Paul Chamberlain writes: I’m a priest in the Church of England, the vicar of a parish in Portsmouth Diocese, the Area Dean of Gosport, and a member of General Synod. Same-sex attraction is part of my story, although my wife and I will celebrate our 25th wedding anniversary later this year, and we have two teenage boys.
My story
I became aware my same-sex attraction when I was a teenager, and have always had Christian friends with whom I have been able to talk about it. I first publicly spoke about my same-sex attraction in 2019, in a sermon on sex and sexuality. Prior to this, I spent the previous couple of years telling my parents and others, who I felt should hear directly from me, rather in a public message. If you want to know more of my story, you can listen to this edition of the Living Out podcast.
I told my story of same-sex attraction in 2019, because I wanted to share my positive experience of being same-sex attracted in evangelical churches. I was (and am) very conscious of a narrative in parts of the church which says that holding a traditional/orthodox view of sex and marriage is toxic to same-sex attracted people. This has not been my experience, and I wanted to be able say so.
I also wanted to be able to contribute to the wider Church of England discussions on sexuality in a grounded way—not as an abstract theological “issue”, but as something which has affected, and continues to affect, my life. Since I first told my story publicly, I have been grateful to find others doing the same, and continuing to hold to the traditional teaching of the church. The Living Out podcast, among other places, shares some of their stories; they are very much worth a listen.
The Church of England has been discussing human sexuality, and our responses to it, for 50 years. In the last decade we have had the Shared Conversations (2014–2016), and the Living in Love and Faith (LLF) process (2017 to the present). I joined General Synod at the start of the current quinquennium, in 2021, and have since sat through the many, many hours of presentations and debates on Living in Love and Faith. Looking back, I estimate General Synod has had nearly 40 hours on LLF in the last 4 years; that’s a lot of time on this one subject. However, despite all these hours spent discussing, we are no closer to a settled position on these issues than we were a decade ago; we in the Church of England remain significantly divided.
Two lenses
Over the years I have come to realise that Christians disagree about our responses to same-sex attraction because we view the issue in two fundamentally different ways. We have two different lenses through which we see sex and sexuality, and these different lenses result in incompatible conclusions. However, we don’t often notice the lenses we are using, and because of this we talk past each other, not recognising that it’s not just our conclusions which are different, but our starting points. No wonder debates around sexuality seem intractable.
The first lens through which some Christians see same-sex attraction is the lens of identity. Christians who approach sexuality in this way have much in common with many in our wider society. In recent decades, western culture has come to view sexuality as one of the defining features of being human, so much so that for many their sexuality is “who they are”. This is much more pronounced for sexual minorities. Although the vast majority of people are “heterosexual”, this has not become an identity marker for them anywhere near as strongly as “gay”, or “lesbian”, or “bi”.
For people in these latter groups, sexuality often reflects their deepest sense of self, and is a defining category for them. Viewed through the identity lens, same-sex sex is celebrated as the outworking of a person’s core self, a visible sign of who they are inside. In contrast, any sense that, for example, gay people should not act on their desires is seen as an attack on the very identity of the person. To say that there might be anything wrong with same-sex sex, is viewed as an attack on gay people themselves.
The second lens through which some Christians (spoiler: me included) view sexuality is the lens of what we can call sexual ethics. Viewed in this way, human sexual desires are a subset of human desires more widely. These desires include the desires for food, safety, independence, friends, love, money, power, and so on. In this view, sexual desire is not a defining desire, but one among many that we experience. It is also wide and complex; at different times humans may want to have sex with people of the same sex, people of the opposite sex, animals, multiple people at the same time, people to whom they are not married, no sex at all, and so on.
Given the variety of human sexual desires, how do we know which desires we should act on, and which we should not? For many in the west today, the answer to this question is basically: is it consensual? If so, go for it. However, as a Christian, I come at this point to scripture. There I find that sex is a good part of God’s creation, but is intended by God to be limited to marriage relationships between one man and one woman. This puts significant limits on human sexual activity, and is a challenge to all of us, whatever our desires.
Looking at sexuality through the lens of sexual ethics does not make it an identity: I am not my sexuality, any more than I am my desire for food, shelter or acceptance. Rather, my sexual desires are one part of who I am, alongside all my other desires, my history, my experiences, my education, my character and personality, my relationships, my work, and – last but not least – my faith. I am a Christian who experiences same-sex attraction; I am not “gay” in a way that defines my identity.
Choosing your lenses
Which of these two lenses we use—identity, or sexual ethics—shapes how we see this whole area of life. Both of these lenses exist in the church, and the identity lens is often clearly evident in the statements of those who wish to see change. So, for example when Jayne Ozanne, after receiving an OBE in the New Year Honours, posts this on X:
I am deeply humbled to be honoured in this way. It is critical we do all we can to highlight the harm that LGBT+ people tragically face when they are told that who they are is unacceptable, as it
causes deep psychological trauma due to unbearable levels of self-hatred & shame… https://t.co/T3BOuZ0PA5— Jayne Ozanne OBE (@JayneOzanne) December 30, 2025
I am deeply humbled to be honoured in this way. It is critical we do all we can to highlight the harm that LGBT+ people tragically face when they are told that who they are is unacceptable, as it causes deep psychological trauma due to unbearable levels of self-hatred & shame…
…she is clearly approaching the whole issue through the identity lens. For Ozanne, any lack of acceptance of same-sex sex, is in fact LGBT+ people being told “who they are is unacceptable”, it is a challenge to them as people, rather than to a specific behaviour.
Similarly, when Together for the Church of England say “We hope to see full inclusion and equality in the Church of England” it is through the lens of identity. Together think that there is a group who are excluded, in this case LGBT+ people, and justice—and the Gospel—demands that they are ‘fully included’. This means removing the barriers that exclude them, the primary one of which is a rejection of same-sex sexual relationships.
Changing your lenses
But seen through the lens of biblical sexual ethics, the whole issue looks different. Whatever our desires, Christians are all called to sexual abstinence outside of male-female marriage and faithfulness within it. LGBT+ people like me are not excluded from the life of the church; they are called to the same sexual standards as everyone else. This is what it means for us all to follow Christ. This is why, when I had the possibility of a same-sex sexual relationship, I did not pursue it. It is not compatible, I believe—and the church throughout history has believed, and the Church of England still officially believes—with Christian faith.
The problem we have is that many people in the Church of England, because they view sexuality through the identity lens, do not believe this. Richard Coles on Facebook recently (16th January 2026) quoted Desmond Tutu:
I don’t suppose many will lie awake worrying about the CofE leadership’s decision to abandon the tiptoe progress towards the blessing of same sex relationships we decided some time ago. Church Discriminates Against Gays is hardly a headline…. I’m in the Cape at the moment and I think of Desmond Tutu, Archbishop here in the apartheid era and one of the most prominent Anglicans of our age, who said, ‘I am as passionate about LGBT rights as I ever was about Apartheid. To me it is on the same level’.
Here is the identity lens clearly stated: Coles and Tutu see discrimination—equivalent to racism—because same-sex relationships aren’t blessed. But the Church of England’s doctrine is an application of biblical sexual ethics, calling everyone to the same pattern of life: sex in male-plus-female marriage, and abstinence outside of this.
(If this is making you mad, if you think I am unhinged or evil for writing this, if you consider me a homophobe or bigot for not supporting the blessing of same-sex relationships, it’s probably because you and I view this whole issue through different lenses—which is precisely the point I am trying to make.)
This is why the Church of England has the problem it has. These two lenses, and the sexual world we see through them, are fundamentally incompatible, and yet both exist within the one institution.
What next for the Church of England?
How do we move forwards? Assuming that the composition of the next General Synod is not that different to this one—despite all the efforts that both sides will pour into elections in the coming months—we will remain at an impasse. Progressives will remain insistent on the need for change, conservatives will be equally insistent on the need to retain our current doctrine and practice. And we will all continue to exist in one institution.
The problem, I suspect, is the bishops. The bishops (not all, but probably—sadly—a slight majority) want to have same-sex blessings in the Church of England. They also want to have unity. But the reality is: they can’t have both; there are too many people committed to the historic teaching of the church. I’m one of them; someone who thinks this isn’t something we can agreed to disagree over.
However, I also recognise that there are too many people who want change. This is why, even if LLF ends at this General Synod, the campaign for change will continue. We are not at a stable place, where resolution has been found. Nor will we be, until this is sorted.
Not everyone who holds to the traditional teaching of the church will agree with what I am about to write, but the only way forward I can see is a settlement that gives both sides a place in which their theological commitments are able to flourish. This would mean a part of the Church of England in which progressives would be able to perform same-sex blessings (and marriages?), and a part of the Church of England in which those committed to the historical teaching of the church could fully honour, preach and pursue that teaching.
I don’t really know what this would look like structurally—different Provinces? Dioceses? The LLF Leicester Groups, composed of both orthodox and liberals, apparently proposed multiple “spaces” within the CofE, which might be a starting place for discussion. However, the Groups’ proposals (which I have not seen) were rejected by the bishops, presumably because it would require a rethinking of dioceses and the powers of bishops, something that they’ve not been prepared to do. But as I said before, the bishops can have same-sex blessings or institutional unity—they can’t have both.
In the middle of all this are same-sex attracted people, however they describe themselves, and whether they are committed to the historic teaching of the church, or are seeking to change it. In their January statement the bishops say:
We want to apologise for the ways in which the Church of England has treated LGBTQI+ people—both those who worship in our churches and those who do not…We are very sorry that the process has become so protracted and painful.
More of the same…?
However, my fear is that the process the bishops are now proposing, with two new groups: the Relationships, Sexuality and Gender Working Group and the Relationships, Sexuality and Gender Pastoral Consultative Group, are simply more of the same. We are facing another decade of “protracted and painful” discussion, which is very unlikely to get us anywhere. We know what the issues are. We also know what the solution might be: find some way of allowing both sides to have what they want.
Yes, this will mean changes in the structures of the Church of England.
Yes, this will mean changes in the power and roles of bishops.
Yes, this will mean compromises on both sides.
But it might also mean that the ongoing attritional war in the Church of England could cease, and that we can all get on, in our different ways, with bringing the good news of Jesus to a world which desperately needs it.
Bishops: please please don’t give us another decade like this last one. If you’re really serious about avoiding another “protracted and painful” process, if you really mean your apology for “the ways in which the Church of England has treated LGBTQI+ people”, and if you really want same-sex blessings in the Church of England, you’re the ones who are going to have to shift. Revisit the Leicester Groups proposals, accept that institutional unity isn’t possible, and find a way to reshape the Church of England to give you what you want.
As a same-sex attracted man holding to scripture and the Church’s teaching, I’d rather it hadn’t come to this. I’d rather the entire Church of England stayed faithful to its historic doctrine. I’d rather all my clergy colleagues, when they were asked at ordination:
Do you believe the doctrine of the Christian faith as the Church of England has received it, and in your ministry will you expound and teach it?
had kept to their promises
I believe it and will so do.
But it’s too late for that. We are, and will remain, divided. Please, let’s get on with finally sorting this.
Bishops, over to you.
Lord, have mercy.
Revd Dr Paul Chamberlain is vicar of St Faith’s Church, Lee-on-the-Solent, area dean of Gosport, and a member of General Synod. He is also the chair of trustees of Living Out.
Buy me a Coffee
Dear Rev Chamberlain,
For making the choice not to act on your desires because you see them as not faithful, and to make that decision in a nation which celebrates those desires, I consider you a hero of the faith – you and Sam Allberry and Vaughan Roberts and others. Thank you for writing.
Unfortunately I don’t believe that your proposed resolution of the problem will work. You write: “the only way forward I can see is a settlement that gives both sides a place in which their theological commitments are able to flourish.” The biblical party might – just might – put up with this and say “OK, we shall be content to let God decide by seeing who flourishes and who dwindles” – but only if the settlement cannot be tampered with by the liberals, and no such guarantee can be made. The track record of the liberals is not encouraging in this respect. Which is, frankly, hardly surprising, because nobody takes well to being continually called an unrepentant sinner – and that is the view of their opponents. I believe this battle will cease only when one side has won and the other has quit. The unasked question is: What is God’s opinion and how can it be known?
Yes, the liberals have been in power in the UK for around three decades now and obviously feel they can prevail over the opposition in any part of our national life. However, the political groundswell is against them and currently appears to be leading to Reform becoming, at the very least, the majority party in 2029. That will leave liberals very much on the back foot and, assuming Synod has made some progress over the next three years (a big assumption, I accept), liberals may well be glad to get any deal on LLF they can. If traditionalists remain gracious and imaginative, I think the author’s proposals can evolve into something workable: even more so if both sides start with prayer rather than barricades.
The nominal fallacy in philosophy is that simply by adopting a name (whether that name be ‘liberalism’ or a description of a pathological condition, or whatever) the name itself confers legitimacy and coherence.
There is indeed an identifiable group called ‘liberals’, but in what way is their position either coherent or honest or of value or merit? If they believe in following evidence, science, etc., all the better. Yet in practice, it is so often not a matter of belief/evidence but rather of desire and wish. The main characteristics of the position are:
-self-serving, for oneself or for one’s peer group
-conformity to the Zeitgeist
-freedom and liberation from the bother of having to obey (whether the obedience be to the dictates of conscience or to those senior in understanding or experience)
-situation ethics, which is so slippery and loosely regulated/defined that in practice it means doing what one wants (see above)
The fallacy in what you say is the idea that because there are 2 so-called ‘sides’ (there are in fact more) then it follows that they have equal legitimacy. Well, of course that does not begin to follow. The two largest sides will very often be those who follow the evidence and those who follow their desires. One can quite see that both of those will be sizeable.
This wrong thinking (that everything is about votes, and all views are the same, whether they be evidence-based views or nothing but pure desire) is at the root of synodism and of the present debate (and of much of modern life) but until that is faced up to and exposed then there will be even more fruitless unresolved chatter of the sort we are all sickened with but only some of us pre-identified as inevitable.
Primary instead should be awe and gratitude.
For ‘all views are the same’, read ‘all views are of precisely equal value’
Remain gracious?
Reform are just containment. theyre the liberal Tory faction dressed up as edgy right wing. Power doesn’t let its ideological enemies gain power from them just because “they voted for it” or anything quaint like that.
No, Paul, I wasn’t at all mad at you; in fact it was refreshing to read practical theology. Two of my dear friends were homosexuals who found Christ, married for life and raised families. It’s obvious that story has been repeated countless times throughout history: they followed the creation model of marrying and multiplying. I presume others followed the Apostle’s exhortation in 1 Cor 7 and historically took monastic vows of celibacy, although I haven’t had personal friendships there.
I am surprised you have not. I have several.
I see, I do have “living out” friends – very special people as far as I’m concerned; I was referring to monastic friends 🙂
I’m sympathetic with Reverend Chamberlain’s desire to hold two incompatible “lenses” together in a single church. It is more than sweet; it is poignant.
In all likelihood, it will not happen. For a model of what likely will happen, look no farther than the United Methodist Church and Episcopalian Church in the U.S. In both cases, the very same issue resulted in a schism, with the UMC schism being significantly more civil than the Episcopalian/ACNA schism that resulted in the confiscation and sell-off of churches throughout America to avoid allowing departing ACNA congregations to continue to use them (there being no meaningful number of Episcopalian parishioners left to keep them open). And it seems to me that the irresistible force that will split the Anglican Church is compounded in the UK because of the reality of the Global South. It’s a pretty good guess which way they will go, and it will render the AoC the head of a small rump remnant of a national church that may very well end up performing as many gay marriages as heterosexual ones as its chief secular-facing characteristic.
This may be the least desirable outcome. But it’s the one that prudent people should have a plan for.
The presumption that a position based on evidence and one based on wishful thinking (which are both ‘views’) are anything approaching equally valid is such a bad and strange presumption – and yet almost everyone is sharing it.
Get rid of this baseless presumption and save your time and lives, is always my advice.
Schism hasn’t happened here (yet) becausethe stakes are higher than in North America: both sides are scared of losing the church building in every parish and the right to call yourself the Established church.
The Church of England existed for 300 years without any Anglican Communion in Africa or the Global South. The US Episcopal church as you say is now even more liberal than the C of E, allowing already same sex marriages in its churches as does the Scottish Episcopal Church. Though the Church of England as the Bishops have affirmed needs a 2/3 majority for same sex marriage or even stand alone same sex blessings in its churches which is still a long way of. For the C of E has more conservative evangelicals than the US Episcopal Church, as it is not an established church but a mainly liberal Catholic church so most US conservative evangelicals are Baptist or Pentecostal or independent
40 hours in 4 years is ‘a lot’? That’s the equivalent of 1 working week!
As for identity, I sympathise with those who view things as such. If straight people woke up tomorrow to find themselves without wife/husband/children, and were told their sexual attraction to the opposite sex was ‘unnatural’ and any outward behaviour was condemned by God (‘an abomination’), I suspect the majority would claim, “You’re attacking who I am, my very identity!”
False analogy.
it’s not an analogy, it’s what you would experience. Just trying to get you to think how you might feel in that situation. But I seem to be failing.
I do understand what you are aiming at. But you are making an inaccurate comparison to try to get there.
inaccurate in what ways?
If you reflect on that for yourself, you will self-educate.
Peter,
if the General Synod meets for about 120 hours+ a year (over three sessions), four years of meeting would be about 500 hours. So 40 hours is a lot.
As for your comment on ‘natural’ and ‘unnatural’, so you actually know how children are conceived?
Im not sure what you mean. That is the experience of most gay celibate people, no wife/husband/kids, but having the latter is the typical experience of straight people.
But a gay couple cannot have their own children.
well yes I didnt say they could, except of course through adoption. And according to God, adoption is as valid as a blood-child. But that’s for another day.
Peter,
if the General Synod meets for about 120 hours+ a year (over three sessions), four years of meeting would be about 500 hours. So 40 hours is a lot.
As for your comment on ‘natural’ and ‘unnatural’, so you actually know how children are conceived?
But straight people who fall in love with, say, a currently married person are told pretty much the same aren’t they? (admittedly not with the descriptions included!).
I think that your argument rather makes the original author’s point …… If you think of same sex sexual expression as a chosen behaviour which is forbidden by God, then you accept that this is what God is saying, even if it’s painful because your feelings pull you towards that behaviour, but if you assume (incorrectly I believe) that God/the church is condemning you for the internal feelings that you have, and that these feelings are part of your core identity, then you have problems with it. I don’t believe that God, or indeed most of the church, condemns us because of our feelings, but He does hold us responsible for what we do with those feelings.
Yes, spot on. Many people—especially men—feel as though they are born with unchangeable feelings for such behaviours.
Yes, that report seems to be what the evidence points to.
People cannot truthfully feel as though they are born any way. First, they know that they don’t remember, so the whole concept is incoherent; second, mere feelings (no evidence, in other words) are not a good basis for study; third, that feeds the prevailing narrative, which may all the while be encouraging such a perspective; fourth, it is astonishing how often I have met people in this position who simply write off their first 12 years, when nothing could be more essential nor formative; fifth, those who are just born have no sexual feelings, and nothing could be more obvious; sixth, if they are first felt near to or at adolescence, adolescence is an unstable time and also the very time when all the most harmful types of behaviour tend to be embarked upon.
But straight people who fall in love with, say, a currently married person are told pretty much the same aren’t they?
Nope. Not at all.
If we’re living through a minor heresy then perhaps the best course of action is to continue to have decades of painful contention until it dies out, as all heresies do.
That is not a bad suggestion. But it demands theological resilience from the Church, and the House of Bishops has been short of that in recent years.
In what way does the attitude of what this essay calls the identity approach differ from the attitude of secular gays? I thought Christians were supposed to be different and have their primary identity in Christ?
whatever a gay is. Thought Christians were supposed to be different with their language.
You don’t know?
That is correct. If we are born again of water and the Spirit, that is because we have allowed our fleshly body to be crucified ‘in him’. This is one of the great mysteries of the faith, but alas not common knowledge, even among the clergy. We are no longer our own master, no longer our own body, but rather his body – which, spiritually, is not a homosexual body.
‘If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation.’
‘By this we know that we abide in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit.’
‘Whoever says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked.’
‘For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.’
‘He chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him.’
‘In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit.’
‘For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him. … that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead.’
‘As in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.’
‘The dead in Christ will rise first.’
‘In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ.’ The male member especially is put to death.
‘If you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.’
‘Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness.’
‘You must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus. … For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death.’
‘Flee from fornication [porneia, any sexual coupling outside marriage]. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but he who fornicates sins against his own body. Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.’
The above in reply to Anthony’s comment.
A homosexual body? What are you talking about?
Thank you for those very relevant verses.
So basically Mr Chamberlain, you are bisexual but have chosen to marry a woman. Fine but no reason why same sex attracted who have chosen to marry a person of the same sex under UK civil law cannot also have prayers for them and their partner within a C of E service as Synod voted by majority to approve via LLF.
It is not as if Synod has not voted for things unbiblical before anyway, St Paul opposes women having authority over men but Synod voted for female priests and bishops and there is now a female Archbishop. Synod also voted to remarry divorcees in church but if you take the Mark and Luke interpretations of the gospel Jesus opposed that in any circumstance, even in Matthew he allows it only in the case of spousal adultery
Or Revd Dr Chamberlain I suppose I should address you
You speak as though there were some primary twofold relationship man-man or woman-woman, which no-one could believe unless ceaseless propaganda drilled it into them, and in most cultures, no-one has believed it. Man-woman (propagation) is just the way the world is: always and unavoidably twofold. That is the only time two appears in nature. The emphasis on two as a number, even the main number, in any other contexts is bound to give the charge of parody and riding on the coattails. Our loves and friendships will normally be both (1) many and (2) flexibly numbered, without any question of some dyad muscling everything else out of the main picture, which would anyway be an impoverishment.
Same sex marriage is now legal in most of the western world now, Latin America, South Africa and Taiwan. It has been legal in the UK for over a decade and of course the English established church were right to offer some recognition of those same sex couples married in UK law via the LLF prayers within services
Yes, we already know that the world is fallen.
So Simon believes that immoral things suddenly become moral when they change from being illegal to being legal?
How does that work? And does anyone exist who agrees that that is what happens?
Well the C of E at one stage backed and invested in slavery when it was legal, though clearly now does not
When did the C of E ‘invest in slavery’?
And if it did, doesn’t that mean that the decisions of Synod are not infallible?
Actually it didn’t, Simon. I was willing to believe this and looked into it but it didn’t. If you believe otherwise, present the evidence – or acknowledge that you were wrong.
Simon,
I know you deeply desire homosexual ‘marriage’ in the Church of England and you frequently invoke what English law allows as some kind of ‘justification’ for your desire. But have you considered this:
The Law of England allows ANYONE to have a household of as many consensual sexual partners as he or she wishes (although only one of them can be a spouse to another person).
Why can a man with a mistress (or two) not have his consensual polyamory recognised by the Church of England with prayers of blessing?
The civil law allows polyamory; WHY DOESN’T THE ESTABLISHED CHURCH OF ENGLAND?
I don’t especially, LLF is fine with me and even the Pope now allows Priests to conduct prayers for same sex couples. The King of course did indeed have a service of blessing for his marriage with his former mistress in a C of E church, indeed the Church of England was set up to allow King Henry VIII to marry his mistress as the Pope wouldn’t allow him to divorce his first wife.
There are no civil polyamorous couple services in registry offices under English civil law unlike for same sex couples
If it is fine with you, what is the significance of that? You are not an arbiter: right and coherence are arbiters. And by acting as though you think you should be an arbiter, you diminish trust.
This takes the gold medal for a low scoring ‘argument’. The Synod has previously voted for unbiblical things, SO it follows that the best thing to do in the future is to continue to vote for an increasing number of unbiblical things. Case solved.
And if you are reminded 20 times that even a primary school child knows that two wrongs do not make a right but instead compound the wrong, your response is to say ‘Two wrongs make a right, folks.’.
Very intelligent.
Regardless whatever the Synod votes for is law in the C of E and certainly once it gets a 2/3 majority. Disagree with that and you have no place in the English established church and should leave it, there are plenty of other denominations which take a harder line on female ordination, same sex couples, remarriage of divorcees etc than the C of E if that is what you want
That ‘answer’ bears no relation to any point I made. My point was whether two wrongs make a right or not.
You therefore think they do?
I think how Synod interprets the Bible is how C of E doctrine is now defined, disagree and you should not be in the C of E
‘I think how Synod interprets the Bible is how C of E doctrine is now defined’. Except that is not what the C of E itself says doctrine is defined.
And if you are right, then if Synod says ‘slavery is acceptable’ (as you claim the Church once said), then that means you must believe that that is the doctrine of the Church, doesn’t it?
Well yes it does (though in reality given it has even backed slavery reparations Synod is not going to do that). How the Bible is interpreted in the C of E is now entirely down to what most of Synod thinks it says
I dont think it’s for you to tell another what their sexuality is. And why would you have prayers of blessing for something God does not approve of?
Junia was a female apostle, strongly endorsed by Paul. The idea that Paul simultaneously taught that as a general principle women could not have leadership roles in the church is laughable.
God, in the Christian sense Jesus, never said a word against same sex couples even if he reserved marriage for one man and one woman. Paul made clear in Timothy ‘I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.’ Yet Synod has approved female clergy for decades and bishops and there is now even a C of E female Archbishop.
So clearly you completely ignore the C of E’s ignoring Paul’s clear prohibition of female priests as you want to focus your main agenda against same sex couples instead. Some scholars even suggest Junia was male depending on where the accent mark is placed. Even if she was female apostle means one sent, it does not mean ordination as such
Which accent? It is the same accusative either way, with the same accent either way. The question is only what it is the accusative of.
In effect Jesus didn’t need to say anything against ‘same sex couples’ because he spoke in a Jewish context and the Jews were pretty much the only people in the world who prohibited same-sex sex; he could in that context take it for granted. As Christianity was taken into the Gentile world that prohibition remained and Paul very clearly enforced it. The way Romans deals with same-sex sex is really unarguable – Paul clearly portrays it as part of the disorder caused by sin/rebellion-against-God, part of the most basic sin of “We know better than God”.
Although it’s part of an answer to a different question, divorce, Jesus grounds his answer in a clear statement that sex was designed as a thing for males with females – and ipso facto NOT for same-sex use. Note that the Bible however strongly approves of same-sex love, with David and Jonathan and also Jesus and John as major examples – it is simply that sex, or more accurately a sterile parody of sex, is an inappropriate expression of such love.
Gay sex is simply wrong, full stop. Even theologians using ‘redemptive arc hermeneutics’, which recognises development in doctrine over biblical time, and with some ‘arcs’ still working out in NT times, are agreed that there is no credible arc that can make gay sex right.
The argument about women priests is a separate argument which doesn’t affect the issues around same-sex sex. IF women priests are biblically wrong, the response should be to scrap women priests, not to use that wrong as an argument for a further wrong of approving gay sex and marriage. And your apparent stance, Simon, of insisting the Bible forbids women priests but still wanting to have them in defiance of biblical teaching, is dodgy in the extreme.
Without going into every detail, evangelicals who accept the possibility of women elders (not priests) are not rejecting biblical authority. Rather they are suggesting that as in the case of slavery the NT shows us a time of transition in which the prohibition of women elders may be temporary but very careful exegesis is needed. There is a lot in the NT which appears to teach ultimately the equality of women. And accepting women as elders would still not justify gay sex which is a separate argument.
As usual a lot of the problem in both arguments, sexuality and the place of women, is the CofE’s establishment which entangles world and church inappropriately and lays the church open to worldly pressures to, well, conform to the world.
So you are in up in arms on the C of E contravening Paul on offering some prayers for same sex couples but not bothered at all by them contravening Paul by ordaining female priests and bishops? Paul makes clear women must not teach or have authority over a man, so it is extremely difficult to see even female elders as anything but a contravention of Paul’s teaching.
Plenty of non established churches, from the Methodists to the Quakers and Church of Scotland and US and Scottish Episcopalians go even further than the C of E and already offer full same sex marriages in their churches
‘Paul makes clear women must not teach or have authority over a man’ No he does not.
Paul clear accepts women in leadership and as apostles in Romans 16, doesn’t he? What you are quoting is a proof text taken out of context, and interpreted with a wooden literalism.
Have you read my commentary on what Paul says in 1 Tim 2?
Where is this commentary, Ian?
In my article on 1 Tim on the blog here. In my Grove booklet. In other things I have published. An excellent exploration is in Andrew Bartlett’s Men and Women in Christ.
‘Simon, you keep reading the Bible with a wooden literalism’ As do you when it comes to same sex couples, who you oppose but you don’t read Timothy or Mark literally when it comes to their opposition to female clergy and remarriage of divorcees as you back those
Simon, it is very strange that you think those who believe the Bible teaches that marriage is between one man and one woman are reading with ‘wooden literalism.’ I can only think you are not familiar with liberal, critical scholars who believe this. Here are a few samples:
It is very possible that Paul knew of views which claimed some people had what we would call a homosexual orientation, though we cannot know for sure and certainly should not read our modern theories back into his world. 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, to which may well even be alluding in 1.26-27, and so seen same-sex sexual acts by people (all of whom he deemed heterosexual in our terms) as flouting divine order (William Loader, The New Testament on Sexuality pp 323–4).
Where the Bible mentions homosexual behavior at all, it clearly condemns it. I freely grant that. The issue is precisely whether that Biblical judgment is correct (Walter Wink, “Homosexuality and the Bible”).
This is an issue of biblical authority. Despite much well-intentioned theological fancy footwork to the contrary, it is difficult to see the Bible as expressing anything else but disapproval of homosexual activity. (Diarmaid MacCulloch, Reformation: Europe’s House Divided, 1490-1700, p 705).
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 this 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…
As we read the conclusion of the chapter, I should remind readers of Paul’s own view of homosexual activities in Romans 1, where both males and females who have homosexual intercourse are condemned: ‘those who practice such things’ (the long list of vices, but the emphasis is on idolatry and homosexual conduct) ‘deserve to die’ (1.31). This passage does not depend on the term ‘soft’, but is completely in agreement with Philo and other Diaspora Jews. (E P Sanders Paul: The Apostle’s Life, Letters and Thought pp 344, 373).
The task demands intellectual honesty. I have little patience with efforts to make Scripture say something other than what it says, through appeals to linguistic or cultural subtleties. The exegetical situation is straightforward: we know what the text says. But what are we to do with what the text says? I think it important to state clearly that we do, in fact, reject the straightforward commands of Scripture, and appeal instead to another authority when we declare that same-sex unions can be holy and good (Luke Timothy Johnson).
According to [one] interpretation, Paul’s words were not directed at “bona fide” homosexuals in committed relationships. But such a reading, however well-intentioned, seems strained and unhistorical. Nowhere does Paul or any other Jewish writer of this period imply the least acceptance of same-sex relations under any circumstance. The idea that homosexuals might be redeemed by mutual devotion would have been wholly foreign to Paul or any other Jew or early Christian. Homosexuality and Civilization (Cambridge, 2003), 114.
None of these are reading with wooden literalism; they all agree that Scripture prohibits same-sex sexual relationships. (They think it is wrong, of course).
In my article on 1 Tim on the blog here.
Thank you! Can you give a link or at least the date, please?
You quote research that Paul would have rejected same sex relationships, Romans 1 I agree can support that. However 1 Timothy is also clear evidence Paul rejected female ordination. So if you follow Paul literally you have to reject female priests and bishops as well as same sex relationships. The Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches and southern US Baptists are at least logical in following that line even if I disagree with them. I focus on the teachings of Jesus, who never explicitly condemns either but if you give Paul’s teachings equal weight to those of Jesus then yes you must logically reject both
Simon, again, you are using proof texts in a wooden way. On Paul, he clearly says in Rom 16 that women are leaders and apostles, so you cannot cite 1 Tim 2 in isolation. Besides, as I am sure you are aware, Paul was speaking to a context where the cult of Artemis taught that women did not need men, and the term he uses (αὐθεντεῖν) does not mean ‘have authority’ but ‘take someone’s life with violence’.
All those I cite above agree that Jesus was a Torah-observant Jew, and when he says in Matt 19 that marriage is between one man and one woman because of the creation of humanity in Gen 1 and 2, he is agreeing with every single Jew of his day that same-sex sexual relationships in all their forms were ‘sexual immorality’.
So even if you ‘just follow the teaching of Jesus’ (though I *thought* you were an Anglican, which means taking all scripture as authoritative, according to the Articles), then you must also, like Jesus, see same-sex sexual relationships as immoral. That is what Canon B30 requires you, as an Anglican, to believe ‘according to the teaching of our Lord’.
Ian, again you use the texts to support your ideological view. The only female church leader in Romans 16 is just a deacon, not a priest or bishop, the others are just workers, so clearly 1 Timothy’s prohibition on women priests and bishops stands. You can of course spin the meaning to be far beyond what it actually says ie authority becomes killing as again that suits your ideological worldview in this case pro female priests and bishops.
Nope, Jesus never said a single word against faithful committed same sex unions, only against sexual immorality and multiple sexual partners etc. So again you read into that what you want to again reinforce your ideological worldview ie against same sex relationships. Jesus may have reserved marriage for one man and one woman but so does PLF so affirms B30.
If you take all scripture as authoritive from Genesis on you would not even eat shellfish, which Leviticus prohibits, let alone even consider female priests and bishops, same sex relationships or remarriage of divorcees. Synod, which is of course the ultimate authority on the matter of doctrine in the C of E as affirmed by Parliament, decided differently
Simon, but where does 1 Tim 2 mention the prohibition of women as ‘priests and bishops’? You appear to think that Paul is prohibiting women from ‘exercising authority’—but Paul himself allows women to be deacons, apostles, and prophets, as well as teachers (Priscilla), so it is *you* who are being selective.
My comment on the meaning of authentein was based on the existing scholarship, not in ideology. Have you read it?
Jesus says that marriage is between one man and one woman *because* of God’s creation of humanity male and female. Every single reputable scholar understand that to be a prohibition on same sex sexual relations, and in this, Jesus is in line with every other Jewish view we know of. Why are you ignoring the consensus of scholarship here? Have you read it? Where have you disproved it? For Jesus, as for every Jew ‘sexual immorality’ included same-sex sexual relationships—as it did for all people before 1967.
I take all scripture as authoritative. The prohibition on eating shellfish was an authoritative command for ethnic Israel from the Exodus until the New Covenant. As I am not a Jew, it is not a command for me, just like the command for circumcision.
But the prohibition on same-sex sex is rooted in creation, and continues into the new covenant, as Paul shows. Do you understand the difference?
Yes, ‘of course’ ‘Synod’ is of far more significance than either Jesus or the New Testament. (For how could anyone imagine otherwise?)
And ‘of course’ you show ample signs of having digested the points on shellfish which have now been made to you about 10 times. This is a debate, right, not an unlistening monologue?
In the Church of England Synod interprets the New Testament and the teachings of Jesus for the Church, if you don’t believe in the will of Synod having the final say then you should not be in the Church of England.
Leviticus is scripture is it not, so even if there is a New Covenant if you take ALL of scripture literally you cannot ignore what Leviticus says either!
I think this discussion illustrates that certain ways of arguing one’s scriptural point are rhetorical – notably, characterising a ‘literal’ reading as ‘wooden’ when one disagrees with it, and accusing an opponent who cites Scripture in defence of his position (normally a good thing) as ‘proof-texting’. Such subjective terms are deployed because of their pejorative overtones. The pejorative element is the main point, but is recognised only by the writer. In all discussions, on whichever side, can these be avoided please?
Thankyou Stephen for your sensible comment
So if Synod interprets Jesus, who interprets Synod?
For someone who thinks interpretation is so necessary, Simon does not speak about its even being a thing at all when it comes to Synod.
Probably this is because where someone does not like what is said they change it and then pretend they were being all scholarly by calling their change/ alteration by the grand name ‘interpretation’ . Whereas when they like what is said, suddenly the need for ‘interpretation’ miraculously vanishes.
Ironic when you consider that Jesus’s words have ALREADY received more interpretation than those of anyone, over 1000s of years, so can scarcely be in need of much more, whereas the words of Synod have not received any, so must be crying out for more.
He didnt need to as there was no debate on the subject amongst Jews. There was, however, an ongoing debate on divorce at the time and it seems the only reason we have Jesus’ view is because He was specifically asked about it. It is probably due to the influx of Gentile believers in Jesus that Paul later had to bring up the issue, given many would have come from pagan (Roman etc) backgrounds.
As for 1 Timothy, could I suggest you read the article at Terranwilliams website. Perhaps you wont agree, but it should give you pause for thought.
According to Paul, Junia (there is little doubt it is a female name) was an apostle well thought of amongst the other apostles. Given that ‘apostles’ appears first in the list of various roles and gifting, it seems odd that you would try to downplay the importance of the role. Paul certainly doesnt. And btw all believers are ‘priests’ with or without ordination.
Ignoring 1 Timothy is just an example of conservative evangelicals who back women priests brushing under the carpet clear biblical scripture to focus on their main pet hate, same sex couples. Backing women priests while condemning same sex couples is not being biblical, it is just pure hypocrisy.
You certainly can’t be in a Catholic church, as the C of E as a Catholic but Reformed church partly is and think all believers are priests, they aren’t, only those ordained are. Junia was certainly not amongst the 12 apostle disciples either
Simon, you keep reading the Bible with a wooden literalism, and assume everyone else must do the same. Why?
Have you read my discussion of 1 Tim 2, and why it does not mean what you claim it means?
Simon Baker
Biblically in the NT all believers are priests/hieroi , although the function of the priesthood is changed by Jesus’ own once for all high priestly sacrifice.
Not all believers are elders, only those ordained by their churches to that role.
There is unfortunately some confusion because the English word ‘priest’ is actually derived from ‘presbyter/elder’ but is often applied to those who are in Greek ‘hieroi’ and in Hebrew ‘kohen’. Thus the RC idea of a ‘priest’ is actually a muddle or confusion of the distinct hieros/kohen and the presbyter/elder roles, and is actually unbiblical.
Yet any priest or elder who is a woman and is teaching and having authority over a man is in breach of 1 Timothy and its absolute prohibition on that
Simon Baker
There are at least two issues of interpretation here
1) Taking the I Tim passage in a wider context, of the NT AS A WHOLE, is it an absolute provision forever or is it temporary during the OT-to-NT transition? And
2) Is it an absolute prohibition anyway – I’ve checked out Ian’s comments elsewhere on this blog and it seems that like ‘be subject’ in Romans 13, ‘authentein’ (I think I got that right) may not be as definitive as you think.
3) Whatever, there is no real doubt of a total prohibition on gay sex as an appropriate expression of same-sex love, even in the David and Jonathan case of a ‘love greater than the love of women’.
We should pay attention though to what Paul Chamberlain says his experience is if we’re going to hold him up as an example to others. He says he has same-sex attractions, but he doesn’t that’s exclusive merely ‘primary’. He says he prayed for those attractions to be taken away, but he didn’t say he prayed to be straight (i.e. have opposite-sex attractions instead). He says he never found his same-sex attractions to be a massive problem. He argues you just need to control them in an (unspecified) healthy way. It sounds like he met his wife when he was about 22/23, and it doesn’t sound like his SSA have caused any particular problems. We can be wrong about these things, but that sounds like a bisexual man to me.
I have known a number of men who were essentially gay in their sexuality, but then met a particular woman whom they fell in love with, and after marriage the enjoyment of sex with her followed. But they dont find women generally sexually attractive, and sexual temptation typically comes from other males.
Personally I wouldnt call them ‘bisexual’. I would however refer to myself as ‘gay’ in my sexuality, in that I simply dont find females sexually attractive (not even a quiver) but I do other males, even if the percentage of men I actually find attractive to be in probably single figures (10% max). The other 90% plus I wouldnt look twice at.
‘We can be wrong about these things, but that sounds like a bisexual man to me.’
Except, Adam, that is not what he says he is. He describes himself as same-sex attracted.
Bisexual people are same-sex attracted Ian…
The article emphasises a key point which is one of primary identity and it is a point taken up in the comments section of ss blog articles down the years.
There are those who are ssa, who hold to biblical teaching, to CoE doctrine, as does the author of this article, who nevertheless continue to hold out that their identity is ‘gay’ and not in union with Christ, Christian.
I’m really not sure why they do, although I have seen a reason given, that it gives an opening to evangelise in that cohort.
I haven’t seen that happening in the comments section of this blog; on the contrary there has been pushback with a determination to be identified as gay.
That, to me, has opened up separation within that cohort, who are SSA resulting in Christians who are SSA being and adhere to doctrine being denigrated by those who primarily identify as gay, an identity which is indistinguishable from secular social constructs, or belief system and morals, and individual morality which forms the foundational measures, determinants for the common good(s)
it might help if those who argue it’s all about identity in Christ would stop referring to others as ‘the gays’ thus identifying them solely by who they find sexually attractive.
So what word is to be used Peter, if you wish to retain a distinction. I’ m really at loss, as your comment corroborates the point I made. Are you a Christian or not? If yes, why isn’t that your primary identity, rather than you sexual attraction/desire? It is truly beyond me, for anyone who has been converted (not mere intellectual assent) to the Person of Christ, in union with Him, a mutual indwelling in the Holy Spirit.
The point I was trying to make, Geoff, is that of all people, Christians should not refer to other human beings solely by their sexuality, as in ‘the gays’. As that is not, and should not be, their sole identity. I am at a loss as to why you seem to be criticising me for that.
I am happy to use the medical term ‘homosexual’ if you prefer it.
Ah, the old identity argument. Forgive me if it’s a bit much to take from someone who on this blog describes himself as one of the “LGBT+ people”, and in the Living Out podcast interview says he has always thought his same-sex attraction “is just part who I was”, and “I am who I am”. And whose parting advice in that podcast was to encourage people to come out because it’s important to be able to share that part of yourself. Sounds like Rev Chamberlain is completely bought into his own SSA/LGBT+ identity albeit only allowing it for himself.
This idea that those of us who disagree with Rev Chamberlain are saying that “any sense that, for example, gay people should not act on their desires is seen as an attack on the very identity of the person” is a strawman fantasy. A better perspective is offered by gay ex-Catholic vlogger Cade Bradley who said, “What I found since coming out is that being gay is the least important thing but that’s because it’s acknowledged and integrated into your identity and isn’t up for question and you’re not fighting it.” If we want to go to Scripture we have to face up to both Jesus and St Paul being very clear that trying to impose celibacy rules on people is a terrible idea (see Matthew 19 and 1 Corinthians 7). When they gave that counsel were they arguing there should no limits on acting on your desires? Of course not. But they were saying something important about the dangers of denying or trivialising your sexuality. There is a reason why the Catholic Catechism says, “Sexuality affects all aspects of the human person in the unity of his body and soul. It especially concerns affectivity, the capacity to love and to procreate, and in a more general way the aptitude for forming bonds of communion with others. Everyone, man and woman, should acknowledge and accept his sexual identity.”
If Rev Chamberlain is truly using a sexual ethics lens to organise his thoughts about all of this, then I’m surprised his ethical arguments are so weak. He runs through it in the Living Out podcast, arguing that much like a straight man ought not to act of his desire to have sex with a woman who isn’t his wife because it will destroy his marriage and family and be terrible, a same sex attracted man ought not to enter a gay relationship. The problem of course is that there’s no marriage and family being destroyed, and the parallel does not in fact exist.
Our disagreement isn’t identity vs sexual ethics. We both place sexuality as part of our identity, part of who we are, important in shaping our perspective, and not something we can choose to change. We both look to Scripture to guide our sexual ethics. Where we part company is what we think Scripture is saying, whether we’re consistent in how we importantly we view sexuality, and whether we think the Church should have something to say specifically to gay people about how to order their lives.
Nothing sexual can be part of identity, because that is a world without children. I didn’t believe that people existed who thought that they started existing at the age of 8, or 12.
The years earlier than that are:
1- The way of gauging someone’s actual essence;
2- Less subject to the intervention of circumstance, experience, trauma, etc;
3- Not sexual.
No wonder that the people who think people’s lives begin at 8 or 12 are the same ones pressing sexual content on primary school children.
No wonder, secondly, that they are the ones far less likely to have children themselves, whereas others’ normality is to some degree children/family centred.
We categorise in family categories whereas those to whom LGBT+ etc seems home territory categorise in sexual categories. The second is impossible because it works only for a proportion of the population (the over 8s or over 12s) and the more experience-laden at that.
The Humpty Dumpty argument – “‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean'”
You’re just redefining what identity is in order to score a debating point, but creating problems. You’ve managed to invert the definition of identity by trying to take it back to before we even have a self-concept. Now you’re in open disagreement with the Catholic Church who are very clear that we have a sexual identity. And you’ve got a problem of whether anyone can have an identity in Christ – if we take that as, say, how Geoff puts it “anyone who has been converted (not mere intellectual assent) to the Person of Christ, in union with Him, a mutual indwelling in the Holy Spirit” – then does that apply to babies? Is it all babies or only some? Can they lose it? Are we all, according to your definitions, Christians from birth and forever?
Many points here:
(1) Anyone who knows me will know that I am on the side opposed to the Alician Humpty Dumpty, and have pointed out the covert redefinition of words like ‘gender’.
(2) You say that scoring debating points is a higher priority to me than saving people’s lives.
??
You can’t take debating points with you when you die. This is a tiny canvas compared to the vast canvas of reality.
(3) It is not I that say that identity is to be found in your genetic or unsullied-by-experience makeup. Not only am I far from the first to say this, but it is also common sense. We see best who a unique individual is in their origins. Anything else is the effect of others on them. And most certainly not only are sexual matters and babies/children not on the same page, but also to put them there is creepy.
(4) To be in open disagreement with the Catholic Church is not the same thing as being wrong – surely you agree.
(5) Am I actually in disagreement with them? You use ‘sexual identity’ without distinguishing between two quite separate concepts: ‘being a sexual being at some period of our existence’ and ‘having a sexual orientation – as the modern phrase has it’. Which of these two do you mean? The baby/bathwater (sometimes Trojan Horse) sneaking of one concept in on the back of a different one is typical of what I am always isolating and exposing.
(6) We most certainly can and should have an identity in Christ. That is a different matter from our specific identity as unique individuals, which is the present topic. You say that that includes a sexual element. I say (and commonsense says – unless you think babies are sexual beings, and you can’t think that) that it does for part of our existence only, and not the more determinative part at that.
How does having our identity in Christ work if identity is, according to you, “found in your genetic or unsullied-by-experience makeup”?
Because you are forcing us to accept the untrue idea that the word identity can refer to no more than one thing.
We have ethnic identities, educational identities, the list is endless.
So sexual identity isn’t allowed because you can’t apply it to babies. But we can absolute have educational identity? What is the educational identity of a newborn? Where is education in your genetic make-up? This is pathetic even by your standards Christopher.
Which is not what I said. There are, as mentioned, various sorts of simultaneous identities rather than just one, some of which (e.g. educational) are attained (‘she IS a PhD’, verb ‘to-be’).
The wrong step that is taken is to treat one that transpires or kicks in (‘sexual identity’ – are you meaning being a sexual person or are you meaning orientation?) as an essence identity. That is a category error. People are not born PhDs either.
Essence identity? Is this another strawman you’ve just made up?
You know as well as I do that some of our identity is essence (male, darkly pigmented, blood group O, mesomorph) and a great deal of the remainder of our identity is not essence. In fact, the first group can be ascertained at or before birth. Whereas much of the second group does not kick in for aeons after that – 10, 20, 30 years.
Why are you pretending you do not know this?
I would say that the way that your use of the word ‘identity’ is equally what you want it to mean. That is because it is a very slippery term.
I think my ‘identity’ is defined by my name, the date and place of my birth, my current place of residence, perhaps my NI number, my Driving Licence number and other such items. That is, ‘Identity’ is that which identifies [sic] me and distinguishes me from other individuals. This ‘Identity’ is one that can be stolen; someone can pretend to be me.
What is your definition of ‘identity’? Why is this a useful definition?
I think the identity battle is a complete red herring. When Paul Chamberlain is saying that his sexuality is part of who he is, and not something that is going to change, then (to paraphrase John Henry Newman) we’re debating words not things and that’s a waste of time. Chamberlain even goes so far as to suggest he’s an LGBT+ person.
The point is sexuality and sexual orientation is real (i.e. there are some people who really only sexually attracted to the same sex), that it is not chosen and you cannot choose to change it, that is an important part of you because of what it means our capacity to love and relations with each other, and so we need to deal with that rather than just pretend it isn’t the case. If it helps people to talk about that as identity, then fine. But what is not fine, is to pretend that because people recognise the reality and importance of sexuality they are somehow not Christians. That’s seriously problematic given what Jesus and St Paul say about sexuality. It’s seriously hypocritical when done by people who are quite happy to talk about their own sexuality in similar terms, and don’t offer a peep of criticism about other described identities by Christians (nationality, parenthood, denomination etc.).
It’s not simply ‘real’. It’s real *only* for a certain portion of life (and the less determinative portion at that), by which time gallons of causative water have already flowed under the bridge. But the main point is that you have had this point (your blanking out of the most formative years of all) repeated ad nauseam and have perpetually ignored it, which is suspicious.
So we supposedly see things in terms of ‘identity,’ whereas you rightly envisage them through the lens of ‘ethics’ and ‘Scripture.’ Sorry to disappoint, but we think we’re being ethical too, and faithful to Scripture. Only we give Scripture a voice, not a veto. From my side of the fence, conservative evangelicalism is as much a badge of identity as LGB. You’re just self-righteous about it.
There are, patently, two opposed sides over the LLF/PLF discussions in the Churc h of England. Paul Chamerlain calls them Identiy-poitical and biblicaL. I tend to use conservative evangelical and liberal-theological. But I freely accept that these are imperfect terms. What one- or two-word phrase would you use for the two sides when discussing the matter with others?
How about inclusive and denialist?
Of what?
Including scripture or denying scripture?
Catch phrases dont have substance… however catchy.
That’s just nothing better than relativism, compounded by nominalism. Supposedly everything that has a name must be considered on equal terms with everything else that has a name.
What?
Alternatives should be ranked according to how much evidence (and coherence) is in their favour.
So a matter of belief, in one case “conservative evanglicalism” is, according to you, “a badge of identity”. I suspect that you think that this badge is one which should be challenged rather than affirmed.
Being sexually attracted to people of the same sex is also deemed a “badge of identity”. Can one not challenge this badge rather than affirm it?
People clearly can and do choose to change their religious views. Is the same true of sexual orientation?
AB: some people seem to have, if we believe their own self- reporting. Or perhaps we should say that same-sex desire has become weaker in them and their sexual desires have become focused on the other sex. Others have had a different experience: for example, some men who have been married for years and fathered children have left their wives and entered homosexual relationships. How did this happen? People who have followed this course are not usually open in recounting what happened, but I suspect a double life has been going on, just as in heterosexual affairs. Autobiography is rarely truthful.
I suspect at the back of your question is the further question, is sexual orientation something physical about our brains or bodies, an immutable characteristic like our skin colour which is located in every cell of our bory; or perhaps a fundamental psychological characteristic of our personality such as being bipolar or on some spectrum. Then we are talking about something which is simply expressed in life, or controlled in life through therapy or educational behaviour.
If it is the latter, this doesn’t tell us whether this characteristic is healthy or good in itself, which is the domain of ethics. Christian ethicists know, of course, that people can choose to change their behaviour more easily than they can choose their desires, a process that ends only at the grave.
If it’s all so easily malleable, why was the ex-gay movement such a catastrophic failure? Why didn’t the conversion therapies work?
Because it is hard to go against the societal grain.
AB: I didn’t use the words ‘easily malleable’, you did. I don’t think any change is easy in human beings, especially after puberty, and breaking old habits and establishing new ones is one of the hardest things to learn. This is especially so when the social circumstances are against you. It is no accident, for example, that we have so much obesity today compared to the past (look at old photographs for quick evidence): today people do far less manual exertion in work and travel, and high-sugar content foods are cheap and everywhere. People in the past were not really more virtuous in their eating habits, they just had less opportunity to overeat the wrong stuff.
Or consider alcoholism and drug addiction. Why do some people become addicts to intoxicants? Is it biological? Is it ‘natural’? were they #born that way’? Is it their ‘identity’? Or is it the case that anyone – anyone – could become an alcoholic or drug addict? And yet we all know people who kick the habit, although the road is never short or easy. There are probably whole libraries on how alcohol and drug addiction arises.
The permissive society which contraception and then abortion launched changed female sexual mores in the west, and the modern gay movement arose in the wake of western society abandoning Christian chastity as the expected rule for male-female relationships.
I don’t know the actual truth about the ‘ex-gay movement’; I suspect most of it will never be known. I do know at least three Christian men who have or has SSA who are now married to women and are fathers.
I suppose that like most things in life, attraction and self-identification deepen the more one thinks about such things and, of course, the more one practises such behaviour. Sex, like food, is an appetite that reinforces itself. Bit it’s also the case that libido falls off with age and ceases to be so important in a person’s life.
Jsmes: We should be rejoicing that there is an epidemic of obesity among the poor. For thousands of years the poor went in dread of famine.
Of course, in some ways some of those classifying as poor are the very reverse, sharing aspect of their existence with aristocrats. Namely-
1. Not needing to work
2. Having free food provided
3. Having money that is not earnings
4. Having luxuries like cars, phones, TVs in plenty – these are space age gadgets which even aristocrats have only recently acquired.
The ex-gay movement and conversion therapy advocates drew the same analogy with alcoholism and drug addiction. Their methods deliberately aped AA’s 12 step programme for example. It was a total failure that imploded when the leaders admitted that had no results to show for it despite decades of effort. It’s a completely different experience to groups like AA. Why is that? Sexual orientation isn’t an addiction, and that thinking has been tried extensively and found extremely wanting.
I think it is because sexual things go right to the root of defining or redefining people’s identity. That is why people are so very affected by bad experiences that prevent their one and only chance at smooth development. And it is also why no-one should go near the secular (sexual-revolution) programme (it burns, often irretrievably) and why people should stick to the Christian one, which brings the sort of joy you see in wedding photos. It’s a hugely stark difference, but my point is that the bad option can steal a life in a single second.
Errrr “sexual things go right to the root of defining or redefining people’s identity”
but you said, “Nothing sexual can be part of identity”
Your arguments are incoherent.
A human individual cannot have a sexual essence. They can attain a sexual nature at a later stage, either through biology or through circumstance or a mixture. After this is attained, it runs very deep within their make-up and sense of identity.
Round and round we go as you tangle yourself up in your own contradictions…
The shortness of your answers is in proportion to the amount of thought you have put in.
Adam Bell:
Anyone who has studied the history of the “ex-gay” movement will know why it was such a catastrophic failure: it didn’t work. While it would be reckless to deny that anyone’s sexual orientation can ever change spontaneously, such change, especially in adult males, is decidedly the exception, not the rule, and the evidence that it can be deliberately engineered through some kind of “therapy”, either religious or secular, is about as poor as the evidence for the efficacy of other fringe practices, such as Christian Science healing, spirit healing, or astrotherapy.
It has already changed, namely between birth and childhood, and between childhood and adolescence.
However, the later in one’s life one gets, the more endemic things become. Change gets harder as you go along. Savin-Williams and Ream showed stratospheric self-definition changes between teens and early twenties, presumably because unsettledness and frontal cortex also show stratospheric changes in the same period. It is the same graph or closely related.
Christopher Shell:
No, it has not already changed “between birth and childhood, and between childhood and adolescence”. Children do not have a sexual orientation prior to adolescence, so it cannot have changed. Sexual orientation during the adolescent years can often be fluid. It also seems to be fluid in some adult women. It seldom changes in adult males, even if they want it to, and even if they waste years of their lives, and sometimes also large sums of money, as some have done, on dabbling in such hocus pocus as “conversion therapy” and “ex-gay ministry”.
This thing you call sexual orientation, when does it begin? Because if it begins at adolescence, then firstly it is utterly un-endemic and secondly most of the worst things people do are things that they start doing in adolescence, which as you say is a fluid (also mixed up, transitional, unsettled) time. Of all the times of life, we obviously trust this one least.
But I see you have already answered the question. You say that children do not have an SO prior to adolescence. You then incongruously say their SO has not changed. But from nonexistence to existence is the biggest change you can get,
And then people say ‘This is me, this is who I am.’ Someone who popped into existence at the age of 13 out of nowhere, in other words. No one can believe that. Talk about impossible.
Though if you’re saying that’s impossible, what must you think of people saying their primary identity is in Christ?
The new identity in Christ is agreed to be a subsequent/chosen conversion or transformation, which contrasts sharply with one’s original fallen human nature. That is a truthful account. A counterintuitive ‘sexual orientation’ is claimed to have been a forever identity. That is not a truthful account.
The identity in Christ is a ‘this is who I really am, this is who I am meant to be’ identity which is in opposition to our instincts. Counterintuitive sexual orientations are simply submission to instincts, which is something they have in common with the old life which the new life in Christ replaces.
Christopher Shell:
As a general rule, sexual orientation first manifests itself in adolescence. I can’t comment on your assertion that in that case it is “utterly un-endemic”, because I don’t know what you mean by it or what its significance is supposed to be, if any. It may be true that “most of the worst things people do are things that they start doing in adolescence”, but even if it is, it certainly does not follow that something that starts in adolescence must ipso facto be a bad thing. If it did, then not only would a homosexual orientation be a bad thing, a heterosexual orientation would be also. That is quite apart from the fact that a sexual orientation is not something that people DO – although their sexual behaviour, if any, is likely to be congruent with their sexual orientation.
Yes, no doubt nonexistence to existence is the biggest change you can get, but having a sexual orientation when you didn’t have one before is NOT a change in sexual orientation, any more than e.g. getting a car for the first time is a change of car, as you must know perfectly well. You are just playing fatuous games with language. You need to stop doing that kind of thing. It’s time-wasting and tiresome, and it betokens a lack of intellectual honesty.
But that is the main point. We have half the impressions we will ever receive by the time we are 2. People can either lie that they were never 0-12 or they can tell the truth.
If they give the impression ’13 and sexual awakening is the beginning of my life’, then that puts sexual matters in the same sentence as start of life. Which is why children are being groomed into the sexual revolution at primary school. No awe.
As to most bad practices beginning from adolescence onwards, my points are these:
(1) There are vanishingly few damaging long-term bad practices associated with younger than adolescence;
(2) Those many that are associated with adolescence are associated with it precisely because it is a mixed up, unstable and unsettled time, And feelings not matching biology is one form of unsettledness.
One cannot take adolescence at face value – people react as they do in those years only because they are that age, and would not do so at other ages (apart from other ages of hormonal fluctuation). Nevertheless, the earlier an age is the more formative it is. So any formative experiences so early on may well stick and become embedded.
Christopher Shell:
“We have half the impressions we will ever receive by the time we are 2.”
That is quite a startling piece of information. How did you come by it?
I am not aware of knowing anyone who lies that they were never 0-12. No do I know of anyone who asserts that 13 and sexual awakening was the beginning of their life.
As I have already pointed out, if we accept what you say about few damaging long-term bad practices starting before adolescence, it certainly does NOT follow that anything that starts in adolescence must therefore be bad.
I have already agreed that sexual orientation during adolescence can be fluid. One’s sexual attractions at 18 may well be quite different from what they were at 13 or 14 – despite your assertion that “the earlier an age is the more formative it is”. Then again, they may not be. Let the chips fall where they may.
Could you clarify ‘Only we give Scripture a voice, not a veto’?
I think what Lorenzo means is that the Bible is a human witness to God and has an admixture of error alongside true statements. So, like any human witness, it has to be weighed up in court and the truth accepted and the errors rejected. Lorenzo presumably uses some extra-biblical standard (possibly contemporary western reason?) to determine what is true, although this may change in future as different ethical models prevail.
So the question of truth (and who is the ‘we’ who decides) keeps changing.
As a Christian, a disciple of Jesus, from where, or rather from whom, do we get our:
1. Significance?
2. Acceptance?
3. Security?
4.Identity?
5.Status
(As with Jesus, so with believers.)
Indeed, our very name, identity, Christian and new life in him, in adoption.
Anything else is idolatry, counterfeit ‘gods’ placed above, Him, in priority as ultimate significance and substance in human hubris: the pride of life.
Where is the boasting?: in whom is the boasting?
Does that make Bishop Ceirion Dewar idolatrous?:
“One of the most corrosive lies of our time is the claim, sometimes explicit, often implied, is that Christianity stands in opposition to national identity”
Work it out for yourself Adam. Or are you merely attempting to be clever to personally avoid the questions?
How interesting. You can’t do it.
Already have, within the confines of the quotation.
To me, it is clear where your ultimate identity immovably lies, Adam, from your contributions on this blog down the years, even in you response to this present blog article.
The questions are based on the work of Dr Frank Lake’s Clinical Theology.
He was the father of David Lake (now Orthodox hieromonk Fr Silouan) I think?
In Christ, a Christian’s true identity.
Who we are.
https://learn.ligonier.org/articles/in-christ-a-christians-true-identity
There is far more on the question of identity here:
https://search.ligonier.org/?q=Identity
As I understand it – and I am prepared to be but right – the prayers of love and faith were commended for the acknowledgement of certain elements of a relationship that deserve merit – faithfulness, integrity, compassion – but not same-sex attraction or its practice in sexual activity per se. A fine line distinction that has often been overlooked. In the light of how PLF are being perceived as blessing same-sex relationships, rather than how they were intended, the FOC has rightly raised questions over the theological, doctrinal and legal basis for the prayers. The validity of the PLF are therefore – or should be – under question. A matter that should be resolved before any further “progress” on LLF is considered.
I also ask the question: can forms of the PLF be used for myself and my wife? Or myself and my daughter? Or for any other form of relationship? Brothers, sisters, business partners, colleagues at work? Has anyone used them – or considered using them – for any situation other than a same-sex relationship?
No as the prayers mark those in committed and loving relationships, which does not apply to business partners and colleagues and nor can you be in a relationship with a relative under the law of the nation the C of E is established church of. Marriage already recognises the relationship of you and your wife
‘This suite of resources is one of the fruits of the Church of England’s project, Living in Love and Faith. It brings together a variety of liturgical resources in a desire to give thanks and praise to God for the gift of a loving relationship between two people, to mark their commitment to one another, and to pray with and for them. Recognising and celebrating the goods in faithful, committed same-sex relationships and seeking God’s help and blessing in growing in faith, love and holiness, these prayers seek to help couples grow in holiness.’
https://www.churchofengland.org/prayer-and-worship/worship-texts-and-resources/prayers-love-and-faith
I am in a committed and loving relationship with all our children, all my friends, and (whenever I obey Jesus) with all my enemies.
PLFs all round?
No, as sexual relationships with your children are illegal under UK law. Relationships with same sex adults are not illegal under UK law and same sex marriage is now legal in UK law and the C of E as established church of the largest nation in the UK needed to reflect that via LLF.
If you married a friend or enemy you could do so indeed in your local church, though legally only one of them as with marriage to only one same sex partner
Simon Baker:
You are confused. The PLF notes say they are explicitly NOT about a sexual relationship. They talk about ‘sharing a journey’ and imply ‘living together’ (but not necessarily in the same house) but at not point do they talk about sexual intimacy. Look them up and read them for yourself.
It therefore follows that Christopher is correct and they could be used for:
– parents and their children
– two siblings sharing a home
– two friends sharing a home.
The Scriptures connected with them reference Ruth and Naomi, which was obviously not a sexual relationship; and David and Jonathan, who were both married men and fathers and clearly didn’t share a home or a sexual relationship.
But I don’t understand why the PLF reference only couples. Covenanted Friendships can involve more than two people.
And I can see no good reason why two siblings who are not married should not be allowed to have a Civil Partnership and all the benefits of inheritance, right of attorney etc that flow from that relationship.
This is unjustified discrimination, as I’m sure you will agree.
What an unpleasant answer. Have you no boundaries?
The word ‘relationship’ is a broad word; but for those who see the world through a sexual lens the deliberately vague word ‘relationship’ implies ‘sexual relationship’, which is an implication that was not there in your text, but which you assumed in the same way as you assume sexual orientation for every human however young and innocent and irrelevant. Such a use of ‘relationship’ is just another example of the way that not even the most general and harmless concept is safe.
James, the civil partnership discrimination was only because they were always sexually-focussed from the start (shortcoming 1) but were not honest enough to say so (shortcoming 2A), or else thought they could fool the rest of us (shortcoming 2B), and may have hoped to take great delight in seeing the rest of us duped (hypothetical shortcoming 3).
Of course PLF includes same sex sex sexual relationships, they are open to same sex couples married in UK law. It may not explicitly say that as conservative evangelicals would throw a strop but everyone knows PLF is for committed same sex couples including those who have sex with each other, if it wasn’t then most conservative evangelicals would not have voted against PLF in Synod but still it passed anyway
Except, Simon, as Sarah Mullally repeated several times in Synod, the doctrine of the C of E is that marriage is between one man and one woman, and that sexual relationships outside that were sinful.
So if, as some of the bishops claim, the PLF are not indicative of a change of doctrine of the Church, they cannot be used in a context where it is believed that the same-sex relationship is sexual.
You are correct, as Bishop Mullally appeased the media in the relevant press conference by confirming ‘Some [relationships in question] will be sexual.’.
The more that Christian marriage is adulterated and confused, the better the media like it. ‘Evil, be thou my good.’
The appeasement of the media by the Church of England hierarchy is a much more general and ubiquitous thing than this.
It reminded me of when the media’s ‘gotcha’ question was ‘Is gay sex a sin?’. GS, of course, being their sacrament – or one of them – or, shall we say, their untouchable (aka their idol). The answer no-one gave was: things are only classified as sins in the first place when/because they do harm, and in proportion as they do harm. There is nothing religious about the word sin. It is a word for an abominable, harmful or hurtful wrong, and we see or experience (or commit) such every day.
It is odd, and very bad, that the AB of C promote (or even casually normalise) sin, but I gather that the ‘progress’ of N Ireland from abortionless to abortionful was as she would have wished, and also that she was not prepared to speak one word against any harms done by pride marches or queer theory. Which brings us back to the media’s sacred cows.
Since the media have been the main enemies of Christianity since the ’60s if not before (they want to make inroads on our public space), it is not good to make out you are on their side. Some people befriend you only to serve their own purposes and then spit you out and/or eat you. As was the case with the media and Abp Welby, and as was the case with Tash and Shift.
Of course they can, conservative evangelicals like you voted against PLF precisely as they included same sex couples who have sex with each other. You lost the Synod vote on it anyway
‘included same sex couples who have sex with each other. ‘ The doctrine of the C of E is that this is sinful, and cannot be celebrated. So the PLF cannot be used in such cases. That is what Synod voted for.
No it didn’t, nowhere in the wording of PLF does it exclude faithful same sex married in civil law couples who have sex with each other from the prayers
Simon ‘nowhere in the wording of PLF does it exclude faithful same sex married in civil law couples who have sex with each other.’ That is precisely the grounds on which the PLF have been accepted.
Question 104 in this upcoming session of Synod:
The Archbishop of York to reply as Vice-Chair of the House of Bishops:
A The PLF were commended by the House of Bishops for use in public worship by the
minister under Canon B 5. Canon B 5.2 permits a minister with cure of souls to use
or permit the use of forms of service for which no authorised provision is made, but
this discretion is always governed by Canon B 5.3, which requires that any such
forms be reverent, seemly, and neither contrary to, nor indicative of any departure
from the doctrine of the Church of England in any essential matter.
The actual wording of the prayers to be used in the services do not exclude same sex couples who have sex with each other. Whatever the preamble to satisfy conservative evangelicals might say, the preamble is not used in the PLF services
Simon, look what Stephen Cottrell says in reply to Question 104 next week:
The Archbishop of York to reply as Vice-Chair of the House of Bishops:
A The PLF were commended by the House of Bishops for use in public worship by the
minister under Canon B 5. Canon B 5.2 permits a minister with cure of souls to use
or permit the use of forms of service for which no authorised provision is made, but
this discretion is always governed by Canon B 5.3, which requires that any such
forms be reverent, seemly, and neither contrary to, nor indicative of any departure
from the doctrine of the Church of England in any essential matter.
It isn’t, PLF still reserves holy matrimony for one man and one woman, ideally for life
Reserving Holy Matrimony for one man and one woman, according to Sarah Mullally in Synod, also means reserving sexual intimacy for that relationship. That is the doctrine of the C of E, which Synod has confirmed.
Ian you continue to read doctrine in a very wooden way. Issues in human sexuality and very clear pastoral statements for the House of Bishops have clearly recognised that lay people in same sex relationships are going to be sexual and that it is not appropriate to ask intrusive questions. Doctrine is not about small print and ‘thou shalt not’ types of commandments. It always has to be seen in context and pastoral judgement.
Andrew, so you don’t agree with the Ten Commandments then? After all, they are all a bit negative.
And Jesus’ prohibition on sexual immorality? Isn’t he a bit ‘thou shalt not’?
Ian I think that some of the words put in Jesus’ mouth by the authors of the NT can appear that way. Yet looking at the whole approach that Jesus seems to have to the law, it is clear that pastoral matters were considered more important than the letter of the law.
It’s quite clear that couples for whom PLF is appropriate and approved will be in a sexual relationship. If you don’t think that’s the case, I’m not sure which world you are living in but it isn’t the real one.
Andrew ‘some of the words put in Jesus’ mouth by the authors of the NT can appear that way.’ What a fascinating comment! So you don’t believe that the gospels are a faithful record of the teaching of Jesus?
If so, how do you know what Jesus taught?
‘It’s quite clear that couples for whom PLF is appropriate and approved will be in a sexual relationship.’ In which case, the use of the PLF is indeed indicative of a change of doctrine in the Church, so the bishops commended them in error, and they need to be withdrawn. isn’t that what the debate says?
Goodness Ian, you don’t believe that the four evangelists were editors of what was said? That’s a very odd position for a NT scholar! We know what Jesus taught by looking at the whole, not just am isolated verse. Exactly the same way we know what Paul thought about the ministry of women by looking at everything he said, not just one verse. And so I refer you back to my previous comment about Jesus’ pastoral approach.
Once again you take a wooden literal approach to doctrine. It just doesn’t work that way. And the obsession with what consenting adults in fully equal and consensual relationships do is just weird.
Andrew, it is a shame that you so quickly impose your views on me. Of course I believe that the gospel writers edited their own gospels. But that is quite different from your radical liberal assumption that they ‘put words into Jesus’ mouth’. I believe that the gospels offer a reliable and authoritative account and interpretation of what Jesus said. Do you?
And his language of judgement and his repeated warnings against sexual immorality are consistent across the gospels. So I am curious that you appear to reject them.
I am not taking a ‘wooden’ approach to doctrine. I am pointing out what the doctrine of the Church is, and what vows all the ordained take to uphold them. This is nothing more or less than what Sarah Mullally has several times affirmed in Synod in response to questions, and which has been repeated over the last 30 years in statements by the House of Bishops. Do you think they are ‘wooden’ and ‘obsessed’?
I have said repeatedly: I would rather we were not talking about this at all. But you and others who insist that change is inevitable, and keep pressing the debate until you get what you want, are the ones with what looks like an obsession.
And I am curious that you ignore my observation about the grounds on which the PLF were commended.
Ian, you quite regularly ignore comments. Sarah Mullally was quite clear that some of the relationships that might have come under PLF would be sexual. If you think they are not, then I repeat what I said before – I’m not sure which world you are living in but it isn’t the real one.
Yes, I believe the gospels are a reliable witness. No I don’t believe every word was something Jesus literally said. They didn’t have tape recorders. This is basic stuff. The biblical witness to marriage, especially in the OT, is really not one man and one woman. And marriage in the bible is nothing like we have now. You can’t even begin to say apples and oranges are the same fruit, surely?
The obsession with what adults do in consensual relationships is a conservative evangelical one.
If you think the gospels are reliable, then that means we can trust Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 7 about the narrow way, and trust his teaching that we must avoid sexual immorality—which of course read in historical context means avoiding the prohibited relationships in Lev 18 and 20. There is no conceivable other interpretation of Jesus’ teaching here, is there?
Given that Jesus mentions sexual relations more than once in *every* one of his ‘vice lists’, it seems that he thought it rather important.
Let’s also be clear about the various House of Bishops statements as you refer to them
“We are conscious that within both Church and society there are men and women seeking to live faithfully in covenanted same sex relationships. As we said in our response to the consultation prior to the same sex marriage legislation, “the proposition that same sex relationships can embody crucial social virtues is not in dispute. Same sex relationships often embody genuine mutuality and fidelity…., two of the virtues which the Book of Common Prayer uses to commend marriage. The Church of England seeks to see those virtues maximised in society”.
15. In Issues in Human Sexuality the House affirmed that, while the same standards of conduct applied to all, the Church of England should not exclude from its fellowship those lay people of gay or lesbian orientation who, in conscience, were unable to accept that a life of sexual abstinence was required of them and who, instead, chose to enter into a faithful, committed sexually active relationship.
18. We recognise the many reasons why couples wish their relationships to have a formal status. These include the joys of exclusive commitment and also extend to the importance of legal recognition of the relationship. To that end, civil partnership continues to be available for same sex couples. Those same sex couples who choose to marry should be welcomed into the life of the worshipping community and not be subjected to questioning about their lifestyle. Neither they nor any children they care for should be denied access to the sacraments.
“The House considers that lay people who have registered civil partnerships ought not to be asked to give assurances about the nature of their relationship before being admitted to baptism, confirmation and communion. Issues in Human Sexuality made it clear that, while the same standards apply to all, the Church did not want to exclude from its fellowship those lay people of gay or lesbian orientation who, in conscience, were unable to accept that a life of sexual abstinence was required of them and instead chose to enter into a faithful, committed relationship.”
All pretty clear.
As Paul Chamberlain observes, the debate is not going away ….a resolution is needed.
Andrew: ‘In Issues in Human Sexuality the House affirmed that, while the same standards of conduct applied to all…’ and ‘Issues in Human Sexuality made it clear that, while the same standards apply to all…’
So the bishops continue say that, though they are not going to ask question, ‘the same standard applies to all’. What is that standard? As Sarah Mullally confirmed twice in Questions at Synod: ‘Marriage is between one man and one woman, and is the only place for sexual intimacy’.
And as GS2328 said very clearly:
In other words, the dishonesty of the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ scenario you are defending here means that PLF is indeed indicative of a departure from doctrine, and so cannot be commended or used. That is why the vote in the House in October to withdraw commendation was only lost by 1 vote. Only half of the bishops think that commendation was legitimate.
‘A resolution is needed’. Indeed. How about this one: people stop lying and start actually living by the teaching of Jesus expressed in the doctrine of the C of E which all clergy swore to uphold…?
Sarah also acknowledged that many of those relationships would be sexual Ian. She lives in the real world.
Paul Chamberlain at least has thought about what a resolution could look like. Thank you for posting his article
Firstly the real world has good bits as well as bad bits.
Secondly, the real world is to an extent how we make it. Intelligent people know that they change the world for better or worse each day, whether they like it or not.
Leaders are those who change it the most.
A leader who cares little enough to merely say ‘que sera sera’ should immediately step aside to be replaced by a proper leader who cares enough. Whoever heard of a Christian leader with an (attitude like that, diametrically opposed to that of the saints and worldchanging apostles?
Anyway, things that fluctuate with fashion are not ‘the real world’, just one transient era of it in one random place.
The reason she said that was to appease the media who live by ‘Evil, be thou my good’, as proven by (c 5 years ago) their use of ‘Is gay sex a sin?’ as a shibboleth, as though no value could be higher than that.
Ian Paul So presumably you will refuse to remarry any divorcees in a C of E church then in line with Jesus’ teachings in Mark?
Christopher the reason she said it was simple: it’s true. And the truth will set you free.
O brave new world.
But not Matt 19.28 new world, but one that is exactly the same as the old drab one. No transformation whatever. That’s your lot. What a con.
It is obviously true that people will fall into selfish lifestyles (obeying their animal instincts) if no-one loves them enough to raise them better.
Bad things are true and good things are true. I could either go around saying ‘All ye, all ye, unemployment is at 3 million’ or I could save my breath and instead work on bringing the figure down.
Christopher as usual you shift and shuffle and find it impossible to follow an argument. You are not worth engaging with. You say you are a truth seeker but the only truths you acknowledge are the ones that affirm your horrible prejudices.
Thanks, Simon. I did appreciate the limitations in use of the prayers as they stand. My point was more a question as to why we do not have prayers regularly used for other forms of relationship. I suppose there are options – renewal of vows, covenant services – but the singling out of one group smacks of elements of discrimination about which progressives so often complain.
Simon, you said above in reply to me: “Ignoring 1 Timothy is just an example of conservative evangelicals who back women priests brushing under the carpet clear biblical scripture to focus on their main pet hate, same sex couples. Backing women priests while condemning same sex couples is not being biblical, it is just pure hypocrisy.”
Where have I ‘ignored’ 1 Timothy? I pointed you to resources that take Paul’s letter seriously. And it is hardly hypocrisy to encourage that which God approves and to discourage that which He does not.
Then you say, “You certainly can’t be in a Catholic church, as the C of E as a Catholic but Reformed church partly is and think all believers are priests, they aren’t, only those ordained are. Junia was certainly not amongst the 12 apostle disciples either”
Im not concerned with what one particular church or denomination says, rather what the New Testament say:
• 1 Peter 2:9: “But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood…”
• Revelation 1:5-6: “To Him who loves us and has released us from our sins by His blood, who has made us to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father…”
So both Paul and John view all believers as priests. But you seem to disagree with them.
As for Junia, well no she was not one of the original 12 apostles. But then neither was Paul. He was never one of the Twelve.
No, you pointed me to resources which interpret 1 Timothy not in line with what it actually says but in terms of wider comments from Paul in the Bible to get the outcome they want.
Paul in 1 Timothy is absolutely clear women cannot be ordained priests or bishops or have a senior leadership role in he church. Revelation was of course not written by Paul and nor was Peter so clearly cannot overturn Paul’s prohibition on women priests and forbidding of women having authority over men in Timothy.
If you wish to therefore ignore Paul as he was not one of the original apostles, fine. I take it then you will also be ignoring Paul’s prohibition on same sex sexual behaviour then in Romans 1 as much as his prohibition of women priests and bishops in 1 Timothy?
Simon ‘Paul in 1 Timothy is absolutely clear women cannot be ordained priests or bishops’. Paul doesn’t mentioned ordination, priests, or bishops.
I suspect you are thinking that ‘authentein’ means ‘exercise authority’. But as I have pointed out, it doesn’t mean that.
And if it did, it is *Paul* who says that women can be deacons, apostles, and prophets. All these exercise authority. So it is you who are being highly selective here in order to get the answer you want.
1 Timothy 2 12 ’12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;[a] she must be quiet.’ Priests and bishops teach and have authority over men so it is absolutely clear female priests and bishops are forbidden.
No, you deliberately misread ‘authority’ to spin it as ‘not commit violence against’, so you can spin the Bible on that to back women priests and bishops which you support. You could give Lord Mandelson a run for his money in terms of spin on that. However you read the Bible literally on prohibition of same sex relationships as that is your main prejudice. Paul at most says a woman can be a deacon but a deacon is low ranking clergy below a priest and nowhere near a bishop, so nowhere does Paul back women having high clerical authority.
Simon, you don’t know the scholarship on this term then?
https://www.crossway.org/articles/what-does-it-mean-that-women-should-remain-quiet-in-church-1-timothy-2/?srsltid=AfmBOooeBsfemVnslS99f4KeEmQx529tCbc6CU8xc-m3U4KKGmP-bpM3
Simon, Fascinating that you are drawing on Denny Burk for your interpretation of this passage. Do you know what Denny Burk believes about same-sex sexual relationships?
If you believe his scholarship on the one question, presumably for the same reasons, you will accept his scholarship on the other?
I disagree with him on both issues but I at least respect the fact that when Denny Burk says he follows all of scripture he means it. He doesn’t pick and choose
Those who disagree with him on what *he* calls a most complex and contested issue are not ‘picking and choosing’ either, because they have good scholarly arguments. It is odd that you choose just to insult those who do.
On the other hand, you do appear to be picking and choosing, as you have offered no argument in support of your position.
My position is Jesus never forbade same sex couples in committed unions and never forbade women priests and bishops. I put Jesus first. If you put Paul and the OT on an equal platform to Jesus yes I accept allowing either of those things is more difficult, not just one of them
‘Jesus never forbade same sex couples in committed unions’. If you believe that, you are discounting the consensus of liberal, critical scholarship, which disagrees with you, and ignoring the historical context in which every single Jew in the first century did reject them. You are ignoring the teaching of Jesus on marriage, and inventing a meaning of ‘sexual immorality’ which is implausible.
‘never forbade women priests and bishops’. This is completely anachronous in that it is not a question Jesus could have faced. I agree with you that the teaching of the NT does not prohibit women exercising authority in ministry—and I have shown elsewhere that Paul agrees with this too.
‘If you put Paul and the OT on an equal platform to Jesus…’ Jesus himself treats the OT as authoritative—though of course it needs to be interpreted aright. And the doctrine of the C of E itself says ‘THE Old Testament is not contrary to the New… no Christian man whatsoever is free from the obedience of the Commandments which are called Moral’ (Article VII) which of course includes teaching in Lev 18 and 20 about same-sex sexual relations.
Article XX says: ‘And yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God’s Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another.’ So your pitting the teaching of Jesus against the OT and Paul is not allowed in the Church of England.
And this is set out in Canon A5, which says that doctrine of the Church is found in the formularies, including these Articles. And all clergy take oaths at ordination saying that they believe, will uphold, and will teach exactly this doctrine.
OK?
No I am not, plenty of liberals agree with me. Show me one passage of scripture where Jesus directly forbade same sex couples in committed unions? PLF also does not change the doctrine of marriage as between one man and one woman ideally for life anyway.
St Paul as I have shown you repeatedly directly forbids women to be priests and bishops in 1 Timothy, reaffirmed by the article from Denny Burk. You deliberately ignore that passage of scripture however as you are ideologically in favour of female clergy but you never ignore scripture against same sex relationships as you are ideologically opposed to that.
If ‘THE Old Testament is not contrary to the New’ I hope you also never eat shellfish as you are directly contradicting Leviticus if you do?
Article XX of course bans women priests and bishops as contrary to God’s word in Timothy if you take it literally, yet Synod already voted for that over a decade ago. It also forbids all remarriage of divorcees if you believe the Gospel of Mark but Synod also voted for that at the start of the century. The Articles of the C of E are now largely symbolic, it is Synod alone who interprets the word of God for the C of E and that has been the case since Act of Parliament gave Synod and its predecessor Assembly full power over C of E liturgy and doctrine.
Simon ‘plenty of liberals agree with me.’ Please point me to one liberal, critical, scholar who believes Jesus, alone of all Jews in the first century, and with no-one noticing this for 1,950 years, and contrary to the teaching of the OT which Jesus follows, affirms same sex sexual relationships.
‘Show me one passage of scripture where Jesus directly forbade same sex couples in committed unions’. Show me one passage of scripture where Jesus directly forbade polyamorous relationships in committed unions. If that is your standard of proof, then you have a very strange sexual ethic.
‘St Paul as I have shown you repeatedly directly forbids women to be priests and bishops.’ As I have pointed out, scholarship shows that ‘authentein’ does not mean ‘exercise authority’; Paul does not even mention priests and bishops there; and Paul clearly affirms women exercising authority in ministry in many other passages. So you have not shown me anything.
‘I hope you also never eat shellfish as you are directly contradicting Leviticus if you do?’ The commands there were to ethnic Israel in the first covenant. Jesus commended ‘Go and sell all your possessions’. If you do not do that, then it appears you are defying the teaching of Jesus, aren’t you?
Jesus does not prohibit divorce in Mark 10; he prohibits ‘any reason’ divorce’, as I have shown you. Cranmer wrote a liturgy for remarriage after divorce.
The Articles are part of the doctrine of the C of E IN LAW, and Synod continues to reaffirm that.
Matthew Vines for starters https://matthewvines.com/blog/a-response-to-tim-kellers-review/
https://matthewvines.com/transcript/
Polyamourous is of course having multiple sexual partners, so in no way linked to monogamous same sex couples.
Yes I know you interpret ‘authentein’ to mean violence not authority with very little basis purely as you want to twist and spin the word’s actual meaning to allow female priests which you support. Paul is adamant women must not have authority over men in 1 Timothy so I know you completely choose to ignore scripture when you wish. At most he arguably allows a woman deacon, never a woman lead priest or bishop. Denny Burk of course ironically agrees with me on that as does the Vatican and Orthodox church.
‘The commands there were to ethnic Israel in the first covenant’ Ah, so the Old Testament is partly irrelevant now that as its commands were just given to Israel. Yes, there are some passages which suggest socialism on the part of Jesus to be a true disciple of his, though he also had little interest in the authority of the state, commended hard work and saving in the parable of the talents and for most it was more giving charity with your money that was recommended, love of money that was the main evil.
Only Matthew allows divorce for spousal adultery, Mark forbids divorce on any grounds. That is the basis the Vatican uses to forbid divorce unless the marriage could be proved never to have been valid in the first place which Henry VIII got his advisers to try and prove in terms of his marriage to Katherine the Pope refused to dissolve.
The Articles have no legal force anymore in the C of E really, hence Synod voted by 2/3 majority for female ordination and remarriage of divorcees in its churches with opt outs for priests and bishops who take a purely scriptural view. They are mainly symbolic now
Matthew Vines does not even have a degree in theology! He is certainly not a biblical scholar. His book has interpretive howlers on every single page. I will ask again: could you point me to a single reputable critical biblical scholar who supports the idea that Jesus, against the OT, against every single known view of Jews in the first century, against Paul, against every single one of the church fathers, approved of same-sex sexual relations, and nobody in the history of the Church or theology spotted this for 1,950 years?
Just one reputable name will do.
Matthew Vines has a Harvard degree and a man who is a well reputed Biblical scholar. You only reject his views as they disagree with yours!!
You write only 2.5 lines, yet it is full of errors.
First, Matthew Vines never graduated from Harvard, but quit midstream.
Second, his studies were not in the Bible or ancient languages, but in philosophy.
Third, he is not remotely a well respected scholar in any field at all, let alone in a field he never studied at any real level. Find some citations of him in books written by members of SNTS or BNTC? He is not the sort of writer who gets cited by scholars.
Fourth, you are using the old trope that it is only because people disagree that they say someone is not a qualified scholar. You know perfectly well that someone is a qualified scholar if they have some kind of higher degree, lectureship or tenure in a given field. You also know that MV has not even a lower degree, and does not have one in any other subject either.
(He even included the ‘argument’ that because two vices were listed next to each other, the lesser known one meant something like the better known one.)
Thanks, Simon. I did appreciate the limitations in use of the prayers as they stand. My point was more a question as to why we do not have prayers regularly used for other forms of relationship. I suppose there are options – renewal of vows, covenant services – but the singling out of one group smacks of elements of discrimination about which progressives so often complain.
Well there are marriage services for heterosexual couples, baptisms for children but PLF are the first recognition for married same sex couples within services in the C of E
Just to return to the original article for a while, Paul, thank you for a really helpful and engaging article. I gained a lot from haring about your personal experience; as you say, it’s ‘not as an abstract theological “issue”, but … something which has affected, and continues to affect, my life.’ We so easily forget that, especially when strongly held views are defended, sometimes aggressively. But I suspect that the same words could be used by those who advocate SSM. (BTW it would be really helpful to hear from a SSA person who did think more in the ‘identity’ terms that you outline.)
The distinction between identity and ethics is helpful but were you a bit too binary? Do we have to choose one or other approach: ‘Christians disagree about our responses to same-sex attraction because we view the issue in two fundamentally different ways.’ But my experience is that identity is very, very complex and develops over time and isn’t something given immutably at one moment; there’s continuity but also change. I’m not challenging your experience only that others may experience things differently, heterosexuals as much as SSA people. You write, (and I agree entirely with this) that, ‘my sexual desires are one part of who I am, alongside all my other desires, my history, my experiences, my education, my character and personality, my relationships, my work, and – last but not least – my faith.’ I don’t see how you can remove sexual desire from your identity any more than you would want to remove your history or your faith. Is it not part of your identity? But maybe I’ve misunderstood.
Also, when I read those who support SSM they frequently focus on ethics just as much as anyone else. We may disagree with their ethics but they’re still arguing ethically and some ground their views in Scripture, but read it differently, which is one reason this is such a divisive debate.
Thanks again for speaking personally and stimulating my thinking.
Tim, your last comment is really weak. EVERY human being ‘focuses on ethics’ because a concern with ‘good’ and ‘evil’ is inextricably bound up with being human: even a thief is acting ‘ethically’: he is thinking, ‘What is good for ME in this action?’ This idea has ben articulated in theology at least since Aquinas. The thief’s action fails ethically because it does not consider the larger question of what ‘good’ means, the transcendent question: ‘What is God’s perfect will for this person?’ Only this question adequately expresses *Christian ethics.
Your second comment, ‘some ground their views in Scripture’, also fails because it does not consider what Scripture actually means, what authority is has over the Church, and whether the pro-same-sex readings are actually correct.
If people ‘read Scripture differently’, that means at least one of the readings is wrong.
Which reading is wrong in your view and why?
Unless you grapple with these substantive questions, there is no point trying to smooth over real differences of substance.
Tim, it has been said to you more than once, but you have not digested it I think, which is why it is necessary to say it again.
It is no good ‘people’ reading Scripture differently, even assuming Scripture (which is large and diverse) can be generalised about.
All that matters is if ‘scholars’ (of whom there are many) read it notably differently.
You seem to assume -yet without providing evidence- that will always be the case. It is that kind of broad generalisation that hampers your argument. We need always to home in and see when it is true and when it is not. Any presentation that lacks evidence goes to the back of the queue.
Scholars’ disagreements are on a far narrower canvas than laypersons’, although they get more excited about them!
That is exactly why I find Tim Evans’ comments unhelpful: because he constantly fails to interact with Scripture itself and fails to offer any kind of interpretation. (Although there is an undertone of scolding conservatives for defending ‘strong views … aggressively’.)
He doesn’t show any sign that he himself has tried to engage with the text and come to a conclusion about their meaning.
I wouldn’t accept this if someone was opining on Shakespeare ‘that readers have different views’. So what? It isn’t the case that ‘all views are worthy of the same esteem’, and if the student hasn’t bothered to interact with the text and defend a viewpoint, then anodyne comments are worthless.
Christopher and James, after a long break away from this blog I made a comment about Paul’s article. I thanked him because I thought it was courageous and helpful. The article wasn’t primarily about the well worn arguments over different interpretations of the Bible. In any case, I have nothing new to add to the vast amount written here, and have read nothing new for many months. I offered some other perspectives and did not advocate SSM. I think I wrote courteously. Almost immediately I receive very negative and frankly nasty comments from you that don’t engage with me in the same spirit. You have to realise that I am not interested in joining in the debate on your terms or in such an unpleasant way and I don’t see why I should. One point illustrates the difficulty: I said that strongly held views are sometimes defended aggressively. I find that those who support SSM do this sometimes. Why did you assume I was only speaking about those opposed? Unless you can engage with me in a generous and courteous way please don’t bother. BTW I still think it was a helpful article, do you?
But what I said was nothing to do with that. It was that you have this wrong idea, as a non expert, about ‘different interpretations of the Bible’. It is wrong for 3 reasons:
1. You can’t ‘interpret the Bible’ because the Bible speaks of millions of different things. Nor is anyone doing so in the present case. They are just reading what a translation of it says. Says about *one * of its million topics only. The translator is better equipped than any of us to do any interpreting that is necessary. And they have already done it. And commentators have already done it in an even more meticulous way. Also, for some passages, no interpretation is necessary, since writers often aim to write in a straightforward way, and succeed.
2. You have this incredible idea that people who cannot even read the language have a significant part in the interpretation.
3. You cannot see that the present case is one where scholars agree. Agree that whenever the biblical writings speak of homosexual sexual practice, they speak very negatively. (Not that scholarly input is much needed in order to conclude something so obvious.) And this is the main issue. There are side issues on which there is less agreement. But it is not the side issues that the debate is about.
Tim,
You keep missing the point that simply observing that people disagree, that both sides ‘argue ethically’ or ‘read the Scriptures differently’ adds NOTHING to the discussion. It only matters if you can evaluate – with evidence – an ethical argument or a particular reading of Scripture. Is the pro-gay argument right or wrong? Is the evangelical argument right or wrong? That’s all that matters. What does TIM believe and why? You never say. Do you actually have a view? My strong impression is that you do want SSM but can’t bring yourself to say so openly. But you can confirm or deny this,
(I will say I wondered if you do have a bit of an animus against evangelicals because you have more than once compared gay clergy lying about their promises to bishops about their sex lives with their civil partners with evangelicals not following Common Worship services, which to me is like comparing chalk with cheese – as well as indicating that you don’t understand Canon B2.)
To be fair to Tim any church which does not have any Common Worship or BCP services is not really Church of England and should be subject to immediate disciplinary measures from the diocese and bishop.
TE: ‘Thanks again for speaking personally and stimulating my thinking.’
JT: ‘Tim, your last comment is really weak.’
Interesting. Especially when we think about how language is used in communication 🙂
Thanks Tim for trying to raise the bar.
Bruce: do you have anything to say on the nature of Christian ethics? Or on correct biblical interpretation? That’s what the discussion here is about.
Bruce: furthermore, the assertion that an *argument is *weak is exactly how a debate about a critical matter should be conducted. There is no ad hominem criticism here of a person or any other logical fallacy.
This is called *raising the bar* in debate. ‘Play the ball, not the man.’
If Tim thinks the ethical arguments and the biblical interpretations of proponents of SSM are better and stronger (not weaker) than historical Christian orthodox teaching on marriage and biblical interpretation of the texts relating to homosexuality, all he has to do is say so and say why.
But this is something that so far, Tim has never done. So his observations are weak.
Bruce:
When I referred to Tim’s ‘last comment’, I did not mean his sign-off line but this preceding paragraph, as should be clear to anyone who read what I went on to say about Christian ethics and biblical interpretation:
“Also, when I read those who support SSM they frequently focus on ethics just as much as anyone else. We may disagree with their ethics but they’re still arguing ethically and some ground their views in Scripture, but read it differently, which is one reason this is such a divisive debate.”
Perhaps you did not understand what I was referring to? I think Tim did understand.
The big problem is that we have mixed up the issues of sexual activity and personal relationships.
The scriptures’ proscription is for a sexual activity which is also medically dangerous.
Social relationships including co-habitation are NOT included in this proscription and should be encouraged, celebrated and blessed.
If we are to move forward we need to stop using expressions which mix up these 2 very distinct issues.
You remind me of Bill Clinton who denied having sexual relations with Monica, because he had rationalised in his own mind that oral sex didnt count. Noone, particularly his wife, accepted his version of reality.
It’s an interesting point Alan, but one thing I’ve learnt in this debate is that the folks on the denialist side are as against celibate partnerships as they are relationships involving anal sex (and anything inbetween). Indeed, one of the most fascinating episodes in the LLF/PLF saga was effort behind closed doors to make sure committed celibate partnerships were undermined as much as possible by redrafting the prayers for covenanted friendship to remove any suggestion that the relationship should be exclusive, and going so far as to clarify that you can enter a covenanted friendship whilst married to someone else.
Adam, some genuine questions:
1. Where in Christian history has a friendship between two persons ever required some kind of liturgical ordering?
2. Marriage does create a legal (and many would say, sacramental) bond between two persons, with all kinds of legal and social entailments, and is a bond that can be broken only by death or by a conscious legal act. What kind of bond would a ‘covenanted friendship’ create and would it have any legal substance?
3. Where in Christian history has a friendship between two persons ever precluded either party marrying a third party or where has that friendship ever had a priority over the legal, moral and social claims that marriage imposes upon parties to a marriage?
In other words, is the idea of a ‘covenanted friendship’ a coherent one in Christian thinking (comparable to the demands imposed on us by baptism and marriage)?
And to add to that-
A friendship is a serious and deep matter. Are we to undergo such ceremonies with all our 50 most treasured friends one by one?
And to precede such ceremonies with formal pledges one by one to our family members to whom we are even more committed?
If you want but no legal basis would be established from it, whereas same sex couples can get married legally in UK law. So PLF offer prayers for those same sex couples within services married in UK law as would now be expected by the established church of England
It is arguments like that, ie rejecting the idea that even the ‘covenanted friendships’ of PLF are specifically for same sex couples which is why I know liberal Catholics and open evangelicals standing for Synod are now openly campaigning to push for bespoke stand alone services for same sex couples in C of E churches or even same sex marriages in same sex services. If conservative evangelicals won’t even respect PLF and covenanted friendships as including same sex couples then the next Synod elections will be dominated by same sex relationships even more than the last ones were
I don’t even understand the concept ‘same sex couple’.
Christopher, what a strange statement for someone who comments so much on this topic on Ian’s blog. How *do* you think language works?
A question you ought to put to the conservative elements who pushed for the changes to covenanted friendships (should they ever deign to let any of us know who they are or why they did it).
It certainly doesn’t work by internal contradiction. That is what stops it working.
It’s not a matter of requiring anything.
Our primary duty as people is to invite God to be the Lord of everything in our lives (ie to make our lives part of God’s kingdom).
Our primary duty as pastors then I would suggest is to encourage people on that Journey.
If people come to us with a part of their lives that they want to publicly announce their intention to bring this under the authority of God then we should be all for it and celebrate this with them. If we should even think about the possibility of turning them away then what on earth are we up to?
I’m not sure why you’re asking me James – I’m not an advocate for covenanted friendships.
Legally recognised marriage creates a legal bond between two people, but not every marriage does that – e.g. you might consider a marriage performed by a free evangelical pastor to be religiously valid, but it won’t have legal standing if he/she isn’t a registered officiant. No one, to my knowledge, has ever suggested that any of the proposals for covenanted friendship would themselves create a legal standing akin to marriage, but I don’t think you have to be too imaginative to see this as the liturgical element of a civil partnership where the partners are not going to engage in sex (e.g. where one is in the clergy).
If you want to look at Christian history some people might point to the practice of adelphopoiesis (or brother-making) in the Orthodox Church that created committed but chaste friendships. One of the reasons it is said to have fallen from favour was precisely because it was creating an obstacle to the parties involved going on to marry other people. I don’t see how this can be comparable to baptism which unlike marriage is an actual sacrament.
Adam: it was you who raised the question of ‘covenanted friendships’ in your comment, as you had before. I was responding to you raising the question of them.
Your second paragraph is largely irrelevant. I was only referring to actual legal marriage – although the difference between that and cohabitation has been substantially eroded in modern Britain. As for clergy being in civil partnerships, from the beginning I have been clear that this was a wrong step and should never have been allowed by the Church of England because of the intolerable ambiguity it creates.
Making another your brother by a ceremony is obviously not something with sexual implications because that would be incest. I think it was Boswell who falsely suggested some years ago that adelphopoeisis had some kind of same-sex partnership.
That’s precisely why I make the point Adam.
We have a pastoral concern for people’s sexual activity but it’s not our job to police it either directly … or indirectly by policing relationship commitments. We have a pastoral concern for advice on commitments but again it’s not our position to police these. It is our place to celebrate when people wish to invite God into those commitments. The RC approach where a decision to perform a blessing or not is taken at a local level where wise discernment is possible case by case would seem to be a good way forward. (even if not officially approved?).
That is the case in the C of E too, it is up to each PCC whether to allow PLF prayers within its Parish church’s services
“Allow” is good as I was thinking of a case by case basis. If those seeking blessing are not committed to following scripture and church teaching in their lives then pastoral advice should be to not seek public blessing as this would be meaningless or counter-productive spiritually for all involved. If those seeking blessing also go public with their determination to ignore the teaching then ministers should be advised to withold the public “blessing”. If the service includes re-affirmation of baptismal vows then this should be a public way of acknowledging the private discussions.
I wonder,
What motivated Ian to air this essay?
Has Paul Chamberlain gained any comfort enlightenment or
enrichment from the various comments expressed?
I’m going to try again something I’ve said before, partly because I’d be quite interested in how Paul Chamberlain reacts to these ideas ….
First, the around 50% of Synod who are supporting ‘SSM’ are not evil but are acting in good faith – but unfortunately are also mistaken. They have accepted the idea that people ‘are’ gay/homosexual/etc in the same kind of way that people ‘are’ for example ethnically black/white/brown/yellow etc. Being black is obviously unchosen and if that comparison stands, then objecting to people being LGB+ (exclude ‘T’ and ‘I’ which are a different kind of issue requiring separate treatment) would be immoral like racism, and good Christians rightly would not want to be guilty of such a sin. But if that comparison does not stand it may be a different matter….
As I understand it, the Christian position is basically that people are meant to love people, including men loving men and women loving women. But it is also clear that biblically God has designed sex as a thing for men to do with women (and indeed ideally between married couples), and acts of sex between same-sex couples are in various ways inappropriate or worse. And that is a key difference between this and things like ethnicity that people ‘just are’. ‘Gay sex’ is not something people just are, it is something you DO, and ipso facto you CHOOSE. That makes it a whole different moral category, and to have sensible moral/rights-and-wrongs discussions you need to understand that.
And yes, in relation to the things people do – in many areas of moral conduct, not just sexuality – there are also things people ‘are’; but they are not quite the same kind of things as ethnicity, morally neutral external appearances like skin colour. Instead they are questions of urges and desires, some of which might reasonably be regarded as temptations; and it should not take a genius to realise that urges and desires are not automatically OK to act on just because people have/are those urges and desires. If God has said gay sex is wrong, then the urges and desires to do it are very much temptations to be resisted.
And Anglicans need to be getting this across to the ‘liberal’ Synod members, especially the bishops – that the ‘gay is like ethnicity’ comparison is invalid, that gay sex is very much a choice, and that urges and desires to do sexual acts (of any kind) are a different moral category to things like skin and hair colour.
Fine, stick to your Baptist church if you wish to do that. The established church of a nation where same sex marriage is legal will be proceeding with PLF and will not be condemning same sex couples married in UK law.
I also don’t see conservative evangelicals getting in as much of a twist about heterosexual couples who have pre marital sex or even commit adultery and remarry as they do about faithful same sex couples
Simon
So “The established church of a nation where same sex marriage is legal ….” will decide that it knows better than God and can defy Him. At which point as a Christian Church it becomes frankly meaningless….
I posted what I did above to have a serious discussion on morality and how right and wrong works – not to get trivial thoughtless world-worshipping responses like yours there. I care that both the LGB+ community and too many Christians are making a major moral category error potentially affecting moral discussion in general. “You cannot be serious!!”
Well it has already defied God on female ordination and remarriage of divorcees in Church if you believe Timothy and Mark must be strictly adhered to. PLF of course are not even same sex marriages in church by contrast or even stand alone services for same sex couples
The CofE has been defying God from the moment it was founded, by being an ‘established church’ which inter alia committed judicial murders in the name of Jesus. I’d say it is rather important that things are not made worse by further defiance and disobedience. Henry VIII had no right to ‘establish’ what is God’s Church, not Henry’s. To add the further disobedience of approving gay sex will not improve a bad situation, but very exactly make it worse.
There is need of a proper discussion of the church’s position on homosexuality taking account of the points I made a few posts above. The rights and wrongs of female ordination and remarriage of divorcees are irrelevant at best; at worst they are the very bad, basically immoral, argument that somehow the further wrongs could somehow make things right. That is not how God’s Church is meant to do business …..
Henry VIII had every right to ‘establish’ a national church in England headed by him, no longer the Pope. PLF is hardly promoting gay sex either, it is prayers within services based on friendship not sex and still far from same sex marriages in C of E churches as liberal Catholics and some open evangelicals want.
Simon
Henry could only have a right to establish the CofE if God gave such a right; but in the NT God actually sets forth a very different way for Church and World to relate and interact. Not even a far better king than Henry can have a right to disobey God and impose his selfish wishes on God’s Church.
God of course anointed St Peter to found his church, the Roman Catholic church. The Church of England is a Catholic but Reformed church which combines apostolic succession with its bishops with more focus on the Bible too. If you don’t believe in apostolic succession or any form of Catholicism you should not be in the C of E anyway but say a Baptist like you
Simon
The various forms of state church including CofE ‘establishment’ are not original Christianity but essentially a major heresy going back only to the 4th century CE when Constantine hijacked Christianity to replace a dying paganism. The teaching of Jesus and the apostles recorded in the New Testament is a very different arrangement for both Church and State. And ‘apostolic succession’ which disobeys the original NT apostolic teaching is rather meaningless, just an excuse for church leaders to do their own thing rather than follow the actual teaching of real apostles.
Evangelicals follow actual apostolic teaching; Peter’s teaching in his first epistle is fundamental to Anabaptism for instance. The Peter who wrote that epistle would not support what Roman Catholicism later became supposedly in his name.
Yes I know evangelicals like you think that and reject apostolic succession and the view of Catholics that Christ told Peter to found his church on a rock. The Church of England though is a Catholic but Reform church, it has never been purely evangelical, with the possible exceptions of the reign of Edward VI and the protectorate of Cromwell
Stephen Langton,
I share your views about church polity, Establishment and hierarchy (although might be tactful not to repeat them on almost every thread on an Anglican blog). But I fail to understand why everybody blames Constantine. More culpable is the Bishop of Rome (Pope?) during most of Constantine’s reign, Sylvester, who let himself be tempted by Constantine’s well-meant offer of prestige and wealth for the church. Also it was not until AD381 that Christianity became the religion of State of the Roman Empire, more than 40 years after Constantine’s death.
For a well-thought-out book about Constantine that is thoroughly up to date, I recommend Timothy Barnes’ biography.
Anthony Williamson
It was I think one of the problems of the if you like ‘nationalisation’ of the Church into the Roman Empire was that it was a long drawn out process and I think that is why the Church – for example the Pope you reference – in a way didn’t ‘catch on’ as it was gradually ‘sucked in’. Constantine started the process, and went far further than merely tolerating the Christian faith and it is a convenient shorthand to ‘blame’ him overall.
I’m saying a lot about the ‘establishment’ in the current arguments simply because I think the entanglement with the state is significantly responsible for the degree of ‘conformity to the world’ (Romans 12; 2) that we see now in areas like sexuality. I might also say less but for Simon Baker’s responses, which I feel is a bit of a case of Simon’s support does more harm to the Church than my opposition.
Stephen,
Quicker than you seem to think. Once it was realised that the emperor favoured Christianity and was throwing money at the church, people piled into it to gain imperial favour and for the money, rather than out of conviction. Supporters of rivals to succeed a recently deceased Bishop of Rome brawled to lethal effect in the streets of the city in 366AD and in the church of Santa Maria Maggiore.
One should not rely on mainstream church historians who minimise these things or on charismatic modern historians who are poor scholars and maximise them. Seeking out the truth is not easy.
Anthony
Not sooner than I think – the Donatist War was during Constantine’s reign. It was still 381 before Theodosius crossed the important line of making an edict that imperial citizens must be Christians. And confusing Church and world is part of the current dynamic – while very hard to avoid in an establishment situation …..
Getting in a twist? What a shallow phrase. Opposing because of the harm they do to precious people.
You are still basing everything on ‘two wrongs make a right’ (which automatically means: debate lost). And to make things worse, every time this is pointed out, you just go on doing it.
Are you arguing that sexual orientation is just a delusion (i.e. no one is actually gay or straight or anything else – it’s just a construction running in our head that we can dismantle at any time)? Or that whilst real, it is essentially trivial and easily ignored?
Adam: who is the ‘you’ you are addressing here? Unfortunately, the format of this blog means that strings can get very long and it becomes impossible to follow some.
People taking part should always specify who they are responding to.
I imagine you are responding to Stephen Langton. He can answer for himself, but I would respond that the Bible and Christian wisdom down the ages teach us that desires are certainly real within us (read Romans 7!) but they are not constitutive of our new identity in Christ. Whether we choose to act on desires is another question. Some of the factors that influence this are:
1. The strength of the desires.
2. How much pleasure or satisfaction fulfilment of desires gives us.
3. How often we have followed these desires. (# 2 and 3 refer to the reinforcing of behaviour through pleasurable outcomes.)
4. Whether we cultivate desires (e.g. by pornography or one’s thought world).
5. Whether we sublimate desires in other behaviour.
6. Whether old desires weaken and new ones arise.
It’s a general fact of life that libido drops off after the late 50s for men, earlier for women. This is biologically normal. Some older lesbian couples have basically sexless relationships after a few years, whereas male homosexuals tends to follow male patterns of behaviour (but without the restrictions that heterosexual monogamy imposes).
Adam
Sexual ‘orientation’ indeed has a reality; as do all the other assorted urges and desires that people follow when they sin against God. These sinful desires are all part of the disruption of human life resulting from human rebellion against God. The point is that such urges and desires are NOT, as LGB+ propaganda claims, the same kind of reality as things like ethnic differences. Such differences people simply are and they do not make people do things. Sexual urges and desires, like the urges and desires to lie and steal, are not about what people simply ‘are’, they’re about things people DO and barring insanity CHOOSE to do, and are in a different moral category. People’s urges and desires to do things can appear irresistible; but they are not morally right just because people have the urges and desires. Some urges and desires, strong as they may be, are temptations which we are called on to resist and to repent of.
And note that same-sex love is fine – see David and Jonathan; what is wrong in Christian terms is to express that love through what is not sex as God designed but a self-serving parody of God’s design.
*false dichotomy alert*
Adam: you are always setting up false dichotomies (or straw men) – and when you are called to task over this, you fail to respond. Or change the subject.
NOBODY ever said desires (especially sexual desires) are “essentially trivial and easily ignored” – so why does Adam interject this comment?
For deflection and avoidance, I think. Adam, don’t set up straw men to be kicked apart, as if that is how you dispose of an argument.
Adam knows there are all kinds of desires or attractions that humans have – attractions that are good, bad or indifferent – and few, if any, of them are easy to ignore. The mere existence of a desire, however, doesn’t tell us if it’s good or right. It might be; but all a desire tells us is that induces some kind of pleasure in us. Aquinas tells us that all our actions are directed to achieving some kind of ‘good’ for ourselves; but this doesn’t tell us if that “good” is God’s actual will for us.
If it’s me you’re suggesting is ‘falsely dichotomous’, please explain in more detail.
Stephen: this is why we should always reference who we are responding to – too much confusion with this format.
James – this is a rare occasion I didn’t …..
Back to the subject – how are evangelicals to get it across to liberals that while we accept their basic good faith, their position is still based on a category error of what kind of thing ‘gayness’ is; that it’s NOT the same kind of thing as ethnicity and acting as if it is actually confuses moral thought in general. Because unless we deal with that, the position will remain intractable forever.
Stephen Langton:
Yes, “gayness” is not the same kind of thing as ethnicity. I don’t know why you keep on labouring that point; I’m sure that we’ve all got the message by now. It is the same kind of thing as “straightness”: in other words, being homosexual (same-sex attracted), like being heterosexual (opposite-sex attracted), is a sexual orientation. Sexual orientation does, however, have one thing in common with ethnicity: it is not something that people choose. Sexual behaviour, on the other hand, is chosen – except, of course, when it is coerced, as in the case of rape.
William
I “keep on labouring that point” because, in order to justify their conduct, the LGBTIQ+ community keep on making the claim that being ‘gay’ IS like ethnicity. Which in turn means that lots of Christians accepting that (including it seems around half of the CofE Synod) believe they cannot oppose homosexuality because that would be equivalent to being racist and opposing people for their ethnicity.
Yes this needs to be balanced by the understanding that in a “fallen” or “sin-affected” human world not everybody has straightforward urges and desires as would be the case in an unfallen world. As Paul expresses it everyone is in some degree a ‘captive’ to sin or a ‘slave’ of sin, and that applies to sexuality too. For some people it is in that area that the temptations are strong and unusually hard to resist and the urges and desires go beyond what is healthy and appropriate. And because we are in the area of urges and desires to DO things, not in the area of things people ‘just are’ like their skin colour, the temptations should be resisted.
Stephen Langton:
“The LGBTIQ+ community” is just a ridiculous fiction, invented by aggressive trans activists and peddlers of “queer theory”, in an attempt to con/bully gay, lesbian and bisexual people – and people with congenital disorders of physical development also – into thinking that they are somehow obliged to support their anti-factual “gender” ideology and crackpot demands. I need hardly say that no such obligation exists. And even LGB people are not a monolithic community with a single opinion on the matter. Christians can and should think for themselves.
William
In some ways I agree with you that the LGBTIQ+ thing is rather artificial. Unfortunately it’s also a significant pressure group and that is a convenient way to refer to it. Obviously when discussing different aspects I will make any necessary distinctions.
EVERYBODY should think for themselves…..
William: actually ‘ethnicity’ by some definitions *can be chosen – when it means a national or tribal identification, delineated by customs, beliefs and language. All these things can be learned with varying degrees of success, because they have a high cultural component, and any human being can be raised in (or strive to adopt) a particular culture. There is nothing genetic about that.
I think you are using the word to mean biological race, which isn’t chosen but is established from conception.
Are you arguing that sexual orientation is genetically established by conception or gestation? If so, you are saying that newborns have a fixed sexual orientation and nothing thet happens afterward can change this. I do not think there is any biological evidence for such a belief – if that is what you believe.
If, on the other hand, *any child could develop *any sexual orientation, then we are not talking about something as immutable and non-environmental in nqture as skin colour, hair type or basic musculoskeletal body shape.
Then our focus switches to those environmental (and relational) factors that influence a child’s psychosexual development. Do you have any idea what these might be?
James Thompson:
Yes, I was using the word “ethnicity” in the sense of biological race.
No, I am not arguing that sexual orientation is genetically established by conception or gestation, or that newborns have a fixed sexual orientation. If I were to say that, I would be stating as a fact something that I have no means of knowing. I have said earlier on here that sexual orientation does not normally manifest itself until puberty. If sexual orientation is already programmed in some way at birth – and I do stress IF – we have at present no way of detecting it.
Can *any* child develop *any* sexual orientation? Again, I don’t know the answer to that. There are countless theories concerning what it is that determines people’s sexual orientation, ranging across the entire spectrum from prima facie plausible to downright daft, but they share one thing in common: they all remain unproven to date. What we do know is that, no matter what its cause, people do not choose their sexual orientation. It may be fluid during adolescence, and it apparently continues to be fluid in some women, but it seldom changes in adult males, and deliberate attempts to MAKE it change are generally futile.
There is no common sense in favour of it either, since
babies are asexual
identical twins can end up taking divergent routes far too often for the genetic theory.
However, there is plenty of evidence against it, in the form of all the percentages that are much higher than they would be if it were a mere matter of biology. Hence-
-rates of LG in lesbian-parented
-rates of L in university educated
-rates of LG in congenial cultures
-rates of G in urban settings
-rates of G in molested
-rates of L in feeling hard done by for treatment by men
-rates of LG in unsettled adolescents as compared with post-25s
-rates of LG in settings where early sexual debut and/or promiscuity are higher than average.
But the main evidence is that this ‘non-biological’ or ‘clear-minority-biological’ point has been repeated so very often, and those arguing against it are either intellectually unable to grasp it or predisposed to ignore it (which would mark them as people who are prepared to be dishonest – how then can they be part of the debate?).