Anti-Gay Bishop appointed to School of Divinity

[Haunted]

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2010/06/28/ap ... g-boycott/

"Dr Tom Wright, the Bishop of Durham, who has spoke out against the appointment of gay clergy and same-sex unions, has been appointed to a top academic post at the School of Divinity at St Andrews University, Scotland's most distinguished and ancient academic institution.

But the openly gay Right Reverend Kevin Holdsworth, a senior Episcopal clergyman at St Mary's in Glasgow and a graduate of St Andrews, has ceased giving financial support to his alma mater and has urged others to follow his example.

He said he felt "ashamed" of the university, writing on his weblog, "It is hard to think of a more divisive figure to appoint. I don't think it is to the credit of a modern university to appoint staff with such ghastly anti-gay views.""

[DACrowe]

Peculiar, slightly upsetting and oddly discordant with Louise Richardson's other, some might say aggressively progressive stances.

Does anyone who, for example, knows something about theology know much about his merits as a researcher? It might well be the case that he's just a superlatively excellent scholar and, as it happens, he also holds some very retrogressive views. At the risk of courting controversy as an apologist I'm tempted to say that it's the merits of someone as a researcher, scholar and teacher the University should be concerned with principally rather than a moral evaluation of their various political stances.

[rham]

Shock horror!
Committed christian holds anti gay view.
Who'd have thought it!
Next someone will tell me bears don't have all mod cons in the woods.

Prejudice against gay people (if we define opposition to same sex unions as prejudice) is largely part of the territory as far as organised religion. The Roman Catholic and Muslim faiths are as a doctrinal position anti-homosexual.

Don't get me wrong, I am anti-religion not anti-gay, but I don't like the idea that we could impose a belief test on people before they get a job. This seems to me the edge (not even a thin one) of a very nasty wedge. They came for X, I was silent etc etc.

If we were to oppose the bishop and not give him a job on these grounds, would you be prepared to stop anyone who is muslim, roman catholic and evangelical holding a post here too? As a working assumption they won't support same sex marriage.

If you are going to have committed religious people you have to accept they will come with "views". I prefer trying to persuade them to see a different one and to make sure they do not in their post harm students by in their University job acting on prejudice (marking down gay students in this case).

[ojk6]

Does anyone who, for example, knows something about theology know much about his merits as a researcher? It might well be the case that he's just a superlatively excellent scholar and, as it happens, he also holds some very retrogressive views. At the risk of courting controversy as an apologist I'm tempted to say that it's the merits of someone as a researcher, scholar and teacher the University should be concerned with principally rather than a moral evaluation of their various political stances.

Firstly, I would indeed describe him as "superlatively excellent" and his appointment at St Andrews has caused quite a stir (in a good way). Within hours of his appointment being announced I'd received a handful of emails from doctoral students at other uni's with words to the effect of "you lucky bastard"! My understanding is that the department is experiencing a higher number of postgrad applications as a result. Without doubt he is one of the preeminent New Testament scholars of our generation, his works would feature on any decent New Testament module covering Pauline studies, and - perhaps more remarkably - balances considerable academic acclaim with a high level of success at the 'popular' level: I suspect for many Christians he is something of a household name. That's not to say I agree with everything he's written, of course, and it is something of an in theological joke to cite him as NT Wrong (yes, theologians have a sense of humour).

Secondly, Kelvin Holdsworth has been single handedly stirring this up for quite some time (which is why it's taken over two-months to reach "Pink News", who I note couldn't even get Rev Holdsworth's name right). The deputy head of school wrote something in response, but I can't find at the moment (maybe it's been taken down). Most people I've heard are quite shocked that Kelvin could regard NT Wright's appointment as anything but good news for the University: NT Wright's statements on homosexuality are far from consistent and if one was to list prominent theologians in today's church that were "anti-gay", NT Wright would be a long way down the list. Indeed, whilst there are certainly some quotations from him that could be placed into the 'anti-gay' category, I think these have all been elicited from the Bishop in the context of internal Anglican debates about the ordination of practicing homosexual bishops - it has to be acknowledged that in such circumstances Bishops are primarily interested in holding together the Anglican Communion (and good luck to them as they rearrange the deckchairs on the titanic) and I don't think it is always fair to lift their statements out of their sitz-im-leben in that debate. NT Wright is emphatically not a proselyte for any form of anti-gay movement.

I do not have an exhaustive knowledge of his works, however, and I have not done any New Testament studies for quite some time: I stand ready to be corrected!

[RedCelt69]

At the risk of courting controversy as an apologist I'm tempted to say that it's the merits of someone as a researcher, scholar and teacher the University should be concerned with principally rather than a moral evaluation of their various political stances.

What if he had those views about black people? Is it OK to hold poor judgement wrt (only) some minorities?

Committed christian holds anti gay view.

his works would feature on any decent New Testament module covering Pauline studies

It would be great if Paulians would stop calling themselves Christians. Christians aren't anti-gay.

[rham]

It would be great if Paulians would stop calling themselves Christians. Christians aren't anti-gay.

How are you defining Christian and anti-gay?

CoE is split over same sex union with many clergy across the world strongly opposed. The Roman Catholic Church is strongly opposed, ditto Mormons, Baptist, Orthodox, Jehova's witness. Free Church. In fact beyond so called liberal episcopalian and some relatively small congregations, Christian churches are largely opposed to same sex unions being blessed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blessing_o ... n_churches
I think they are totally wrong and limit the rights of homosexual people (anti-gay) but then I am not religious, so I think they are wrong about many things.

I do marvel at your definition of Christian that apparently excludes the vast majority of the organised religions that are labelled Christian (did you get a special message from Jesus?). I agree many / some Christians are not anti-gay but as a statement of fact, the more "active" their belief the more likely they are to be in a majority which is anti-gay.

What if he had those views about black people? Is it OK to hold poor judgement wrt (only) some minorities?

Do you mean if he thought bible held black people were unable to marry? (I suspect you don't and are aiming for someone who believes a minority should enjoy less rights than another).

Uncomfortable as it is, provided mechanisms are in place to prevent people acting on prejudice I don't believe in forcing statement of views. The notable exception is where someone is actively advocating either in statements or by group membership, denying a group rights over which they exercise control. If our friend the Bishop said "Gay people should not be allowed to get a degree or Gay people write poorly thought out essays or Gay people are not as clever as straight people", I would say no job at Uni.

So you will say what if someone says black people are not clever enough to be doctors. Were that person in a position of influence over medical students my exclusion would apply.

If this is not enough for you (and I see where you come from), are you prepared to ban every academic who attends Mass and Mosque? In both cases they are condoning and supporting financially organisations which hold views about the rights of homosexuals and in some cases women that you (and I) would disagree with / oppose.

[RedCelt69]

I do marvel at your definition of Christian that apparently excludes the vast majority of the organised religions that are labelled Christian (did you get a special message from Jesus?).

Only the same message that everyone else got; from the bible. Jesus gave no messages concerning gays - indeed, pre-Paulian characters in the NT are falling over themselves in man-on-man love. Thus, a follower of Christ (which I think can reasonably be called a Christian) can't be anti-gay. Well, they can, but not on the basis of the teachings of their prophet.

The message of St Paul is different to that of Jesus. Followers of St Paul can find dubious (but not good) grounds for pre-existing gay-hatred to be reinforced.

Do you mean if he thought bible held black people were unable to marry? (I suspect you don't and are aiming for someone who believes a minority should enjoy less rights than another).

Personal views are one thing. Personal views which are vehemently shared with others are another thing entirely. Someone who does so can be described as having strong views on the matter... views which can well be carried-through into other areas of their life. I mean, they might not. But it shouldn't be so readily dismissed. A gay pupil who finds himself badly treated by the bishop (in a non-euphemistic way) would have reasonable grounds to issue a complaint. If there's no justification for such a complaint, it is still a potential difficulty for the university.

Personally, I don't care much. It's divinity. How people go about arguing over the colour of a unicorn's horn is their matter, entirely. There is, however, the question of whether some anti-minority views are more acceptable than other anti-minority views. There's nothing in the bible about the treatment of black people. There's plenty, however, about slavery. If a vehement supporter of slavery were appointed to the university, would people also shrug and say "well, so long as he's a good teacher"?

If this is not enough for you (and I see where you come from), are you prepared to ban every academic who attends Mass and Mosque?

No. Not all Catholics and Muslims are anti-gay. Of those that are, not all of them make sure everybody else knows that they are. Those that do... well, as I said above, it's a potential difficulty - and a matter of weighing up one prejudice as being better or worse than another prejudice.

[5HT]

Peculiar, slightly upsetting and oddly discordant with Louise Richardson's other, some might say aggressively progressive stances.

Does anyone who, for example, knows something about theology know much about his merits as a researcher? It might well be the case that he's just a superlatively excellent scholar and, as it happens, he also holds some very retrogressive views. At the risk of courting controversy as an apologist I'm tempted to say that it's the merits of someone as a researcher, scholar and teacher the University should be concerned with principally rather than a moral evaluation of their various political stances.

there is a distinction to be made here.. believing that gay people should not be appointed to certain roles within the curch is not necessarily to be anti-gay - it may be, but I don't think one automatically implies the other.

[jollytiddlywink]

It seems that a numpty with similar views has been appointed to the philosophy department. He wrote this:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/pers ... ldren.html
which, besides trotting out the usual bigotry-thinly-veiled-as-common-sense, is liberally sprinkled with unjustifiable assertions and blatant falsehoods.

[Archie]

It seems that a numpty with similar views has been appointed to the philosophy department. He wrote this:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/pers ... ldren.html
which, besides trotting out the usual bigotry-thinly-veiled-as-common-sense, is liberally sprinkled with unjustifiable assertions and blatant falsehoods.

God, what a complete twat he is.

This made me laugh

We are delighted to announce the appointment of Roger Scruton as quarter-time Professorial Fellow in Moral Philosophy. Professor Scruton will spend half a semester each year in St Andrews, teaching classes, advising research students, participating in the philosophical life of St Andrews - including our Centre for Ethics, Philosophy and Public Affairs - and engaging in public outreach.

Professor Scruton's first visit will be in Spring 2011, and we look forward to welcoming him them.

Some homophobic git is going to do well in public outreach.

Edited to add: The Bishop is a twat also.

[the_third_man]

God, what a complete twat he is.

Indeed. I note he trots out the following old chestnut...

This truth is recognised by all the great religions, and is endorsed in the Christian view of marriage as a union created by God.

Confucianism, Taoism, Shinto, have historically been fairly accepting of homosexuality, and Hinduism has at worst been ambiguous about it. For Buddhism, I believe it varies, but is thought of as no worse than heterosexuality as an obstacle on the way to Nirvana. (I stand ready to be corrected on that last point.)

In any case, Scruton presumably thinks that "great" = "Abrahamic" as far as religion is concerned.

[Castlestormer]

Regarding whether N.T. Wright should be appointed or not, an important point has yet to be raised: as a Christian, Wright has a duty to love people regardless of sexual orientation and even when they choose to act in a way he disagrees with. As a good academic, any views he holds regarding homosexuality should not be expressed in his teaching capacity. His personal opinion, as long as he does not use the University as a channel through which to express it, is really none of the University's business. Granted, given that a major focus of his work concerns the Pauline Epistles, the issue is not as clear-cut as this, but it's important to remember, a university isn't like a school. I don't buy the argument which says everyone is going to hold the ex-Bishop of Durham in complete awe. The students here are some of the brightest in the U.K. and all have the intellectual capacity to filter what they are taught and discard the rubbish.

[David Bean]

Peculiar, slightly upsetting and oddly discordant with Louise Richardson's other, some might say aggressively progressive stances.

Does anyone who, for example, knows something about theology know much about his merits as a researcher? It might well be the case that he's just a superlatively excellent scholar and, as it happens, he also holds some very retrogressive views. At the risk of courting controversy as an apologist I'm tempted to say that it's the merits of someone as a researcher, scholar and teacher the University should be concerned with principally rather than a moral evaluation of their various political stances.

I wish people wouldn't use such morally loaded language as 'progressive' and 'retrogressive', whose real meaning in such a context as this is nothing more than 'something I agree with' and 'something I disagree with', but that attempts to imply some sort of objective moral or intellectual superiority of the former over the latter. It's lazy and, in the sense of being a deliberate manipulation of language to advance a certain political agenda, Orwellian.

As someone who disagrees with some of the Principal's late positions and also with the case for the immorality of homosexuality, what does that line of reasoning make me - a stationarist, perhaps?

[LaGinge]

It strikes me as very interesting that the Revd Holdsworth should feel so strongly about N.T. Wright, who has indeed spoken out against the appointment of gay clergy, coming as a lecturer to St. Andrews. He will be in a role which is prohibitive of imposing such views on students as he is not going to be lecturing on Christian ethics, and any comments he makes on the matter in lectures will be beyond his job description and will no doubt be reported.

What is more intriguing than Revd Holdsworth getting worked up about the appointment of Tom Wright in this position (in which he'd have a much smaller voice on homosexual appointments within the Church), though, is the profound hypocrisy involved in his objection. The post of New Testament lecturer is so irrelevant to matters within the wider Church, that to say he shouldn't have the role is pure discrimination - the claim is that he must not have this position, not because he will be in a better position to confront homosexual clergy (the opposite is true) but because one disagrees with a private (now he no longer works for the Church of England) religious standpoint. On a popular level, it is reminiscent of Glen Hoddle's forced resignation in 1999, when he was edged out for expressing his belief that disabled people were being punished for sins in a former life. Although an outrageous claim, this was irrelevant to his job - working with the England football team, he was far away from being able to discriminate against disabled people, as none worked under his command.

Wendy Kaminer, the American social critic, a few years ago accused the 'liberals' within British universities of becoming illiberal authoritarians: "In some universities, there is a creeping culture of conformism, a sense that certain ideas are beyond the pale and thus must be crushed by the long arm of the censor." Louise Richardson, who has been accused of disappointing those used to her 'progressiveness', has done quite the opposite, bringing in a lecturer who offers a new slant on his designated field, whilst refusing to judge him for his views on homosexuality.

Let us suppose for a second that his views did come across to the students, not through lectures, but perhaps through a debate - is university not the ideal place for such matters to be discussed? Is it not ideal that students are exposed to tolerant discussion? (the word tolerant implying respectful disagreement rather than blind conformism.) St Andrews is a place where young people from all around the world come with inherited worldviews and experience other people's as they make up their own minds. The path to having a generation of men and women who are ethically sound is not to mute those who are 'wrong' and issue loudspeakers to the 'correct': what if, God forbid, the authorities got it wrong? All stances must have a voice - you cannot kill an idea by keeping it in the dark - but everything is exposed when the lights are on it. Our society cannot afford to muzzle those who disagree with the majority in the name of protecting young minds. As Benjamin Franklin wrote: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither freedom or safety."

[macgamer]

Let us suppose for a second that his views did come across to the students, not through lectures, but perhaps through a debate - is university not the ideal place for such matters to be discussed? Is it not ideal that students are exposed to tolerant discussion? (the word tolerant implying respectful disagreement rather than blind conformism.) St Andrews is a place where young people from all around the world come with inherited worldviews and experience other people's as they make up their own minds. The path to having a generation of men and women who are ethically sound is not to mute those who are 'wrong' and issue loudspeakers to the 'correct': what if, God forbid, the authorities got it wrong? All stances must have a voice - you cannot kill an idea by keeping it in the dark - but everything is exposed when the lights are on it. Our society cannot afford to muzzle those who disagree with the majority in the name of protecting young minds. As Benjamin Franklin wrote: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither freedom or safety."

Hear hear!

[Senethro]

I'm not sure we'd tolerate a bishop espousing derogatory views or opposition to some other biologically determined trait, so that arguments are being made that this can be ok is indicative that there remains latent homophobia in our society. The kindest interpretation of this is that is the last gasp of historical views that are thankfully on the decline.

[Haunted]

Let us suppose for a second that his views did come across to the students, not through lectures, but perhaps through a debate - is university not the ideal place for such matters to be discussed? Is it not ideal that students are exposed to tolerant discussion? (the word tolerant implying respectful disagreement rather than blind conformism.) St Andrews is a place where young people from all around the world come with inherited worldviews and experience other people's as they make up their own minds. The path to having a generation of men and women who are ethically sound is not to mute those who are 'wrong' and issue loudspeakers to the 'correct': what if, God forbid, the authorities got it wrong? All stances must have a voice - you cannot kill an idea by keeping it in the dark - but everything is exposed when the lights are on it. Our society cannot afford to muzzle those who disagree with the majority in the name of protecting young minds. As Benjamin Franklin wrote: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither freedom or safety."

This is the same defence used to justify the teaching of creationism.

[Senethro]

Creationism is just incorrect. Its not a condemnation of a group of people.

[Haunted]

Incorrect AND the condemnation of a whole science. Just as biology implicitly condemns cretinism and those who subscribe to it.

[David Bean]

I'm not sure we'd tolerate a bishop espousing derogatory views or opposition to some other biologically determined trait, so that arguments are being made that this can be ok is indicative that there remains latent homophobia in our society. The kindest interpretation of this is that is the last gasp of historical views that are thankfully on the decline.

Whilst I disagree with religious criticism of homosexual practice, I don't see reason in the assumption that all such patterns of belief are motivated by fear of homosexuals, which is, after all, what a term ending in '-phobic' denotes. I've long thought 'homophobic' is at best an inaccurate word to use as a blanket term for feelings or expressions prejudicial to homosexuality and homosexuals, but have only recently been exposed to the argument that there may be motive in the inaccuracy, an attempt to portray such views as other than they necessarily are, assigning to them the automatic characteristic of irrationality. The notion that all such views are motivated by irrational fear would seem to be a contentions one at the very least. The argument, for instance, that sexual congress is only appropriate between a man and a woman who are married and thus that homosexual practice can never be justified, whilst one I disagree with, seems nevertheless to be a rational and coherent one that cannot be passed off as a fear reaction.

The only arguments I've heard from defenders of the blanket use of the term have been laughably superficial - they say that prejudicial views of homosexuality is what the word has come to mean, and there an end to it. That might just about work if you believe language is so flexible as to allow a word to mean anything we like so long as enough people are vocal in its usage, but to my mind we must be conservative in assigning meanings to words that fly completely in the face of their etymologies. A person shouldn't have to know the history of the usage of a certain word to divine its meaning, when to all outward appearance it means something else entirely.

The use of the expression 'anti-gay', or better still 'anti-homosexual' lest we be thought to imply that such views oppose happiness, by contrast seems completely appropriate.

Moreover, I too agree with the Wendy Kaminer quotation, and have long been concerned at this tendency on the part of some on the left to regard certain classes of opinion as disqualifiers of those who hold them from discussion. The correct response to an argument or person we disagree with is to attempt to convince them otherwise, until we reach the point of agreeing politely to disagree; only in the most severe of cases, such as incitement to violence, can it be appropriate to dismiss them entirely. Your statement that arguments are being made that this can be ok seems to be confusing agreement with an argument with permitting it to be made. This is the same fallacy the left often commits when it comes to legislation: people decide, for example, that they don't like certain drugs, and conclude, in spite of all evidence that the policy of prohibition has failed and necessarily always will, that it must be maintained lest it appear that society approves of their use. Such a view is irrational and harmful enough when applied to activities, without extending it to matters of thought and conscience - that could be positively calamitous.

Agreeing with something and refraining from suppressing it are not the same thing!