Before Greenbelt started we were joking it was the Pink
and Green festival this year; there seemed so much related to either LGBTQI
inclusion or the environment. That may be a little unfair, Greenbelt was and is
so much more than that, but there is an element of truth there.
I want to reflect a little on some of the pink and what
we might learn from it, (and this will be a longer post because I want to draw out particular points). It won't be a comprehensive review of all the LGBTQI
events, particularly as due to a clash I wasn't able to attend the Outerspace
Eucharist, something I know when really well again this year. I was also only
able to attend the first part of one of the most significant events over the
weekend where Vicky Beeching was chairing a discussion on the changing nature
of marriage. I didn't get to the My Burden is Light worship from MCC Pentecostal. I did go to an excellent session led by Jacqui Lavelle of NE Gay Asylum Group which looked at the issues around LGBTQI people searching for sanctuary and asylum but I believe that will need to be the topic of a separate post and so am not covering it here because I don't want it to get lost in this.
The pink side of Greenbelt is nothing new on one level.
They have been an inclusive festival for many years welcoming Gene Robinson,
Peter Tatchell and James Alison to speak amongst others in the past, and their
talks have directly addressed issues around sexuality. Other artists and speakers who have been welcomed not talking on these topics have also been LGBTQI. Outerspace and before
them Safety Net have also provided a valuable role for many years, indeed the
yearly Eucharist played an important role in my own coming out. There was
something significantly different going on this year though, which tapped into
the overall zeitgeist of this summer. What follows is an overview of panels which contained gay and straight speakers and a queer only panel discussing what could be described as pink material or issues with a pink tinge.
The panel I only managed to catch the first part of was
chaired by Vicky Beeching and saw Prof Linda Woodhead, Sara Miles and Prof
Robert Song discussing with her what it might be to reimagine marriage. Whilst
Robert Song, who has a new book coming out in September, Covenant and Calling Towardsa Theology of Same-sex Relationships took the more cautious approach all of
them were broadly accepting there were no real voices of dissent on this panel.
Now on one level that is brilliant, as was the standing ovation Vicky got when
she came onto the stage but it does worry me. A year ago I was chatting with a
good friend who comes from a far more evangelical part of the church and who
has been graciously journeying but is still in a very different theological
place and she expressed the worry about what place there was for people like
her at Greenbelt. Whilst I celebrate panels such as this on many levels and
they make me breathe a huge sigh of relief I do worry that we are finding
ourselves excluding people such as my friend by not including those theologians
who come from different places but know how to express their views graciously.
On Monday morning Rachel Mann, who was chairing the panel
We're Not an Issue, We're A Gift, opened the session with a couple of one
liners related to "the day the gays take over the big top" and the
"coming out event at Greenbelt". The reasoning she gave for these
comments was whilst the voices of Gay Greenbelters had been there for many
years it was the first time there had been an exclusively queer panel in a
venue that size discussing sexuality and gender issues. The contributors were PadraigO Tuama, Sara Miles, Karl Rutlidge and LGCM's Tracey Byrne. Previously such events had been fringe events
organised by Outerspace in small venues. It was followed by a worship event co-ordinated
by Byrne where there clerics from the CofE, URC and Methodist Church spoke
together with a potential CofE ordinand where the focus was on the position
with the main protestant historic denominations regarding same sex marriage.
During both the panel discussion which was followed by a
q&a and worship session there was a focus on the positive contribution
LGBTQI already make and want to continue to be able to make. There was
implicitly within this a questioning of power and the ability of oneself to
express a full god given identity, it was a point Padraig made more explicitly
towards the beginning of the session. There were also points made about the way
it enabled queer people to stand with and on behalf of others at the margins.
Sara explained in her community Pride was seen as the feast of the unclean and
Karl spoke about this experience of being involved in TDOR events. There was
also discussion of the community aspect of experience. Tracey spoke of the
disconnect between what is happening on the ground and what the institutional
bodies and structures are saying making the point that experiences need
articulating back.
Some of that experience was articulated back during the
q&a part of the panel session where people discussed their own, often
painful, experiences as they asked questions.
The q&a was important because it highlighted the
problems on the ground which still need to be discussed, often in smaller
spaces for example where straight allies involved in good practice find
themselves isolated by other churches.
I want to pick up on two specific things which came out
of the sessions which I found interesting. The first was the way in which the
voices being given platform were from the historical churches and denominations
yet within the questions we heard the voices of the Pentecostals. I want to
argue there needs to be much more of a public engagement and working with those
who are willing from the new church networks and neo-Pentecostal movements.
Now, I am not naive I understand very well the problems and real dangers
involved in this in terms of jobs, ministries and so on but I am very concerned
that as we enter two years of listening in the historical denominations that
the voices or stories of the other churches are being lost and the differences between
the more conservative evangelicals and others are being further entrenched. I
believe this is particularly important in light of the figures Linda Woodhead
gave in one of her talks about the changing religious landscape in the UK. We
need to find ways to engage with these people, even if it is not directly.
Going back to my earlier point this is why I am worried that the voices of Greenbelters
with more conservative evangelical views are not being heard as they once were
around the festival or beyond.
The second thing is specifically Methodist, but I believe
may reflect something wider. During the discussion Karl had a bit of a mind
blank regarding the significant difference between the CofE and Methodists
after conference; i.e. our queer clergy can marry and not lose their jobs -
something somebody rushed up to correct during the q&a. However, when he
was asked about the Methodist position he highlighted the fudge the Derby
resolutions gave essentially the two denominations are in a similar place at
the moment, but the Methodists are being more compassionate about it. Stephanie
Jenner, a Methodist Superintendent, gave a far more optimistic view in the
worship session saying Methodists were great on everything, CPD (the Methodist
law book) said they had to be. She seemed to suggest it was a foregone
conclusion that in two years time that Conference will reach the positive
outcome. The reality which is somewhere between the two and far more
complicated than I think either of them was ready or perhaps able to outline in
that setting was illustrated by a question from Sally Coleman, a Methodist
Minister and talented poet/blogger, during the q&a of the first session. She asked about
what you do when you are totally affirming, working with those the church and
wider society judge to be outsiders from a wider range of backgrounds and then
get excluded by those locally in other churches, including from your own
denomination. The reality, which the question highlighted, reinforcing the
findings of the consultation, was that in some areas it is far harder than in
others and you can have all the regulations in the world but if others are of a
different view it becomes extremely difficult. Experience within these
denominations depends upon what others, particularly those in positions of
power do and say.
The highlight of the whole festival for me (from any
perspective) was a young people's session I had the privilege to witness. Sally
Hitchiner and some of the young adults from Diverse Church - both queer and
straight allies - were facilitating a session in the Den which took the form of
a brief bit of storyvism (where the young adults told their stories) and the
young people breaking off into buzz groups to discuss questions before feeding
back. The level of integrity, intelligence and respect in that session coming
from the ordinary young people who had packed the tent to overflow was amazing.
They were the model of what the rest of the church should look like when
discussing this issue. During the discussions LGBTQI and a-sexual youth had the
confidence to feed back together with straight youth, sharing their own stories
and opinions. The difficulties faced by those coming out in rural contexts were
bought up and highlighted as an area which needed wrestling with and there was
an understanding that some would be living in situations where safeguarding
issues may be a necessary concern to take into consideration when bringing up
the subject with parents, for example. On the question of whether there was a
need for role models there was real debate and respectful disagreement with
excellent points being made by all. I think I am not alone in being an adult
who felt privileged to witness that session and learned something important
from the way those young people were conducting themselves. As we came out of
that session we saw a rainbow in the sky above the site, it was very fitting.
I recently read an article on Generation Z by Angela
Cross-Bystrom which I had treated with a certain amount of scepticism. However,
having witnessed this youth session I think she is on to something. This
generation are socially maturing at a much faster rate and are hugely more
aware than those who have gone before them; their discussions are operating on
a whole different level which we need to learn from. I never thought youth
participation was an optional extra, but having watched them in action I think
it is an absolute necessity for the church and wider society.
