Author Archives: symonhill

Wallace Benn withdraws endorsement of pro-rape booklet

Posted on by symonhill

Wallace Benn, the Church of England’s Bishop of Lewes, has today withdrawn his endorsement of a booklet by the fundamentalist campaigner Stephen Green. He issued a statement after several bloggers drew attention to his endorsement yesterday.

The booklet, Britain in Sin, advocates the legalisation of rape within marriage and the criminalisation of sexual relations between people of the same sex.

As I pointed out in my blog yesterday, Green’s revamped website includes an endorsement from Benn, in which the bishop says, “This makes interesting and disturbing reading”. The booklet opposes the welfare state, a legal right for equal pay for men and women, the UK’s membership of the United Nations and power-sharing in Northern Ireland.

Today, I received a message from Wallace Benn’s office in which he made the following statement:

“Having now read the contents of this booklet in full I want to completely and absolutely dissociate myself from it.”

Benn’s statement implies that he endorsed the booklet without reading it all. It remains unclear which part of it he thought worthy of endorsement, but I’m still willing to give him credit for the rapid withdrawal of his remarks. I have asked his communications officer if he has asked Stephen Green to remove the endorsement from his website.

However, I find it sad that the bishop’s statement does not include any expression of apology, or of regret for any upset or offence he may have caused.

CofE bishop endorses booklet that promotes marital rape

Posted on by symonhill

A Church of England bishop has recommended a booklet that supports the legalisation of rape within marriage and the criminalisation of same-sex relationships.

The booklet, by Stephen Green of Christian Voice, is called Britain in Sin. While it was written a few years back, Green’s revamped website now includes an endorsement of it by Wallace Benn, the Suffragen Bishop of Lewes.

It is sad but not surprising that Green’s band of fundamentalists should support policies of this sort. What is more alarming is that Benn should endorse them.

Britain in Sin argues that the UK has declined spiritually, morally and socially due to the abandonment of Christianity since the mid-twentieth century. In the booklet,Green lists government decisions which he regards as contrary to the Ten Commandments, beginning with the UK’s membership of the United Nations in 1945.

The booklet opposes a legal right to equal pay for men and women, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and power-sharing in Northern Ireland. Green supports the death penalty and advocates an extremely right-wing approach to economics, with heavy cuts to the welfare state and the abolition of all inheritance tax. It implies that adultery should be a criminal offence.

A section of the Christian Voice website is devoted to Britain in Sin. It includes the following quote from Wallace Benn:

“This makes interesting and disturbing reading. We desperately need to understand, as a nation, that our Creator knows what is best for us, and to return to His way as the best way to live.”

There are also endorsements from Paul C. Weaver, the General Superintendent of the Assemblies of God (who calls it “a helpful and challenging resource”) and Barry Ashbourne, a hereditary peer, former army officer and stockbroker (“the list of unrighteous laws passed during the last fifty years is particularly helpful”).

They are joined by John Graham, chair of Protestants Today (“this well-produced and scholarly publication”) and Ray Borlase of Intercessors for Britain (“a valuable resource”).

It is of course possible to endorse a book without agreeing with every point made in it. But this booklet’s overall approach of vicious misogyny is morally repugnant. Its views on the legality of marital rape, same-sex relationships and unequal pay are entirely consistent with its other points, even if the latter seem slightly less extreme. Furthermore, none of those endorsing it appear to have gone out of their way to specify the points with which they agree or disagree.

Benn is a prominent voice among conservative evangelicals and on some issues may well be more conservative than any other Church of England bishop. It is no surprise that he argues that same-sex relationships are unethical. I fully respect his right to make this argument, however strongly I disagree with it. But it is one thing to believe that something is unethical, quite another to argue that it should be illegal. I am sometimes accused of being unduly critical of Church of England bishops. But even I thought that we were past the point at which a bishop might defend the “right” of a man to force himself on his wife.

To be fair to Wallace Benn, it is possible that he never made this comment and that Stephen Green is misleading us. In which case, Benn should say so and demand that Green remove the comment from his website instantly. To be charitable to Benn, it is possible that he did not read the booklet before endorsing it, or that he made the comment some time ago and has now changed his mind. If this is the case, Benn needs to publicly and clearly withdraw his endorsement.

At the very least, we are entitled to clear statements from Wallace Benn about his views on rape law, rape within marriage, equal pay legislation, the legality of same-sex relationships and the welfare state. Benn risks losing all claim to be taken seriously, particularly on questions of gender and sexual ethics, if he does not disassociate himself from this booklet very quickly.

Ring of Prayer to resist eviction of Occupy LSX

Posted on by symonhill

A court is expected to rule next week on the City of London’s request for an eviction of the ‘Occupy’ camp near St Paul’s Cathedral. Christianity Uncut have now formally declared their intention to organise a ring of prayer at the camp if eviction goes ahead. The news has been welcomed by Ekklesia.

If you want to join the ring of prayer, you can declare your intention to do so by signing a pledge of support at http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/ring-of-prayer-at-eviction-of-ocupy-lsx.html. People of all faiths are welcome.

Christians have been discussing the possibility of forming a ring of prayer to resist eviction for some time. I think the idea first came up on Twitter. As a member of Christianity Uncut – an informal network of Christians campaigning against the UK government’s cuts agenda – I’m pleased to be helping to publicise the idea.

The camp outside St Paul’s Cathedral began because the occupiers could not get closer to the London Stock Exchange. I wish they had been able to do so. The cathedral’s distinctly mixed attitude has made a headline issue out of the relationship between Christianity and radical politics.

As a result, the public have seen a variety of different Christian attitudes. Most of them can be broadly grouped into two categories. There are those approaches that want to see the Church preserving order, continuing with its routine and seeking to gently challenge injustice from within the establishment. Then there are those that wish to see the Church taking the side of the oppressed, speaking out more loudly about the sins of financial exploitation than about the inconvenience of a campsite.

Of course, I am simplifying the issue. There is a wide diversity of views within both these groups. And I do not wish to suggest that those of us who are supportive of Occupy have got it all right. We all have a lot to learn from each other. Nonetheless, there is a conflict between two different starting-points for Christianity.

The ring of prayer is an opportunity to witness to a Gospel that confronts us with uncomfortable truths. It is a chance to acknowledge our own complicity in a sinful economic system and our own responsibility for working against it. The ring of prayer will be a testimony to the power of love manifested in active nonviolence – a power stranger, subtler but ultimately stronger than the power of money, markets and military might.

Stonewall forget their radical roots (again)

Posted on by symonhill

Is there no limit to the number of exploitative and violent institutions that Stonewall is prepared to endorse? Having already made awards to the likes of Goldman Sachs and the Royal Navy, Stonewall yesterday gave prizes to Ernst & Young, Barclay’s and MI5 for their supposedly gay-friendly employment practices.

Stonewall describe themselves as “the lesbian, gay and bisexual charity” (although many bisexual people dispute the description, arguing that Stonewall’s overwhelming concern is with gay and lesbian people). I have no doubt that Stonewall genuinely do a lot of good work. They have played an important part in raising equality issues in the media and in Parliament, tackling homophobic bullying and working for changes in the law.

Sadly, however, their campaigns are hampered by their failure to link their struggle with other issues of equality and justice. Not only are they rather cosy with elements of the establishment, but by giving awards based on absurdly narrow criteria they imply that there is no link between working for LGB people’s rights and promoting equality and justice in other areas. Their awards condone and celebrate some of the most unethical organisations in the country.

It is, of course, a good thing for an organisation to treat LGB people the same as straight people in recruitment and employment. But Stonewall’s awards seem to take no account of whether an organisation is a good employer in other ways. It seems it’s OK for them to treat their staff appallingly, as long as they mistreat their straight staff as well as their LGB staff. The Royal Navy, like the other armed forces, is exempted by law from a great deal of employment legislation. Its employees may not join trades unions or leave after a reasonable notice period. Giving them an award for employment practices is as absurd as it is offensive.

Stonewall also seem unwilling to take account of the purpose and practices of the organisations they reward. Ernst & Young’s promotion of tax avoidance helps wealthy individuals and corporations to steal millions from the rest of us at a time when this money is desperately needed. Barclay’s perpetuate a banking system that ensures an unjust distribution of the world’s resources and helps to keep power in the hands of the rich.

The core purpose of the armed forces is to engage in acts of violence. Not all their members are directly violent, and many of them are decent, compassionate people when in other contexts. But we should not be naïve or ignore the reality. MI5 is an extension of the violent, hierarchical and secretive practices of militarism.

In strugglnig aganist homophobia, I suggest that it is important to recognise that heteronormativity has been used by capitalism – either consciously or unconsciously – as a means of control. It has been linked to very narrow understandings of “family” that encourage people to be loyal to their own group of people, rather than compassionate towards the whole of humanity.

Of course, it is quite legitimate that there should be different views about war and economics within movements for queer freedom. I do not expect everyone to agree with me. Ethical considerations are, by their nature, very complex and very messy. Nonetheless, it is is reasonable to expect that a group of people campaigning for equality in one area should consider equality in other areas. Stonewall have this week undermined their own message by deliberately ignoring this principle.

Why I’m helping to block a road

Posted on by symonhill

Tomorrow (Monday 9 January), I will join in nonviolent direct action by blocking a central London road in protest against reckless driving and the policies of central and local government. This is why.

On two days each week, I work in a building on the Euston Road in London. Leaving the building at rush hour, I attempt to cross the road to reach Euston station and use the tube. I say “attempt” because this is a far from straightforward procedure.

There are traffic lights, but they make little difference to the movement of vehicles along the road. The cars are usually going very slowly, and when the lights turn to green for pedestrians – and red for traffic – a good many drivers choose to park across the area designated for pedestrians to cross. Getting to the other side of the road can be a perilous matter of squeezing between half-moving cars.

And that’s for me. I walk fairly quickly. For people who walk slowly, or with assistance or not at all, it must be much, much harder. My partner uses a wheelchair, as do several of my friends, and I am well aware that they would not be able to get through many of the spaces through which I squeeze on my mission to get from one side of the road to the other.

Of course, not all London drivers are inconsiderate. Some stay behind the line at traffic lights and are attentive to the needs of others. I really appreciate them.

That should not stop us asking why the authorities are so relaxed when it comes to reckless drivers in the city centre. Spend a few hours in the city and you are likely to find yourself wondering why so many people can get away with driving over zebra crossings when there are pedestrians present, overtaking other drivers when it’s unsafe to do so and treating cyclists and pedestrians with contempt.

The real mystery is why there are so many cars in central London at all. I moved to London in 2005, and I’m told that the number of cars was even higher before the introduction of the congestion charge. Of course, there are some people who do need to drive in central London. People with mobility impairments are particularly likely to need to do so, given the appalling inaccessibility of most of the London Underground. There are those transporting things that would be difficult to carry by public transport, and there are people who may feel nervous about travelling by bus or tube late at night. I am prepared to admit that there may be other good reasons which have not occurred to me.

Nonetheless, the reality is that the majority of people in central London have no need to drive. Much of the time, they are likely to reach their destination at least as quickly on the tube. This glut of pointless driving not only harms the environment but makes life harder for pedestrians and cyclists. It slows down people travelling by bus, as well as those who have a good reason for driving. The inconsiderate behaviour of many (but not all) drivers comes on top of this already scandalous situation.

Despite this, those who defend the interests of the motoring industry have a lot on their side: the government, the opposition, Transport for London and the right-wing newspapers. A recent plan by Westminster Council to introduce new parking charges triggered a reaction laughably out of proportion to reality, with the Evening Standard comparing it to the Poll Tax. Westminster Council’s earlier (and now thankfully defeated) plan to criminalise rough sleeping received relatively little coverage by comparison.

Tory MP Philip Hammond, appointed Transport Secretary in Cameron’s first cabinet, said he was going to end the “war on motorists”. There is no war on motorists. It would be more accurate to say that the “cars above all” lobby are waging a war on pedestrians, a war on cyclists, a war on public transport users and a war on disability rights. Hammond has now become Defence Secretary, an alarming development given his tendency to believe that non-existent wars are being waged against him.

It is possible to challenge the power of the motoring lobby, and the oil industry which benefits from it, without attacking motorists themselves. Vast swathes of rural Britain have no meaningful public transport at all. In much of the UK, people have little choice but to drive cars, given the appalling state of public transport. To suggest that these people should have the opportunity to use a bus or a train is to wage a war in favour ofthem, not against them.

The situation is different in London, where the majority of people have no need to drive. From 6.00pm tomorrow Monday (9 January) I will join other pedestrians, cyclists and disability equality activists in taking nonviolent direct action outside King’s Cross station (where York Way meets Pentonville Road and Euston Road). With the authorities unwilling to control the traffic, we will take measures to control it ourselves. The action is supported by Bikes Alive, Transport for All and the Green candidate for Mayor of London, Jenny Jones. Ethical drivers can support this action as much as cyclists and pedestrians. This is a struggle for dignity and equality.

Occupying Royal Holloway

Posted on by symonhill

This evening I have had the privilege of speaking with students at Royal Holloway College in the University of London. They today began an occupation of their college, camping outside the Principal’s office and calling on him to oppose the government’s agenda for higher education.

I gave two talks at the college. The first, which was planned weeks ago, was a talk about my walk of repentance for homophobia. I’d been invited by the Students’ Union, Chaplaincy and Catholic Society. It was great to have an engaged and diverse audience, with interesting and challenging questions from (among others) a Muslim and at least two Catholics and members of the college’s LGBT Society.

The second talk was much more spontaneous. Some of the students involved in the occupation, which began this afternoon, asked me to go and speak to them. I was honoured. I wasn’t sure what they wanted me to say, but as they gathered round in the corridor, I spoke about my delight at the outbreak of active nonviolence over the last year. I encouraged them to resist the lies and misconceptions that would be spread about them and shared some thoughts and experience. As with the people at the first talk, I also had much to learn from the questions and comments with which they responded.

I was inspired by the enthusiasm, sense and detailed commitment of these people.

Students listened to each other, including on occasions when they did not agree. They seemed to be working well together to organise things effectively. They have allocated one room (the Principal’s Meeting Room) as a quiet study area, where students who have essays to write or research to do can go and work in silence. There was a steady stream of people with books and laptops going in and out. There seems to be a careful allocation of space. There was a quieter area dedicated for sleeping. Bins are divided for paper recycling, plastic recycling and general rubbish.

The diversity of students present was a challenge to the assumption that student activists are a small minority of eccentrics who get no real interest from the main student body. There appeared to be a gender and racial balance and the diversity of clothing did not live up to stereotypes of activist hippies.

The two talks I gave this evening were about different subjects, but the links between them are becoming ever clearer to me. Sexual ethics and economic ethics are closely linked. Tackling homophobia and resisting economic injustice are both part of a wider struggle to challenge a world in which people are encouraged to relate to each other on the basis of power, prejudice, money or convention. As a Christian, I believe we are called to relationships – whether personal or political – based on love, justice and mutuality. This is a challenge to both legalism and selfishness.

I am often accused of being too optimistic, particularly about politics. But I find it hard to imagine my reaction if someone had told me after last year’s general election that there would be an outbreak of active nonviolence in the coming year and a half. If they had told me that people would peacefully occupy the shops of tax-dodging corporations, that student activists would occupy universities across the UK in protest at tuition fees and that there would be a global movement of nonviolent occupations targeting financial centres, I would probably have laughed in their face.

In some ways, there are many reasons to be pessimistic about the future. Economies are in crisis across Europe. The UK government is responding with a vicious assault on public services and the welfare state.

But as I sat in that corridor at Royal Holloway tonight, I was reminded that there is another way. That the government’s assault on the working class and lower middle class is being met with resistance. That people from Cairo to Wall Street have inspired the world to stand up to injustice. That the power of money and markets will never understand or suppress the power of love manifested in active nonviolence.

No longer can radical campaigns be dismissed as the preserve of eccentric minorities. The breadth of support for Occupy Royal Holloway was very clear. While I was there, the Roman Catholic Chaplain spoke and offered his solidarity. For me, one of the most encouraging comments came from a security guard, as he wandered over to listen to the discussions. He told us he was glad to be working the evening shift because “I wouldn’t have missed this for the world”.

Speaking about my walk of repentance

Posted on by symonhill

Since July, when I finished my pilgrimage of repentance for homophobia, I’ve been a bit taken aback by the number of requests I’ve received to give talks about it. I’m really chuffed that so many people are interested!  

In the talks I’ve given so far, I’ve been both encouraged and challenged by the questions and conversation. I hope that the other people there have got as much out of the events as I have. Many thanks to the people who have organised the events I’ve spoken at so far – at Courage UK, the Greenbelt festival, the Student Christian Movement, Southampton University, St Mark’s Church, Sheffield and City United Reformed Church, Cardiff.

Please click here to see a new page giving details of that I’m giving as well as other events I’m involved in.  

Over the next few days, I’ll be discussing my walk on three occasions: 

Firstly, at 6.00pm on Wednesday (30 November) at Royal Holloway, University of London (just west of London). See http://www.su.rhul.ac.uk/news/article/6001/337/ or visit the Facebook event. 

Secondly, at 7.30pm on Thursday (1 December) at the Chaplaincy at Warwick University (in Coventry). See http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/sunion/christianfocus/termcard/?calendarItem=094d43923295cfef0132b0a321366148.

Thirdly, as part of my sermon at All Hallows Church, Leeds at 10.30am on Sunday (4 December). See http://www.allhallowsleeds.org.uk/.  

I’m very much looking forward to them all! If you would like to know more, please feel free to email me at symonhill@gmail.com.

How the Guardian made me gay

Posted on by symonhill

I’m used to reading inaccurate things about myself on the internet, but I had a surprise last week when reading an inaccurate description of myself in an article which I had written.

It was a piece for the Guardian website about the controversy over Benetton’s use of an image of the Pope. One line of the article (as it originally appeared) began, “As a gay Christian…”.

I’m not gay. I describe myself as queer. If you want to fit me into one of three narrow categories (and I’d rather you didn’t), then I could be described as bisexual (the majority of people I find attractive are female, but some are male).

Of course, there are various places on the internet in which I’m described as gay. On the whole, this doesn’t offend me. It’s just an inaccuracy, in the same way as if they said I was Scottish, left-handed or six foot tall. When I am offended is when people who know I’m not straight assume that I’m gay, as if there were only two possible sexual orientations.

On this occasion, I had written in the article (as it read when I submitted it to the Guardian), “As a queer Christian…”. I suspect the Guardian style guidelines regard the word “queer” as offensive, and so it was changed. Unfortunately, they assumed that “queer” meant “gay” and so substituted the word without asking me.

I’m aware that sub-editors have to read and edit a vast amount of material, often in a short space of time. I don’t object to my work being edited and I recognise that mistakes will sometimes be made. The Guardian changed the wording back to “queer” when I asked, and put a note at the bottom clarifying the issue. They sent me an email to apologise.

I understand that many people are still offended by the word “queer”, which has often been used as a term of abuse. I think it’s different when it is a matter of self-definition. Furthermore, “queer” is not a synonym for “gay” – or even for “gay or bisexual”. It can include, for example, people who are genderqueer (who consider that they don’t fit into binary categories of male and female) as well as others who challenge the boundaries commonly used to categorise sexuality or gender.

For convenience and ease of communication, I am happy to call myself “bisexual”, but when I do so, I feel I am going along with narrow categories. When I call myself “queer”, I am breaking free of them.

An open letter to Christian Concern

Posted on by symonhill

I have today written to Christian Concern, a lobby group opposed to same-sex marriage. I decided to do so in response to claims they have made regarding a change in the law announced this week.

The government has announced that the ban on civil partnerships taking place in religious premises will be lifted on 5 December. This is good news for those of us who campaigned for and supported this change, and it’s been a long time coming. The change was approved by Parliament in the Equality Act, passed in April 2010. It’s taken the coalition government this long to implement it.

The change does not go far enough. This is not same-sex marriage. It still does not provide all people with equality before the law, regardless of their gender, sexuality, religious or non-religious views.

The Equality Bill, rightly, makes very clear that no church or other faith group should be obliged to host same-sex partnerships if they do not believe in them. Despite this, Christian Concern claimed in a press release on Wednesday that ”It is almost certain that homosexual campaigners will commence litigation against churches that refuse”.

I have sent the following email to Andrea Williams, chief executive of Christian Concern.

 

Dear Andrea and colleagues,

Thank you for your press release giving Christian Concern’s views on the change in the law with regard to civil partnerships on religious premises.

You’re probably aware that this is a subject on which we disagree, although I of course respect your right to a different view, as well as your right to put out statements expressing your own views. I think this is important for free speech and religious liberty.

Please can you explain the following sentence in your press release? ”It is almost certain that homosexual campaigners will commence litigation against churches that refuse”.  This claim appears early on in your press release and was quoted in today’s Church Times. 

Please can you let me know of any campaign groups, or individual campaigners, of whom you are aware, who are planning to take such action, or have discussed the possibility of doing so? 

When campaigning for a change in the law, I strongly emphasised my conviction that no church or other faith group should be required to carry out ceremonies in which they do not believe. As far as I’m aware, this is the position of every religious group that has campaigned for this change. In terms of non-religious campaigners, I know that Peter Tatchell is against any attempt to force churches to host civil partnerships or carry out same-sex weddings. I am aware that Ben Summerskill of Stonewall made a vague comment along the lines of “this may change”, with regard to the right of faith groups not to host same-sex ceremonies. But this is not Stonewall policy and I am not aware of him having taken the idea further. This is very different to anyone planning to “commence litigation”.

Your release asserts that litigation is not merely possible or even likely, but “almost certain”. Such a claim cannot realistically be sustained unless you are aware of a campaign group or campaigner seriously considering legal action. If you can provide me with the name or names of such a group or campaigner, then I will readily admit that  the statement is not necessarily inaccurate. If you cannot do so, I hope you will recognise that it is misleading, and therefore apologise and withdraw the claim.

I look forward to hearing from you. 

Shalom,

Symon 

Christian solidarity with Occupy London

Posted on by symonhill

A number of groups have now signed a statement of Christian solidarity with the Occupy London movement. I’m delighted to say that the statement has been welcomed by both Christians and non-Christians involved in the occupations near the London Stock Exchange.

Signatories so far are Ekklesia, Christianity Uncut and the London Catholic Worker, although we’re confident that others will join in soon. The statement has been welcomed on the Occupy London website.

The statement can be read below.

 

Christian solidarity with the ‘Occupy London’ movement 

As Christians, we stand alongside people of all religions and none who are resisting economic injustice with active nonviolence. We offer our greetings to people engaged in occupations of financial centres throughout the world.

We seek to witness to the love and justice of God, proclaimed by Jesus Christ. Jesus said that he had come to “set free the oppressed”. His gospel is good news for all people. It is a challenge to all structures, systems, practices and attitudes that lead people to exploit and oppress their fellow human beings.

The global economic system divides people one from another and separates humanity from creation. It perpetuates the wealth of the few at the expense of the many. It fuels violence and environmental destruction. It is based on idolatrous subservience to markets. We cannot worship both God and money.

We are inspired by Jesus, who protested against exploitative traders and moneychangers in the Jerusalem Temple. Christianity began as a grassroots protest movement. Nonviolent direct action can play an important and ethical role in resisting injustice and achieving change.

We stand in solidarity with the ‘Occupy London’ movement and regret that they have not been able to make their protest closer to the London Stock Exchange. We applaud their commitment to co-operating with St Paul’s Cathedral and to ensuring that their camp is safe for everyone in the vicinity. We were pleased by the cathedral’s initial welcome to the camp and hope that difficulties between the occupiers and the cathedral can be speedily resolved, keeping the focus on the need to challenge the financial injustices perpetuated by the City of London.