Gay Priest: Colin Coward
Colin Coward entered the priesthood in 1976 when he was 32. He鈥檇 known he was gay from the age of 11 and growing up in Southwark where there were gay members of the clergy, he didn鈥檛 see his sexuality as a barrier to entering the Church of England.
When he first became a priest, sexuality wasn鈥檛 seen as a problem and so long as you were discreet, being gay and being sexually active was not an issue. After 3 years Colin got a parish of his own and was quite open about his sexuality.
Following the 1997 Lambeth Conference Colin began to encounter opponents. He was the target of personal abuse at public meetings and found bishops refusing to admit his existence when he was standing right in front of them. Colin gradually found life as a parish priest becoming increasingly difficult. He felt that the Church was being lost to him and it was no longer the safe family and home that it had been.
Now his vocation is to improve the situation for gay men and lesbians in the Church and so he helped to found - a network of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and heterosexual members of the Church of England.
Good morning. I am a Catholic and I was listening with interest to your interview. I am convinced that omosexuality should be more widely understood and discussed within the Christian Churchs, not just the Anglican one . Do you think that all the problem arises with the incapability to accept the lived sexuallity of omosexuals? I do believe we are born with our sexual preference and in very few cases society or the external environment influences it. I am eterosexual, by the way, but I have close friends who are not and I have witnessed very heartbreaking moments of doubts and dispair...
Complain about this postI feel like challenging the 成人论坛 to invite someone from the evanglical wing of the church to come on as a guest - not as a weird circus act - but as a sane person with a reasonable point of view, who will be treated that way.
I'm a Church of Scotland minister. So I'm not familiar with what's going on in the Church of England. But I guess the debate is much the same with the gay-rights folk.
Colin was giving you a very subjective and personal point of view about the Bible and church history. When challenged about the Bible, Colin stated that the church was wrongly interpreting the text. He quoted the most extreme example - Sodom. He said it was not about homosexuality but a breach of hospitality! That's a very modern reading of the text. For over 2000 years, Jewish and Christian commentators have read the destruction of Sodom as based on their desiring to "mount men" as Philo, the ancient Jewish philospher put it.
Colin may well be very attracted to people of the same sex. It may well be that he cannot help this. The clear, consistent teaching of the Bible, is that he must not act on his attraction - just as i, as a married man, must not act on my attraction to women other than my wife.
The reason we quote the Bible is that it is the stated position of our churches that the Bible is our rule for life and faith. If Colin want to call himself a Christian he must accept this.
And isn't it a bit rich, that now we have liberals in the church blaming the anti-gay lobby on the African church. After all, they are the ones who were always telling us to be aware of the world church.
I don't think there really has been a change in attitudes. The change is in the courage of those who are tired of the gay lobby speaking out. In the past they were tolerated. But when they started making an issue of it, the silent majority stopped being silent.
I could say a lot more but I think that's more than enough.
Complain about this postHi
I appreciate you don't want to turn the show into a theological debate but I was very interested to hear Colin Coward say that passages of the Bible that are traditionally viewed as being anti-Gay are actually misinterpretations or mistranslations.
Let me firstly say I am not a Christian but I am someone who knows a little about the Bible and I do believe the Bible condemns homosexuality.
Does Colin accept that, for example, the Apostle Paul condemns homosexuality in 1st Corinthians 6:9, 10 and says that God will not accept Gays into the Kingdom of the heavens ?
Many thanks
Andy
Complain about this postCan the 成人论坛 be more one sided? The comments Colin Coward made about bibilical interpration were totally incorrect Being gay has never been a problem with the Church of England. Practising homosexuality is a sin, being homosexual is not. God does not have to change because of society, society should change because of God's love in Jesus Christ. By the way I am a 'woman priest' i studied at a 'fundamentalist' college and I am an evangelical. I only preach the bible and not what Colin or others want me to say. Like roman catholics by the way.
Complain about this postI cannot understand why priests such as Colin Coward feel obliged to make a point of pu8shing their sexuality either on their parishioners or,indeed, the rest of us. I don't care and give no thought to whether my accountant, the person who delivers the mail or a presenter on 成人论坛 is homosexual or not - so long as they are good at their job. I don't want to know the preferences of priests in the bedroom - whether hetro or homosexual- and I wish they would stop focussing on their own agendas and focus on the Christian message.
Complain about this postGreetings. Since you know Rowan Williams personally. why do you think he phrased his comments on women priests in the way that he did 'that they had 'not transformed or renewed the church in spectacular ways nor yet corrupted it'. I know he was on the eve of his visit to the Pope and possibly wished to play down the ordination of women with that audience. Isn't this disloyal and unworthy or would you say it is about biding time.
Complain about this postI apology with this very learned discussion group for my previous misspellings. I am probably the less qualified to give opinions, so I ask questions. I have gathered from all the comments that my first question, about lived sexuality, is the core issue. Homosexuals can be what they are, but must refrain from practising it.
Complain about this postSo, the Church is asking homosexuals to live like monks or nuns even if they are not inclined so. This is actually the choice a very close friend of mine has done, not without difficulties.
Can I ask if the homosexuality issue has any chances to be considered a cultural problem, rather like women priesthood, or if the sexual element will always block it in the realm of untouchable taboos? I have no confortable certainties, only doubts on this matter...
I was interested in the email you read out on this subject which stated that the central plank of christianity was heterosexual marriage. Oddly, I had thought the central plank of my faith was the Cross.
Complain about this post"Those who are shocked are often the women who have had fantasies about me as a potential ideal replacement husband, and it is therefore a puncturing of their fantasy." ~ Colin Coward
Well it is most refreshing to hear such brazen vanity from a cleric. Only please don't think that we are going to tolerate the lies of religion for ever. Time to puncture your big fantasy I would say.
Complain about this postI don't believe in God but have wondered why religion was invented in the first place. I've boiled it down to two overriding reasons; firstly to explain the unexplainable- fair enough given we are told that our ancestors had the same intellectual capacity as ourselves and would have realised that the wonders of the earth and heavens were not fashioned by man. Our accumalating body of scientific knowledge- for me- has supplanted this function of religion. Indeed I cannot think of a scientific fact that has been disproved and displaced by a religious belief.
Complain about this postThe second overridding function- which embraces Colin's situation- is to codify the most basic driver we share with every living animal and plant, to reproduce and pass on our genes. We are the most complex animal with the most fragile reproduction process, and long gestation and parent dependency periods. The 'rules' about who we mate with, the roles of males and females, hetrosexual mogonamy, families etc emerged as religions, layered with ceromonies, priesthoods, and observations that matched the seasons of plentiful and scarcity. We can see how homosexuality couldn't be tolerated and was regarded as deviant. Of course though homosexuals might not want to reproduce themselves they could well support the wider survival of the tribe by serving as priests or in the military.
The history of the western churches has been the erosion of both functions to be replaced by the state and the consumer. So I well understand their resistance to just about every social change in the 400 years. If- or should I say when?- they concede on homosexuality and hetrosexual marraige they loose their final raison d'etre; just remaining as suppliers of baptisms, weddings and funerals, competing with other consumer suppliers. Sad but true.
The Bible can be used for good and it can be misused and misquoted and used badly like anything else!
Many of the passages relating to homosexuality at that time related to a period of Paganism. Many Pagan ceremonies had elements of same sex acts and indeed many romans engaged in sex betweeen males and so forth, with slaves, prositiutes and much with linked to bisexual activity and power at that time.
Much of what was wriiten was to set Christians apart from these Pagan activities. At that time, as in now, it wouldnt be fair to be married and having sex with a man or prositute if one was bisexual.
Of course the sexual acts would have been translated as homosexual acts and not necessarily relating to the inclination of the persons preference as Gay. Indeed the Bible does not in any sense address a distinction between Bi, Gay and Transgendered. There is much difference!
Not anywhere is the message does it say loving Gay relationships where values and standards are maintained cannot be achieved like anyother relationship!
Understanding and science grows as time evolves. Much of what we know now was not known then.
The Bible was used by many to justify slavery and seperation in times gone by!
Not every person in the world is going to run and accept a message which tells them to be silent, look forward to prejudice and have no sexual contact for life. Even if they are strict and abide this many Christians if they find out just the basic orientation will still isolate them!
Churches need to talk more about the dire reality of youth today and the ways they engage in sex, drugs and so forth. Many Christians take Christs forgiveness for granted and see it as an insurance to be worse than an unbeliever. This applies to all sexualities.
Faith should never be superficial. Often the biggest stone flingers are the biggest hypocrites!
There are very prominant Churches out there that are Gay founded and expanding quickly with all sorts of sexualities. They are growing faster and bigger than any others, minus many Black Churches.
There is much to be said for those that try and inform other people and make them aware even if they are not willing to accept.
However, we have to know when its not right to sign up and then go against what that group stands for! It can often make things worse!
I wouldnt go to join the conservative party if I hold very socialist views, instead of being Labour, and then trying to make the conservatives more Labour!
But I would say to Colin Coward, there are other Churches here and abroad that are looking for Priests and Pastors who are Gay or not and work with putting the message well to all of society.
If you ever get fed up, vote with your feet, and get in contact and get involved with these independant churches.
Complain about this post