No State Church in Norway - or in Finland

The Norwegian Parliament - Stortinget - decided yesterday (21.5.12) to abolish the State Church system. Good for them!
Voices in Finland have been raised for the same thing to be done here. This shows, of course, a lack of knowledge of both history and of the background of the relationship between Church and State. I've blogged about this before.

I'm not saying that reforms couldn't be made, but a non-existant State Church cannot be abolished, can it?

Update: Lesbian pastor recieves an apology

In January, I blogged about a pastor in Sweden who was refused a job since she is a lesbian.
Now, the parish has reached an agreement with the pastor in question. She has recieved an apology and a remuneration of 30.000 crowns (3.445€, 4.762 US$ at today's rate). In addition, the parish will educate its staff in questions of discrimination. Presumably, in order to avoid discrimination in future, not to discriminate more effectively.

Betalar diskriminerad präst (Sveriges Radio Örebro 2.3.11)
Diskriminerades för sin läggning - nu ersätts prästen ekonomiskt (Nerikes Allehanda 2.3.11)
Homosexuell präst får ursäkt (Dagen 2.3.11)

Two pots

Some time ago, I found this story on Charlotte Therese's blog. Thank you for sharing it with us!

An elderly Chinese woman had two large pots, each hung on the ends of a pole which she carried across her neck. One of the pots had a crack in it while the other pot was perfect and always delivered a full portion of water.
At the end of the long walk from the stream to the house, the cracked pot arrived only half full. For a full two years this went on daily, with the woman bringing home only one and a half pots of water.
Of course, the perfect pot was proud of its accomplishments. But the poor cracked pot was ashamed of its own imperfection, and miserable that it could only do half of what it had been made to do.

After two years of what it perceived to be bitter failure, it spoke to the woman one day by the stream. "I am ashamed of myself, because this crack in my side causes water to leak out all the way back to your house."
The old woman smiled, "Did you notice that there are flowers on your side of the path, but not on the other pot's side? That's because I have always known about your flaw, so I planted flower seeds on your side of the path, and every day while we walk back, you water them. For two years I have been able to pick these beautiful flowers to decorate the table. Without you being just the way you are, there would not be this beauty to grace the house."

Each of us has our own unique flaw.

Value the teachers!

There is an old slogan that goes: "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach."
This is, of course, false on the face of it. To be able to teach, you don't only have to "can", you have also to be able to teach "can". That's two abilities, not just the one that narrow experts have.
The teachers do an incredible job. We should value them more!

Child of Illusion has a picture of a good new slogan that someone put on a t-shirt. Pop over and take a look!

Biblical inerrancy or Christ?

MadPriest once again comes up with some very interesting ideas, as he writes his "Thought of the century" (7.8.09). Extract:

If the Bible is in any way inerrant, written by God or dictated by God, then what was the point of Jesus?
There would have been no reason for the Word to become flesh. [...]
If the Bible is the word of God then we better hope God isn't lying. And we wouldn't know whether he is or not. However, if the Bible is written by independent witnesses to the acts of God then we have more reason to believe that those acts of God actually happened.
In other words, the Bible is more trustworthy and a zillion times more exciting if God didn't have anything to do with its writing and compilation.

In a comment, Counterlight points out that

There is one completely inerrant book written by God himself that is so holy, some regard it as "uncreated;" with God from the very beginning of time.
That book is the Quran, according to Muslim belief. The Muslims would agree with you. They certainly don't need any Incarnate Word.
Happily, despite the best efforts of fundamentalists to turn it into such, the Bible is not the Quran. It remains what it says it is, a testament.

A few years back, I preached a sermon (in Swedish) where I made a similar point. A translation of the pertinent passage:

In our present-day Lutheran church, there are many things that need reforming, e.g. regarding bureaucracy and structures. What the edge of reform must point to is however in my opinion the misinterpretation of the expression ”the word of God” that has come to the fore and damages individuals to the core, when they are hit by loose bible verses. That is hardly what the author of the Letter to the Hebrews had in mind when he writes (4:12f): Indeed, the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing until it divides soul from spirit, joints from marrow; it is able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart. And before him no creature is hidden, but all are naked and laid bare to the eyes of the one to whom we must render an account. In this passage, as in the New Testament in general, ”the word of God” is not a collection of texts (which usually is called ”the Scriptures” or something similar). It is to the ”word of God” that we must render an account. ”The word of God” is not the Bible, but Jesus Christ, God's living and active word that became flesh. The Bible contains words from God when it proclaims Christ, but it also contains other things, for example the Jewish ritual law that Jesus made obsolete. They have a place in the Bible because they paint a background to why Christ had to come to the Earth, but they aren't the word of God even in the sense that the phrase usually is understood.
The Bible is in itself a very good book and worth close study. But in our church it competes with Christ forthe title ”the word of God”. We have to reform this competitive situation. It is the message of Christ's love that is important, not what we happen to be able to combine from different odd verses.

Mother Love?

Here's a nice one!
A mother was so upset with the fact that her daughter was a lesbian, that she arranged to have her daughter raped. Her idea was that if the daughter even once could have a real man, her misguided interest for other women would disappear.
Crazy! Disgusting!

Read the story on One Utah. And thanks to MadPriest, through whom I found it.

Says God

And it came to pass that God visited the earth, and He did behold a series of billboard ads attributing to Him utterances of such banality that they would never pass His lips in a billion years. And it came to pass that God in His wrath considered a libel suit, but in the end opted simply to mount a cantankerous, self-contradictory ad campaign of His own...

I never said, "Thou shalt not think."
—God

Okay, you've got multiplying down. Now let's try replenishing for a while.
—God

I don't care who started it. Just stop it.
—God

If you seek to know my ways, read a science book.
—God

You'd better have stopped fighting by the time I get back, or you're all grounded.
—God

Six days? Yeah, right. I'm a scientist, not a magician.
—God

E=mc². Yeah, that's one of mine.
—God

The dinosaurs didn't believe in you either.
—God

Excuse me? Where do you see my name on the front of the Bible?
—God

Only six thousand years old? Oh, that's a good one.
—God

Just look at this planet! Do you expect me to clean this up?
—God

I love Marilyn Manson, too. Maybe more than I love you.
—God

Here's a clue—if they say they're doing it in my name, they're lying.
—God

I gave you a bigger brain for a reason. Start using it.
—God

Want to know how old the earth is? Ask the earth, not the Bible.
—God

If you don't clean this place up, you won't get another millennium.
—God

I don't blame video games when my children start shooting each other.
—God

I like to kick things off with a bang. A Big Bang.
—God

If you didn't hear it straight from my lips, take it with a grain of salt.
—God

All this will someday be your children's.
—God

There is no such thing as killing in my name.
—God

Stop smirking. I'm talking to you, too.
—God

Thanks to Ad Hoc and Karin!

Penguins, penguins, penguins...

Penguins! Endearing creatures that seldom get eaten by polar bears, of geographical reasons. I've come across them in a few different contexts lately.

One example is the story of the two male Humboldt penguins, Z and Vielpunkt (picture), who are raising a chick together in the "Zoo am Meer" zoological park in Bremerhaven, northern Germany. The proud fathers are one of three homosexual penguin pairs at the zoo. They assumed the role of surrogate parents when an egg was cast aside by a heterosexual pair. The zoo has tried to have gay birds incubate an egg before, but this is the only occasion it has worked.
The story has appeared at least in the Huffington Post and the Local (Germany), and on Of course, I could be wrong... and the Pet Blog during the first days of this month of June, 2009.

I found another charming story about penguins on Of Course I Could Be On Vacation...:

Touching Penguin Ritual
Did you ever wonder why there are no dead penguins on the ice in Antarctica - where do they go? Wonder no more!!!
It is a known fact that the penguin is a very ritualistic bird which lives an extremely ordered and complex life. The penguin is very committed to its family and will mate for life, as well as maintaining a form of compassionate contact with its offspring throughout its life.
If a penguin is found dead on the ice surface, other members of the family and social circle have been known to dig holes in the ice, using their vestigial wings and beaks, until the hole is deep enough for the dead bird to be rolled into and buried.
The male penguins then gather in a circle around the fresh grave and sing: "freeze a jolly good fellow."

(Actually, I have some small doubts about the veracity of the last statement. Is this a penguin story or a shaggy dog story, one might wonder. The answer, however, is obvious.)

Smart answers to idiotic arguments

The Box Turtle Bulletin is well worth a visit for everyone who in one way or another is interested in gender issues, especially lgbt questions.
Gabriel Arana of the BTB has written a series of five blog posts analyzing and answering arguments made by amateur anti-gay pundits. The series is called Anti-Gay Arguments We Don’t Bother With (And Should).

Part one deals with the argument that

Any man — even a gay one — can marry a woman. Therefore, it is not discriminatory to deny marriage rights to members of the same sex given that a straight man can’t marry a man, either.

Arana's answer is, in part: The real argument that proponents of LGBT rights are making is that the “fundamental right” in question is the right to marry the person one loves, not to marry someone of the other sex.

Part two analyzes the "slippery slope" -argument:

If you let gays marry, then you will have to allow polygamous, incestuous or inter-species marriage.

Arana argues: It is really the philosophical basis of straight marriage that supports polygamy; those arguing against gay marriage on the basis of procreation have the burden of showing why polygamy is wrong. [...] The argument against incest — preventing genetic abnormalities — is sufficient enough in itself to distinguish this case from gay marriage. [...] Marriages are partnerships and animals are not capable of rational decision making to enter into one.

Part three deals with the argument cluster

Being gay is against the natural order of things; it is against evolution; if everyone were gay humanity would end.

Arana writes: The central fact that I have trouble getting across is that evolution has no transcendent goal; it is epiphenomenonal. [...] what we call evolution is an observation of the natural world, a statement of the facts; it is not prescriptive. It is silly to say something is wrong because it “goes against evolution” because “evolution” couldn’t care less. [...] A more pithy response to the if-everyone-were-gay-then-humanity-would-end argument is: if everyone were a woman, humanity would also end, but that doesn’t make being a woman wrong.

Part four deals with the statement that

Being gay is a choice.

It is really a two-part question, according to Arana. First, are homosexual feelings a choice? Second, is engaging in “homosexual acts” a choice?
1. The debate is really about whether being gay is a central, immutable component of one’s identity or whether it is malleable, subject to change. Even ex-gay therapists acknowledge that homosexual feelings aren’t chosen, but they do think you can choose to change them. [...]
2. It is, however, a choice to engage in “homosexual acts.”
But the burden is really on those who hold anti-gay views to show why it is wrong for gay people to express themselves sexually. Sexual expression is a natural human inclination — and a basic feature of adult life. Depriving someone of this strikes at the heart of human dignity. [...]
Anti-gay activists say being gay is a choice because they imagine a false dichotomy: you either live a morally upright straight life or you descend into the miasma of sex, drugs, disease and death that is the gay world. The real choice is between living a lie and not.

Lastly, we have the fifth argument:

If you pass pro-gay legislation, pastors and private citizens will not be able to voice opposing views.

Arana writes: Adopting gay marriage — or passing any other pro-gay legislation, for that matter — does not change the legal standard of what constitutes free speech [...]. It might, if attitudes change over time, help relegate anti-gay views to the periphery of public discourse, but this is a social consequence, not a legal one. There is no connection between allowing gay marriage and people losing their right to freedom of speech.

These are excellent, well written texts. But don't take my word for it; read Arana's posts in their entirety - here, I've obviously only sampled them.

Four options in reading Paul

On his blog The New Christians, Tony Jones quotes an insightful comment made by Mike Morrell. Here is part of the comment:

What follows is not an attempt to change anyone's mind about the sinfulness or blessedness of homosexual orientation and practice. We all have our perspectives, and they change like glaciers, not ice cubes. Rather, I want to lay out in as concise a manner as possible my own readings, prayer, and reflection in this these past few years, showing essentially four different options people of faith have in this regard. I'm pretty sure we all fall into one of these four understandings. My goal in showing them in a descriptive, matter-of-fact manner is to humanize all four perspectives, so that we don't demonize one another.

By way of a quick prelude: I will not be handling any Old Testament passages that describe or seem to describe homosexual activity as an 'abomination.' That is because these very same passages (as GodHatesShrimp.com humorously points out) describe many other things as 'abominations,' our English translations belying the fact that this word simply denotes that which is cultically unacceptable to the ritual purity of set-apart Israel. So I will exclusively look at the three New Testament passages, which all happen to be by Paul (Jesus doesn't mention homosexuality in the Gospels). I'm not even going to go into Paul's passages in-depth, but they're the ones in I Corinthians 6, Romans 1 and 1 Timothy 1:10.

The four options, as I've seen them, are as follows:

1.) Paul *is* addressing contemporary homosexual orientation / practice and this *does* matter
2.) Paul *is* addressing contemporary homosexual orientation / practice and this *doesn't* matter
3.) Paul *isn't* addressing contemporary homosexual orientation / practice and that *does* matter
4.) Paul *isn't* addressing contemporary homosexual orientation / practice and it *doesn't* matter

1.) This is the standard view in most evangelical churches as well as the official Roman Catholic and East Orthodox perspective. In essence, our English translations of 'homosexual' in the NT are to be trusted and affirmed as addressing precisely the same kind of homosexual orientation and activity as we see today among monogamous and non-married homosexual persons. Because Scripture is inspired and profitable for teaching, we should see this as prescriptive for moral and Godly living today, teaching it accordingly.

2.) Paul is talking about contemporary homosexual orientation/action, but it's up to us, the Church, to decide whether this is binding for today. Now lest you think this is an option only for hippie-dippy liberal revisionists, think again: The church *always* interprets Scripture for today. The evangelical church, for instance, decided that was Jesus told one guy (Nicodemus) about being 'born again' was binding on all people everywhere, whereas what he told another guy (the rich young ruler) about selling all possessions and giving them to the poor was virtually never applicable! We've also decided that Peter's admonition of women not to wear braids or jewelry because of sinful pride was culturally-conditioned and temporary, as is Paul's admonition of women to wear head-coverings, even though he seems to appeal to some pretty cosmic and universal principles for doing so. In the same manner, some good Christian people (and churches) conclude that Paul was simply mistaken about homosexual orientation & practice, or that his teaching was culturally-appropriate for his era but actually harmful and contrary to the Gospel for ours. We the Church are always 'binding and loosing' interpretations of our Holy Writ... an awesome and wonderful responsibility.

3.) Many biblical scholars puzzle over the actual meaning of arsenokoitai, the Greek word Paul used which is translated from King James on as 'homosexuals.' (See explanation) In short, many think that Paul is writing about pedastry - man-boy love - and temple prostitution where otherwise 'straight' people become 'gay for a day' (only not really) to engage in debasing pagan rituals. So Paul is in fact, according to this perspective, writing about the primacy of love and consideration, and against harmful idolatry. 2,000 years of translation later and we lose sight of context and original intent. Most sociologists agree that contemporary loving, monogamous homosexual orientation didn't even exist until relatively contemporary times... therefore we are dealing with, strictly speaking, an 'extra-biblical' phenomenon that should, perhaps, be looked at through a different lens than seemingly 'obvious' passages in Scripture. We should instead appeal to Jesus and Paul's clear teaching on love, freedom and liberty of conscience, while upholding healthy Christian standards of monogamy and sexuality that we'd encourage anyone of *any* orientation to keep as best as possible.

4.) Number 4 is a bit of a non-sequitur, as I think you can see. : )

Thank you, Mike!

Mankind is no island

This just touched me. Deeply. It's beautyful. And tragic. Thank you so much, Pasi, for posting it!

Marriages in the new year

People choose their wedding dates for varying reasons. My paternal grandparents were married in December 1931, and the next year they were blessed with a daughter. If you look at the months, rather than the years, you'll notice that it was a very short pregnancy - my aunt was born in May, 1932 - but noticing that is, of course, bad manners, so we'll let it lie.
But there are two couples that have chosen to get married now in the beginning of January, 2009, that might be worth mentioning.

On Saturday, January 3, in a church in the south-western town of Pori, the Speaker of the Finnish Parliament, Sauli Niinistö (60), was married to Jenni Haukio (31), who works for the Conservative Party; Niinistö is also a Conservative. Widowed in 1995, he was a few years ago involved with a cabinet minister from the Centre Party, Tanja Karpela (now Saarela), and has now been together with his new wife for two years, which, apparently, neither the press nor the couple's next of kin had any inkling of.
Niinistö was runner-up in the 2006 presidential elections, with 48,2% of the votes in the secont round. Since President Tarja Halonen will have completed her constitutional two terms in 2012 and can't run for a third, Niinistö is a strong candidate to become the next President of the Republic. But there must surely be others; the elections are still a few years off.
As was to be expected, the evening paper Iltalehti made a lot of fuss about Niinistö's wedding.

The following day, the blogger Tor Billgren (blogging on Antigayretorik) married his partner of eight years, Erik, in their home town of Malmö in southern Sweden. Among the congratulatory comments on the blog, there were a few condemning their love for each other in God's name. Very sad. Very predictable. God must be happy for Erik and Tor - and weeping because of the idi... I mean, people speaking in his name.
The civil wedding was performed by a member of parliament, Olof Lavesson, who is also from Malmö.

May God bless both couples with much love and a long life together!

Update: Arnell & Gårdfeldt

Two pastors named Lars (Arnell and Gårdfeldt), both working for the (Lutheran) Church of Sweden, were married in Canada in 2006. After returning home, they tried unsuccessfully to have their marriage recognized by the Swedish authorities; the ruling was that this was not a marriage but a civil partnership. I blogged about this at the time.
The couple argued that since their marriage was legal in Canada, it should be recognized in Sweden. Their lawsuit said that "tax authorities can make an exception for a marriage where one party is underage but not for homosexuals."
They took their case to the highest court in Sweden, which now has upheld the ruling of lower courts. In its ruling, the court said that Swedish law permits the tax department to make exceptions for people who are underage but legally married, but there currently is no law in Sweden allowing for the recognition of same-sex marriage.
The two Larses said they were disappointed in the ruling but hoped the government would soon amend the law. They will also bring the case before European Human Rights Court.

Kristen tro och homosexuell samlevnad, Visst går det att förena! (Lars Arnell's home page, in Swedish)
Uutinen: Ruotsalaiset homopapit naimisiin Kanadassa (Kalles kyrkliga kommentarer 23.5.06)
Nyhet: Utländskt homoäktenskap registreras inte i Sverige (Kalles kyrkliga kommentarer 28.9.06)
Präst gift i Kanada, inte gift i Sverige (Kyrkans Tidning 16.12.08)
Swedish court: Canadian gay marriage not legal (365gay 16.12.08)
Gårdfelt (sic!) förlorade äktenskapsmål (Dagen 16.12.08)
Rörd och imponerad av Gårdfeldts styrka (Antigayretorik 17.12.08)

Faith is not central to Christianity

If the resurrection of Jesus Christ is a reality then faith is not a requirement of the Christian religion. If it was then nobody would have met the risen Christ in the days following his crucifixion.
Faith is necessary because of how the universe works (or, at least, appears to work), especially in respect of time and distance. Therefore, faith is accidental not central to our religion.

- MadPriest

"A safe pair of hands"

My bearded face was published by MadPriest, who comments:

I must say that he looks like a safe pair of hands and that the faith in the Northern Lands is secure as long as K is around to keep the inhabitants in order.

Thank you, that is heartwarming - especially as my hands don't even appear in the photo!
Apparently my neighbours agree with you. The photo in question happens to be my candidate photo from the recent municipal elections - and it can't have been too bad, since I was elected to the City Council here in the city of Porvoo (in Finnish; "Borgå" in Swedish)...

And just for the record, I'm not from Sweden, but belong to the Swedish-speaking minority of Finland. Which, as you noted, MP, is outside of Newcastle Upon Tyne.

The immorality of moralism

In a Church of England newspaper, the south London priest Giles Fraser writes under the heading Beware of the morality of legalism (Church Times August 1, 2008). It was very interesting to read his text. He argues that it is a great mistake to turn "gospel faith into moral uprightness," and that the conservatives within the Anglican communion are trying to do exactly this.

This is very reminiscent of one of the first texts I wrote on Kalles kyrkliga kommentarer, There is no Christian ethics (May 9, 2006), based on some thoughts by the influential Swedish Christian writer Peter Halldorf. My conclusion there is "... to confuse faith with ethics leads to moralism, phariseeism and many other tragedies."
All the more interesting to read Fraser's article.

Charges filed against Sandell

Last week, I reported that pastor Halvar Sandell from Helsinki received a warning from bishop Gustav Björkstrand for showing a video of an authentic abortion at a confirmation camp.

Now, charges have been filed against Sandell. Birgitta Dahlberg, a politician from the moderately liberal Swedish People's Party (Svenska folkpartiet, sfp) says that if an adult that's supposed to be an authority, a pastor and a teacher forces minors to watch such a material, it's a very serious matter. Anyone should understand, Dahlberg says, that the video isn't suitable, but on the contrary quite harmful, for children of 14 years of age.
The police are investigating the charges, and estimate that the investigation will be ready by Christmas. It is as yet unclear what, if any, crime Sandell has commetted. This case is not urgent, the police say, so they'll take their time.

"Som att visa pornografi för minderåriga" (Hufvudstadsbladet 8.9.08)
Aborttivideon näyttäneestä papista tutkintapyyntö poliisille (Kotimaa 8.9.08)
Vihdin poliisi tutkii aborttivideon (Kotimaa 8.9.08)
Sandell polisanmäld (Kyrkpressen 8.9.08)
Kaplan fick anmärkning av biskopen (Nya Åland 8.9.08)
Aborttifilmin näyttäneestä papista tutkintapyyntö poliisille (STT through Etelä-Suomen Sanomat, Iltalehti and Ilta-Sanomat 8.9.08)
Halvar Sandell polisanmäld (YLE Nyheter 8.9.08)
Sandells straff (Anja Kuusisto's editorial in Åbo Underrättelser 8.9.08)
Halvar Sandell polisanmäld (Österbottens Tidning 8.9.08)
Polisen utreder abortfilmen (Hufvudstadsbladet 9.9.08)
Vichtispolisen inleder förundersökning (Kyrkpressen 9.9.08)
Förundersökning inleds mot Halvar Sandell (Vasabladet 9.9.08)
Förundersökning om abortvideo (YLE Nyheter 9.9.08)

Tutu does it again!

Archbishop Desmond Tutu is a person I have the utmost respect for. He has been stalwart in battling for human rights and human dignity, first during the apartheid regime of South Africa, and now during the homophobic regime of the leaders of the Anglican church. For the first, he received the Nobel Peace Prize, and for the second, he also recieved a prize last spring.
A report states:

The former Archbishop of Cape Town and Nobel Prize Laureate Desmond Tutu is to be honoured by the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission. [...]
He will [...] accept the OUTSPOKEN Award "in honour of the unprecedented impact of his leadership as a human rights advocate."
In November 2007 Archbishop Tutu told the BBC that if he believed that God was homophobic, he wouldn't be a Christian. The Nobel Peace Prize winner said he was ashamed of his church because of its treatment of gays. [...]
"Our world is facing problems, poverty, HIV and AIDS, a devastating pandemic, and conflict," Tutu said. "God must be weeping looking at some of the atrocities that we commit against one another.
"In the face of all of that, our Church, especially the Anglican Church, at this time is almost obsessed with questions of human sexuality."
[...] "If God as they say is homophobic I wouldn't worship that God."
"It is a perversion if you say to me that a person chooses to be homosexual.
"You must be crazy to choose a way of life that exposes you to a kind of hatred. It's like saying you choose to be black in a race infected society."
In December he apologised to gay people all around the world for the way they have been treated by the Church.

When he accepted the award in April,

Archbishop Tutu said that for his part it was impossible to keep quiet "when people were frequently hounded ... vilified, molested and even killed as targets of homophobia ... for something they did not choose - their sexual orientation."

Archbishop Tutu has vocally challenged discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. In a 2004 article in The Times of London, he condemned persecution on the basis of sexual orientation, comparing it to apartheid.
"We struggled against apartheid in South Africa, supported by people the world over, because black people were being blamed and made to suffer for something we could do nothing about - our very skins," he wrote. "It is the same with sexual orientation. It is a given. I could not have fought against the discrimination of apartheid and not also fight against the discrimination that homosexuals endure, even in our churches and faith groups."

Amen to that! Thank you, Archbishop!

Tutu calls on Ugandans to protect LGBT community (PinkNews 27.2.08)
Tutu to accept award from LGBT rights group (PinkNews 29.2.08)
Tutu Speaks Out On Gay Civil Rights (365gay 9.4.08)
Tutu inspires gay audience in San Francisco (PinkNews 10.4.08)

100Revs and Mardi Gras

In February, I blogged about the Australian movement calling itself "100Revs"; the movement has a blog at 100revs.blogspot.com.

The Pride marches in other parts of the world have an equivalent in Sydney's Mardi Gras. When I've taken part in the Helsinki Pride together with people from Yhteys-Gemenskap, we've been greeted with wrath by certain Bible-thumping extreme elements calling themselves Christian.
The Revs in Sydney had similar experiences when they marched. PinkNews reports (27.3.08):

... an anonymous clergym[a]n who marched in the parade spoke about his career being under threat.
While he stopped short of admitting his job was on the line, he spoke about future repercussions:
"It's very untalked about," he said.
"It's things like the revocation of opportunities for future ministry [positions].
"The conservative side were very upset. I still underestimate the level of political sway they have. I've definitely made a few enemies."

I know what he's talking about. And combining "gay" and "Christian" seems to be equally difficult from both sides of the issue, as some of the comments on the Sidney Star Observer show - see here and here. This is regrettable. There seems to be a long way yet to go. But most of the blame for this must be laid at the churches' doorstep because of our homophobia, past and present.
I'm so sorry for that. In my small way, I'm working to change the situation, but it seems to be an uphill struggle at the moment.

100Revs

A group of Australian Christian pastors (and ministers, priests etc) have published what they call "the 100 Revs Statement". In essence they apologise to the gay community for their churches' lack of welcome. The statement is published on the 100Revs blog, and says as follows:

As ministers of various churches and denominations we recognise that the churches we belong to, and the church in general, have not been places of welcome for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT) people. Indeed the church has often been profoundly unloving toward the GLBT community. For these things we apologise, whatever the distinctive of our Christian position on human sexuality – to which we remain committed. We are deeply sorry and ask for the forgiveness of the GLBT community. We long that the church would be a place of welcome for all people and commit ourselves to pursuing this goal.
We ARE a group of Christian ministers who voluntarily and individually bring this apology.
We ARE NOT official representatives of our churches or denominations.
We ARE NOT making a statement on the biblical position on gay and lesbian relationships.
We ARE recognising the lack of hospitality, care and welcome that the churches have offered the gay and lesbian community.

The "Revs" voice an intent to participate in the Mardi Gras event - which by all accounts should have taken place by now, since we already have entered Lent - which seems to be an equivalent of the Pride festivals of other countries, including Finland. To that extent, we have taken that step before our brothers and sisters Down Under - see here and here.

Not everyone is interested in being apologised to, however. In a comment, the pseudonymous Thug says:

Christians are swimming in a sea of blood they've spilled from innocents. No apology that fails to address the magnitude of Christian crimes against GLBT humanity is acceptable.

Maybe so. Sadly so. But it is a start.