Apathy Sketchpad

These are the words I was greeted with when I turned the TV on today. It was BBC News, and the speaker was a beardy man in a tie, who I gather was called Duncan, and was something of a big player in the Church of England. I know no more about him than that:

—really love God, and equally, if you love God and you persist in homosexual relations, that’s evidence you do not love God.

Well, obviously I was hooked. I think that’s the soonest I’ve ever seen a blatant contradiction after turning on the TV. Granted he hit the ground moving, but impressive nonetheless.

Presenter: But you know, in the real world in which we live, flawed human beings that we are, there are people who do all the things that you said, and much more—

Duncan: And worse.

Presenter: And worse. Are we not supposed to love them anyway?

Duncan: We are supposed to love them, but—

…but not in that way?

Duncan: We are supposed to love them, but this relates to the particular calling of the Christian church. The Christian church is preaching a gospel of repentance and forgiveness. It is not simply forgiveness.

Yeah! No more Mr Nice Gospel!

Rev. Richenda Leigh: As a priest in the Church of England, I’m absolutely convinced that the Holy Spirit is present in homosexual relationships that are monogamous and loving. I believe that the church should actually use those as part of their dynamic relationship with Jesus Christ, the saviour of all,

I think we all know who Jesus is by now.

…and I think that it’s really sad that people, I mean, you know, that as a Christian, hand on heart, I believe that Christ is as present in homosexual relationships as he is in heterosexual—

She talks a lot of sense. For one thing, as an atheist, hand on heart, I too believe that Christ is as present in homosexual relationships as he is in heterosexual relationships. And in Narnia.

…

Duncan: I do want to separate from people who call themselves members of the Church of England who persistently will not adhere to the moral teaching that is part of its foundation.

Leigh: It’s absolutely true. I mean, if you think of Saint Paul, I think runaway slaves should be returned to their owners, as Saint Paul asks us to do, and I can’t believe that you, as a member of the church, do not say “slaves, stay where you are!”

Here we have a priest arguing that we shouldn’t listen to what the Bible says. Which is true, but surely she’s in the wrong job?

…

Duncan: …but the important point is where the Bible speaks clearly on something … as it does clearly on the homosexual issue, although it does on other issues like “thou shalt not murder”—

Yes, that’s the same.

—there you have to stick to what the Bible says.

Ah, so he’s a fundamentalist.

I mean, really. If this isn’t the single most pointless argument ever then I don’t know for a second what is. We have two people arguing essentially over whether an organisation founded on nonsense should stick dogmatically to that nonsense, or embrace the simple and obvious reality that everyone else managed to grasp decades ago. They’re literally arguing about whether or not a mythical being has overcome his rampant homophobia — and it’s all pure speculation, because he has, like all imaginary entities, remained very very quiet ever since people started writing down the things that happen. So it boils down to “how bigoted do we want to be?” That or “God thinks that…” is really just another way of saying “I think, but can’t justify, that…”.

The Church of England gets to put 26 people in the House of Lords, and this is the level of pettiness that might tear it asunder? That the absurdity of this whole set-up isn’t a huge issue to most people is strange to me.