Gene protester pinned

  A contact has shown me a picture of the same long-haired motorcycling protester as the heckler filmed by the BBC at the Gene Robinson service at Giles Fraser's St Mary's Putney. My last 'seeking Graham Maxwell' post produced an insant response from one Father Simon, who reckons it might be the same person.  I got the name slightly wrong, it is Max Maxwell not Graham. If you follow this link to Father Simon Rundell SCP, he's now blogged it himself as well, having been prompted by my enquiry to make the connection. He tells me that his church, St Thomas the Apostle in Gosport, Hants, is an ordinary, Anglo-Catholic parish that likes taking groups of children to Walsingham every now and again. The parish just happens to have nothing against gays. This was what first attracted Maxwell's attention. He pops up regularly on Fr Simon's blog, citing chunks of the King James Bible, most of which Father Simon removes. But one example still remains. I like the photo though, don't you? Good looking guy. Have sent him an email, awaiting a response. Will of course let all of you know what he says, when and if one ever comes! Or perhaps it is foolish to court trouble by inviting this person of extreme views onto this blog. I am relying on all my regulars to go to battle on behalf of reason, sanity and inclusivity, if and when he appears here.

These are the two videos that Maxwell objected to and that first drew him to the attention of Father Simon. The comments were so obnoxious they were removed by Father Simon.

Maxwell himself sent Father Simon the black-and-white as, in endearingly Anglican style, the good priest tried at first to dialogue with the man who kept abusing his parish's inclusive policy on its blog. Fr Simon writes: 'The man who disrupted his sermon at St Mary’s, Putney is the same man (I believe) who keeps posting homophobic and fundamentalist comments on this blog, who rants against our Inclusivity, our Sacramentality and me personally for proclaiming a Gospel of love and equality for all of God’s people.'

How did the name Maxwell come up in the first place? Someone stood up at the Sir Ian McKellen-Gene Robinson film launch last night, gave the protester's name and said he used to attend his church. I heard about it when I dropped in for coffee at St Mary's this morning. The audience member apologised on behalf of the church for Maxwell's behaviour. So whoever you were, audience member, thank you! You disappeared before anyone could catch you to ask you more.

Comments

[Robert Easter]

Considering the timing, "threatening" appearance and gestures, expression on Robinson's face, great camera angle on the heckler, and Robinson's demonstrated obsession with jetting himself into the Episcopal Church's martyrology, one does tend to wonder if the good bishop didn't find this "good looking young man" [snip] At any rate, he does make a great shill for Robinson's pitch!

[Matt]

"Liberal Anglo-catholic - oxymoron"

My Dad went to St Stephen's house in Oxford and I can tell you that Liberal Anglo-Catholic is certainly not an oxymoron! Although in my experience it really bugged the Forward and Faith brigade that half of St Stephen's happened to be women and/or gay.

[Joel]

Ruth,

When you say "The parish just happens to have nothing against gays," I think Father Rundell is being disingenuous: far from "nothing against," his policy appears to be "actively support."

In his own blog, he refers to Mr. Maxwell as someone "who rants against our Inclusivity." While I have never heard Father Rundell preach, in the liberal Protestant church, "inclusivity" is code for saying "we make no moral judgements about the sexual choices of our parishioners" and in fact normally means "They regard loving committed same-sex relationships on a par with similar heterosexual relationships."

Millions of us do not regard them as on par, any more than (as VC notes) our grandparents would have done so. So Mr. Maxwell -- no matter how rude his directness may be -- stands with a large number of Christians who would agree with him (including, if GAFCON is to be believed, the majority of the Anglican Communion).

And that does not make him (or us) homophobic any more than disapproving of pot-smoking makes us potophobic. Disagreeing with something is not to be fearing it; "homophobia" is just an ad hominem term invented to delegitimate opponents of this social innovation.

[robroy]

"But of course, the conservatives like to make out that they are the only ones...."

Liberal Anglo-catholic - oxymoron.

robroy md phd

[A Renegade Priest]

well, Ruth, as a completely straight guy (yes, I think you are very pretty) I must say that this protestor dude has very good looks. However perhaps those commentators who are attributing latent homosexuality to him are a tad projectional, to say the least!

[Bill Channon]

Ruth, you make your own position very clear in this posting on your blog.

"... this person of extreme views..."?

"... relying on my regulars to go to battle on behalf of reason, sanity, and inclusivity ...."?

I suppose that I would be considered by some to be another of those 'extreme' persons since I would have to agree with the comment by Robroy.

[John Mark]

Why is this man's identity not known? Did a journalist attending the service not attempt to interview him outside the church? One would almost think the BBC didn't want us his opinion to get the oxygen of publicity...

[S, Preston]

I am interested in the view, put forward by Michael Stevens, that one 'struggles' with homosexuality. Is it being suggested that one could therefore reject homosexual behaviour with one's free will aided, of course, by the grace of God?

[Fr David Heron]

If someone pushes himself into the public spotlight it's a journalist's job to find out who he is.

[Dr. Mike Homfray]

It is the case that there are both liberal and conservative Anglo-Catholics in the CofE, and in TEC for that matter.

But of course, the conservatives like to make out that they are the only ones....

[Tim]

Um - for those criticising Ruth's journalism, please note that this is a blog, not a newspaper. Blogs are about opinion; they are basically personal editorial pages.

[Stephen Marsden]

'. . .the hunkiest men hanging around churches in England are usually gay.'

This does beg the question as to the respective criteria in use when you describe someone as a hunk, Ruth, and when Fr Mark does. It may be that you are starting out from different places, perhaps?

[George Parr]

Consensus over the abortion issue is not possible among religious factions who define it as wicked or evil theologically. It must therefore be regarded as a matter of conscience. Moreover, the Aristotelian principle which generally underpins the philosophical view that truth cannot be reached through statements that assert that something is both right and wrong, or exists in two opposites, always fails in a polarised argument and necessitates the introduction of compromise amongst rational people.

It is not rational to include views formed through personal or religious prejudice or to begin with a conclusion, so for some the issue will never be resolved. It may be that abortion will remain within an area of social approximation.

[saint]

Well I'm not one for hecklers in churches (but given the antics I've seen by GLBT crowds barging in on private meetings and given one can barely call Gene a bishop, there's a certain irony here) but his comments in the church were mild and I just read Mr Maxwell's remaining comment and there was nothing rude about that either. Compared to me the man's a saint.

(Ha! And I lerv lerv lerv how it's always the inclusive types who can't cope with inclusion...)

[John]

Will Gene Robinson also be promoting abortion rights while in the UK? Or will he keep quiet about that other issue on which he is such a "courageous" campaigner in the USA?

http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=36654

[George Parr]

This chap, having achieved his two minutes of fame, needs counselling doesn't he? He has fallen head first into the homophobic slough of despond, massively widened by the disproportionate response to gays and lesbians by some Anglicans. He clearly believes all this negative rubbish; so much so that he feels the need to shout his head off in public.

Media reporting of these 'issues' of gender and sexuality within the Anglican church has been muted, which reflects the lack of interest from the general public. The pantomime of colourfully-attired Bishops from all over the globe, meeting to reflect on their own spirituality, and driven or split by homosexuality seems to have been regarded as vaguely humorous, or slightly eccentric, if some recent television and radio commentaries are anything to go by.

The question needs to be asked however; who achieved the most at St Mary's, for trying to promote consensual tolerance and understanding in this overblown issue, Gene Robinson or somebody screaming "repent repent" in an unmeasured way?

[VC]

Since when is it extremist and dangerous to believe and express what 99.9% of our grandfathers would have believed and expressed about sexual morality?

[Stephen Marsden]

Fr Rundell's assertion that his is an 'ordinary, Anglo-Catholic parish' might just be questioned by all those Anglo-Catholics feeling wounded by the recent debate in General Synod on women bishops. (The letters 'SCP' after his name might be the giveaway.)

Still, I can't argue with his treatment of your hunk, Ruth!

[anon]

And for a more balanced view have a look at this comment:

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/news/2008/07/mystery_of_the_gay_bishops_bik.html

"the bishops heckler is a friend of mine, I have known him for years, there is no way he would have been a paid heckler or a plant! he is a very kind, generous family man who has very deep christian values, knowing him as I do it comes as no great surprise that he would stand up for something he believes is not right, it was a bit of a shock to have seen him on news at ten though!"

Ruth, what happened to journalism? Balance? Fairness?

[David Cohen]

Come to think of it, isn't Schori dead against "boundary-crossing"? Will she be prosecuting Gene for breaking the rules and preaching in Putney? A sacking offence, surely?

[Cyrus]

Absolutely spot on David Cohen.If he was a loony left liberal he would be regarded as courageous. As he is not, he is sad or loopy. Interesting that those who hold to the faith as always proclaimed are now regarded as schismatic. Still that's what happens when you decide doctrine by democratic vote. Thank God for Rome

[dick]

It is so sad that the Anglican church is seen to be so divided; what do non-Christians make of this? Church leaders are appointed to teach the Gospel, the good news of Christ's redeeming love, the good news for the poor in this world, justice and peace. Homosexual acts appear to be called a sin in Scripture. Christians are called to love the sinner, not the sin. Again, modern Western people do not know the meaning of the word 'sin'; Christian leaders have a responsibility to teach people in society this meaning. And then call for repentance, and to turn to Christ as Saviour. This is what Billy Graham taught in the 50s and 60s. Let Christians pray for God to raise up another powerful teacher as he was.

[Tim]

'Reason, sanity, and inclusivity'?

Have you got the right crowd, Ruth???

[Kaitlyn]

Re: Hamish's question on fair journalism..There's fair and then there's ethical...there's also tabloid.

I find RG's comment that the young man in the picture is a good looking guy rather creepy, especially coming from someone who I wish were a mere reporter of events, and not one stirring the pot, too.

VGR's sermon began, as usual all about Vicky Gene. I applaud the young man for speaking out against shepherds who lead the sheep astray.

[Michael Stevens]

Fr Van Windsor, there has been a fairly large body of research that shows that those men who are most strident in their denunciations of homosexuality are often the ones who are struggling with it themselves. Men who are confident and secure in their heterosexuality are less likely to need to show their 'masculinity' so stridently.

His look certainly fits into certain gay stereotypes very well.

[Jonathan Hunt]

I think you should ask for a little proof before repeating the slur that Mr Maxwell is 'homophobic'.

Of course, if the definition of 'homophobic' is believing that homosexual practice is wrong, or daring to quote scripture on the subject, then millions of us are homophobic.

I'm not pretending to know of or defend Mr Maxwell for a moment, but I think we should choose our words carefully - all of us.

[Chris Gillibrand]

A small taster for the disputes which are to come in the Anglican Church once the Catholic "glue" is removed welding liberals and evangelicals together against their will.

[Fr Mark]

Fr Van W: the hunkiest men hanging around churches in England are usually gay, or haven't you noticed yet?

[Dr. Irene Lancaster FRSA]

Ruth, The King James version is not too bad, and its translation of the Psalms sticks more to the spirit of the original Hebrew than many other versions.

I confess to using it myself in teaching (parallel to the Hebrew, of course).

[Dr. Mike Homfray]

I recall the anger of many when Peter Tatchell interrupted the former AofC's sermon.

How can this interruption be seen as any more appropriate?

[George Parr]

"Person of extreme views"? Should fit in well with the existing rabid collection of fundamentalist extremists...!

Although in the interests of decorum and balance, there are many contributors here with a gentle faith or none and a measured view.

[David Cohen]

His actions are no worse than Gene Robinson coming uninvited to Canterbury, and preaching, against the express wishes of the AofC, in a church service.

And no worse than all the media who are latching on to any opportunity for a Lambeth-related story, however tangential or frivolous.

If he was a liberal bishop interrupting Gafcon they would all be saying he was "courageous"!!!

[Fr. Van Windsor]

Well now Ms Gledhill, are you sure you are not more interested in making contact with with this guy because he is a hunk, and happens probably NOT to be gay" :)

[Jamie MacNab]

Well, with the BBC, and now the Times, after his blood, this erstwhile unknown member of the public is in for a rough ride, is he not? How long before the cameras are trained on his front door?

Let his fate at the hands of the mighty be a lesson to all others who might be foolishly tempted to stick their heads above the parapet.

[robroy]

Our young friend's lack of decorum might be decidedly un-Anglican, but not necessarily un-Christian. Our good Lord did not mince words with so-called religious leaders who lead people away from the true faith: "Frauds! Your lives are roadblocks to God’s kingdom."

[Hamish]

I have a question Ruth; is this particularly fair journalism here? Granted, the gentlemen in question may put his views across in an unloving and less than respectful manner, but by in a sense setting him up it seems that he will stand as a straw man to be knocked down, as some sort of avatar for all those who hold views similar to his. Many people DO believe that it is wrong to condone homosexual practice, and do so while proclaiming God's love and justice. The only outcome of this little project it seems would be the demonising of any who hold such a view and the stunting therefore of any accountable debate.

(rg writes: accountable debate is what this is about. After all, no journalist forced him to stand up and make that protest.)