Did Paul prohibit all forms of same-sex sexual relations?


David Instone-Brewer has written an article in this month’s Premier Christianity magazine, arguing that, because Paul cites Leviticus 20.18 in his neologism in 1 Cor 6.9, and Lev 20.18 uses an unusual word, Paul was only rejecting certain forms of same-sex sexual relationship. His argument is quite technical, but you can read it here.

I was invited to offer a response; you can read the edited, published version here, and below the full text of what I offered, together with an additional final reflection. There is a more technical engagement with David’s original claim which I posted here.


Did Paul condemn all same-sex sexual activity? Yes he did

In this issues ‘Decoding the Bible’ David Instone-Brewer argues that is it unclear that Paul condemns all forms of same-sex sexual activity. Having known and appreciated David and his work over many years, I was surprised by the inaccuracies, confusion, and false steps that he takes along the way. 

The first is in his article title: ‘Did Paul condemn all homosexuality?’ This cannot be a question we can ask about Scripture, since the notion of ‘homosexuality’ as an identity is a modern invention, dependent on an individualised psychological understanding of sexual orientation which is alien to the ancient world. There was recognition in the ancient world that some people had a settled attraction to people of the same sex (see the speech of Aristophanes in Plato’s Symposium) but this was not considered to be an ‘orientation’ or identity as we think of it. 

David threads this error all through his discussion of Romans 1, by referring to people who are ‘heterosexual’ and ‘homosexual’ in Paul’s argument. But these are categories Paul simply does not consider, and which would have made no sense to his readers. Greeks and Romans had markedly different attitudes to sex from us and from each other. For Greeks, anal sex between an older man and a young boy was seen as both a natural part of the boy’s development, and an appreciation by the man of the ideal of youth and beauty. Romans mostly thought this idea disgusting; for them the two main categories of thought were the primacy of the male and the importance of hierarchical social status. Men were the default form of humanity; weak women were a defective form; and sexual penetration was the ultimate expression of male power and masculinity. High status men would therefore be expected to express their masculinity by penetrating slaves of either sex, low status men, and women. The notion of ‘orientation’ had no bearing at all. 

By imposing modern categories on Romans 1, David mistakes what Paul means by ‘exchange’ and ‘nature’ and misreads his whole argument. 

Who and what Paul condemned in Romans 1

Paul’s overall argument in the early chapters of Romans is to explain to a community that he did not found how he understands the gospel. His particular concern is to appeal to both Jews and Gentiles, between whom there was some tension both in the city of Rome and within the community of faith. So in chapter 1 he rehearses classic Jewish critiques of pagan culture, and then in chapter 2 turns to biblical critiques of Jews themselves. This allows him to conclude that ‘all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God’ (Rom 3.23)—that is, ‘all’ meaning both Jew and Gentile—and therefore all, both Jew and Gentile, are in need of the gift of redemption that is offered in Jesus. 

So here we find him rehearsing Jewish critiques that we find in other writers, including Philo of Alexandria. The creator God has revealed himself in creation, but humanity has rejected this revelation and turned to false gods. Paul characterises this as a series of ‘exchanges’: wisdom for foolishness and the glory of God for images (vv 22–23); truth for a lie, worshipping creatures instead of the creator (v 25); natural sexual relations for unnatural ones (v 26). Paul characterises God’s wrath and judgement here not as something future, but as something that works itself out in the present; God ‘gave them up’ to their choices, so that both their thinking and their actions reflect the choices that they have made. They reap what they have sown. 

Both in the shape of his argument and its detail, Paul makes it clear what he means by ‘natural’. God has created the world in a particular way, reflecting his intention, but humanity has rejected that. In this context, it is clear that by ‘natural’ Paul does not mean ‘how the world is’, still less ‘the desires I find within myself’ but ‘How God created the world to be, before human sin’. This is made explicit when he comments that men ‘gave up natural relations with women’. This is not a comment on ‘orientation’ but on the fact that, in the Genesis creation accounts, God created humanity in his image male and female, and that this sex binary was to be the basis of sex, marriage, and fruitful procreation. 

‘Natural’ must mean in this context sex with the opposite sex. It cannot be limited to only the act as unnatural… his concerns are not about custom and fashion, but what he sees as divine ordering… Paul believes that the creation story implies that only sexual relations between male and female (and then only in marriage) are acceptable before God (William Loader, The New Testament on Sexuality pp 311–314).

Paul is here offering a critique of both Greek and Roman attitudes to sex and sexuality, and in doing so parallels closely other Jewish critiques of pagan culture, including Philo, who uses ‘natural’ in exactly the same way. The sex binary of male and female, as a central part of God’s creation of humanity, must determine our sexual ethic, and this includes a rejection of same-sex sex regardless of its context. 

Some gay commentators have said ‘I don’t recognise myself in Romans 1’ but in doing so they are treating this as though Paul is writing biography rather than theology. ‘Although they knew God’ (v 21) describes humanity in creation, not at a point in time; the list of vices in vv 29–31 describes all of us, not gay people. When we turn from God, everything goes wrong, and one of the most obvious signs of this is that both our thinking about and practice of sex go awry. 

Paul’s proof text?

From this, we can already see another point where David is in error—the claim that ‘Everything hinges on a strange word Paul uses for homosexuality—arseno-koites’. On the contrary, Paul’s argument is quite clear in Romans 1 on its own—but Paul’s use of this term  in 1 Cor 6.9 and 1 Tim 1.10 confirms his argument from another angle. 

David is quite right to note that this word, unknown prior to Paul, is one he has coined from Lev 20.13 in Greek: kai hos an koimethe meta arsenos koiten gunaikos… (literally ‘If a man beds with a male the bed of a woman’). But once again, he imposes alien, modern views on the distinction here between the two terms for the men involved. 

David claims that the two Hebrew terms in Leviticus 20.13, ish meaning ‘man’ and zakar meaning ‘male’, have different implications, the first referring simply to sex identity and the second suggesting a ‘real-male’, masculine man, implying that the second is what we would call heterosexual, whilst the sexuality of the first is unspecified. But his claim is based on a false argument, fails to notice the real significance of these terms, and flies in the face of all interpretations of this text in Judaism. 

David claims that zakar has this ‘masculine’ sense in Akkadian literature—but fails to notice that this is only in texts where it is contrasted with words for effeminacy or ‘gender ambiguous’ people. Within the Hebrew Old Testament, it is never used in this way, and there is no sense of this kind of difference between the uses of ish and zakar. The fact that both the ish and the zakar are equally guilty of committing and offence (in contrast to Akkadian legislation) confirms this; the imposition of the death penalty “clearly indicates consensual male-male intercourse” (Richard Davidson, Flame of Yahweh, p. 149). 

But the use of zakar does have significance—as an allusion to the creation story. Though Adam and Eve are described as ‘man and woman’, ish and ishsha, in Gen 2.23, the creation of humanity in Gen 1.27 is described as ‘male and female’, zakar ve-nekevah. The problem with same-sex sex in Lev 20.13 is precisely that it defies God’s creation of humanity as male and female; men are not to have sex with other males as they do with women. So this text, read correctly, actually lines up precisely with Paul’s argument in Romans 1. And the history of its reception in Jewish thought confirms this; the Hebrew phrase from this verse, mishkav zakar, became for the rabbis a catch-all term for all same-sex sex, both between men and between women. This corresponds to Paul in Romans 1 to refer to both men and women giving up their ‘natural’ patterns of relationship. 

It is possible that the two terms malakos and arsenokoites in 1 Cor 6.9 might refer to the ‘passive’ and ‘active’ partners in anal intercourse, as some scholars have argued. But there are several reasons why this might not be the case. 

  • Malakos has a much broader sense of moral weakness and indulgence; John the Baptist criticises his persecutor Herod Antipas of wearing malakos clothing in Matt 11.8 and Luke 7.25.
  • Paul avoids using the well-established Greek terms for those involved in pederasty, erastes and eromenos, thus making his statement much more general. 
  • Grammatically, the two terms are not paired, but listed in the same way as all the others.
  • He uses the term arsenokoites on its own in 1 Tim 1.10, and this corresponds with the rabbinic use of mishkav zakar as a catch-all. 
  • As we have seen, in Romans 1 it is the general issue of same-sex sex, and not particular acts, that Paul is concerned with. 

David’s overall argument here is entirely speculative, without any actual evidence to support it, and ignoring the evidence which contradicts it. (For a more detailed examination of David’s claims here, see ‘Are there Two Types of Men in Leviticus 20:13?’)

Why is this all so complicated?

Given the complexity of the technical questions that David raises (which others have raised in other contexts) the ordinary reader of Scripture might start to wonder ‘Why is this all so complicated? Surely the Bible should be clear on this if we are to follow it?’ 

I am firmly of the view that, in fact, the texts are clear in what they say—and I am not alone in this. It is the kind of slightly obscure and convoluted arguments provided by David IB which make it all sound complicated; the text itself, and its meaning, is comparatively straightforward. And the vast majority of mainline, liberal, biblical scholars, most of whom think the teaching of the church that marriage is between one man and one woman is wrong, are nevertheless absolutely confident that the Bible teaches this clearly and consistently. 

Paul’s intention here is not fully clear, but he wants to name the most extreme affront of the Gentiles before the creator God, and Paul takes disordered sexual relations as the ultimate affront. This indictment is not as clear as those in the tradition of Leviticus, but it does serve as an echo of those texts. It is impossible to explain away these texts. (Walter Brueggemann)

It is very possible that Paul knew of views which claimed some people had what we would call a homosexual orientation…If he did, it is more likely that, like other Jews, he would have rejected them out of hand….He would have stood more strongly under the influence of Jewish creation tradition which declares human beings male and female…and so seen same-sex sexual acts by people as flouting divine order. (William Loader, The New Testament and Sexuality, p 323-4).

Paul’s vice lists are generally ignored in church polity and administration. Christian churches contain people who drink too much, who are greedy, who are deceitful, who quarrel, who gossip, who boast, who once rebelled against their parents, and who are foolish. Yet Paul’s vice lists condemn them all, just as much as they condemn people who engage in homosexual acts (E P Sanders Paul: The Apostle’s Life, Letters and Thought, 2016, p 372).

Homosexual activity was a subject on which there was a severe clash between Greco-Roman and Jewish views. Christianity, which accepted many aspects of Greco-Roman culture, in the case accepted the Jewish view so completely that the ways in which most of the people in the Roman Empire regarded homosexuality were obliterated, though now have been recovered by ancient historians. (Sanders, op cit, p 344)

If all these liberal scholars can be so confident in what Scripture says, so can we!


But what does this mean in practice? Does Paul’s teaching mean that we are being unkind to gay people and denying them ‘fulness of life’? We need to remember three things in reflecting on this. First, to love someone is (according to Aquinas) to will the best for them. If God has revealed his best pattern of living for humanity, and if that best plan is that that marriage is between one man and one woman, and sexual intimacy belongs within that, then this is the pattern we need to live by and call others to. It was, after all, Jesus who was himself single and celibate who both lived out and offered us this life in all its fulness.

Secondly, we need to listen carefully to the testimony of those who have indeed found it the way of life. In my report on the February 2023 meeting of Synod, I quoted the speech from Paul Chamberlain:

Synod colleagues, I am a gay man who holds to the historic teaching of the church on marriage and sex. Despite my desires for sexual intimacy with other men, I have sought to fashion my life, and forge my relationships according to that teaching. This has not been easy. In my 20s, I met a guy. I really wanted a relationship with him. But I believed, and believe, that the teaching of scripture is clear. Not once have I regretted the decision not to pursue that relationship.

Thirdly, we need to make this teaching possible by the way we live as the people of God. We need to recognise the two honoured patterns of life—marriage and celibate singleness—and support both. We need to encourage and support those who are married, without idolising marriage and pretending it holds no challenges. We need to encourage and support those who are single, without treating them as second best. And we need to live as the family of God, willing to invest in deep friendships, welcoming others into our homes, so that it is this fellowship, and not merely sex and marriage, which is the end of loneliness.


DON'T MISS OUT!
Signup to get email updates of new posts
We promise not to spam you. Unsubscribe at any time.
Invalid email address

If you enjoyed this, do share it on social media (Facebook or Twitter) using the buttons on the left. Follow me on Twitter @psephizo. Like my page on Facebook.


Much of my work is done on a freelance basis. If you have valued this post, you can make a single or repeat donation through PayPal:

For other ways to support this ministry, visit my Support page.


Comments policy: Do engage with the subject. Please don't turn this into a private discussion board. Do challenge others in the debate; please don't attack them personally. I no longer allow anonymous comments; if there are very good reasons, you may publish under a pseudonym; otherwise please include your full name, both first and surnames.

252 thoughts on “Did Paul prohibit all forms of same-sex sexual relations?”

  1. Yes, I think you are right. And as you say this is a disappointing approach by David IB. It demonstrates the danger of linguists looking at the trees and not the wood—approaching the text without giving due weight to its wider context and applying, dare I say it—a bit of ‘common sense’ —and using clear teaching to cast light on what might seem unclear. This obscure reading cannot possibly be allowed to override the clear broad sweep of Scripture teaching.

    Reply
    • Steady on Colin, that sounds remarkably like common sense, but not only that but like a sound reformed, hermeneutic to understanding: plain,, clear passages and meaning explain and gives understanding to more difficult or more obscure passages.

      Reply
  2. Excellent use of material from the “liberal” scholars to clearly demonstrate the clarity of the texts…

    If I may suggest one edit…because you are switching between NT (1 Cor. 6:9) and OT (Lev. 20:13), there is potential for confusion when you write:

    “David claims that the two Hebrew terms here, ish meaning ‘man’ and zakar meaning ‘male’, have different implications”

    I suggest that instead of “Hebrew terms here” you could have “Hebrew terms in Leviticus” or “Hebrew terms in the underlying text in Leviticus”….

    Reply
    • The idea of differentiation is to give ”each” (ahem) of the ”two” (ahem) ”factions” (ahem) at least one church in every relevant locality, thus necessitating (a) that people move from their own parish where they may have been 80 years and their family 800, (b) that existing communities, which have taken decades to build up, are reconfigured, (c) that people have to take sides as though only 2 positions existed, neither nuanced, (d) incredible amounts of paperwork and admin and rewriting.
      Only, quite possibly, for the trendier of the two factions to have their churches taken back by the more enduring within a generation or two when they have fizzled out or run to ground?
      I would not be surprised if the most economical possible ‘solution’ was still massively uneconomical, complicated and messy.
      All because of an inability to stray too far from the prevalent culture, whether that inability is accompanied by research or by none.

      Hmm. You know whose infernal masterplan this is?

      Reply
      • I don’t think there’s any expectation of divvying up the congregations or attempting to ensure a new third province has true national coverage. This about the CEEC churches wanting to get out, choose their own bishops, but hang on to all their buildings and stipends, and get a slice of the assets. Don’t expect them to burden themselves with any cathedrals to maintain, or a national network of poorer churches to subsidise.

        The argument is a bit bizarre anyway. They’re worried a gay person might come and ask them about same-sex marriage, and although they think this a gospel issue, they’re desperate to avoid having to talk about it. I can’t understand how a church which wants to avoid adverse publicity or local media scrutiny is supposed to be helped by being invited to split away from their current diocese and choose to a join a new third province whose creation was driven entirely by its attitude to gay people and gay relationships.

        Reply
        • AJ

          And it there were a new province for people who are conservative on homosexuality they’d soon fall out amongst themselves, because they likely wouldn’t agree on where precisely lines should be drawn – the most contentious are whether it is ok to call yourself gay or is that a sin, whether it is ok to be in a romantic relationship that doesn’t involve sex and whether gay people must be seeking to become heterosexual.

          Reply
          • I think it depends on how they want to set it up and relate to the rest of the Communion. CEEC seem to have people who are comfortable saying “gay Christian”, and there’s some who think this was really important about the CofE (in contrast to say the Roman Catholics). But this was the trouble that Foley Beach got himself into – he was rebuked very sternly for it Archbishop Ndukuba of Nigeria, and so has to watch what he says now.

          • And what if you are a female incumbent and your ministry is not recognised by your conservative brothers but you also want to uphold Biblical teaching on marriage. Where do you belong? Excepted by neither side. Tears fall. Lord have mercy.

          • AJ Bell

            Yes exactly.

            Add the disagreements over women in leadership and you potentially have four new provinces:

            Dont say Gay/No women
            Dont say Gay with women
            Say Gay/No women
            Say gay and women, but no SSRs

        • They’re worried a gay person might come and ask them about same-sex marriage

          Um no they’re not? They’re worried a gay person might sue them for discrimination or someone might report one of their sermons to the police as a hate crime.

          Reply
          • Gay people dont want to be married by vicars who disapprove of their relationship.

            Maybe not, but I can imagine someone wanting to be married by a vicar who approves of their relationship in the church of a vicar who doesn’t, as a sort of victory lap. ‘We’re going to get married in this church by our choice of vicar and you can’t stop us, bigot’ sort of thing.

            If they could get the one who wouldn’t marry then fired too, so much the better…

    • Peter
      As I keep on saying: the disagreement about marriage/sexual relations is an important disagreement. But it is not the most important disagreement. The most important disagreement is about some of the key doctrines that are involved in the doctrine of salvation: whether the doctrine of Original Sin is true or not; whether the doctrine of the propitiation of God’s wrath by the death of Christ is true or not; whether the atonement doctrine of Penal Substitution is true or not; whether the doctrine of Eternal Retribution for the unsaved is true or not; whether the Church must believe and preach the terrible warnings to flee from the wrath to come as well as the wonderful invitations to come to Christ and be saved.
      It would be folly to have some form of ‘structural differentiation’ which did not include these more important doctrines. Otherwise you could end up with a situation where some people, like Dr Ian Paul are right about marriage/sex but wrong about some of these vital doctrines.

      Phil Almond

      Reply
      • Phil

        There are thousands, if not millions, of denominations worldwide. The denominations dont agree on everything and the individuals usually dont agree with the denomination that they are a member of on everything.

        You can sit alongside someone who has a different understanding of ‘original sin’ than you because it doesn’t impact your behaviour. It’s harder to sit alongside (or have your kids sit alongside their kids) people whose marriage you believe to be seriously evil or alongside people who believe you to be an evil person because of your orientation.

        Reply
        • You can sit alongside someone who has a different understanding of ‘original sin’ than you

          You can’t though. Because that goes to the very root of one’s entire world-view. Two such people would be seeing the world through totally different lenses; they could barely have any discussion of significance, their foundational premises would be so different.

          Reply
          • Well I have. I’ve had probably hundreds of friends that I’ve disagreed with on substantial issues of theology, including atheists and Jews

          • I’ve had probably hundreds of friends that I’ve disagreed with on substantial issues of theology, including atheists and Jews

            Oh, I have friends of different religions and none, obviously. But I couldn’t worship alongside them — because we wouldn’t be worshiping the same thing.

          • I have been to church with both Jewish people and atheists.

            Assuming you are a Christian, you and they might have been in the same church at the same time, but you weren’t with them.

            Just as I wouldn’t be with a Muslim in a mosque or with a Jew in a synagogue. I might be standing beside them, but I would not be doing whatever they were doing.

        • Peter
          My point is that the vital truth is that we need to believe and preach that we all face the wrath of God and his condemnation from birth onwards and we all need to repent and trust Christ in his atoning death because he bore the penalty we all deserve. This is the most important truth of all.

          Phil Almond

          Reply
          • Colin
            Original Sin is proved by a correct understanding of Romans 5:12-21. Do you want me to state my understanding?
            Phil Almond

          • What I would like you to do is to stop proof-texting, as if your way of reading a single passage ‘clearly’ implies your own theological understanding. It doesn’t.

          • Ian
            Are you willing to have a serious debate about Romans 5:12-21 and a serious debate about the meaning of Article 9. I am willing but are you?

            Phil Almond

          • Philip, no, I am not interested in debating that at the moment.

            But I hope you are aware that the literature is extensive, and much of it disagrees with you.

          • Ian
            Thanks for your reply. I am not surprised that much of the literature disagrees with me. But some of it agrees with me. I am hoping and praying that Evangelicals will be willing to debate openly and in detail about original sin, propitiation of wrath by the death of Christ, penal substitution, eternal retribution, the need to believe and preach the terrible warnings as well as the wonderful sincere invitations and promises to repent and come the Christ – in the wake of the LLF event – because these doctrines are much more important and need to be debated before any ‘structural differentiation’ is considered.

            Phil Almond

          • the need to believe and preach the terrible warnings

            I didn’t think the owner of this website disagreed with the need to preach the warnings? See for example https://www.psephizo.com/biblical-studies/was-paul-a-universalist/

            which seems to me totally orthodox re: humanity’s fallen state and the need for redemption, and explicitly states:

            ‘ Paul consistently describes the possibility of people perishing without salvation as both a motivation for his missionary preaching and his concern to protect the gospel from the error of false teaching.’

            Which is I think exactly what you want to happen — an understanding of the need for redemption leading to renewed vigour in preaching and warming of the consequences of fleeing the offered salvation?

          • S
            Yes I do want that to happen. Thank you for pointing out that in this respect (if not for the other doctrines) Ian agrees with me!

            Phil Almond

          • Thank you for pointing out that in this respect (if not for the other doctrines) Ian agrees with me!

            I disagree with the web-site host as well on some issues (I understand he is an annihilationist, a theory I find both un-Biblical and illogical), but I can’t help thinking that when up against the threat of infiltration, not just in the Church of England but in other denominations too, of those who promote heresies like universalism, and who deny basic truths like the fallen and corrupt nature of humankind, it can be counter-productive to poison relationships with allies who have the fundamentals right, even if we might wish they could see that they have the details of the mechanisms wrong.

            When everyone agrees that all humans are in need of redemption, that can only come by the grace of God through Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross, then no one will be happier than me to tear chucks out of each other about the exact pattern of the gold paving in the heavenly city. Until that day let’s focus on getting people saved.

          • I think the doctrine of Original Sin is a fundamental which Ian Paul has got wrong.

            But is it necessary for salvation to know the mechanism by which every human being comes to be corrupt and in need of redemption?

            Or is all that is necessary for salvation simply to understand that you are corrupt, guilty, justly condemned, in need of redemption, and totally unable to save yourself?

          • Clearly it is fundamental to stand against Pelagianism. But isn’t that the main thing — fighting universalism and Pelagianism?

          • S
            Put it this way. As I see it, Romans 5:12-21 teaches that we all face from birth onwards the condemnation of God because of Adam’s sin – in other words we are all born ‘in the flesh’. And I think Jesus’ talk with Nicodemus has relevance on this subject. So to me it is a question of believing what the Bible teaches.

            Phil Almond

          • As I see it, Romans 5:12-21 teaches that we all face from birth onwards the condemnation of God because of Adam’s sin – in other words we are all born ‘in the flesh’.

            Right. But is not, right now, the important point of that that we all face from birth the condemnation of God due to sin and our corrupt nature? Given that we face entryists into the Church (not just the Church of England) who deny even that, and teach that our natures are perfect just as we are?

            Isn’t that the important message to get across — that we stand before the judge guilty, and justly condemned?

          • Philip, we know you think Original Sin is central to faith. We know you think I am wrong, We know that I am not interested in debating with you.

            So what is the point of you mentioning it on *every* post??

            ‘Put it this way. As I see it, Romans 5:12-21 teaches that we all face from birth onwards the condemnation of God because of Adam’s sin’. Well you are not reading the text well then. Paul says ‘death spread to all people because all sinned‘. We faced judged not because Adam sinned, but because each one of us sinned. Paul is absolutely clear about that.

            That is as far as I am interested in debating.

          • Ian
            I am debating with S. I know you don’t want to debate but since you have mentioned the key text ‘because all sinned’ I will just say this: Paul says ‘sin is not reckoned not being law but (‘alla’) death reigned from Adam until Moses even over the ones not sinning on the likeness of the transgression of Adam…’.
            Why did death reign? It cannot be because of their personal sins because sin is not reckoned not being law, so it must be because of Adam’s sin. So ‘because all sinned’ must mean all sinned in Adam.

            Phil Almond

          • Phil, that is such odd logic. Paul did not believe that no-one sinned until the law was given! Law showed up the sinfulness of sin, but people sinned without the law. Strange to build your whole case on such a strange and convoluted reading.

          • Philip Almond:

            Why do we all face the wrath of God and his condemnation from birth onwards? Is it on account of sins that we have committed in a previous incarnation?

          • Why do we all face the wrath of God and his condemnation from birth onwards?

            Oh, I know this one. It’s because our sinful natures are in rebellion against God from — indeed before — the moment we are born.

            You don’t have to be able to speak to sin. All you have to do is be able to have to do to sin is think.

          • Ian
            Paul writes ‘but sin is not reckoned not being law but (alla)death reigned etc’ that ‘alla’ speaks of a contrast – despite the fact that sin is not reckoned, death still reigned…Your view cannot cope with that contrast.

            Phil Almond

            PS Despite saying you don’t want to debate you are half-way into a debate. Are you willing to give a view on the meaning of Article 9?

          • Philp Almond:

            “No it is because of Adam’s sin. That is the doctrine of Original Sin.”

            So we all face the wrath of God and his condemnation from birth, on account of a sin committed by a man who allegedly existed and died thousands of years before we were born. Sounds like trash to me.

          • Paul writes ‘but sin is not reckoned not being law but (alla)death reigned etc’ that ‘alla’ speaks of a contrast – despite the fact that sin is not reckoned, death still reigned…Your view cannot cope with that contrast.

            Look, I really don’t want to debate the substantive point. You reading here is obviously wrong, but my point is that it doesn’t, for now, matter. What matters is getting out the message that everyone agrees on: that everyone stands guilty and justly condemned before the judge, and faces deserved punishment unless they are redeemed, and that they cannot do that themselves but can only be saved by God’s grace through Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross.

            None of you disagree with any of that, and not in a constructive ambiguity way either, it’s real agreement. And the Church faces a wave of infiltration from entryists who deny the very premise of that vital message.

            Debating the substantive point distracts from that.

          • William Fisher

            I and others only believe the doctrine of Original Sin because (among other reasons) what Paul says in Romans 5:12-21.

            Phil Almond

      • Ian Paul is an orthodox Anglican clergyman.

        If you want to debate doctrine with him, it looks to me like he goes out of his way to get into a good theological discussion. We need more people who have his habit of heading towards the sound of gunfire.

        The idea he is dodgy on doctrine is unwarranted

        Reply
        • Peter
          I can support my assertion by private correspondence with him. He claims his rejection of original sin etc. is justified by his understanding of the Bible. It is not clear where he stands on Article 9.

          Phil Almond

          Reply
    • The Synod proposals already allow them to ‘differentiate’ themselves. Evangelical churches have been given an opt out from performing even the approved blessings of homosexual couples. If not even that is enough for them, they are welcome to found their own new churches, outside the Church of England with their own funds. They of course wouldn’t get any funding or be able to keep their existing C of E buildings though which would revert to the C of E diocese if they chose to do that

      Reply
  3. This is an excellent response to David IB’s muddled reasoning and poor research. Thanks. If I may suggest from my own research, two further topics would strengthen the traditional view on this subject over against revisionist attempts such as IB’s.

    First, antiquity did discuss the notion of orientation in a variety of ways, including in the one noted here–Plato’s Symposium (the mythical creation view). There was also Galen’s explanation from astrology, e.g. I’ve catalogued a number of such views in ‘Unchanging Witness’ (B&H Academic, 2016). Other views relate more to my next point.

    Second, philosophers in antiquity preferred to discuss ‘orientation’ in terms of desire. By discussing orientation under the larger category of desire, they produced a better consideration of the subject than a more psycho-social discussion in our day. They debated nature vs. nurture in the discussion, discussed how desire ‘works,’ examined ‘inclinations’ and ‘character,’ etc. Moreover, the Stoics gave different answers to these subjects than the Platonists, although there is overlap in some areas by the time of the 1st c. AD (Plutarch as a Middle Platonist demonstrates this).

    Paul’s arguments are Jewish and involve the interpretation of Scripture, as you point out so well. Reading Philo alongside Paul is helpful in not making IB’s errors. Paul’s argument in Rom. 1 is also fully understandable from a Stoic perspective, and he uses language that Stoics use in discussing ‘nature/against nature,’ living according to nature, desire, and pederasty as an example of and not distinct from same-sex attraction.

    The argument that we are now more sophisticated in our understanding on this subject than people were in the 1st century can only be made by those who do not read the ancient sources, fail to read the whole corpus (e.g., Scroggs), or who are motivated to misread them (quite a list could be compiled of such ‘scholars’).

    Thanks again for your patient interaction with such people.

    Reply
    • Dear Rollin

      Thanks for this very helpful observation. You offer an outline map of the different views in place of the often simplistic assumptions made in this debate.

      The idea that the ancients ‘did not know’ of same-sex attraction, or did not seek to find a variety of explanations for it, some of which are quite close to what we could call ‘biological’ explanation, is just odd.

      I have your book, and cited it a while ago when presenting on this subject—for which, thanks very much!

      Reply
      • The idea that the ancients ‘did not know’ of same-sex attraction, or did not seek to find a variety of explanations for it, some of which are quite close to what we could call ‘biological’ explanation, is just odd.

        There seems to be this idea current that people in the past were stupider than us. Which when you think about it for even a second is clearly nonsense. So why does it persist?

        Well, it’s true that in some ways they knew less than us. They knew less than us about biology, for example. They knew less than us about astronomy. They knew less than us about chemistry. They knew less mathematics than us.

        But why did they know less than us about those things?

        Well, for most things — biology, chemistry, astronomy — the reason is simple: they knew less than us because we can see more than them. Often literally: the massive increase in our knowledge of biology came with the invention of the microscope, and of astronomy with the telescope. Sometimes less directly; our knowledge of chemistry, for example, rests on the deciphering of the structure of the atom, which requires instruments with the sensitivity to measure, for example, the charge on the electron.

        If the ancients had had our instruments, there’s no reason they wouldn’t have known as much as us. Millikan wasn’t smarter than Thales; he just had better equipment, so that he could generate an electric field of a precise magnitude rather than having to rub some amber with a bit of fur. Indeed, the lack of our instruments often forced the ancients to be even more ingenious than us; Erastosthenes couldn’t just send up a satellite to measure the circumference of the Earth, so he had to be cleverer about it.

        And what about the other big areas where we know more than the ancients, mathematics? Well, that’s the one where the simple passage of time does make a difference: the ancients didn’t know about calculus but as Newton himself said, he was only able to see farther by standing on the shoulders of giants; and others have in turn stood on his shoulders. And it stands to reason that ad time goes on the chain of shoulders to stand on gets longer, and the head at the top gets higher and higher. Andrew Wiles is no smarter than Euclid; he has just had more of his work done for him by those who have gone before.

        So with that established — that the ancients were no stupider than us, and certainly no less curious, and where they knew less it was either because they didn’t have our instruments or because they didn’t have as many concepts as us to build on — we can return to the issue of: is it reasonable to suppose the ancients knew substantially less than us about sexual desire?

        Which comes down to: of the two ways in which we have the advantage over the ancients, which would have prevented them from knowing what we now know?

        Well, we can dismiss the first instantly. It takes no special instruments to observe sexual desires. There are no means of observing such that are available to us, that the ancients did not have at their disposal just as readily. Perhaps if we had invented mind-reading machines which allowed us to directly observe sexual thoughts, and this had revealed to us some new insights into the formation of such thoughts, this claim could be made. But we haven’t. In this area, the tools we have are the same as the tools they had.

        So that leaves the second. Like mathematics, are there are concepts which have been invented between then and now, on which are understanding is built, which would simply not have been available to the ancients; in the way that, for example, you simply can’t work out the probabilities associated with a continuously distributed random variable until you have calculus?

        It seems doubtful to me; I can’t think of any such concept that wasn’t available to the ancients. But note that now we can specify exactly what would need being claimed by this argument. The claim would be that there is a specific intermediate concept, needed to understand how we understand sexual desire, that was unavailable to the ancients. You can’t just say, ‘the ancients didn’t know about X’; you have to say, ‘the ancients didn’t know about X because you can’t understand X until you have the concept of Y, and Y wasn’t discovered until the year XXXX.’

        So anyone making this claim should be challenged to spell out exactly what this intermediate concept they are claiming is.

        Otherwise, the fact that the ancients were no stupider, less observant, or less curious than us, combined with the fact that no special equipment is needed to observe this area, should show how ridiculous this ‘the ancients just didn’t know’ idea is.

        If this is a real thing, and we can observe it, then the ancients must have observed it too.

        Reply
        • (Note that it’s perfectly understandable that the ancients wouldn’t have ranked things in the same order of importance as we do. So while ‘the ancients didn’t know that people exclusively sexually attracted to members of the same sex’ is obviously a ridiculous statement, ‘the ancients were aware of that but just didn’t consider it important enough to mention’ is not. But that isn’t claiming that the ancients were stupider than us, just that they had different priorities. But that, again, is obvious, and in itself tells us nothing; if anything, it makes the opposite point, because then what you’re saying is, Paul was aware of gay people but didn’t think it relevant to mention them’ which is, well, I think that’s just the standard traditional interpretation.)

          Reply
        • S

          It’s not that the ancients were stupider than us, but that even now the existence of naturally occurring gay people is contentious. Lady Gaga even wrote a song about it. The Ancients also didnt have access to education, inexpensive printed books or public education.

          Reply
          • It’s not that the ancients were stupider than us, but that even now the existence of naturally occurring gay people is contentious.

            Indeed the ancients didn’t know the aetiology of same-sex attraction; but neither do we. So you can’t use that as an argument that ‘we understand more now’, because when it comes to the question of why some people are attracted to members of their own sex, we know no more than the ancients.

            However as I have pointed out, the aetiology makes no difference to the theology, so that whole discussion is moot.

            The Ancients also didnt have access to education, inexpensive printed books or public education.

            Not true. Access to education and books was more restricted than today but those things certainly did exist and (kind of by definition) the more educated had access to them, and Paul was pretty well-educated.

          • S

            Ian’s exposition of Romans 1 relies in part on Paul and his readership understanding that he was talking about (or at least deliberately including) what we now call gay people.

            Saying ‘we dont know now’ is ironically similar to the point I just made to Ian. How can he claim the ancients understood such things when they are still controversial now?!

          • What evidence is required to show that there are are “naturally occurring gay people” other than allowing people to talk about their feelings? The Roman world allowed for same-sex activity – and those who desired it were not silenced. Progressives are arguing for a Roman world that was devoid of any human nature or social economy other than the will to dominate others.

          • Ian’s exposition of Romans 1 relies in part on Paul and his readership understanding that he was talking about (or at least deliberately including) what we now call gay people.

            Saying ‘we dont know now’ is ironically similar to the point I just made to Ian. How can he claim the ancients understood such things when they are still controversial now?!

            Hang on. There’s two different things here that you’re confusing.

            First is the existence of the type of people we now call ‘gay’; which the ancients knew about as much as us.

            Second is what causes people to be attracted to members of the same sex; which we know just as little and as the ancients.

            So about both these things, we and the ancients know the same amount.

            You seem to have got confused and be saying that because the ancients didn’t know what causes people to be gay they didn’t know about the existence of gay people — even though we’re don’t know what caused people to be gay either!

          • Progressives are not arguing for anything.

            Historians are explaining what Roman culture was. It was not 1950s UK or 2020s UK.

          • Peter: Progressives are not arguing for anything.

            Yes they are. They are saying Paul only condemned same-sex lust in the context of a slave economy.

          • Joe

            I have not seen anyone make that particular argument.

            Many progressives dont agree that Paul was condemning the modern category of gay people or banning them from relationship.

          • Peter ‘Many progressives dont agree that Paul was condemning the modern category of gay people or banning them from relationship.’

            Good, I don’t either.

            Paul was prohibiting all forms of same-sex sex.

          • S

            What we now call gay are people who experience lifelong attraction to the same sex and no attraction to the opposite sex.

            The claims that people are choosing to be gay or becoming deluded or brainwashed into being gay or becoming gay because they worshipped statues (etc) deny the existence of people according to this definition.

            People in this category form virtually all of the people seeking same sex marriage and none of them are people who only use same sex sex for dominance, sexual thrill, adultery or a weapon of war

          • What we now call gay are people who experience lifelong attraction to the same sex and no attraction to the opposite sex.

            The existence of which the ancients must have known about as much as us, because (a) they had just as much opportunity to observe such as us and (b) they were just as smart as us.

            Saying that the ancients didn’t know about the existence of such people is like saying the ancients didn’t know about the existence of rabbits.

            The claims that people are choosing to be gay or becoming deluded or brainwashed into being gay or becoming gay because they worshipped statues (etc) deny the existence of people according to this definition.

            Is this about Paul’s argument? Because Paul’s argument isn’t that people ‘because gay because they worshipped statues’. It’s that their natures were in rebellion against God, and one of the forms that rebellion took was a rejection of God’s created order, and specifically the male/female duality that God established at creation.

            Paul’s argument is not that they chose for their rebellion to take that particular form (nobody chooses which sins they are particularly tempted to) nor that one form of rebellion (eg idolatry) causes by some physical means another form of rebellion; it’s that all humans have natures which are in rebellion against God, and that rebellion manifests itself is different ways in different people; for some it’s a temptation to anger, for some envy, for some gossip, for some slander, for some a temptation to improper sexual activity.

            People in this category form virtually all of the people seeking same sex marriage and none of them are people who only use same sex sex for dominance, sexual thrill, adultery or a weapon of war

            Indeed, but even when not used for those purposes, same sex sex is not in accordance with God’s intended created order. That’s Paul’s argument.

            You may disagree with Paul’s argument, but that’s what Paul’s argument is.

          • Ian but you include same sex marriage in what you think Paul is banning. Many progressives sincerely disagree with your interpretation

          • Paul prohibited all forms of same-sex sex, like other Jews including Jesus.

            Is marriage sexual? Yes. Would a same-sex marriage therefore come under that? Yes.

          • Ian but you include same sex marriage in what you think Paul is banning.

            No, Paul isn’t banning same-sex marriage. Paul is saying all same-sex sexual activity is sinful.

            It’s Jesus who defines ‘marriage’ as ‘between a man and a woman’, thus ruling out all forms of marriage that don’t meet that definition (including, for example, polygamy as well as same-sex marriage).

            Both Jesus and Paul are coming from and consistent with the same fundamental premise, ie, God’s division of humanity into the two complementary sexes as part of the created order; but they are addressing different consequences of that order.

      • How then do you explain that, even today, lots of people deny that gay people exist (that is people who experience only attraction to the same sex from puberty on). If it was widely known amongst average people in the first century, why is it so widely denied in the 21st?

        Reply
        • You’ve asked this question before—but it is very odd. Who is denying that there are people who are sexually attracted to their own sex? I have never heard of this.

          There are, of course, people who deny that ‘being gay’ is an identity akin to racial identity. But that is a completely different argument.

          Reply
          • I just googled this and found a Pew survey of the US from 2015. 60% of white evangelicals said that being gay was a choice

          • I also just found a Gospel Coalition article from 2021 by Justin Taylor that takes a middle road and claims we dont know and it doesn’t matter anyway (!)

            Is Being Gay Genetic – it doesn’t just call into question genetics, but also suggests that being gay might be a choice.

          • My point is that if we don’t know how on earth can we assume that the church in first century Rome knew?!

          • My point is that if we don’t know how on earth can we assume that the church in first century Rome knew?!

            My point is that you can’t make the argument ‘we know better than them, therefore what they thought can be ignored’.

            If you will agree that neither they nor we know, therefore we don’t know any better than them, therefore what Paul wrote is still relevant, I’ll go with that.

          • Ian

            There are fundamentalists in the UK also. It’s not only in the US that Conservative Christians deny that gay people are gay by their nature and not by choice

          • ‘deny that gay people are gay by their nature and not by choice’

            What do you mean ‘by nature’? You seem to conflate this with biology.

            Our sexualities, along with many other traits, are formed in part by our heritage, but in much greater part by our environment. The evidence here is very clear, and I linked to it above.

          • Peter, the definition of a fundamentalist is one who goes by dogmas and not by evidence or science.

            On this topic, you are relying on unsupported, unreferenced broad assertions. On dogma therefore. Which is classic fundamentalist territory.

            You are also, secondly, casting aspersions on those who can think for themselves, and check out their facts and the science.

            Prove to me you are not one, by replacing your assertions with references to scientific and sociological findings.

          • Ian

            If we can agree on whether natural gays exist or not or even what it means to be naturally gay then how on earth can you claim that Paul and the first century church in Rome would have had a good and shared understanding of this topic?

            We need to be careful about social studies of gay people because they tend to identify (promiscuous) MSMs and not gay people. However none of the scientific results suggest homosexuality is chosen or a learned pattern. Its from at least puberty on for the vast majority of gay people.

          • ‘However none of the scientific results suggest homosexuality is chosen or a learned pattern’. You are simply wrong here. Please read the linked article.

          • Christopher

            All I’m saying is that there are plenty of people even in the UK who believe that it is a choice to be gay. Ian claims that this is only fundamentalist Americans who believe this

          • Ian

            Weve gone from you denying that anyone (except perhaps Trump voters!) believe gay people are gay through choice to you claiming that there is scientific evidence that backs the claim that people choose to be gay.

            With such muddle and confusion on this topic in the 21st century how can we expect Paul and the church in Rome to have had a comprehensive understanding.

            Approximately zero gay people will tell you they chose to be gay. Most will have experienced same sex attraction from puberty or before. If you deny this then your theology is not theology for real people. I think it is the failure to connect theology to real life gays that has caused the CofE so many problems when attempting to minister to gay people and others

          • With such muddle and confusion on this topic in the 21st century how can we expect Paul and the church in Rome to have had a comprehensive understanding.

            You’re equivocating, again, between ‘knowing gay people exist’ and ‘knowing what causes people to be gay’.

            We know gay people exist. So did Paul.

            Paul didn’t know what causes people to be gay. Neither do we.

            In other words the state of Paul’s knowledge on this is the same as ours.

            So you can’t simply dismiss anything Paul says with a ‘we know more than him’. We don’t.

          • Paul didn’t know what causes people to be gay. Neither do we.

            Actually slight correction; Paul didn’t know the proximate cause of people being gay. But he knows the ultimate cause is rejection of God, as that is the ultimate cause of all sin, of which sexual sin is only a subset.

          • Peter ‘to you claiming that there is scientific evidence that backs the claim that people choose to be gay’

            It is impossible to have a sensible conversation when you insist on twisting and distorting what others are saying.

            The science clearly demonstrates that genetics is a small factor in determining sexuality, and that environmental factors, including parenting and upbringing and early experiences, are significant. That is not the same as claiming ‘people choose to be gay’.

            If you cannot get your head around that, please go away, do some reading, read my article, and come back when you have. You have posted hundreds of comments now on these recent posts, and it is bordering on trolling. Please take a break, and come back to make a contribution to debate. Thanks.

          • Ian

            Can we at least agree that coming up with a shared understanding that gay people do not choose to be gay would be a necessary pre cursor to any progress in CofE teaching?

            I’m very sorry but I simply don’t understand how you can say in one post that I’m wrong to say that the scientific evidence doesn’t say that people are gay through choice or learned pattern and then a few posts on tell me that you’ve said no such thing and I’m distorting what you have said.

            I’m sorry if I am missing some nuance, but I don’t even know what you are saying because you have directly contradicted yourself so many times on this. To my understanding the scientific evidence is genetics plus unknown other factors, not choice!

          • ‘I’m sorry if I am missing some nuance, but I don’t even know what you are saying because you have directly contradicted yourself so many times on this. To my understanding the scientific evidence is genetics plus unknown other factors, not choice!’

            I have never contradicted myself. You have failed to read what I have said. Our sexuality is formed by our environment, and very little by our genes. But that does not mean people ‘choose’ their sexuality. It is significantly different for men and women—but for men the evidence is that very early developmental environment, particular their relationship with their father, is important.

            I posted all this on the post that I linked, very clearly—which you don’t appear to have read or understood.

          • I’m very sorry but I simply don’t understand how you can say in one post that I’m wrong to say that the scientific evidence doesn’t say that people are gay through choice or learned pattern and then a few posts on tell me that you’ve said no such thing and I’m distorting what you have said.

            It’s very simple to understand: you say that people aren’t gay through choice. The web-site host agrees, then points out that we don’t know why some people are gay, and it could be because of a learned pattern. You then act like the web-site host has been caught in a contradiction.

            But there is no contradiction, because if someone is gay as a result of a learnt pattern formed in their early years, then they are not gay through choice.

            So there is no contradiction between ‘gay people do not choose to be gay’ and ‘we don’t know why some people are gay, but genetics, environmental factors, and learned behaviours probably all play a part’.

        • If it was widely known amongst average people in the first century, why is it so widely denied in the 21st?

          So — wait — you’re using the fact that there is a diversity of opinion in ghe twenty-first century as evidence that there was a unity of opinion in the first century?

          Surely the fact that people have diverse opinions on the subject in the twenty-first century suggests that there was probably an equal diversity of opinion in the first cenutry too?

          Reply
          • I have not denied a diversity of opinion in the first century, which is why I am certain that Paul was talking to the church about the Roman elite, not an obscure minority that most of his intended audience would never have heard of.

          • Ian

            Hes talking about pagans, not gays. It says so very clearly in the text. As we have said multiple times the Roman’s didnt use anything analogous to gsy as a category. They would have been an obscure, unrecognised minority.

  4. I agree entirely that you cannot impose modern categories of orientation on ancient writing, which is why you can’t reasonably make the first chapter of Romans condemn modern gay people or ban gay marriage. Perhaps the reason you think it is clear is the same reason your gay friends dont see themselves in it – perspective?

    Some issues I have with the interpretation

    1. The passage very clearly fits the pagan Roman elite who were persecuting the church and doesn’t actually fit the modern category of ‘gay’ at all. The only thing these people share with gay people is that they have had gay sex, on occasion, which actually isnt even true of all gay people anyway, including your friends. Modern gay people dont become gay after worshipping statues. They discover they are gay as pre teenagers. Whether you generalise the giving up of attraction to the opposite sex or not, it still doesn’t fit gay people. It *does* fit straight people emboiled in a world of corruption and power exchange.

    2. The passage doesn’t deal with same sex attraction, distinct from lust, same sex romantic love or same sex relationships. The people in the passage are in opposite sex relationships. The stuff that conservatives usually (and falsely in my view) see as gay in this passage are lust and adultery – which the CofE supposedly believes are sins even if they are opposite sex. The behaviour here is closer to that of Jonathan Fletcher than Vicky Beeching. Yet the CofE doesn’t want to confront the possibility that its problems with sexual and spiritual abuse are directly related to its failure to provide consistent teaching and practice on marriage and sex.

    3. Paul’s whole point for including them is to say that salvation is open to all – even people like these, not to ban same sex marriage. The cotext gives almost the exact opposite reason for inclusion in the letter than Conservatives use it for.

    4. “We need to recognise the two honoured patterns of life—marriage and celibate singleness—and support both” This is possibly the number one problem with current church teaching – people keep saying this, Conservatives keep apologising for not following it, but nothing changes, because requiring serious romantic/family sacrifice from heterosexuals seems like too bigger burden. But it’s fine to require it of the gays.

    Reply
    • ‘which is why you can’t reasonably make the first chapter of Romans condemn modern gay people or ban gay marriage’

      Paul is arguing against any form of same-sex sex. Gay marriage is one form of that.

      Your argument here is a bit like saying ‘A sign saying ‘No cars allowed on the grass’ doesn’t stop me parking my Ford Mustang on the grass because they hadn’t heard of Ford Mustangs then.’

      Reply
      • Ian

        I completely disagree because it just seems as clear as day that Paul is talking about the mostly straight Romans who were persecuting the church. I cant really see where you are getting the idea that this is a general command against same sex marriage

        Reply
        • Really? Firstly, to describe Romans as ‘mostly straight’ is a complete anachronism…as we keep pointing out.

          Secondly, the whole logic of Romans 1 is:

          a. God has revealed himself
          b. He has done so in creation
          c. He has done so particularly in creating humanity male and female
          d. Same sex sex is a rejection of this clear creation form (what is ‘natural’)
          e. Therefore, the occurrence of same-sex sex in pagan culture shows how sinful it is.

          This is a standard Jewish first century argument. It is summarised in different forms in the quotations in my piece above. Did you miss these?

          Reply
          • I’d say that Roman’s 1 says the opposite. It says they were given over to lust and adultery because they rejected God. It doesn’t say they became idolaters because they were gay and decided to seek an LTR

            If we cannot even agree that most first century Romans were exclusively attracted to the opposite sex (and the ones described by Paul in OSRs) then I don’t think we will agree on much.

          • I’d say that Roman’s 1 says the opposite. It says they were given over to lust and adultery because they rejected God.

            But that’s exactly the argument described above. Because they reject God, they reject God’s creation order — including the male/female duality. That’s what ‘Same sex sex is a rejection of this clear creation form (what is ‘natural’)’ means.

          • S

            That’s not what Romans 1 says though. It says they worshipped created things. And because of that they were given over to sinful sexual behavior which would still have been sinful had it been opposite sex.

            Even if you deny the existence of natural gay people, claiming a simplistic male/female duality for every single human causes real life problems for intersex people- we need to get real and understand that bad theology really hurts real people

          • That’s not what Romans 1 says though. It says they worshipped created things. And because of that they were given over to sinful sexual behavior which would still have been sinful had it been opposite sex.

            You’re misapplying the ‘therefore’ in verse 24. It applies to the people being wicked and godless and not glorifying God, not specifically to the making idols. It’s moving on from the whole block and overarching idea of verses 18-23, not just the very last example that happened to be mentioned.

            It’s not ‘they were godless, so they made idols, and because they made idols they were given over to sexual perversion’.

            It’s ‘they were godless, and you can tell they were godless because they because fools and made idols. And because of that godlessness (exemplified by the making of idols), they were given over to sexual perversion (and all the other vices like greed, envy, etc).

            Even if you deny the existence of natural gay people, claiming a simplistic male/female duality for every single human causes real life problems for intersex people- we need to get real and understand that bad theology really hurts real people

            ‘Intersex’ people are either male or female, though. It’s just that their sexual characteristics didn’t develop properly. They aren’t a third sex or neither male nor female.

          • S

            Romans 1 says that the people were given over to lust and idolatry because they were rejecting God.

            Even if you describe those acts as homosexuality then in this passage the homosexuality is the consequence of rejecting God and not the cause of it. Post hoc ergo prompter hoc

          • Romans 1 says that the people were given over to lust and idolatry because they were rejecting God.

            Yes.

            Even if you describe those acts as homosexuality then in this passage the homosexuality is the consequence of rejecting God and not the cause of it.

            Yes. That is Paul’s argument. The soul’s rejection of God is the root cause of all kinds of temptations to sin, including inappropriate sexual desires.

          • S

            I’m glad we are agreed on what Paul’s argument is. It’s the exact opposite of claiming the rebellion were the cause of the rebellion. The cause of the rebellion was idolatry.

            Very few gay people practice idolatry.

            This passage is not about gays

          • I’m glad we are agreed on what Paul’s argument is. It’s the exact opposite of claiming the rebellion were the cause of the rebellion. The cause of the rebellion was idolatry.

            No, Paul’s argument is that the root cause of all the external sins — the idolatry, the sexual impropriety, the greed, the envy, the gossip, the slander, etc etc etc — is the rebellion against God.

            The rebellion against God comes first. From that flows sin, including (but not limited to) sexual sins such as fornication, adultery, and same-sex behaviour. That’s Paul’s argument here.

            Very few gay people practice idolatry.

            But they have all (like everyone else) rejected God.

            This passage is not about gays

            It’s about everyone. Every single human being. Gays, straights, everyone.

          • You seem to be trying to make out that Paul thinks that worshipping idols turns you gay. But that is obviously not Paul’s argument at all.

  5. I’m not sure I buy the argument that Romans 1 isn’t referring to orientation, the desires we feel now etc., but is making a more abstract point about God’s creation overall.

    St John Chrysostom in his homilies on Romans, when he got to this passage, would seem to see it very much in the here and now and about orientation. He argued:
    “he deprives them of excuse, by saying of the women, that they changed the natural use. For no one, he means, can say that it was by being hindered of legitimate intercourse that they came to this pass, or that it was from having no means to fulfil their desire that they were driven into this monstrous insanity. For the changing implies possession. Which also when discoursing upon the doctrines he said, They changed the truth of God for a lie. And with regard to the men again, he shows the same thing by saying, Leaving the natural use of the woman. And in a like way with those, these he also puts out of all means of defending themselves by charging them not only that they had the means of gratification, and left that which they had, and went after another, but that having dishonored that which was natural, they ran after that which was contrary to nature.”

    The whole thrust of St John Chrysostom’s argument here is that we are talking about people who had a means to fulfil their desires, had a means of gratification, and had a legitimate route to intercourse. So what happens when we’re talking about people for whom this is not the case? The implication is that they do have a means of defending themselves.

    Reply
  6. “We need to recognise the two honoured patterns of life—marriage and celibate singleness—and support both. We need to encourage and support those who are married, without idolising marriage and pretending it holds no challenges. We need to encourage and support those who are single, without treating them as second best. And we need to live as the family of God, willing to invest in deep friendships, welcoming others into our homes, so that it is this fellowship, and not merely sex and marriage, which is the end of loneliness.”

    Well, I’d argue for a start that there are at least three patterns of life, not two:
    – Marriage
    – Lifelong Celibacy
    – Single Chastity

    One of the really serious problems we have when asking people to embrace lifelong celibacy (especially when asking it of our youth) is confusing it with the chaste behaviour of a single person who is simply not married yet. Celibacy, which is knowingly permanent and lifelong, is a very different undertaking to the waiting and dating of a chaste life. Celibacy means rejecting the possibility of marital relationships. And within celibacy there is a distinction to be drawn between those who regard it as a calling and a gift (as described by St Paul), and those who see it very much as a command and even a martyrdom. One of the striking things that has emerged over the last couple of weeks in the LLF debate is how many celibate gay Christians do not see it as a calling or gift. This goes some way to explain why they find shifts in Church teaching so painful.

    In general, we have a bad habit of seeing this discussion as something that takes place amongst the middle-aged. We perhaps have in our mind the gay man in his late 30s whose had a few boyfriends, but not quite settled down, and we’re telling him he’d be better embracing celibacy. That will be the case for some. But if we’re serious about teaching lifelong celibacy, it means looking a 16 year old in the eye and telling them to abandon all hope of any possible romance or relationship. What is striking is that the Church does have people who take formal vows of celibacy – the monks – but we do not allow 16 year olds to join them. For the monks who live celibate lives in supportive community, we encourage them to wait, to think carefully, to embrace it later in life. But for our gay youth we are effectively telling them to become monks and nuns, but without a supportive community, to do so in secret, and that the vows have already been taken on their behalf.

    What has sadly been missed from the reaction to the Bishops Response to LLF has been that they have committed to doing more work on celibacy and chastity, and amongst the Prayers of Love and Faith there are draft prayers for “covenanted friendship”. This has been something of a surprise, and is an idea that’s been kicking around for a while – if the problem is same-sex sex, can people enter into relationships that simply omit the sex, i.e. a kind of sexless marriage? I suppose we shouldn’t be that surprised, as these are the relationships that the CofE has required of clergy in civil partnerships, but the experience out on the ground seems to be that they are viewed suspiciously. Maybe we need to think about that.

    Reply
    • One of the really serious problems we have when asking people to embrace lifelong celibacy (especially when asking it of our youth) is confusing it with the chaste behaviour of a single person who is simply not married yet.

      You write as if single people know they will get married someday. But they might well not. Lots of single people, who might quite like to have got married, and who never intended to live an entirely celibate life, nonetheless do end up never marrying.

      So no, these categories aren’t as distinct as you claim.

      Reply
        • They’re pretty different.

          Really not; a chaste single person is not ‘simply not married yet’ as if this is a temporary state and all they have to do is wait and they will become married. For lots of ‘chaste single people’ not being married is a permanent, lifelong state.

          Reply
          • S

            However chaste, single heterosexuals are not being encouraged to suppress their romantic side, their desire for a family or simply finding another person attractive. This is arguably the hardest burden of Conservative teaching, which at the more severe end is convincing some gay people that they are demon possessed. This continues in parts of the CofE despite repeated claims from the bishops that they will put a stop to it.

            It’s not just “dont have sex”

          • However chaste, single heterosexuals are not being encouraged to suppress their romantic side,

            What does ‘suppress their romantic side’ even mean?

            their desire for a family

            No one is asked to suppress their desire for a family; but some people, heterosexual as well as homosexual, have to accept that however much they might desire children, they will never have them (of course that doesn’t stop them being part of a family, necessarily; sisters and brothers and uncles and aunts are parts of a family).

            or simply finding another person attractive.

            Matthew 5:28

            This is arguably the hardest burden of Conservative teaching, which at the more severe end is convincing some gay people that they are demon possessed.

            Well clearly nobody should be saying that. The temptation to sin is a universal feature of corrupt, fallen human nature — no demons required.

    • AJ Bell

      I agree there needs to be more recognition that telling a gay teenager that they must always be single and that all of their romantic/family inclinations are evil (and/or that they are disordered, demon possessed etc) is not the same thing as telling a straight teenager that they should try and not have sex until marriage. It’s not just removing the possibility of marriage and sex, but requiring the suppression of a major component of ordinary human life and, communicating in practice, if not directly, that the kid is unusually evil.

      Reply
      • I agree if you’ve got people telling folk that their homosexuality is disordered, evil, possessed etc. that’s a horror show. But I don’t think that if you avoid that it makes everything ok. A commandment to lifelong celibacy from 16 is a huge thing, so if people are really serious about this, they need to engage with the reality of it.

        Reply
        • A commandment to lifelong celibacy from 16 is a huge thing

          And it’s the commitment demanded of every Christian who doesn’t marry, including all the ones attracted to the opposite sex.

          ‘ On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”’

          Reply
          • Realising as a teenager that one will probably never marry is hard. But I expect watching the decades slip away as one wonders what will be one’s fate is no bed of roses.

          • It isn’t actually demanded of every Christian who is doesn’t marry. The unmarried do not live a monks and nuns. They are not prohibited from forming affectionate relationships, dating, kissing etc.. They can get married, and they know that this is possible.

          • It isn’t actually demanded of every Christian who is doesn’t marry.

            Chastity is demanded of every Christian.

            They are not prohibited from forming affectionate relationships, dating, kissing etc..

            Not prohibited from, no; but lots would like to and cannot, for various reasons. Perhaps they aren’t physically attractive. Nowadays there are lots of people who will refuse to date someone if they know there is no chance of them having sex with that person unless they get married.

            And if they cannot marry they are prohibited from getting affection in the way that non-Christians do by, for example, ‘hooking up’.

            They can get married, and they know that this is possible.

            No, they don’t. They don’t know for certain that it will be possible for them to get married. They know they might be able to get married, but it’s only a possibility, not certainty.

          • Ian

            Your single female friends are not being taught to suppress their romantic side, their family side or their desire for a partner. Nobody is stopping them from dating or marrying

            The CofE is simply asking far greater sacrifices from gay people than it is from straight people

          • Nobody is stopping them from dating

            Actually they are stopped from dating in the sense in which the word is used in the secular world, because dating in the secular world involves sex.

            or marrying

            And yet a lot do never marry; and they are asked indeed asked to restrain their sexuality in a way that the secular world does not demand of people who don’t marry, and in exactly the same way that is demanded of gay people.

          • S

            Sex is not a requirement of dating in the secular world. Presumably these archetypal single ladies would be only dating other Christians in any case.

          • Sex is not a requirement of dating in the secular world.

            It may surprise you to hear, but for a lot of people it is.

            Presumably these archetypal single ladies would be only dating other Christians in any case.

            Which, as there are hardly any Christian men, narrows their options, to zero in many cases. Which means that they are in fact prohibited from dating.

        • AJ

          I broadly agred however I don’t think that the not having sex is the worst part or the being single and lonely. I think the hardest part is being required to suppress romantic urges and desires for family life.

          Reply
          • I think the hardest part is being required to suppress romantic urges and desires for family life.

            Is not being a brother, sister, aunt or uncle, or even a cousin, ‘family life’?

          • S

            Most human beings have a natural desire to form their own families. Not everyone has living older relatives

          • Most human beings have a natural desire to form their own families.

            You should be clear then. Don’t write ‘desire for family life’ when what you mean is ‘desire to have children’.

            And lots of heterosexual people are unable to have children, for a variety of reasons, some of which become apparent during their teenage years. The necessity to accept that one will never have children is not an experience unique to homosexuals.

      • Maybe the difference today is that all marriages are focused on fulfilling romantic desires. Perhaps Paul would have honoured marriages that we wince at – such as ‘arranged’ marriages.

        Reply
        • Joe

          Certainly amongst the wealthy in Rome most marriages were arranged and love marriages were rare.

          I think we need to be careful not just to copy first century culture and claim it as holiness.

          Reply
          • I think we need to be careful not just to copy first century culture and claim it as holiness.

            Not much danger of that if you follow Paul, who saw first-century Roman culture as the height of unholiness (little did he know what was coming).

          • But Paul does seem to point to a love that is not reducible to desire.

            Copy, emulate, aspire to, recognise the value of – how do you untangle these things within the context of a revealed religion?

          • S

            Paul was a Roman citizen.

            He criticized some aspects of elite pagan lifestyle, but mostly he lived according to first century Roman culture.

    • The basic premise here seems to be that there is only one type of relationship in which there is True Fulfillment. Thus the choice is between being in such a relationship, choosing not to be, or being unwillingly, for one reason or another, not to be in such a relationship. That relationship is one that is romantic and sexual. However, this view has arisen as a result of the Romantic movement, and latterly the sexual revolution.

      What has been lost is any idea that one can have fulfilling relationships other that the romantic and sexual. Older and more healthy societies value and promote other kinds of relationship. For instance, why do we now talk about “the extended family”? What is odd is that we think that mum and dad and kids (and 0.8 of a dog and 0.6 of a cat) constitutes “a family”.

      Then true, committed friendship is something which seems to be undervalued. I think the ancients valued this far above ‘romantic’ love – which was seen as something necessary for procreation. Comrades-in-arms have a deep commitment to each other.

      If churches worked to help members develop deep relationships other than the romantic and sexual, there would be much less of a problem for people for whom the latter are not possible. Single people are seen as a problem. For the other-sex attracted, the answer seems to be to have events where they can get paired off and then married. But this is not a solution for the same-sex attracted. Part of the problem is that so many churches seem to be oriented around the modern family.

      Churches should promote “putting the lonely in families”, enabling and encouraging families to welcome in single people – single for many reasons – into the home as part of the family. I have heard testimony from same-sex attracted folk how valuable this kind of thing has been for them.

      Reply
      • David

        I think theres a danger there of trying to infantilise single people. I experienced this myself and I know many straight single women experience this – being inferior, mentally subnormal or too feckless to form a relationship.

        It’s far better to encourage more straight people to commit to a life devoted to the Lord, denying relationship and family and require divorcees/adulterers to become in this grouping than treat gay people the church has taught to be single as waifs and strays who need taking in. In reality those individuals have stronger faith and commitment than anyone else in the church!

        Reply
  7. David Instone-Brewer ignores the fact that both males are to be put to death for it (Lev 20). God would not punish a victim of anal rape. So this is consensual. And God says it is a mortal sin for both. While we may be relieved that capital punishment for such activity does not prevail in Britain, this shows God’s opinion.

    Reply
    • Yes, Michael Messenger makes this point in his response to Instone-Brewer’s article on Leviticus, in which he proposes that “zakar” indicates a “heteroerotic male” and the texts only prohibit intercourse between two “heteroerotic” men. If rape is involved, it is unjust that both are to be executed – and such a policy has no parallel in ANE society; if it is consensual, it is unlikely that “zakar” indicates a “heteroerotic male”

      Reply
      • David

        Lots of straight men have gay sex when it isnt rape

        There are plenty of aspects of justice in Leviticus that seem unjust to our modern society

        Reply
          • Anton

            Well it’s far easier to not shave your beard or wear man made fibres than it is for me to become attracted to a woman

          • Peter: As Britain is not a covenant nation, and as the Crucifixion made the sacrifices obsolete, one has to use a little thought when educating oneself by reading the Pentateuch. Here are two questions:

            1. Is it possible to learn God’s opinion of human actions in the sphere of morality from the written laws of Moses?

            2. Does God change his mind over what he considers to be morally right and wrong?

          • Yes

            There are scriptural verses to support different points of view to this second question. But to clarify I’m not suggesting that God used to believe it was wrong to be gay and now doesn’t. I’m saying Romans 1 is, very clearly, not about gay people and theres at least a question mark over who Leviticus 18 is condemning, especially given that modern Christians disregard most of the law in this book.

            I doubt even Ian Paul would think that it was originally written specifically about the modern category of gay people

          • I doubt even Ian Paul would think that it was originally written specifically about the modern category of gay people

            It’s not written about any category of people. It’s about an activity, not a category of people.

          • Anton

            But how are they identifying HIV negative (gay?) men? By advertising in sexy magazines etc probably.

            A large number of gay men don’t have any sex
            A large number dont have anal sex
            Most gay women dont do anal sex

            Simple logic says most gay people don’t do anal sex (and lots of straight people do!)

          • A large number of gay men don’t have any sex

            Then WHAT THE HECK IS THE BIG DEAL ABOUT THE CHURCH’S TEACHING?

            If a large number of gay men don’t have any sex, why do they care whether the church thinks that the sex they aren’t having would, if they were having it, which they apparently aren’t, be, hypothetically, sinful?

          • Peter: I quoted as follows: According to a 2015 HIV Surveillance Report from the CDC, 88.3% of HIV-negative men practiced anal sex in the last 12 months; the numbers were only slightly higher for HIV-positive men. Another study found that: 71.8% of MSM had anal sex irrelevant.

            In the 2015 study, then, the proportion having anal sex exceeds 88.3% no matter what the ratio of HIV- to HIV+. And the other study found 71.8%. These figues are in complete contradiction to your claim that most gay men do not have anal sex.

          • S

            The “big deal” about the church teaching is primarily about marriage, not sex and secondarily about the damage its causing or has caused young people (criminalisation, SOCE, requiring people to vow to suppress their entire romantic side, desire for a family etc).

            From a gay perspective the problems with church teaching having nothing to do with sex, except perhaps the hypocrisy of it when the same church leaders have covered up child sex abuse etc or have themselves been sexually assaulting members of their church like Jonathan Fletcher did

          • The “big deal” about the church teaching is primarily about marriage, not sex

            So let me get this straight. You’re telling me that there are lots of gay people out there who aren’t having sex, but want to get married, so they can continue not having sex but, you know, romantically not having sex, and maybe adopt a child, and they’re very cross that the church, which can’t actually stop them getting married, is withholding its endorsement from these sexless marriages that these no-sex-having gay people want?

            I mean maybe but it seems unlikely.

          • S

            The CofE has still failed to define what is included or not included as gay sex, but whatever the definition

            There are gay people who never have sex

            There are gay people who only ever have sex with their opposite sex wives – some of these are apparently friends with Ian Paul

            There are gay people who want to wait until marriage

            There are gay people who are in celibate civil partnerships

            There are gay people who are promiscuous

            Etc etc

            Conservative theology wants to lump all gay people into “the gay lifestyle TM”, but gay people actually vary more than straight people.

            The issues from the gay perspective about the CofE are who is allowed to marry and protecting children and adults from abuse at the hands of church leaders. The issue from the CofE is stopping gay couples from having sex, even though this is nearly always coming from the mouth of a leader who hasnt applied church teaching to themselves

        • “Lots of straight men have gay sex when it isnt rape…”. Undoubtedly: but in the context of ancient Israel and ANE society, which considered it demeaning for a man to be penetrated (i.e. to play the receptive or passive role), it is highly unlikely that a “straight” man (which is what Instone-Brewer claims “zakar” indicates) would consent. So it’s either rape or “zakar” does not indicate a “heteroerotic” male.

          “There are plenty of aspects of justice in Leviticus that seem unjust to our modern society…”. Again, undoubtedly: but is this one of those cases? After all, there is no parallel provision in ANE societies for the execution of a male who has been raped by another male.

          Reply
          • And David we also return to the question of what exactly is being condemned. Is it only anal sex because that’s not the most common sex act amongst gay men and most sexually active gays dont do it at all

          • According to a 2015 HIV Surveillance Report from the CDC, 88.3% of HIV-negative men practiced anal sex in the last 12 months; the numbers were only slightly higher for HIV-positive men. Another study found that: 71.8% of MSM had anal sex

            https://josephsciambra.com/surviving-gaybarely/

            This webpage provides the links from which these figures were calculated. What, then, is your basis for saying that most sexually active gays don’t have anal sex at all?

  8. Careful study of the text is a good thing, but not if it degenerates into nit-picking in order to produce ‘canon law’ and a list of dos and don’ts. Paul is quite clear that he is negative about ‘sensual desires’ and having-it-off just because it feels nice falls firmly into this category. A careful study of the text to figure out precisely what is and what is not permitted isn’t really what Scripture is all about.

    My grandfather came to faith in 1923 and immediately gave up smoking and drinking. Back then, the link between smoking and lung cancer had not been established, but the Salvation Army took the view that Christians should be in control, while smoking was clearly addictive – which meant that you were not in control. It goes back to Galatians 5:17 and the cravings of the flesh.

    With the C. of E., though, I think you may be onto a loser here, since much of the worship style seems to ramp up the appeal to the senses. Look at all the fancy stuff they have. I thought that the Spiritual nourishment from Christian worship was supposed to come as the response of the heart and mind to hearing the word. But if it’s primarily an appeal to the senses, then you shouldn’t be surprised if it attracts people who are primarily concerned with their sensual desires and ‘cravings of the flesh’.

    Reply
      • Peter – which isn’t really the point. From the little I have seen of C. of E. worship I get the impression that much of it really is a touchy-feely appeal to the senses – so it attracts the sort of people who are prone to let the rope go with the bucket when it comes to the sensual (and would probably give into their sensual desires long before they got married).

        I thought that the people who really knew how to ‘camp it up’ as far as worship services go were the Swedes – by a set of curious circumstances I found myself in Uppsala cathedral on Domssöndagen back in 2001. Very camp and very drole (although it wasn’t supposed to be).

        Reply
      • But theyre having sexual relations because they have given into their sexual desires. Some just want the state and church to recognise their sexual relationship.

        Reply
        • Pc1

          I think it’s pretty wierd to anyone not caught up in a Conservative religious bubble to think that anyone gets married to have sex or to be officially approved to have sex. It’s not about sex.

          Reply
          • That is a total giveaway for where you are coming from, Peter.
            To you it is something really weighty to be out of step with the totally random era and place you (a random person) are now living.
            In addition to being weighty, it is to be insulted with the word ‘weird’.
            And yet, being in step with the times is something that requires zero intelligence; it will, bu the very nature of things, be those who can think for themselves that will not be in step with the times.
            That means you are expecting everyone to follow the proposition: ‘Those who cannot think for themselves are better than those who can.’.
            QED.

        • PC1

          My assumption is that so is the archbishop of Canterbury (having sex, having given in to sensual desires). He has also been criticized for his failure to hold other leaders accountable for sexual assault.

          Indeed the only people in the CofE who actually dont give in to sensual desires are gay people who apply CofE teaching to their lives…yet they also get accused of being the most sexually immoral…and never mind the sexual abusers and their accomplices leading the church!

          Reply
  9. Same-sex marriage was practised in ancient Rome, but did not meet with general approval. Here are some lines from Juvenal satire 2:

    Lo, a man of wealth and high birth wed to a man,
    Nor [addressing Mars] shakest thou thine helmet, nor poundest earth with spear,
    Nor complainest to thy father! Off then and cede those acres [the Campus Martius in Rome]
    Of stern field which thou neglectest. “Tomorrow dawn
    I must attend a function in the Quirinal valley.”
    “What is the cause?” – “You ask? My friend is giving himself
    In marriage: a small affair.” Live long enough, they’ll do
    This publicly, aye, want it recorded in the rolls.
    Meanwhile an enormous torment sticks with the new brides:
    They can’t give birth and by their young retain their husbands. …

    As we do now conduct the rite publicly and record it in the rolls, one might conclude that we have sunk to depths that even pagan Rome did not contemplate.

    Reply
      • This is satire

        So the thing it satirises must have been common knowledge; satire relies on the a common knowledge between writer and audience. If you do a satirical joke about Boris Johnson at a school prize day, that relies on the audience knowing (a) who Boris Johnson is and (b) that there are certain ideas in common currency about his offspring.

        So to find a satire referring to that would be evidence that such ideas existed and were reasonably well know at the time (or the audience wouldn’t have got the joke).

        So doing a joke about men wanting to marry men is evidence that it was an idea with reasonably common currency that such men existed.

        (Indeed the joke itself is not a million miles away from, ‘they’ll be wanting to marry ducks next!’, is it?)

        Reply
      • S

        Perhaps, but more likely what was known was same sex sex and the poet is extrapolating from this as satire. It’s not an historical account and even the documents intentionally written as history from that time make fast an loose with the truth.

        One of the emperors was supposed to have castrated a slave boy and married him, but this was an insult after the fact by his enemies and unlikely to have any truth. The need to castrate the slave boy in order to make him into a wife suggests to me that there was not a good understanding of gay people amongst the Roman elites

        Reply
        • Perhaps, but more likely what was known was same sex sex and the poet is extrapolating from this as satire.

          Total baseless conjecture there.

          Reply
          • S

            It’s not conjecture. It’s based on reading about Roman culture rather than just claiming that the culture was whatever is convenient for the theology

          • It’s not conjecture. It’s based on reading about Roman culture rather than just claiming that the culture was whatever is convenient for the theology

            Total baseless assertion there. If it’s based on reading, cite your sources.

        • You are clearly impervious, and it amazes me how you just react without any serious consideration to the point being made. How well do you know the culture of ancient Rome? How much classical literature have you read? When you say, “This is satire,” as if that is all that needs to be said, it is clear you don’t understand that satura in Latin did not have the same connotation as satire in English. The literary tradition of satire evolved from the 1st century BC to the 2nd century AD (Juvenal being its last great exemplar), and the word literally meant a mish-mash or medley. While that was still the sense with Juvenal – a single poem of his could be quite wide-ranging – he combined wit with a strong sense of the absurdity of the moral degradation of his time. That mixture of amusement and disgust was quite new. He highlights the real-life vices and foibles of his time, and in speaking against them there is a tacit understanding that he is not alone in his perception of the debased human condition.

          The ‘satire’ depends entirely on describing things that his readers know to be real and not untypical. Large numbers of young men were now growing up to be fops, and Juvenal is pointing out the contrast with a past when Rome achieved its greatness as a geopolitical power through the virtues of valour, ascetisism and self-sacrifice. Men really were starting to solemnise their homosexual relationships in clandestine marriage ceremonies as if they were male-female couples. It was shocking then, and it is a terrible thing that in our society it is no longer shocking.

          I don’t know why you are commenting on this site, except out of mischief – 36 times, so far, on this one page. You clearly have no understanding of the inner Christian life and have no sympathy with what Christianity stands for – the call from God to walk the narrow road that leads to eternal life – so what do you hope to achieve since you are not hear to learn?

          Reply
          • Steven

            I’m one of the few people commenting who is actually directly impacted by inaccurate theology about gay people.

            I’m sorry that you don’t like me pointing out unfortunate holes in the “evidence” for the prosecution against me and other gay people

  10. “ theres at least a question mark over who Leviticus 18 is condemning, especially given that modern Christians disregard most of the law in this book…”

    I think that’s confusing exegesis and hermeneutics…

    Reply
    • It’s about consistency. Theology that makes life convenient for the straight person and impossible for the gay person is cherry picking the law

      Reply
        • His teaching on self righteousness isn’t that convenient either but it doesn’t stop people – especially church people – being that way.

          Reply
          • Who ever said it was an either/or? The problem is that Jesus taught quite a lot about the dangers of self righteousness but says next to nothing about sex. Whereas conservatives go on endlessly about sex and say nothing about self righteousness.

          • Whereas conservatives go on endlessly about sex and say nothing about self righteousness.

            Actually conservative sermons talk a lot about self-righteousness — a lot more than sex — it’s just that nobody outside the congregation pays any attention when they do. But mention sex once and everyone takes notice.

          • ouch! But true. Though I dont think Ian is exhibiting self-righteousness, rather just trying to be faithful to what he strongly believes is God’s view on the matter. And many agree with that understanding.

            But yes we should look to ourselves, often with our planks, before complaining about others’ dust.

          • Oh dear. Seriously? John and Lisa Nolland are obsessed with the subject and see it written everywhere.
            Thanks. I stand by my original comment.

          • It will be written everywhere, since every time Jesus or Paul makes a summary of the most important commands it is in there in the top handful.

        • Inconvenient? You mean we would all be out committing adultery and having one-night stands and indulging in troilism if it weren’t for Jesus?

          Reply
          • You mean we would all be out committing adultery and having one-night stands and indulging in troilism if it weren’t for Jesus?

            That’s pretty much how non-Christians behave nowadays, yes, isn’t it? Tinder and whatnot. Also getting divorced and remarried because they’ve ‘grown apart’ or ‘met someone who makes them feel alive again’.

          • They certainly don’t wait until marriage to have sex, or see anything wrong with moving in (and sleeping) together on a ‘trial basis’ with no commitment, and, if it doesn’t work out, moving on and doing the same with someone else.

          • So yeah, keeping to Jesus’ commands is less convenient, and especially so in a culture where you’re considered a weird freak if you won’t have sex before marriage.

          • Penelope

            But currently the CofE is more tolerant of adultery and even sexual abuse than it is of gay people marrying

        • Ian

          Church teaching on relationships and family life makes life convenient for straight people and inconvenient for gay people. I 100% agree that Jesus teaching is different to what the church (currently) teaches .I’m glad we are agreed on something.

          Reply
          • S

            I’m the worst person to give information on it, but Tinder is just a dating app. It’s not all adulterers (although granted probably some find partners that way) lots of people use it just to find LTRs

          • I’m the worst person to give information on it, but Tinder is just a dating app

            Yes, and it’s assumed that ‘dating’ at least potentially includes sex.

            It’s not all adulterers

            No, but it’s like 99% fornicators.

          • S

            I think you’ve probably just been taught that anyone who isnt a Conservative evangelical is out having sex left, right and centre. That’s not the case. From my limited experience of non religious heterosexuals a lot of them require at least some commitment before having sex

          • I think you’ve probably just been taught that anyone who isnt a Conservative evangelical is out having sex left, right and centre.

            Nothing to do with what I was taught, just observation. I know a lot of married non-Christians and I’m fairly sure not one of them was a virgin on their wedding day. I know a lot of non-Christian couples and they all either live together or have gone on holiday and shared a room, and some of them have children so I’m going to go out on a limb and say they’ve definitely had sex.

            This is simply the evidence of my own eyes.

          • S

            Theres a difference between having sex before marriage with your committed long term partner and a series of one night stands.

          • Theres a difference between having sex before marriage with your committed long term partner and a series of one night stands.

            Nope. There isn’t, morally. Both are sin and someone wanting to live as Jesus commands will not do either.

            This can be inconvenient.

      • Ian – well, I disagree – perhaps not with the conclusions – but rather with the whole line of argument of that article.

        It is interesting to get the background, the various factions, their views and the context in which the question was posed.

        But, as per usual for Jesus, in response he makes an eschatological statement which rises way above any context. He is pronouncing the Divine will – which is that divorce is wholly wrong. He doesn’t addressing the vexing questions of when it might become a necessary evil.

        In Matthew 19:3, Jesus is making a statement of an eschatological nature (his kingdom is not of this world) and he isn’t making helpful statements to assist nit-picking church people in their endeavour to construct canon law. The two accounts (Mark 10 and Matthew 19) are reconciled when we understand that when someone commits adultery, God has severed the marriage bond (so that any legal procedings formalising the divorce in that circumstance are simply implementing something that God has already pronounced).

        This shows just how awful adultery is in the eyes of the Lord, the magnitude and gravity of the sin. Not only are you not expected to continue to live with someone who commits adultery; God has severed the marriage and you are living in sin if you fail to recognise this and act accordingly.

        Reply
          • Andrew – I don’t see how this has anything to do with it. I don’t see Jesus instructing the husband (if she had one) of the woman caught in adultery instructing him to take her back; I don’t see Jesus instructing the wife of the man whom the woman caught in adultery had been having-it-off with to take back the man who had been having-it-off with the woman caught in adultery.

            Actually, you’ve just eliminated the one good point that I thought you had, which is sticking up for the oppressed. There are many who, through false church teaching, particularly women, have been bullied into remaining with an abusive, adulterous husband. A proper understanding of Matthew 19:3 (i.e. what I outlined above) would be very liberating for such people – helping to give them the strength to do what is good for them – in the face of external pressures (false church teaching and other forms of psychological bullying) and internal conflicts (Stockholm syndrome – being so enthralled by the abuser that they don’t have the courage to leave).

            It is actually a terrible example to the children to remain within a marriage to an adulterous spouse – best to take the children right out of that situation so that they never set eyes on the adulterous party again. A difficult thing to do, but a proper understanding of Jesus teaching might give people the moral courage necessary to do it.

          • And the treatment of the woman caught in the very act of adultery supports that view somehow I suppose Jock?

            Again you have to actually READ THE TEXT to make sense of that. People seem to have this idea that Jesus was walking along and came upon a woman about to be stoned, and showed compassion and saved her from death by execution.

            But that’s not what happened at all!

            Jesus was minding his own business teaching when the Pharisees dragged the woman in front of him and asked what he would do. They were never going to stone her! They just wanted to put Jesus in a position where they could either report him to the authorities (if he suggested killing her, something which would have been illegal) or spread the story that he was a false prophet because he denied the law of Moses (if he said she should go free).

            But Jesus manages to both uphold the law of Moses and put himself on a totally different plane to the secular powers by saying that she still deserves death, but that none of her accusers are fit to carry out the sentence; and then by abrogating to himself the power, God’s alone, to forgive (the woman, presumably, having repented, though we aren’t told that explicitly).

            It’s not a story about Jesus relaxing or junking the law of Moses in favour of a new law of ‘love, and do what you will’. It’s actually exactly the same scenario as the question about taxes: Jesus’ enemies try to catch him out by putting him in conflict with either the secular power or the Law, but Jesus, because he doesn’t just follow the Law but is the Law, outsmarts them.

          • ‘Again you have to actually READ THE TEXT to make sense of that.’

            Will we ever have to stop repeating this? So many people find it so hard to do that…

          • (Indeed he didn’t just outsmart them, he totally turned the tables on them by challenging them to stone her right there and then. Of course as the Pharisees had no authority to execute anyone, to do so would have been murder, and the Roman authorities could have executed them! So when they slink away it’s for two reasons: one they have no moral authority to carry out the sentences, being sinners just as much as she; and two they had no worldly authority. But Jesus, unlike them, has both kinds of authority, as He is both sinless and God. It’s a story about Jesus’ authority, not about junking the Old Testament (which Jesus would never do given, you know, He wrote it).

          • S – just the following minor comments about the ‘woman caught in adultery’ passage. Firstly, the Jews seem to have had the whip hand – for example, Scripture leads us to believe that the Jews (particularly the church people – Caiaphas for example) wanted Jesus executed and that Pontius Pilate obliged for a quiet life. So it doesn’t look to me as if they were bothered too much about what the Roman authorities might have thought (of course, they knew that there was a limit as to how far they could push this – if they tried the patience of the Roman authorities too much, then they’d send reinforcements to deal with it).

            The way it is presented in this passage – we are given to understand that they had actually man-handled the woman to get her there (do you really think she went with them willingly? – so they had probably already broken one or two laws to do this) and we are presented with the picture of an angry lynch mob who were capable of carrying out the threat.

          • Will we ever have to stop repeating this? So many people find it so hard to do that…

            Though to be fair on re-reading Jock’s comment this wasn’t making the standard misreading so my response, while true, is slightly off-topic. I suppose it’s like how if you point out someone’s misspelling you’re guaranteed to make one yourself …

          • Scripture leads us to believe that the Jews (particularly the church people – Caiaphas for example) wanted Jesus executed and that Pontius Pilate obliged for a quiet life.

            Yes, but note that (a) they still had to get Pilate’s approval, and in advance — he wasn’t merely a rubber stamp — and (b) how much they tried to do to get Jesus in trouble before taking the nuclear option of just dragging him before Pilate. That doesn’t give the impression of a group who knew they had Pilate wrapped around their little finger and could do whatever they wanted, within limits. If that was the case why not just have Jesus killed instead of all the business with the ‘should we pay taxes’ gotcha?

            Rather it looks like a rather uneasy balance of power, with both sides trading favours and political capital. They really, really wanted Jesus gone, so they were willing to threaten Pilate with civil unrest unless he acquiesced; and Pilate didn’t care much so he agreed. It’s unlikely they would have squandered that capital on some random adulteress, and of course Pilate would have had more of a problem with agreeing to, effectively, acting as a rubber stamp for Jewish religious law (Jesus, remember, was accused of claiming to be King of the Jews, a crime against Roman authority, so Pilate could agree to his execution without it looking like he was applying Jewish law).

            The way it is presented in this passage – we are given to understand that they had actually man-handled the woman to get her there (do you really think she went with them willingly? – so they had probably already broken one or two laws to do this) and we are presented with the picture of an angry lynch mob who were capable of carrying out the threat.

            ‘ At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.’

            I don’t see this ‘angry lynch mob’, where is it?

          • S – well, the text tells us that they *made* her stand before the group – we can infer that they used force to get her there and they weren’t letting her run away. The text therefore does give every indication that this is an angry lynch mob. They didn’t say, ‘excuse me, would you be awfully nice and come with us to meet Jesus? We’re setting a trap for him, you see; your participation would be very useful. We’ll reward you with a nice creamy cookie at the end if we succeed in getting him to drop a clanger.’

            There is every indication that they dragged her before Jesus, using force to get her there – this looks like a lynch mob to me (albeit perhaps not an angry one).

          • There is every indication that they dragged her before Jesus, using force to get her there – this looks like a lynch mob to me (albeit perhaps not an angry one).

            Yes, clearly they used force to drag her before Jesus, but that’s not what a ‘lynch mob’ is. A ‘lynch mob’ is a mob that’s going to do a lynching. If they had, say, decided to drag her naked through the streets shouting ‘look at the shameless hussy!’ in order to publicly shame her, they would have been using force, but it wouldn’t have been a ‘lynch mob’.

            So: is there any clue in the text that they were a ‘lynch mob’? Well, let’s look at what they did and whether that’s consistent with the idea that they were actually going to kill her.

            They found her in the act of adultery. So what did they do? Well, they took her to where they knew Jesus was teaching. They weren’t just passing and happened to see Jesus and think ‘let’s ask his opinion’; they specifically took her to stand her in front of Him to try to trick Him with their question.

            We don’t know if they took her straight there; but we do know that they did not take her straight to somewhere where they could kill her. So we for a start we know that confronting Jesus with a trick question was a higher priority for them than actually killing her.

            Then look at the question they ask Jesus, how it’s phrased: ‘ In the Law Moses commanded us […]. Now what do you say?’ First: there’s no urgency here. It’s not: ‘we’re going to kill her; do you object?’ That would have really put Jesus on the spot, but they don’t ask that. Instead it’s phrased almost as a hypothetical. They could have asked the exact same question in the exact same way without any woman actually present.

            And finally see their reaction when Jesus turns the tables and puts them on the spot. Because what did Jesus do? He called their bluff, didn’t He? He told them to put up or shut up. ‘You say the law commands you to kill her. Go on then. Right here, right now. Do it.’

            If they had been really prepared to actually kill her — if they had been an actual lynch mob, just stopping off to see Jesus on their way to a stinking ground — do you really think not one of them would have said, ‘okay then, enough of this delay, let’s go and do what we were going to do anyway’? Not plausible.

            What we have here is totally inconsistent with how an actual lynch moon would behave. You know what it is consistent with? With the woman being discovered in adultery; reported to the religious authorities; and them thinking ‘hey, this is a good opportunity to put that annoying Nazarene in a proper bind, and also publicly shame this hussy a bit while we’re at it’.

            I don’t see anything in the report consistent with the idea that they ever intended to actually kill her, plenty that’s inconsistent with that, and an alternative explanation that fits the facts far better.

          • S – you have good arguments, but I don’t think they are conclusive – although you’re right about one crucially important point – the woman caught in adultery was clearly a side issue; the whole business was to try and get Jesus to drop a clanger.

            But this has deflected from the main question here -which was to ask Andrew Godsall where on earth the woman caught in adultery came into it and why he thought this was relevant.

          • But this has deflected from the main question here -which was to ask Andrew Godsall where on earth the woman caught in adultery came into it and why he thought this was relevant.

            Yes, sorry, that’s my fault — I just get so annoyed with the common misapprehension of the event (Jesus saved a woman who was about to be killed by evil enforcers of the law, to sure that the law is evil and we should all be nice instead) being trotted out that I reacted without clicking that this time Andrew Godsall’s misreading is entirely different.

            By the way you know Calvin’s reasoning for why remarriage after divorce on the grounds of adultery is okay?

          • I’m sure I knew it once, but I’ve forgotten Calvin’s reasons – please remind me.

            Well, the penalty for adultery is execution , right? So the adulterer would be (if people were properly following God’s law) dead, obviously leaving the innocent spouse free to remarry.

            And Calvin reasoned that just because the secular authorities were too lily-livered to do their duty and kill the adulterer, that shouldn’t take precedence for the Church over God’s law, in the eyes of which the adulterer was, basically, dead already.

            Hence remarriage was possible because it was basically the same as remarrying after one’s spouse had died, the fact that they were still breathing being a mere inconvenient detail that just showed the secular authorities were not following God’s law.

          • S – well, I suppose I knew there was a reason why I stopped taking Calvin seriously.

            It does sound very much like the plot from the Mikado – where Nanki-Poo has officially been executed – and refuses to come back to life if he is still in danger of having to marry Katisha ……

          • Christopher ….. well, W.S. Gilbert was also a lawyer by training – so now we understand why huge swathes of John Calvin’s ‘Institutes’ look like a script from a Gilbert and Sullivan operetta.

        • Hi Jock, you seem to take a lot of what Jesus said as applicable to the end of the age rather than to the here and now. Im not convinced. I think you even said the sermon on the mount was that, but most of it applies now even if things will change in the future.

          ‘when someone commits adultery, God has severed the marriage bond (so that any legal procedings formalising the divorce in that circumstance are simply implementing something that God has already pronounced).’

          How do you know that? It also seems to imply that if a partner commits adultery, the other partner should automatically divorce them. Are they not free to forgive them and continue with their marriage if they so choose? It seems to me Jesus is saying that adultery (or whatever porneai means) is a legitimate reason for divorce, but not necessarily that divorce is the inevitable consequence, as you think.

          Im n ot wholly convinced by Ian’s position but im not sure about your’s either!

          In the context of the condemnation of all same sex relations, it is hard not to conclude as others have, that church people have often been quite flexible when it comes to divorce and remarriage, largely because of the emotional pain involved in remaining with an ass (but to same sex attracted, youll just have to suck it up).

          Peter

          Reply
          • Peter – I think it’s quite important to take it eschatologically – the Sermon on the Mount presents an ideal that we should try to live up to (and if we are Christians then with all our hearts we want to live up to this ideal), but anyone being honest with themselves knows that the standard is too high and too hard for them; no matter how hard they try and how much they may want to, they do not live up to this standard.

            The function of the church is to bring people to Salvation – and to deal with people who are in Him, bringing them forward in their faith – with an understanding that real life is actually rather messy. When we are in Him, we are forgiven sinners – that is, we do keep on sinning and the ideal of sinless perfection is something that we won’t attain in this life (although if we are Christians then we are endeavouring with all our hearts for sinless perfection in this life – and anyone who isn’t simply isn’t a Christian).

            But we’ve seen all the difficulties of trying to turn the pronouncements of Jesus into canon law. Marriage is a very good example of this – if the church involves itself in marriage, then either it will be too strict and pharisaical so that nobody will be allowed to get married at all, or else it will be far too loose and degenerate – allowing any Tom, Dick, Harry, Megan to get married.

            I believe that the line that God has severed the marriage bond when one of the parties commits adultery really is the only way to reconcile Matthew 19:3 with Mark 10. I also believe that if people took this seriously – particularly women who find themselves in abusive marriages where their husband is committing adultery it could be very liberating for them. Church teaching has forced many people (particularly women) to endure horrible lives with unfaithful husbands whose presence isn’t doing the children any good.

            At the same time, anyone with an ounce of sense probably sees that this shouldn’t be taken as a hard and fast rule to be rigorously applied in this life in every single case of adultery – in some cases it could lead to more harm than good. The teaching of Jesus is eschatological in nature, presenting the ideal, but it is very difficult to see how to encode it rigorously as a set of rules and regulations for the here and now.

          • Peter – as far as ‘forgiveness’ goes – that has been used as a way of blackmailing people who find themselves with an adulterous spouse.

            Well, I’d suggest the following analogy: if someone breaks into your house and steals everything. Suppose the burglar eventually gets caught and shows signs of repentance. You might be able to forgive him, but even if you have forgiven him completely, you wouldn’t entrust him with your house keys. You know that he has a predisposition towards burglary, it’s something that his old sinful nature enjoys doing, the ‘old man’ within him could become active at any time – and if he had your house keys, your house would be easy pickings. By giving him your house keys, you would be strongly tempting him to return to his old sinful ways.

  11. RIP Church of England
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dMbOdVLuvs
    As one can see from the below-the-line responses, there are many who feel the same way as this vicar. He reports people leaving his own church because of the synod debate, and a significant number among those commenting have done the same. Also an astonishing number of responses from Catholics.

    Reply
    • Steven I’m sure there are many. But it depends what you mean by many. His video has been watched 5700 times as I write this. And there are 250 or so comments. But I’ve got *many* offcuts of wood in my garage. Some have said I have too many. (There are around 40, because I think they might come in useful one day).
      Personally I found his style and content just awful. If that is how people conduct worship, or preach, then I’m afraid I wouldn’t last the 9 minutes it took to watch. I’d be out the door.
      But there are *many* members of General Synod. Getting on for 500. The only thing that counts is what those elected members decide to vote on any given issue. And it’s agreed that the makeup of this particular General Synod is more conservative than the CofE is. The conservatives were very good at getting their reps elected because they wanted to prevent any liberalising of the CofE in the area of same sex relationships.
      So what happened? (Open question).
      People – even many of them – can agree or disagree with the outcome. But the only thing that counts is what the elected members decide by vote. If people don’t like it, they have choices.
      And I don’t think that creating a church within a Church – what some are calling a ‘settlement’ – is going to happen anytime soon, so that will not be one of the choices available.

      Reply
    • For balance, at least some LGBT people have also left the CofE over this. The bishops promised real listening and radical new inclusion and instead used press office spin to pretend they were actually improving inclusion and blamed LGBT people for everything from their own lack of honesty to Christian persecution in Sudan

      Reply
  12. Missed the fairly obvious when you think about it, fact that Paul’s use of the term “arsenokoites” almost certainly comes from the Septuagint Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures (Lev 18, 20) which clearly make no reference to a supposed bullying partner. The prohibition is a blanket statement for all male homosexual activity and as can been seen later in the chapter, to be for all nations plus also pre-existing the Mosaic law as demonstrated by the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah hundreds of years earlier.

    Reply
    • “Clearly”

      Sorry but these statements are too weak to rely on to demand other people sacrifice their entire family lives and romantic lives for.

      Conservatives need to come up with better explanations or be more tolerant of those who dont see so “clearly”

      Reply
    • The fact that Foley Beach and Miguel Uchoa Cavalcanti are signatories to the statement rather undermines its intent. Are there others in the signatory list who are not actually members of the Anglican Communion?
      The GSFA seems to have become one with GAFCON. That also undermines its authority such as it is.
      So what we are actually witnessing is a bid by 10 Primates of the 38 in conjunction with two leaders of other churches to take over the Communion.
      It’s helpful that they have been reminded that they are not one of the Instruments that might propose such a change but I somehow don’t think it will stop them trying.
      The statements in response are at least clear. The battle for the soul of the Anglican Church is not going to be edifying.

      Reply
      • *Clear*. Even to you Andrew? Thought that not having the foggiest, was was the key to postmodern subjective,interpretation and understanding of scripture and key to deliberate divisive, dislocations of liberal regressive ambiguities.
        All the while, the Keys to the Kingdom have been handed over to the keepers of doctrine, lost as they have been down the back of the sofa along with £100m.

        Reply
    • Anton

      But these are people/churches that have either already left the communion or who have not been following or teaching in accordance with Lambeth 1.10 – some even encouraging extreme secular legislation to hurt gay people

      Reply
  13. Can I make a plea for people to be more circumspect about using the word ‘celibacy’? This is the normal language for the life of a priest or religious who makes a voluntary commitment to the unmarried life – usually as part of a wider vocation. It is a structured, gifted, voluntary, life-long and sworn undertaking. None of these five things apply to the language of celibacy when it is used of those (SSA or otherwise) for whom chastity outside marriage involves sexual restraint(as those who are married are to be chaste with the constraints of marriage.) Paul the Apostle is often said to commend ‘celibacy’ in 1 Corinthians 7, though his teaching is, in obvious ways, more pragmatic and flexible than this.
    One problem with using celibacy (I think chastity is far the better word) is that it tends to aggregate the sexual constraint expected of SSA people to a kind of involuntary ‘monk-hood’ or ‘nun-hood’ rather than associating them with the sexual chastity expected in the NT by those in any number of stages and states of life. The challenges faced by many (before marriage, after the death of a partner, SSA etc) are deep, real and need the love, fellowship and support of Christian community, as we all do in order to be the best disciples of Jesus that we can be. But celibacy is not, I am suggesting, the right ‘shorthand’ category to use for the unmarried sexually abstinent life, except in a few specific cases, like monk, nuns and Catholic priests.

    Reply
    • Can I make a plea for people to be more circumspect about using the word ‘celibacy’? This is the normal language for the life of a priest or religious who makes a voluntary commitment to the unmarried life – usually as part of a wider vocation. It is a structured, gifted, voluntary, life-long and sworn undertaking.

      That may be the context in which the word is most often encountered nowadays, but the word simply means ‘the state of being unmarried’. Everyone is born celibate and spends the early part of their life celibate. Some cease to be celibate at some point; some remain celibate until they die. Of the latter, some remain celibate very much against their will, some just happen to stay celibate, and some vow to remain celibate for either a period or for the rest of their lives.

      And of course some who do marry return to being celibate, if their spouse predeceases them.

      I think you’re making too big a thing if you get hung up on ‘celibate’. It’s just a word that means ‘unmarried’.

      Reply
    • I disagree. I view ‘being celibate’ as choosing to not have sex because to do so is inappropriate in one’s current life status, ie only sex within male-female marriage is appropriate in God’s eyes. Some choose, from a particular time, to be celibate for the rest of their lives, eg nuns, priests etc, though of course there are instances where they change their chosen path and get married and have sex. For others they are celibate until they eventually marry. For others still they remain celibate because they have no appropriate option.

      It may be an incorrect understanding of the word, but so be it. And chastity I find a very old fashioned word, and it reminds me of Up the Chastity Belt with Frankie Howerd – ooh er missus!

      Reply
      • I view ‘being celibate’ as choosing to not have sex because to do so is inappropriate in one’s current life status, ie only sex within male-female marriage is appropriate in God’s eyes.

        No, that (having or not having sex as appropriate to one’s situation) is being chaste. So if you are chaste and celibate then you won’t be having sex at all; if you are chaste and not celibate that means you’re married so you will be having sex only with your spouse. If you’re unchaste, well.

        And chastity I find a very old fashioned word

        Old-fashioned words are the best. But ‘chastity’ is just the name of the virtue of having a right attitude to sex, just like ‘honesty’ is the name of the virtue of having a right attitude to the truth. Do you find ‘honesty’ a very old-fashioned word?

        Reply
        • S

          I think the challenge is that the current CofE teaching combined with practice is that its requiring gay people never to have sex or a relationship or a family and also (with very few exceptions) not creating any community for that.

          It actually goes way beyond both celibacy and chasteness. It isnt the same as the single straight woman of a certain age, because she has community, the pursuit of relationships and is allowed romantic feelings even if they are never reciprocated

          Reply
  14. Celibacy for a believer is not a curse but a blessing.
    This applies to people blessed by a loving fruitful marriage with its tribulations.
    This applies to people who choose to honor their marriage vows when separated as when illness enforces separation as in military service, etc..
    This applies to unmarried people who choose to “obey righteousness” and remain chaste.
    This sort of behavior is the “obedience of faith” rewarded by God.

    Reply

Leave a Reply to AJ Bell Cancel reply