John Barrowman and God...

[fajrdrako]

One of the things I blearily watched in the past few days was the British TV show Heaven and Earth, a BBC show in which celebrities discuss their views on religion. John Barrowman was the guest.

Rather to my surprise, he's Christian, and spoke rather clearly on what that means to him. I was surprised because I am always a little surprised when anyone is Christian - though I shouldn't be so naive about it. I was Christian once, so long ago I've almost forgotten what it was like.

Barrowman attends church, but he didn't say how regularly, or which church - I rather assumed Scots Presbyterian, simply through stereotyping, or because that's the background of my own family. This wasn't the kind of show that puts celebrities on the spot by pushing them to justify their faith, thank goodness. Barrowman talked about how his Christianity was not a religion of bigotry and he believes that God created him gay, and it was his role to be the best person he could be whatever his orientation. He said that his parents actually changed their church because of bigotry - presumably homophobia - from the pulpit. Charmingly, at the end, the interviewer congratulated him on his civil partnership with Scott, and mentioned the kilt he wore for the ceremony. She asked if Scott would wear a kilt any time soon. "I had enough trouble getting him into a suit," said Barrowman. "Besides, I'm the one with the good calves."

Asked about whether he wanted to have children (as had been reported), Barrowman said yes, but Scott wasn't so sure and he wouldn't do it unless and until Scott was sure. He also didn't want to become a parent just to have the child raised by a nanny, and his career is going so well these days, and he's so happy with it, he doesn't at present want to change his life so radically.

In my irrepressibly curious way I wanted to ask a bunch of other questions, not justify-your-faith kinds of questions, but questions about what Barrowman thinks about his work and his role on Doctor Who and Torchwood. I share the Russell T. Davies' brand of humanism in my beliefs, one of the reasons I love both shows so much, so I wanted to ask him about that: how do you feel, then, when Captain Jack says religion is merely superstition in a random universe? How do you feel about Torchwood's repeated assertions that there is no life after death? How do you feel about Captain Jack being surrounded with specifically Christian symbolism that depicts him as Jesus? ... I have no idea how Barrowman would answer these questions, but I am sure his answers would be both sensible and intelligent, and I'd love to hear them. Perhaps it is touching too close to Doctor Who-related subjects that the BBC (and Davies) do not discuss out loud. The parameters of what they discuss in public (in contrast to what they do not) are interesting in themselves.

Comments

[medelle.livejournal.com]

That's really interesting and I would love to see it, because in the past, he has asserted that he was NOT religious.

Besides, I always think its interesting to hear people talk about their faith or non faith and how it incorporates into their life.

Though I still think its God's punishment on us fangirls that he's gay! ;)

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

That's really interesting and I would love to see it, because in the past, he has asserted that he was NOT religious.

That was my impression from past interviews, too.

I suspect it's a matter of degree. One can be Christian (i.e., believe in the basic ideas of Christianity, however defined) and still be fairly humanistic, living one's life as such, and defining the nature of one's religion in fairly liberal, symbolic and non-fundamental ways. My parents were that kind of Christians.

But also, I've seen Barrowman apparently change his story about other things from one interview to another over time. Maybe he changed his mind, re-evaluated. Maybe he is shifting emphasis to focus on the kind of image he wants to project as his career changes. Maybe the editing and the nature of the interview skewed the overall impression.

I always think its interesting to hear people talk about their faith or non faith and how it incorporates into their life.

So do I. And I always wish people would talk about this more, because it is so fascinating. There is so much tendency for people to overreact to the subject, but it really can be discussed without offense as long as people remain courteous.

Though I still think its God's punishment on us fangirls that he's gay! ;)

LOL. What did we do to deserve that?

And for all his assertions of being gay (gay, gay and totally gay) he has also said he likes women, has had sex with women and liked it, and other comments that make me think that in the nomenclature of my own vocabulary, I would say he was bi. But he has chosen commitment to Scott and a 'gay lifestyle' so he has every reason to describe himself as gay. And besides... as Captain Jack would say... Such categories are quaint and unnecessary.

[medelle.livejournal.com]

I expect you're right about the matter of degree.

Plus, it doesn't surprise me that as he's gotten older he's seemingly softened his stance on some issues.

I always sort of got the impression from early interviews that he was mostly gay, with the knowledge that he COULD be attracted to a woman.... now I sort of get the feeling that in a way, he's learned from Captain Jack and has decided that he doesn't need to label himself.

So how did you see this, btw? 'cause I'd love to see it myself. :)

Oh and as for what we did to deserve it.... somewhere in our youth or childhood, we must have done something.. bad. ;) (bonus points if you get the reference that Im bastardizing here)

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

it doesn't surprise me that as he's gotten older he's seemingly softened his stance on some issues.

It seems that as people age they sometimes get more mellow about such issues - less dogmatic about right and wrong, as age gives them perspective -and then other people go the other way entirely and get crochety and narrow-minded about everything. I hope I age in the first way and not the second. John Barrowman seems to have mastered a remarkably healthy attitude to most things. Including himself.

now I sort of get the feeling that in a way, he's learned from Captain Jack and has decided that he doesn't need to label himself.

What a wonderful thought. And how I hope many people in the world listen to Captain Jack and learn the same message! Even I have become a little less adamant about describing myself as bisexual. I'd rather be... flexible than labelled. I don't think I'd have said that a decade ago, when I was being rather political about it.

So how did you see this, btw? 'cause I'd love to see it myself. :)

I'll try to remember, and find it again, and send you the link. What with the brain-destroying head-fog from my cold and the passage of a few days, I've no idea now where I found it!

somewhere in our youth or childhood, we must have done something.. bad. ;) (bonus points if you get the reference that Im bastardizing here)

LOL. medelle, m'dear, you have just won my heart by quoting a passage I love from one of my favourite movies, since Christopher Plummer as Captain Von Trapp was one of my first loves of all time. And I still adore him and always will. I always find the lyrics of that song hilarious, because really, from all we see, Maria's life has been remarkably sin-free!

This reminds me that I haven't seen the last few episodes of How Do You Solve a Problem Like Maria. I think I need to... soon....

[medelle.livejournal.com]

It seems that as people age they sometimes get more mellow about such issues - less dogmatic about right and wrong, as age gives them perspective -and then other people go the other way entirely and get crochety and narrow-minded about everything.

That is exactly what I meant to say and sort of forgot to. :)

I know that as I've gotten older, like you said, I've softened my stance on a lot of things... I figure at this point that life is too short to be so staunchly dogmatic about certain things.

What a wonderful thought. And how I hope many people in the world listen to Captain Jack and learn the same message!

That's what I choose to believe at any rate. :)

I'll try to remember, and find it again, and send you the link. What with the brain-destroying head-fog from my cold and the passage of a few days, I've no idea now where I found it!

I would love that! I have checked the usual haunts and found no trace of it, but I'll keep looking! :)

Glad you got the reference - I adore Christopher Plummer's Captain as well. Though personally, I think Maria might have been a bit of a hellion when she was a wee one! ;)

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

I figure at this point that life is too short to be so staunchly dogmatic about certain things.

Funny thing is, I still pretty much believe all the things I ever have, or at least, the philosophies and attitudes and beliefs I developed and discovered at adolescence. Can it be that my greatest intellectual development happened and stopped by the time I was fifteen, and the rest has been refining the details?

I have checked the usual haunts and found no trace of it, but I'll keep looking! :)

Yes. I'm trying to remember. Will look again.

I adore Christopher Plummer's Captain as well.

A classic.

I think Maria might have been a bit of a hellion when she was a wee one! ;)

Maybe! I smile to picture it. Can't really imagine her as being cruel or sinful, though. Just... lively.

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

I think the older I get, the less tolerant I get of bullshit and delusions of various kinds. Life is short, and we need to cut to the essentials. Plus the creeping insanity of the world seems to be getting worse: unreason and mumbo-jumbo, New Age airy-fairyness, Bible-thumpers, Qu'ran-thumpers, all of them...

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

I think the older I get, the less tolerant I get of bullshit and delusions of various kinds.

I think I was most intolerant of bullshit in my teens. It seemed so wrong - and pervasive - as it still does, but I no longer take personal offense. So poeple are wrong about things. So people don't want to listent to me. Okay, I say what I think, but can't force it on anyone, and don't particuarly try.

Most of the time.

the creeping insanity of the world seems to be getting worse

I'm not sure if the insanity of the world is worse or its consequences are. Are there more wars than ever, or just more media reporting of the name proportions of warfare? Are world leaders crazier, or am I just paying more attention? Are opinions more polarized? Is fundamentalism growing world-wide? I think so, and it's disturbing.

Though I have some New Age sympathies, myself. Not to the point of unreason, I hope. Just... an interest in the outre and new ways of seeing things.

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

I think the legacy of the Enlightenment is under threat.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Oh, very much so. So it's for us to keep pushing those values at every opportunity.

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

Even I have become a little less adamant about describing myself as bisexual. I'd rather be... flexible than labelled. I don't think I'd have said that a decade ago, when I was being rather political about it.

I was never 'political', which is what cost me the only potential girlfriend I ever had. She said she wanted to be "more politicised" and hooked up with a 'political' walking stereotype Dungarees Dyke (who looked more masculine than most blokes!). Ironically, I remembered Ms Dungarees when she was straight (she'd made a political decision to become a lesbian when on a women's studies course abroad - apparently the tutor was (unethically, I thought) seducing her students!). The joke is that, in those days, she'd got off with the only boy I was ever seriously attracted to... I felt that, straight or gay, she was my personal nemesis!

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

She said she wanted to be "more politicised"

Eeek! Scary! I am by temperament an anarchist and always have been, and my foray into bi activism - such as it was - in the 1990s was more out of social concern than political conviction. I'm sure it did me good.

hooked up with a 'political' walking stereotype Dungarees Dyke (who looked more masculine than most blokes!)

Well... so it goes.

the tutor was (unethically, I thought) seducing her students

Not usually considered good form.

The joke is that, in those days, she'd got off with the only boy I was ever seriously attracted to...

That's downright cruel.

I felt that, straight or gay, she was my personal nemesis!

Clearly a person to stay away from.

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

Eeek! Scary! I am by temperament an anarchist and always have been, and my foray into bi activism - such as it was - in the 1990s was more out of social concern than political conviction. I'm sure it did me good.

This was in the 1980s: Thatcherism, the Clause 2a/Section 28 legislation. There was a lot to be angry about, politically, but I didn't feel that it meant I had to select the objects of my affections according to their degree of politicisation; or that not being butch meant I didn't care about homophobia, & c.

Clearly a person to stay away from.

She was in the US at one point, with a flashy job as some sort of New Labour Scottish affairs rep. in Washington. But I see from a 2005 newspaper article, this is no longer the case:
McConnell's top adviser to quit after rift (http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=782&id=496082005):
Freeman’s departure comes after Scotland on Sunday revealed that she and McConnell had a series of rows over the decision by civil servants to haul back Scotland’s ‘ambassador’ to the USA, Susan Stewart, amid claims that she had ruffled Foreign Office feathers.
Freeman was understood to be "furious" that McConnell had not stepped in to ensure that Stewart kept her job.

"Ruffling feathers" would be putting it mildly. Susan was an abrasive character as a student.

I think what I learned from the whole situation is that if a girl asks you round to look at her Marlene Dietrich picture books... she may mean it literally.

Just as well: the physical side of things really doesn't appeal to me. I would say I'm physically a-, emotionally bi (live women, dead men, usually).

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

This was in the 1980s: Thatcherism, the Clause 2a/Section 28 legislation.

I'll have to look that up to know what it means.

Susan was an abrasive character as a student

Not the best choice for a position that should involve diplomacy.

is that if a girl asks you round to look at her Marlene Dietrich picture books... she may mean it literally.

That's a rather depressing thought. But true.

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

I'll have to look that up to know what it means.

It was part of Conservative legislation on local government, against the "promotion of homosexuality" - which is, of course, impossible, but in practice meant that support groups, education, & c, were made fearful of tackling gay/lesbian/bisexual issues.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Ah - I remember reading about it at the time, with some distress and disbelief. Definitely a retrograde move. I hope the legislation has since been repealed?

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

Yes: Clause 2a was repealed first in Scotland, then the equivalent Section 28 in England and Wales. Both in the teeth of strong opposition from the God Squad.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

in the teeth of strong opposition from the God Squad

Cousins of the idiots who were trying to push the Canadian government to repeal gay marriage laws.

Funny situation - trying to legislate that you can't freely discuss or teach a certain issue. Freedom of thought? Does the phrase mean anything any more?

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

I would say I'm physically a-, emotionally bi (live women, dead men, usually).

And on reflection... this is where my inability to label myself and my sense of flexibility comes in - physically and emotionally fully bi, loving many live men and women - well, not promiscuously, but having that potential - and many dead men and women. Not to mention fictional ones too! And some who are a bit of both.

[fanfic-whore.livejournal.com]

Sorry to pitch in here like this but...who you sleep with doesn't define your sexuality. Trust me. If you define as straight, think straight and sleep with members of the opposite gender but once or twice ride the gay bus to school it doesn't change your sexuality.

I'm a gay woman. How do I know I'm a gay woman? Because I've slept with men, enjoyed it, tried relationships with them and it's felt one hundred different shades of wrong. But it doesn't feel wrong with women.

Of course sexuality is a continuum and all that jazz, but you definitely can experiment with same/other sex encounters, enjoy them for what they are and not need to redefine your sexuality.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Sorry to pitch in here like this but...

As far as I'm concerned, any number of opinions are welcome here. Join the discussion!

who you sleep with doesn't define your sexuality. Trust me.

Hrmm. I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here. What, in your opinion, does define your sexuality?

The "feeling wrong/not feeling wrong" differentiation for sexual orientation works better for some people than others. I doesn't set up much meaning or resonance in my head as self-definitions go. Sex with certain people would feel right, with others would feel wrong, and gender has nothing to do with it at all. So - are there conclusions there?

My conclusion is: we define ourselves as we wish and as we care to, for whatever reasons seem relevant to us. The tricky bit comes in when we twist the question to 'how other people define us'. I have in the past found that saying I'm bisexual had a certain advantage, even if in not utterly confusing my friends. (Who often managed to be confused about me anyway.) There are two sides to any person's image - the image you project and the one that's perceived. Not always the same. Other people's perceptions are not necessarily relevant - but they can be crucially important. And simply as a matter of honesty, I'd rather not be taken for a tangerine when I'm really a pomegranate.

Of course sexuality is a continuum and all that jazz

More for some than others, I think. Many people feel solidly certain of a specific type of sexuality or orientation; others are thinking: "Huh? what does that mean?"

but you definitely can experiment with same/other sex encounters, enjoy them for what they are and not need to redefine your sexuality.

You don't need to define your sexuality or all; or you can redefine it every day. Do you think the value of such definition is to yourself, or others, or is it simply part of a world-view?

I think what I am getting from the 'Capain Jack attitude' is that labelling other people is futile - because you never know what's in their heads - and can be descriptive but never perscriptive.

In other words, people shouldn't make assumptions. And there are several common assumptions in our world: that most people are straight, or that most people are either straight or gay, or that what we are told about human relations in the media and books is a whole truth and not a partial truth. There is some truth in these assumptions - which is why it is pervasive - but it tends to be limiting, or dangerous, to those of us who don't fit the design.

[fanfic-whore.livejournal.com]

What, in your opinion, does define your sexuality?

I think I was aiming more for a definition of sexuality based on orientation rather than action. One of the guys I work with who is gay was married for years and has at least one kid (now 18ish). So was he straight during the time he was married and only ‘turned’ gay in later life, or was he always gay and felt he had to marry for the sake of family/social convention/self denial etc. I’d say it’s the latter. I think this ties into your comments on self definition vs perception by others.

Sex with certain people would feel right, with others would feel wrong, and gender has nothing to do with it at all. So - are there conclusions there?

There are, and I agree. For me sex with certain men would feel more comfortable than sex with certain women (say David Tennant vs Anne Widdecombe!)…but I know I prefer women.

You don't need to define your sexuality or all; or you can redefine it every day. Do you think the value of such definition is to yourself, or others, or is it simply part of a world-view?

I’d say the definition that’s important is your own, which would intrinsically be part of your world view. I self-define as gay for a variety of reasons, not many of which are about who I sleep with and I agree that the labelling of people is almost futile but it’s also intrinsically necessary because of the fact we’re social animals whose brains do categorise (I think this works on a very visceral level but I can’t remember the details). Things have to be boxed and categorised in sections (which we then create links between) else we’d go mad, I think I’m right in saying we literally can’t look at everything all the time without prejudice. I mean even to the level of what we’re seeing, where the brain is actually remembering most of what it saw the last time we saw the same scene/person etc. Problems occur when people view the boxes/categories as rigid things, when your head says there are the Christians (who are good) and the infidels (who are bad) or the middle class (who are intrinsically superior) and the working class (who are intrinsically inferior), or the straight and the gay, black and white, etc, etc, etc…

Thus, in conclusion what I think I was saying was that just because John Barrowman has slept with women doesn’t mean he is bi (or isn’t gay – wherever you want to put that emphasis), that outward action (and therefore other people’s perceptions of you) don’t equal inner direction. So I was actually challenging the assumptions of rigidity, but obviously in a very badly expressed way!

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

I think we agree that assumptions of rigidity in sexuality are a bad idea - misleading at best. My rule of thumb is that you can only categorize someone's orientation on what they say about themselves. Only they really know. And what they know or say can change. Maybe that's why I like the non-defining notions of flexibility more than the labels - there's more room for change and variation.

For me sex with certain men would feel more comfortable than sex with certain women (say David Tennant vs Anne Widdecombe!)…

LOL. I don't know who Anne Widecombe is but I've seen pictures. David Tennant... well, he's a category or desirability all his own, in my opinion!

For me sex with certain men would feel more comfortable than sex with certain women ... but I know I prefer women.

And I totally believe you but that's a concept my brain just doesn't assimilate. I can believe it but I just can't understand it.

I agree that the labelling of people is almost futile but it’s also intrinsically necessary because of the fact we’re social animals whose brains do categorise

Yes, and I can see value to that categorizing. Whether or not I care whether people see me as bi, there's a strong impulse in me to prefer that people should not see me as het or homosexual - since both categories would feel wrong or dishonest, regardless of the specific gender of whoever I am sleeping with or want to be sleeping with.

[cyberducks.livejournal.com]

JB always comes across having so much common sense and being downtoearth, sigh. Somehow I am not surprised to learn he is Christian, though I couldn't tell you why exactly.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

JB always comes across having so much common sense and being downtoearth, sigh.

Doesn't he, though. I've heard him parry somewhat offensive questions with humour and charm. He has a fine ego and self-confidence but never shows egocentrism or narcissism. He seems to have such a sense of grace in what he does and says - and he's done it so consistently and randomly and well, it's clearly the real John Barrowman and not a pose for the media.

In other words, the more I see, the more impressed I am.

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

I always feel vaguely disappointed that otherwise intelligent adults still believe in supernatural beings. I feel sorry for them.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

It seems inexplicable to me. One of the mysteries of humanity.

[medelle.livejournal.com]

Simply out of curiosity, why dissapointed?

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

That they should know better and have outgrown that kind of stuff.

[medelle.livejournal.com]

Not to be argumentative, but what is your reasoning here?

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

Because it's an irrational 'comfort blanket' that one should be able to function without. Believing that fantasy beings really exist is quite cute when you're 4, but at 40 looks a bit odd.

[medelle.livejournal.com]

So again, not to be argumentative, but are you thinking of things like ghosts and fairies or God or all of the above?

Really, Im just curious.

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

All of the above.

[medelle.livejournal.com]

OK.

Thanks for the info. :)

[tavella.livejournal.com]

things like ghosts and fairies or God

They tend to look alike from my perspective. So listening to someone talk about God as an active sentient force pretty much sounds as silly as someone talking about the invisible fairies in their back garden.

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

Exactly! There is no difference, except that the various god-things have got big organisations batting for them, whereas færies aren't organised.

[firko.livejournal.com]

I love seeing him interviewed - he does, as you say, have a very healthy attitude to himself. I catch Heaven and Earth occasionally, and they have some very interesting interviews with celebrities with all kinds of beliefs and views on spirituality.

I also love that he is as big a fan of the shows he makes as we are. I don't know if you have seen the Torchwood Declassified for the last episode but he had a different take on Jack's 'resurrection' than I had considered from watching the episode. I didn't necessarily agree with what he said, but it was intriguing none the less.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

he does, as you say, have a very healthy attitude to himself.

The more I think of it, the more I admire it. I aspire to that. Talent and self-confidence without the ego-nonsense.

I don't know if you have seen the Torchwood Declassified for the last episode but he had a different take on Jack's 'resurrection' than I had considered from watching the episode.

I saw it but I don't remember exactly what he said or what I thought about it... Though I do remember thinking "Huh? really?" at some point. And I remember enjoying the way Barrowman laughed when he described Bilis as 'the evil gay'.... Perhaps that was the Declassicied for episode 12. I'm not sure. Really, watching this stuff with a head cold doesn't seem to have helped my memory. Was there some specific comment you were thinking of?

[firko.livejournal.com]

I had to go back and watch it again to check his wording. He said:

Jack has defeated Abaddon, and in defeating Abaddon has depleted himself of all the energy and all the good that he has to give and, I think, Gwen having that spark of love and life and joie de vivre in her gives him the spark back and that’s what brings Jack back to life.

I was a little surprised that he attributed Jack's revival so wholly to Gwen. I saw it more that her kiss and faith in him might have drawn him back a little quicker but he would have revived without it. He implies that Jack wouldn't have come back without her which seems to go against so much of his back story.

It is the Declassified where he talks about Bilis as the 'evil gay' *sniggers*. I also love the Declassified for Ep12 where RTD talks about Jack falling in love with himself!

[cyberducks.livejournal.com]

What was his take on Jack's "ressurection"?