughing stock. But you'd no doubt turn even that into a sign of your martydom for your imaginary god, wouldn't you?
Tragic.
Thank you for your courage to speak up on this sin and perversion. I want you to know that you are not alone. Have courage as you are fully aware that this is predicted in the Bible that such sins and perversion will come about. Thank you once again.
If all creative human beings were human and we consider human to be a form of normality, than they were indeed human. Were they the exact same human? No.
"Is it natural to write poetry, play music, climb to the top of Mount Everest, cook food?"
If it is natural for human beings to be creative, adventurous and survive, it is certainly within mankinds nature to write poetry, play music, climb mountains and cook food.
Isn't it "samey" and "homogenous" for all humans to recognise human rights or morality? Why not revel in the idea that some people have different ideas of human rights and morality from others? Does this kind of difference make life worth living? Indeed, imagine a world where human rights and morality were homogenous.
Indeed, mankind seems to be "naturally" predisposed to choose darkness over light, wrong over right, evil over good. Some people lean more towards one side than others but even if they are born leading more towards the dark, they are also born with the free will to choose whether to indulge in their dark impulses.
If one believes in the Bible, they are expected to meet a certain standard of living, however it is their choice to do so and this choice is open to all humanity. Thus, as God's creation, humanity is expected to meet a certain standard but it is their choice and they can only be expected to meet that standard if they want to.
Those who do not want to are already outside of this expectation and so whatever is to be will be. They are not expected to meet that same standard or have it forced on them, but they are to be made aware of the consequences.
Is religion natural? The fact that it is only found in humans seems consistent with what the Bible says about humanity being distinct from other creatures, so why should we expect to find religion in all animals? If indeed we have all evolved from a common ancestor (and thus religion has evolved too), it is more curious that other animals DON'T have any form of religion. In this case, science would seem to be more consistent with creation than evolution.
If he relies on Leviticus for his argument, then he has to take the whole of the package - has he read it properly? Oh sorry, I forgot - having cake AND eating it.
The call to change our ways and let Jesus be Lord is aimed at all of us.
The hatred and outcry follows when we realise this is indeed ourselves who are called to change.
While difficult for us all it does lead to an abundant life.
Sad to see so many given freedom to condemn the Bishop for stating truth.
However we are all aware that for some 'freedom' means do what we say and toe the line.
A totalitarian, not freethinking, policy.
So, in my opinion, Jesus can easily be interpreted as being tolerant of homosexuality. Given this I find homophobic attitudes among christians (or, more accurately, those who claim to be christian) hard to understand. It seems to me that they are attempting to use scripture to sanctify their prejudices; just as the Dutch Reform Church in South Africa sought to use scripture to sanctify Apartheit.
(Biographic note: I am neither homosexual nor religious. I believe in the enlightenment project and and see people such as Bishop Nazir-Ali as as mistakenly impeding this.)
Sexuality is more so considered a private matter. People want belief in God to be private not because it should be, but really because they're intolerant of it.
Sexuality is a gift from God and therefore shouldn't be abused. Life is also a gift from God and should not be abused. Children are a gift from God and should not be abused. Free will is a gift from God, and should not be abused.
If one uses their free will to hurt another, can their evil be called a "gift" to themselves or to others?
If a child behaves in a way that dishonors their parents and society, can their dishonorable behaviour be called a "gift" to the parents?
If a life is taken away without good cause, can this be called a gift to the person who has their life taken?
If sexuality is abusede according to it's expression in marriage, is this abuse a gift?
No. The gift is what is given, not how you choose to use it. All people have the potential for heterosexuality or homosexuality. The ability to be sexual is a gift to husbands and wives, and the free will to choose whether to abide by this proper station or not is also a gift.
"I call on the bishop to repent his homophobia. His prejudice goes against Christ's gospel of love and compassion."
If one is demonstrating and acting in hatred towards another, they are indeed in need of repentance. However, the person quoted should perhaps check what Christ's good news was. The good news was a response to the bad news. The bad news was that everyone was already condemned to die due to being born into estrangement from their God. The good news was that He had come to provide a way to escape condemnation and was willing to die for them so that they could. This is God's great act of love and compassion.
"The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Jesus Christ" - Romans
Jesus did not come to condemn, but to save. However, He did not come to condone and tolerate either. Those who miss this aspect of His nature, as loving AND just, miss a key point. Jesus urged all to repent of their sins. To claim another calling for repentance is going against Jesus' teaching is inaccurate.
I will also say that to those who argue for the rights of a homosexual to have a private sexual relationship, why is there a need for that private sexuality to be paraded in public for all to see?
Cannibalism is also practiced by animals in the wild. As is stealing, as is even prostitution, deception and murder. These are all things that would seem to arise "naturally", so why do we condemn them in society?
I will also add, I'm not saying homosexuality is the same as cannibalism, I'm simply assuming for the sake of your argument that homosexuality is natural because it appears in nature. As such, homosexuality is as natural as cannibalism even though they are not the same thing, just as cats and dogs are both mammals but not the same creature. So the question is why is it ok to condone some natural behaviour and not others?
If it is for the benefit of the species by controlling population levels or for the survival of certain groups, surely cannibalism, murder, deception, and even rape can be used for the propagation of a species. If happiness and pleasure is the measuring rod, not all women are happy with their sex lives or find it pleasurable, yet we don't consider this an abuse. A child may not be happy and may be emotionally hurt that they are denied a toy they want, yet this is not considered abuse.
But then the conundrum is this. If the evolutionary view of the origin of all things is true, and we are all the products of random chemical reactions, how do we determine what is an advantage and what isn't? This would seem to imply that there is a particular direction of movement for all life and that this direction is towards a purpose. Purpose infers design which is contrary to evolutionary doctrine which speaks of a purposeless existence.
If there is no purpose, why do you have a need for happiness, or enlightenment? And why is it wrong for something to be false? How do you account for this? We do not care how vinegar reacts with baking soda, so why do we care what one chemical reaction does to another chemical reaction?
You claim I am illogical, but what reason do I have, in the evolutionary world view, to be logical? If your sense are the product of random chemical reactions, how can you be certain that what you perceive as logical or illogical really is?
I can account for this because I believe in a God or order and creativity who created the universe in an orderly way, abiding by certain physical laws. He also created us with preconditions of intelligibility so that we cant accurately interpret and understand the universe around us. Logic is a reflection of the way God thinks, yet if you deny God's existence, you deny all reasons for logic. Yet, to even argue the existence of logic, you have to presuppose it in order to argue logically. It is an ultimate, universal standard. But how do you account for this in an evolutionary universe?
These are the rules of the club. If you don't like it, join a different club.
Would you protest if a Christian simply spoke to you normally? What if their beliefs came up naturally in the conversation?
In a gay pride parade, homosexuals are publically expressing what is a private matter, and are therefore imposing their private activities in an intrusive way.
You seem to have a double standard here by saying that we "take them or leave them".
A Christian who speaks to you about Jesus, I'm assuming, doesn't grab you and force you to accept what they are saying. It is down to your choice, you take it or leave it. As you said, if you have a problem with that, the problem is with you.
Many Christians do just stand on a street corner and preach, and people will hurl verbal or even physical abuse at them claiming they are imposing their beliefs on them. I myself have simply expressed what I believe and you have accused me of imposing this on you. Yet you did not have to respond. You could have taken it or left it. You chose to take it.
Please demonstrate how I have been arrogant. I do not believe I have shown unwarranted importance, acted out in pride. The only importance I have is that which you afford me to have by acknowledging me.