Mike Starkey writes: A friend of mine recently joined a new inclusive Christian network, and wanted to know if I planned to sign up. He used the phrase ‘standing with the LGBTQ+ community’. I hesitated before replying, just as I’d hesitated a decade earlier when asked a similar question at a church in the North of England. The leadership had decided, almost overnight, to affiliate to an inclusive church network, and asked everybody in leadership to sign up. When I hesitated it sparked a tirade from a colleague, who didn’t hold back in telling me the ‘real’ reasons for my hesitation.
The actual reason I hesitated was because I wasn’t convinced by the question. It was phrased (ironically) as a stark binary, yes or no. My feeling was that it was an incoherent question, because you can’t stand with a group who are not all standing in the same place as each other.
I’ve spent the past few weeks interviewing people who represent a wide range of views on sex, gender and identity. They include a veteran Christian gay rights campaigner, a diversity specialist, and a number of others who identify with various letters in the LGBTQ+ acronym.
(Technically it isn’t an acronym, because an acronym has to be pronounceable as a word (eg NASA, UNESCO). LGBTQ+ is an ‘initialism’, but as nobody has heard of initialisms I’m calling it an acronym.)
Some spoke on condition of anonymity. My most surprising discovery was quite how many of them shared my instinct that ‘Will I stand with LGBTQ+?’ is an incoherent question. Like me, they felt being asked to stand with LGBTQ+ was like being asked to stand with politics, or religion or lifestyle—too diffuse to be meaningful.
The LGBTQ+ acronym has expanded over time, from the early clustering of LGB in the 1980s to its present form. The lobby group Stonewall added the T as recently as 2015. There are many forms of the acronym in use today. I use LGBTQ+ here as it’s the version currently approved by Stonewall.
LGBTQ+ means Lesbian, Gay, Bi, Trans and Queer. The final + acts as an open category for a growing range of additions. Each of the letters, and each sub-group within each letter, has its own flag – as well as sharing the all-embracing Progress Pride Flag, designer Daniel Quasar’s 2018 update of the 1978 rainbow flag.
I want to take a few moments to reflect on my friend’s question about standing with LGBTQ+, in conversation with my interviews of recent weeks.
Tensions and Contradictions
As many of my interviewees pointed out, it doesn’t take much peering into the acronym to spot internal tensions and contradictions.
Lesbians are women attracted to women. But who defines what counts as a woman? Some say a woman is defined by an inner sense of gender identity, rather than biology. So a lesbian is anybody who identifies as a woman and is attracted to women. Opposed to this are lesbians who insist female sex is non-negotiable, and are angry about the arrival of male-bodied transwomen identifying as lesbians in their spaces.
This argument over who and what defines a lesbian is part of a wider gulf. On the one side are LGB groups (including the LGB Alliance and the growing LGB Christians network), who insist on a biological definition of homosexuality. On the other side is Stonewall, which since 2015 has prioritised trans, and sees the sex binary as less significant than a fluid gender self-ID. LGB groups say that L, G and B are sexual orientations, while the rest of the letters are identities—and that these are not the same thing.
This is an argument about fundamental perceptions of reality. In turn, it feeds disagreement on whether transwomen, who have experienced male puberty, should be allowed to compete in women’s sports. And whether male-born transwomen should be housed in women’s prisons, or allowed into traditionally single-sex spaces such as rape crisis centres and changing rooms.
Gay. America’s Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) has added homosexual to its list of banned terms, describing it as ‘outdated, derogatory and offensive’ (GLAAD Media Reference Guide, 11th edition, 2022)—sparking outrage among many self-declared homosexuals.
Here in the UK, Stonewall-influenced usage increasingly prefers queer to gay. Others, including new gender-critical gay men’s groups, are fiercely opposed to this and insist they are ‘gay, not queer’.
Descriptions of what it means to live as gay range from relationships that are ‘permanent, faithful and stable’ (in Canon Jeffrey John’s phrase), to the wild, colourful and rubbery options on display at Pride festivals and in apps such as Grindr.
Trans has a different meaning today compared with 15 years ago, when most people who lived as the opposite sex were known as transsexuals. According to Stonewall, the meanings of trans now
include, but are not limited to: transgender, transsexual, gender-queer (GQ), gender-fluid, non-binary, gender-variant, crossdresser, genderless, agender, nongender, third gender, bi-gender, trans man, trans woman, trans masculine, trans feminine and neutrois.
It is significant that, unlike transsexuals in the earlier meaning of trans, many of the new Stonewall meanings are not obvious from a person’s appearance. They depend wholly on an individual’s inner feelings and self-ID.
Queer. For some, queer is still a synonym for gay. In Stonewall usage, however, queer is increasingly replacing not only gay, but also lesbian and bi too—even though many see it as a slur. When London’s Kew Gardens staged its Queer Nature events in autumn 2023 it was flooded with complaints from gays and lesbians objecting to the title.
In the broader culture, queer has come to mean anybody who rejects conventional sexual expression. It says nothing more specific than ‘I’m a bit edgy’. Even Stonewall admits queer is fluid and contested. Stonewall’s definition of queer makes no mention at all of gay, lesbian or bi. Rather, it is a way of ‘rejecting specific labels’. It adds that queer can be ‘a way of rejecting the perceived norms of the LGBT community (racism, sizeism, ableism etc).’ In other words, not only does queer not necessarily mean gay, lesbian, bi, or even trans – it can be a reaction against them.
If anybody can be queer, and even the chief gatekeepers don’t know what queer is, the rest of us can be forgiven for confusion about who we’re meant to stand with.
The + Then there’s the +, whose contents are kept vague to allow for an ever-expanding list of possibilities. Who decides what goes in the + category, and what doesn’t?
Everyone I spoke to was hesitant to raise this issue, but for many it was the elephant in the room. A number of paraphilias say they belong in there. Each has its own flag, and sympathetic academics who write papers on why it deserves acceptance. These include Minor Attracted Persons (MAPs, previously known as paedophiles), and Zoophiles (humans attracted to sex with animals). Are MAPs and Zoophiles included in the + I’m being asked to stand with? Who decides? Who polices the boundaries? It feels like being asked to sign a blank cheque.
Many of my gay and lesbian interviewees expressed a concern that some of the identities flying flags on the LGBTQ+ flagpole come trailing more red flags than China’s Red Square under Chairman Mao. At the other extreme, Asexuals define themselves by lack of sexual attraction to anybody. It’s hard to imagine how any Christian from any tradition could possibly object to somebody who’d rather have a nice cup of tea.
LGBTQ+ as a whole isn’t a self-evidently coherent acronym. There are many versions of it, some significantly at variance with others. One book, Being A Super Trans Ally! (2020) uses an acronym of 12 letters, as well as the +, ‘to reflect the infinite sexual orientations and gender identities.’ The Canadian Government’s version has now reached eight letters, along with a +. Most versions of the acronym keep adding new letters, with no transparency about who gets to add them, or why.
It’s no disrespect to any of the letters to recognise that each has its own distinct priorities, that some are in tension or conflict with others, and that within each letter there’s a vast range of views.
Dealing With Dissent
This issue of dissent and difference within the movement is a tricky one, and hard to admit to if you’re keen to promote LGBTQ+ as a community with a unified agenda. In practice gays, lesbians and bis who question the Stonewall line are often written off as unrepresentative and inauthentic.
When I discussed this question of internal dissent with my interviewees, those sympathetic to Stonewall told me that gender-critical lesbians and gays who define themselves by biological sex, detransitioners who regret medical transition, desisters who call a halt before transition, and members of groups such as Living Out who describe themselves as same-sex attracted and called to celibacy, are all dupes of the far-right. The true motive of these groups is transphobia and hate, I was told, so they don’t count. This accusation is a common trope in social media.
This amounts to an allegation that some people are the wrong sort of gay, or the wrong sort of gender nonconforming, because they don’t toe the party line. Like all utopian movements, current Stonewall-defined orthodoxy tends to vilify and airbrush out those who don’t fit the narrative. One of my interviewees was a partnered gay man, who was made unwelcome at an Anglican church that described itself as inclusive. He was seen carrying a tote bag from the ‘wrong’ gay advocacy group, and the vicar told him he must never bring it again. He described the experience of being excluded in the name of inclusion as Orwellian.
Group psychology is a relatively new science that explores the inner dynamics of groups (see Yascha Mounk, The Identity Trap (Allen Lane 2023), pp 117–126). Two of its insights are highly relevant here:
- Dissenters are valuable in a group, because they offer a healthy check on drift towards groupthink and extremism.
- When a group feels threatened by outside forces, dissenters may be accused of being saboteurs, traitors to the need to present a united front. The group may not have the power to slay the attacking dragon, but they can accuse internal dissenters of being the dragon’s minions.
The current widespread vilification of gender-critical LGBs and other dissenters by the broader LGBTQ+ movement appears to be a textbook example of how to handle dissent badly (see Simon Fanshawe, The Power of Difference (Kogan Page 2022), Chapter 2).
If I’m being asked to stand with LGBTQ+, does that mean standing with whatever the current majority opinion happens to be? Does it mean not standing with those who dissent and are ostracised for having different views, even if their views feel more compatible with my faith?
An Incoherent Question
What I’m clear on is this. Everybody should be treated with respect, receive fair treatment in the eyes of the law, and be able to live free from fear. But when I’m asked to stand with a particular grouping, that’s not what I’m being asked. Dictionary definitions of stand with include ‘support’, ‘back’, ‘unite with’, and ‘be a loyal ally’. I feel I’m being asked to bless en bloc a grouping that’s disparate and fluid, unboundaried and constantly expanding, unaccountable and internally contradictory, and whose wilder fringes shade off into lawless badlands. What does standing with that even mean?
It’s a characteristic of today’s Manichean identity politics that every contested issue is presented as having only two sides. Yes or no. For or against. Opposing slogans shouted through megaphones. Tribal affiliations signalled. That seems to me a disastrous framework for Christian discipleship, moral judgement and pastoral care.
So will I stand with LGBTQ+? I still find it impossible to give an answer, because the question feels more incoherent than ever.
‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’ (Lewis Carroll: Through the Looking Glass, 1871)
Mike Starkey is a London-based writer, formerly Head of Church Growth for Manchester Diocese. He blogs at Flaneur Notes, where this article was first published.
Buy me a Coffee
Before posting please read the Comments Policy carefully and ensure you adhere to it.
Want to know what LBGTQ+ stands for?
Ask a +LGBTQ.
That is precisely what Mike has done…?
I thought + stood for bishop. Sorry I’m confused. 🙂
That’s very confusing in context!
It’s nothing but a tribal shibboleth, meaning ‘Are you one of us?’.
This being the case, those who hold to it have never gone into the question of whether or not it is coherent. Nor, from my experience, are they generally capable of doing so.
Being a shibboleth, it automatically loses the argument as being a less coherent and less honest position.
The definitional questions, which are many (what on earth is T? or Q? or +?) were also raised at synod a year or so ago.
This fine article nails it.
Agreed. It’s more about a badge of identity, a statement about ‘the sort of person I am’, rather than a genuine exploration of the complex issues.
Thanks for your kind comment!
The other issue, more pertinent to me, is how does the Church refer to hetero normative people.
It is pretty free with the use of ‘cis’ , not seeming to know, or care, that it is offensive.
‘cis’ is a pretty stupid and offensive term when used of human beings. ‘cis’ is a geographical preposition in Latin meaning ‘on this side of’; thus we have coinages like Cisjordan and Ciskei, which indicate the original position of the person using them. By sticking this preposition onto ‘man’ and ‘woman’ the political campaigners who speak this way imply that being male or female is an ‘optional’ and basically simple thing like changing your clothes or crossing a river – which of course it is not.
Sex is hardwired into every single cell of our bodies, and a single cell of my body with its DNA preserved will always show that it comes from a male body – just as old skeletons dug up can nearly always be identified as male or female. Biology doesn’t change because of the clothes we wear or the parts we cut off.
Yep, that’s it.
Yes – ‘cis’ is a pejorative, only ever used by people who want to throw an insult. I get the impression that those using it usually have to be treated with the gentle respect that is due to the criminally insane – the alternative can be dangerous.
A number of times I have asked what ‘queer’ means in sexuality discussions and have never received a clear answer. I have long believed it was just another way of saying ‘homosexual’ (maybe with a personal psychological political edge to it), and a careful read of the rambling, self-referential and confused Wikipedia article on ‘queer’ confirms that this is indeed the case.
If word means anything a user wants it to mean, then it means nothing because communication depends on shared meanings.
As the number of letters increases, is it not simpler and shorter to call this list “non-heterosexual”?
Anton, you could make millions from this idea. Do you have a patent?
Wot, is a ‘sexual’?
On and on and on, helter skelter ever wider, ever down-ward.
It may be simpler and shorter, but it’s not correct, since not only is “trans” not about sexual orientation, but a very considerable number of those who call themselves “trans” are, in terms of their real sex, heterosexual. That includes, of course, those men who masquerade as women and call themselves “lesbians”, and those women who masquerade as men and call themselves “gay men”. Furthermore, many of those who call themselves “queer” are also heterosexual – attention-seekers who wish to give themselves a label that sounds more exotic than plain old, boring “straight”.
The ridiculous, illogical and misleading LGBT(Q)(+) initialism was invented to try to con people who are gay, lesbian or bisexual into thinking that they are somehow obliged to support the “trans” delusion and the crackpot demands based on it, and that they are being traitors to the imaginary “LGBT(Q)(+) community” if they don’t. A surprising number of people have allowed themselves to be taken in, although some are now starting to come to their senses and realise that they have been taken for a ride. The best thing to do with the initialism and all its equally absurd, tiresome and seemingly never-ending extensions, is to ditch it permanently.
Yes indeed. But who could do this?
Well, I concede that no-one can be forced to ditch it, but we can refrain from using it ourselves. I confess to having rather thoughtlessly used it a few times in the past when replying to people who had themselves used it, and I regret having done so. For at least the past decade, however, I have refused ever to use it, except when drawing attention to its absurdity.
William, I’m interested in your calling LGBTQI+ an ‘initialism’. Are you saying that this expression is somehow different from an acronym … that as somehow deficient?
Bruce, as Mike Starkey has noted above in his piece, strictly speaking an acronym should be pronounceable as though it were a single word, which LGBTQI+ is not. Personally, I have always referred to LGBT and to its variations as initialisms, never as acronyms.
OK, William, so, linguistically, the same as FBI. But then are USA, CIA, UK acronyms or initialisms?
Bruce, they could be treated as acronyms, but I have never heard anyone do so. Have you?
But then that would be defining people based on a comparison group. Like ‘non-white’ instead of black. People, rightly, dont like that. Though that became a rather hilarious episode of Curb your Enthusiasm when people misunderstood Larry’s reference to his temporary lodgers, a black family called the Blacks. Chaos ensued.
So much for a class-less, equal society. So much legalism.
All are wellcome to hear the Good News of Jesus Christ.
It seems to be doubtful that it would be heard.
All the Kings horses and all the Kings men, couldn’t put Humpty together again.
Only, The KING of Kings and LORD of Lords can.
Why has S & M never been added to LGBTQ? Bigotry?
Or ‘Be’?
Meaning what?
Sadism and Masochism.
I meant Anton’s “Be”. I don’t know what this refers to.
Or not to Be.
Is that a question?
You are free to add it if you wish. Since there is no copyright on the stupid initialism, and since it is not a registered trademark, anyone is free to add (or to subtract) any letters or symbols that they fancy – or alternatively to cook up some equally absurd initialism of their own. No-one can touch you for it.
“He used the phrase ‘standing with the LGBTQ+ community’.”
That’s a silly reason to be part of an inclusive Christian network. What and who does it want to be inclusive of? What is it trying to discuss, argue for or equip people for? That’s what matters. ‘Standing with’ is just a performance.
Absolutely right.
First class article, not only because it highlights the incoherence of the question often asked and the ideology underneath that question, but also because it points us towards a much more fruitful means of dialogue than all-out defence or attack (with it’s unpleasant marxist overtones).
Jesus, as has been pointed out many times, regularly throughout the gospels chooses to answer a question with a question. I find this a much better stance than simply accepting the premise of a question that is not interested, on the face of it, in honest conversation. I do wonder if those in pastoral ministry who, I imagine, tend towards greater levels of empathy and sensitivity, need to watch out for this trap more than others. Indeed, perhaps that is a root cause of so much revisionism and deconstruction amongst some ‘evangelical’ leaders who have changed their mind on this issue, but struggle to articulate any coherent reasons why they have made this change, other than a misdirected pastoral sensitivity to agree and keep the peace.
When you listen to those who’ve changed their mind it tends to be that they used to think people’s sexual orientation could be changed – i.e. being gay is a problem, so you should choose to stop that, and settle down into a straight marriage instead. Once they realised that wasn’t possible (the implosion of the ex-gay movement probably played a big role there), they were confronted with the reality of telling teenagers that they had to embrace lifelong celibacy – i.e. you have to be a monk, but in secret, and you have no choice about that, and it starts now, but has no particular purpose. Nearly everyone shies away from that in practice (unsurprisingly because it’s so out of step with how Scripture talks about celibacy, and so starkly different with how the Church talks to young people who are straight about ordering their lives). And you also find that people are confronted by the reality of gay people they actually meet, and see them forming faithful partnerships (very similarly to straight couples), and not living an endless hedonism of anonymous sex to a 1970s soundtrack.
So, these evangelical leaders are left observing that gay people can’t be changed to not be gay, they believe in a catholic Church that is open to all people, they don’t see the imposition of a lifelong celibacy rule as fitting within Christian ethics in practice, and leads them to re-think their view applying Christian relationship and sexual ethics to same-sex relationships.
Of course it not only *can be changed but rather it *has been already changed in most people’s lives. For example, when they were born they were not sexual. Later on they were confused and unsettled. Later on they were at least more settled, if not necessarily free of confusion in all instances. Later on, they may have had life experiences or hormonal changes that turned them against men. And so on.
The claim is as though everyone is an adult, much like those who make the claim. What world is that? For it certainly is not the real one.
The rates at which people are settled and monogamous, as it were, are (of course) statistically not anecdotally determined.
Matthew Parris in an article in the Times (21 April 2012) wrote an article. It has this section:
Both sides — straights and gays — have strong reason to deny (not least to themselves) that they ever had a choice: the straights because gay inclinations were disapproved of; the gays because infinitely their most persuasive way of commanding tolerance has always been the (I believe) subtly self-oppressive: “It’s the way I am — nothing I can do about it — part of my identity — it isn’t my fault.”
“I can’t help it”. The very words carry a kind of whimper. I hate this plea. It isn’t accepted as an argument for paedophilia and shouldn’t be. I’d want to be gay whether I could help it or not. The day that the battle for homosexual equality is won and over will be the day a man, straight or gay, can boast that he chose.
I fully agree with Matthew Parris that gay people should never say of their sexual orientation “I can’t help it.” Not because it’s untrue, – it isn’t – but because, while it does not logically HAVE to mean “It’s a pity that I can’t help it, because there’s something wrong with it, so I wish I could”, it will in practice be invariably taken to carry that implication. So they shouldn’t say it about their sexual orientation for the same reason that straight people shouldn’t and generally don’t say it about theirs: there is nothing wrong with it, so it doesn’t need helping.
Pace Matthew Parris, I fail to see why anyone should want to boast that they chose their sexual orientation – it’s not some kind of achievement – but that consideration aside, the reality is that people don’t choose it; they discover it.
One of the worrying things about this debate is the number of people who reveal they have no good arguments against child abuse. Even Matthew Parris.
Conflating homosexuality and paedophilia is not just offensive, it’s bizarre, and indicative of a strangely misogynistic outlook. We’re invited to believe that the ethical question is who/what can men have sex with – and the intentions, agency, and consent, of who/what they might have sex with apparently don’t come into it. In that world, where only the man’s view matters, if you allow him to have sex with another man, there are no barriers to him having sex with anyone or anything else because it’s just about his desires. However, some of us think that having sex with someone is just as much about them as it is about you. So a gay couple having sex is about what each of them want and what each of them get from it. That, by the way, is how it’s supposed to be for straight couples as well – see 1 Corinthians where St Paul says married spouses both have authority over each others bodies (emphatically not just the husband having authority over his wife). If you take this more realistic and more Scriptural view, then there is no slippery slope to child abuse. The paedophile may want to abuse the child, but that doesn’t matter because it’s profoundly harmful to the child. Isn’t this stuff obvious?
You should never conflate different concepts – that is a backward step in precision. The only reason people correlate the two- and moreover as a conceptually overlapping correlation rater than an accidental or two-steps-removed one – is that they are in fact correlated. How and why? (1) Statistically, strongly. See WATTTC? (2) On the back of (1), then therefore conceptually too. Once one grants the undeniable fact that youth correlated to attractiveness in any case, according to all known surveys, cultures and common sense. (3) Historically – the Gay Liberation Front and organisations like PIE – both very nasty organisations, see the Festival of Light sexual parody of a mass Sept 1971 -were similar in origin.
The correlation between homosexuality and paedophilia, such as it is, is no greater than that between heterosexuality and paedophilia.
You make an important point about the pastoral ministry. Sympathy with another who has experienced rejection, loneliness, frustration, even self-hatred, is a natural Christian response, and pastoral relationships are based on acceptance and affirmation of the other as a person known and loved by God.
The problem arises when acceptance is taken to mean *agreement with how the other sees the world or themselves, or the way ahead that God commends. And this isn’t just about sexuality. Broken marriages and pregnancy are much bigger issues of pain in the world, and I can readily understand that pastors sensing their limitations don’t want to get too involved. Some people’s ministries have been ruined by entering these lions’ dens.
But it’s an easy sport to pillory evangelicals and traditional Catholics. Everyone has blind spots. Very recently I glanced through the newest book (on information and systems) by the Israeli ‘public intellectual’ Yuval Harari, a historian of ideas at Hebrew University who also teaches at Cambridge. The theme of the book is how institutions handle and revise information across time. Harari is gay and (as far as I can tell) an atheist – a combination that’s not too rare and certainly not dangerous in a place like Tel Aviv. He mentions in the book the isolation he felt ‘growing up gay in a small homophobic Israeli town’ and how the internet helped him find a partner. A look through the index shows that the author has quite a lot to say about the Catholic Church and its teachings, a bit about Jesus (as modern atheist Jews view him) – and nothing (or almost nothing) whatsoever about Judaism, Islam and the Palestinians: facts that are in his face every day. I have not read enough of the book to know if he grapples with the question of what it means to be Jewish today (particularly an atheist Jew) in Israel, but I wonder if these issues are too painful or conflicted to feature in a book for a popular audience.
My reply was to Jonny T’s post above.
Reminds me of an episode of Frasier when he and his brother Niles pretended to be Jewish. In trying to get his father do the same, Niles told him to answer every question with another question.
‘but struggle to articulate any coherent reasons why they have made this change’ – apparently that is a good summary of the new book by the Hays.
Or there is the old Jewish joke:
Q: Why does a rabbi always answer a question with another question?
A: Why shouldn’t a rabbi always answer a question with another question?
It seems to me that calling a church ‘inclusive’ is setting itself up for a fall. Presumably, I trust, that church is not inclusive of any and every behaviours. Therefore there must come a point when it becomes ‘exclusive’. Humpty Dumpty again.
On various mantra-like single words that masquerade dishonestly as self-evident in meaning, see What Are They Teaching The Children? chapter 10.
I think you have put your finger on a key question—and paradox.
I wonder if the “initialism” is (in part) not about its own coherence but about the (perceived if false) opposition unity?
Groups often unite against a common enemy.
Thanks for the article…
Yep. Declaring you are ‘standing with’ a wildly diverse grouping says almost nothing about who or what you are standing with. It says a lot about how you yourself want to be perceived, and about who or what you perceive to be the enemy of the sort of people who are in the grouping.
Glad you found the article helpful.
Mike, thanks for a very thought-provoking piece. It’s highlighted key themes for me: how complex the debate and the language used in it has become so that some of us are reticent to say anything for fear of others misunderstanding and responding aggressively. What’s happened to behaving with courtesy towards those we disagree with? Also the attractiveness of a clear, easy to formulate statements increases as the debate becomes complex, confusing and rancorous – when we feel lost a guide who claims to know the way out with absolute certainty is attractive. But on all sides such simple, clear views may not be true, only easy and comforting. Maybe at the moment there’s a place for some uncertainty and a degree of messiness as there is in other theological debates; we don’t after all, demand absolute clarity and uniformity on all other moral/doctrinal issues. I find the Manichean/binary approach almost endemic in the current debates in the Church so that subtle positions get ignored or caricatured and challenging one position is automatically interpreted as support for the (only) other one. People are defined or their faithfulness to Christ is questioned on the basis of this debate. People are either on ‘our side’ (clearly right) or on ‘the other side’ (clearly wrong) – when bigger theological issues are pushed to one side, sometimes in the desire to unite around issues of gender and sexuality. Your point about the group psychology is absolutely right; do you think that much of your analysis might also be said to apply to those who are taking the ‘conservative/traditonalist’ view as well? Perhaps some would be equally hesitant for different reasons if asked the question, ‘Do you agree with the biblical view of marriage?’ I wonder how easy it would be for a person strongly committed to a particular view to change their mind and incur the disapproval/anger of their group? The need for a long-term perspective – the debate has moved at a fast pace over the past 50 years and so none of us can say what it will be like in another 10 years let alone 50. The debates over gay rights in the 1970s and 1980s evoke nostalgia for a simpler age! Some patience, forbearance, self-control and meekness on all sides would be very helpful. Thanks again.
Don’t forget that these debates have taken place against two other developments: the rapid secularisation of the white population and the growth of Islam (and Hinduism) among the immigrant heritage communities.
For over 1200 years England or Britain thought of itself as a Christian nation in which Christianity more or less set the baseline for thinking about sex and marriage. The abandonment of Christianity by the white population has been rapid and widescale, and is the primary factor for general acceptance of extra-marital sex, divorce, abortion and homosexuality – things which most people in 1950s considered sins or personal failures in some way. The 2021 census shows that the majority of people in Britain now are not Christian (46% said they were Christian, down from 59% in 2011), and 37% said ‘no religion’.
At the same time, immigration has, for the first time ever, created large religious minorities in Britain. (Jews – absent for centuries – never amounted to more than 1%, now they are much less.) Muslims and Hindus are for the most part very conservative on sexual ethics (at least theoretically), and a common projection is that by 2050, about 20% of Britons will call themselves Muslims (from 6.5% now). So here’s a projection for 2050:
1. A non-religious white majority – 60%?
2. Maybe equal numbers of black and white Christians on the one side and Asian Muslims and Hindus on the other. The black Christians may be very conservative.
A very, very different Britain from the one many of us were born in. So bear these facts in mind when you consider how demographics, social pressure, education and entertainment affect the way people think.
I hope not ALL of the white people will be irreligious!
He said Christians at least would be about half white and half black, even if most of the white population is irreligious and socially liberal on LGBT issues etc
Excellent, thankyou James. But assumes of course, no revival among ‘black and white’ Christians reaching our ‘immigrant heritage’ communities. We pray on…
Yes – for which we should be praying every day. I do not know how much to credit it, but I do read of see little videos from time to time of reports of a spread of Christianity in Iran. More is going on than we know of. Similarly in Britain. Ian often says that the Church (in the broadest sense) is growing even as old denominations are failing. I certainly hope that is the case. The next years will not be peaceful as the gay issue will increasingly be used as a hammer against the churches – but not against mosques, temples and gurdwaras, which have protected political status.
With an overwhelmingly atheist government in power, the next few years will get uncomfortable for the Church of England, particularly as Starmer moves to eject bishops from the House of Lords.
First there is freedom of religion for Christians as much as any other religion under the Equality Act. Secondly, there was nothing in the Labour manifesto about removing the bishops from the Lords, only the remaining hereditary peers. Now I would keep both the remaining hereditaries and the C of E bishops but the former tend to be largely Tory and the latter on most issues largely Labour in the way they vote (except a few issues where they are more socially conservative like Euthanasia). That is why Starmer is keeping the Bishops in the Lords
There was nothing in the manifesto about taking away pensioners’ Winter Fuel Allowance either. This government is far more Jacobin than their bland election campaign let on.
They will move to get rid of the Bishops.
Pensioners mostly vote Tory, Church of England Bishops mostly vote Labour now. Starmer has no interest in getting rid of the Bishops from the Lords, for starters they were very useful to him in their opposition to Sunak’s Rwanda plan for asylum seekers
Are they all voting with and generally opining with Labour as part of a long term strategy not to be ousted from the Lords (given that it is only Labour who would ever do that)?
Not really, most C of E Bishops are social democrats now, the days when most were High Tory Anglicans has long gone. Apart from a bit of social conservatism on euthanasia and a few conservative evangelical Bishops who oppose gay marriage and abortion on most issues most C of E Bishops would vote Labour or LD even if not in the Lords
Thanks for your thoughtful engagement with the article, Tim – much appreciated.
I agree with everything you say. Yes, I think the group psychology point applies to conservative/traditionalist views as well (I was about to suggest further examples, but it might be more interesting for people to ponder for themselves!).
Thanks, Mike. I realised afterwards that my response was rather long! The confusion over terminology exists in the church as well, viz different understandings of catholic, evangelical, liberal, orthodox, etc which would be mutually contradictory. And that’s just in the UK – further afield it gets even more confused. BTW I rarely find that anyone using words such as orthodox/historic Christianity puts themselves anywhere but in the orthodox group. It’s always the other lot who’re the heretics! And we’ve had 2000 years to try to get it clear so maybe it’s not surprising that the LGBTQI+ language is still a work in progress and hotly contested. We can’t ask for more objective clarity or unanimity there than we can produce in the church, which is often not very much.
As a atheist during those times I don’t recall much debate, outside the law v morals field.
The rest was inculcation of cultural sexual permissiveness of the young or boomer generation, which in the idiom of the day was reduced to ‘straight’ and ‘bent’. Both categories could include both politically left and right.
Other expressions were available..
So these comments are adhering to your policy?
Right.
Which are not?
Christopher Shell, Sue Ross, James, Geoff.
And et seqq below.
In the context of ‘queer’ is that plural (neuter)?
Not forgetting that Ph.D’s can be had in queer ‘theory’, a ‘theory’ that insists on absolutes and advocates and activates western social engineering, outside the realms of orthodox Christianity.
It is, I understand, possible to have a PhD in queer theory whilst acknowedging that all the definitions within such a theory are ‘slippery’ and may or may not mean what anyone thinks they might mean. I wonder what colour doctoral gown Humpty Dumpty wears.
sounds as meaningless as string theory.
It’s not meaningless, it’s just bad science. An exposition of the basics of string theory begins on p35 of this tutorial:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9606031
Only those who understand it at this level are fit to give simplified explanations to interested nonphysicists.
To quote Peter Woit: at the present time string theory predicts nothing at all about anything.
In physics, that makes it pretty meaningless.
I’m on Peter Woit’s side – I have his book Not Even Wrong against string theory – but you have to know what string theory is in order to critique it, and I’d describe it as useless rather than meaningless.
Progressive Rainbow, of course! But imagine having to mark such a piece of work. How could you ever say if a statement or argument was true or false? Or is that binary-type think that we leave to engineers and medics?
Myself when young did eagerly frequent
Doctor and Saint, and heard great Argument
About it and about: but evermore
Came out by the same Door as in I went.
I would suggest ‘standing with’ the LGBTQ+ community means to most people that you view such sexual relationships or self-definitions as ‘good’ in God’s eyes (if it’s a religious question) and ‘equal’ to heterosexual sexual relationships within society.
But isn’t that missing (and not answering) the assertion that there isn’t a single-minded LGBTQ+ community to stand with? It’s no different to throwing a hoop over a multitude of differing, even opposing, views and claiming it’s all one view. It undeniably isn’t one view on its own opposing viewpoints.
Second… I’d of thought that ” ‘good’ in God’s eyes” is something that *we here* are all concerned about, despite the clear differences, but isn’t actually of concern to “most people” beyond here.
I was thinking how the ‘man in the street’ would understand ‘standing with’. That includes both religious and non-religious folk.
The impression I get is that the majority of citizens in the UK now support same-sex sexual relationships, whether that’s women or men, living together or same-sex marriage. When more and more churches are going down that route, doing a 180 degree change of mind, claiming something is ‘good’ which they previously typically claimed as ‘evil’, I think that shows a major change in society. Trans is more debateable, with apparent significant numbers not accepting that a trans-woman should be viewed or accepted as a woman, though that is largely due to the effect on women in specific situations, such as changing facilities, sports etc.
If I was personally asked ‘do you stand with the LGBTQ+ community?’ Id reply ‘depends on what you mean by that’. It would then be for the questioner to break it down, which would no doubt lead to ‘do you think gay sexual relationships are just as appropriate as straight sexual relationships? etc.
Hi PC1…
Thank you for your response. I think I get what you mean now. And think (!) I agree with you.
My feeling is that some churches, despite their theological instincts, are “accepting” because of the wider atmosphere. But where does that stop before the foundation of rock is swapped for sand?
“The impression I get is that the majority of citizens in the UK now support same-sex sexual relationships”
That’s an interesting way of putting it. What’s happened is that people have thought about what they’d do if a member of their family was gay (and for a good number they’ve had to confront that for real), and have found they are completely unprepared to tell that family member they should try to change and ‘marry a nice girl’, and they can’t in good conscience say they think that family member is supposed to embrace lifelong celibacy. People have found great comfort and love in their own marriages, think others in their lives should have the same, and therefore their gay family members should have lifelong same-sex partnerships.
Youre probably right regarding family members. It certainly seems to be the case where I know some clergy have become ‘inclusive’ where they have a gay son or daughter. Hardly a coincidence.
Legality gives the message of normality. People hate to be in a minority in even one matter (see Elizabeth Noelle-Neumann, The Spiral of Silence). Hence all the Damascene conversions (ahem) when the 50-50 tipping point came a decade ago. Accuracy and research, common sense and logic, don’t get a look in.
On top of that, we are in a new position because of the new extensive reach of the media (who are a very specific demographic) in forming normalisations in the first place.
Any comment Ian 🙂
Thanks, Mike, I thought that a warmly and generously written summary of the situation. I first realised the conflicts when reading Douglas Murray’s ‘The Madness of Crowds’. It seems more fitting to describe LGBT+ as a category rather than a community. I remember a call for the CofE to repent for its attitude towards the LGBT+ community. But surely that would be a meaningful as a call to repent for its attitude to the Social Grades D & E community since so few working class people attend church?
The question about inclusive church is where the red lines are. Set them more widely than scripture and this is where it leads:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWa3LyvFOdc
The story of the Tower of Babel comes to mind.
How so?
American gay here!
I know of zero gay people who are “outraged” by listing “homosexual” as an outdated term. I also know of zero gay people who oppose trans rights.
Of course LGBT people don’t agree 100% all the time, but there’s been a lot of dark money poured into groups trying to make us hate one another “LGB Alliance” “Gays against groomers” (every gay person I’ve ever met has been against sexual predation!) etc and of course these groups get far more media coverage than typical LGBT people, even though their membership tends to be majority straight cis conservative men. I remember seeing a survey that suggested only 7% oppose trans rights.
There’s far more agreement amongst LGBT people than there is in the church.