From midnight tonight, I will not be using Facebook for 24 hours (for the duration of Saturday, 1st December). More importantly, I will be setting my “status update” to explain that my 24-hour boycott is due to the company’s tax dodging.

While only a relatively small number of people will join in the boycott, many more will hear about it through their friends’ status updates. If you join in, your friends will hear about the issue.

The action has been called by Church Action on Poverty. This is a great case of using Facebook to campaign against Facebook. You can read my article about it on the New Internationalist website. You can also read more about the campaign here.

I have today sent the following letter to Winston McKenzie, the UKIP candidate in the Croydon North by-election (due on Thursday):

Dear Winston,

I am writing in relation to a misleading statement you have made in the course of your campaign in the Croydon North by-election.

Amongst your tweets opposing same-sex marriage, you sent the following on 17 November:

“Why should churches be forced to go against their religion to marry same-sex couples? Other parties back it. VOTE UKIP + SAY NO GAY MARRIAGE”

The government’s proposal to give legal recognition to same-sex marriage includes an offer only of civil ceremonies, not religious ones. The Labour, Liberal Democrat and Green Parties have policies of allowing faith groups to host same-sex marriage ceremonies if they choose to do so. However, no party of which I am aware wishes to force religious groups to host same-sex marriage ceremonies if they do not believe in them.

I am aware that certain groups, of which UKIP is one, have argued that giving legal recognition to same-sex marriage will lead to churches being forced to host them. I have long pointed out there is no evidence for this and that almost nobody wants it. However, it is one thing to argue that this will happen. It is quite another to state – untruthfully – that other parties want it to happen.

Your tweet refers to churches being forced to marry same-sex couples and then states “Other parties back it”. This is not true. It is a lie.

Will you please withdraw this comment and acknowledge that you have misled the voters of Croydon North and the public generally?

Yours sincerely,

Symon Hill

A few days ago, I had the privilege of speaking about “Queer Christianity: The media and public perception” at King’s College, London. The audience were great. The questions and discussion were really interesting, encouraging and enjoyable. 

I spoke about the ways in which Jesus had challenged the gender and sexual conventions of his day. I encouraged an ethic that rejects both homophobia and individualism. The issues raised in questions ranged from the interpretation of particular Bible passages to same-sex marriage, polyamory and women bishops.

I was delighted with the diversity of views in the audience. The event was organised by the college’s LGBT Society. There were Christian, Jewish, Muslim and atheist audience members. Amongst the Christians were some who seemed largely to agree with me about sexuality, and others who didn’t. I don’t know if I’ve ever encountered such a diversity of religious and sexual attitudes among a small audience (there were about twenty-five people).

In particular, I was moved and encouraged by the comments of non-Christians who said they were pleased to have encountered a different image of Christianity to the ones they were used to. Several people said they had not previously seen Jesus presented in this way.

I was deeply encouraged by these sort of comments. Quite a lot of people who attend my talks or respond to my articles seem to be LGBT people who are not Christian but are pleased to encounter a form of Christianity that is not homophobic, that is positive about sexuality and that is firmly opposed to sexual abuse. Of course, there are many, many other Christians besides me who take such an approach.

I have no interest in “converting” people to Christianity, if that simply means persuading someone to give themselves a label and join a club. But when people respond positively to Jesus, I am encouraged and delighted.

When I began spending lots of time writing and campaigning on sexual issues, I had expected to be mainly talking with Christians about sexuality. That is happening, of course. But also (to put it crudely), I seem to spend lots of time talking with queers about Jesus. That’s something I had not expected. God works in mysterious ways.

When I was studying theology in the late 1990s, my fellow students included a clique of upper middle class conservative Anglo-Catholics. A major concern for them was their opposition to the ordination of women and their desire to reverse the Church of England’s decision to allow women priests.

On several occasions when I talked with them in the college bar, it was clear that for many of them, opposition to women priests was a natural extension of their general attitude towards women. I recall one occasion when a woman was appointed to be vicar of a nearby church. Several of these individuals were very disappointed; they admired the church’s architecture and were particularly envious of the attached vicarage. They commented that it was “too good for a girlie”. Indeed, the phrase “too good for a girlie” seemed to be one of their favourite expressions.

In public, they insisted “we’re not being sexist” and talked about the apostolic succession.

Several of these men are now Anglican priests. It was them, and people like them, who supporters of equality have spent years trying to appease. Ahead of yesterday’s vote on women bishops, these people were offered alternative pastoral care and episcopal oversight. Yesterday, they spat in the faces of those who sought to accommodate them.

Proposals to allow women bishops in the Church of England were thrown out by General Synod, even though 74% of Synod voted in favour. This is a much higher percentage than the proportion of the UK population that voted for either party in the current government coalition. But the Synod’s system requires a two-thirds majority in each of three “houses” – bishops, clergy and laity. In the House of Laity, only 64% voted in favour.

This issue is not, really, about bishops. It is about the nature of the Christian Church. Do we follow Jesus’ example of challenging gender norms and the early Christian belief that “there is no longer male and female for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3,28)? Or do we resort to sexism based on shoddy theology and an unholy alliance of conservative evangelicals and conservative Anglo-Catholics? (And I hasten to add that there are many Anglo-Catholics and evangelicals who passionately support women bishops).

As I expressed my own sadness and anger on Twitter yesterday evening, I wrote that the vote is another reminder that the future of Christianity lies in grassroots movements, not in denominational institutions. As the comment was retweeted, some replied that the “grassroots” had rejected women bishops, pointing out that it was the House of Laity who had voted against the proposal. I understand their point, but I did not mean to equate “grassroots” with “laity”. There are a number of lay Anglicans in senior positions who are firmly wedded to the social, political and economic establishment. And there are priests who work with people on the margins of society, seeking God’s guidance in prayer and in the community of others, who are not too concerned about institutional identity.

The distinction between grassroots movements and hierarchical institutions is about ways of doing things, not simply about types of people or who has which role within which organisation. Grassroots movements are more fluid, more adaptable, more messy, harder to define. It is not always clear who is in and who is out. Institutions by contrast tend to be hierarchical, or at least have rigid structures, with clearly defined membership. They often operate, at least in part, as if they exist for the purpose of maintaining themselves. My Ekklesia colleague Jonathan Bartley has explored this distinction in more detail in his book Faith and Politics After Christendom.

Of course, messiness of movements extends to their definition. The precise distinction between movements and institutions is not always clear. I accept that many institutions have positive features and make a good contribution to the world. Also, movements have their own faults and, indeed, often turn into institutions.

Nonetheless, history suggests that progressive change in society, politics and religion happens from the ground up, led by movements rather than institutions. I believe that nearly all Christian denominations in Britain contribute positively to society in a number of ways. But they are all institutions. As such, they all – at least occasionally – become more concerned with their own existence and identity than with living out the Gospel. As such, they sometimes allow their most reactionary members to restrain the rest of the ogansiation, for the sake of “unity”. I should make clear that I think this applies to those denominations that are supposedly less hierarchical, such as Quakers and Baptists, as well as to the Church of England and Roman Catholics.

At this point, I must express my thanks to Benny Hazlehurst, an evangelical Church of England priest and a founder of Accepting Evangelicals. Benny reminded me at a crucial moment that Jesus seemed to have little interest in the maintenance of religious institutions, appearing to be more concerned with those outside them. In this spirit, those Christians who reject sexism and homophobia can get on with campaigning for justice in society and demonstrating it in their own churches, not divert energy by trying to accommodate opponents of equality.

I respect the fact that some Christians genuinely believe that they can oppose the ordination of women without regarding women as inferior. In a similar way, some believe they can oppose same-sex relationships without being homophobic. I believe that such people are sorely misguided, but they have integrity. Behind them, however, are people of the sort I remember from Oxford, who are without a doubt sexist and homophobic. For such people, twisted theology and shoddy biblical interpretation are little more than a smokescreen for prejudice.

If any good things come out of this appalling moment at General Synod, perhaps one of them will be the realisation that the appeasement of sexists and homophobes is impractical as well as immoral.

Yes, we should respect those who disagree with us. Yes, we should accept we may be wrong. Yes, we should seek dialogue with those who genuinely want to struggle with the issues together. Yes, we should respect the fact that not everyone with a “conservative” position is motivated by prejudice. This does not mean that we can reach unity with people who have a fundamentally contrary understanding of the Gospel. Let’s not allow the enemies of equality to build up the barriers that Jesus tore down. The Christian Church is not “too good for a girlie”.

———-

The above article appeared as my latest column on the website of the Ekklesia thinktank.

Like millions of other people, I’m praying for Justin Welby as he prepares to take up his new job at Canterbury. I wish him all the best. As the media go over every detail of his life and beliefs, there is a danger that we put our trust in a new archbishop to save the Church. This would be a problem whoever had got the job. 

In the Church as in politics, real change comes from below and not from above. The Church of England and other churches began ordaining women a long time after Christians at the grassroots began inviting women to preach. Church leaders spoke meaningfully of unity between denominations some time after local churches had started to work together on the ground. Christian leaders in late eighteenth century backed the struggle against slavery decades after individual Christians had become involved in grassroots campaigns on the issue.

In the same way, I hope that the many Christians who thank God for loving, committed relationships – regardless of gender – will celebrate same-sex relationships without waiting for approval from church leaders. 

Nonetheless, I hope Justin Welby will go at least some way towards supporting those Christians who would like to see British churches taking a more radically progressive stance. Admittedly, this seems more likely in some areas than others. 

He could make a big impact by rejecting the obsession with church “growth” and showing he is more concerned with living out the gospel by following Jesus’ example of siding with the poor. Having made encouraging criticism of the banking system, he could take a firm stance against the government’s vicious cuts agenda and even go so far as to back alternatives to capitalism. While I’m disappointed that he is opposed to same-sex marriages, I hope he will reject the approach of certain other church leaders who are scaremongering about churches being forced to host them – something for which nobody is calling.

I’m keeping an open mind about the chances of each of these things happening. Whatever happens, many Christians will continue to campaign for peace, economic justice and equality. I hope Justin Welby will be among them. 

Every time that I think I can no longer be surprised by the behaviour of church institutions, I am proved wrong. Like many other Christians who campaign against cuts and war, I often find myself in conflict with church authorities as well as corporations and governments. I’ve been dragged from the steps of a church while praying, misled by the authorities of St Paul’s Cathedral, struggled with outright lies from homophobic Christian lobby groups and spent enough time looking into various denomination’s investments to leave me (or so I thought) with no illusions about the practices that they can sometimes engage in.

But even I was shocked to learn that on Thursday, a conference for arms dealers will take place in Church House, the Church of England’s administrative headquarters.

Since the story broke, church authorities have come up with frankly feeble excuses for hosting this event. First, they insisted that the conference centre was a separate entity from Church House. I have made some effort to look into this claim. The distinction is a legal technicality. The conference centre is a wholly owned subsidiary company of the Church House Corporation, whose president is the Archbishop of Canterbury.

The church authorities now seem to be relying on the rather obtuse argument that the booking had been made by the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), an “independent thinktank”. The CofE’s head of communications told me Church House would “probably” not have accepted a booking made directly by an arms dealer. However, “independent” does not mean “impartial”. Thinktanks have their own views and positions (including Ekklesia, who I work for). RUSI lobbies in favour of the arms trade and high military spending.

Church House are relying on a distinction between a booking made by an arms company and one made by a pro-arms lobby group to host a gathering of arms companies. This distinction is at best naive and at worst misleading.

The conference’s sponsors include some of the world’s largest multinational arms companies, such as BAE Systems, Raytheon and Finmeccanica, all of whom arm some of the world’s most vicious and repressive regimes, including several that have turned weapons on their own people. Many people now recognise that the arms trade is not a legitimate business. As arms firms move jobs out of Britain, the government could create far more skilled jobs in renewable industry if arms industry subsidies were reinvested. The National Gallery recently broke off a sponsorship deal with Finmeccanica in response to protests by artists and customers. So why is the National Gallery showing more moral leadership than the Church of England?

In recent decades, Christianity in Britain has moved from the centre of power and culture to being one option among many in a multifaith society. This is a welcome opportunity to turn away from Christianity’s collusion with wealth and power and look again at the radical life and teachings of Jesus. Many Christians – including several church leaders – are speaking out against the arms trade, Trident, homophobia and government cuts. Some of them will be praying outside the arms conference at Church House on Thursday. Sadly, other Christians cling on desperately to an ultra-conservative agenda, promoting homophobia and attacking Islam while overlooking the sins of economic injustice and environmental destruction.

Others simply carry on as before, ignoring the change and chaos around them and operating more like businesses or government departments than the followers of a radical messiah. A senior official at the Church of England told me that if an anti-arms group made a booking, Church House would host them as readily as it has hosted the arms conference. I think this was supposed to be an argument in their favour. It implies that they will host both sides, that they are neutral.

Jesus advocated love for all people, including enemies. But he did not teach his followers to be neutral. There can be no neutrality in the face of injustice. If I saw someone being killed and I did nothing, I would not be neutral, I would be siding with the killer. The government is cutting services for the poorest people in society while promoting the arms trade and ploughing billions into nuclear weapons. Churches have no business being neutral.

——–

This article appeared earlier today as my latest column on the Ekklesia website. Please see http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/news/columns/hill. 

There will be an act of prayer and witness outside the Church House arms conference, from 7.45am on Thursday 1st November. It will bring together concerned Christians of many backgrounds. It has been backed by the Campaign Against Arms Trade, Christianity Uncut, Pax Christi and Christian CND. For details and to join in, please click here for more details, or to join in.