Why is the debate on sexuality and marriage in the Church of England (and other churches) such a big deal? Why can’t we just agree to disagree—to get on together and learn to live with difference?
Two groups regularly say that to me. The first is those who want change in the Church’s teaching. Why are evangelicals making such a fuss? they ask. The Church has altered its practice on marriage in various ways in the past? Why can’t we make this adjustment now?
But the other group are those who are busy getting on with the business of planting new churches, growing current ones, and reaching young people. They are often younger, and have not been engaged so much with the ‘politics’ of the Church (lucky them!). Why can’t we just get on with the business of ministry? Will this issue really make much difference? After all, we have continued with gospel ministry in the past when the leadership has believed all sorts of questionable things—so why is this different?
An immediate response to both groups might be to say—you are right, it is not such a big deal. We are not talking about central Christian doctrines like the incarnation, salvation, or the Trinity. But here’s an interesting test case: suppose the bishops of the C of E starting saying ‘Lying is ok. It is really about an alternative way for expressing authenticity. And the Bible isn’t as clear as you think on this.’ This would not be attacking a ‘central Christian doctrine’—it is not mentioned in the Creed! Yet I am sure many would feel the need to separate themselves from such leadership.
In fact, in surprising ways, the debate about sexuality is connected with many of these primary questions. So I would like to set out the reasons why this is a big deal, and why it is different from disputes in the past, under ten headings.
1. Sexuality is a big deal. Full stop.
Our bodies matter. In particular, our sexed bodies matter. We can see this in all sorts of ways—not least in the often lasting damage that is done to people who experience sexual abuse. How people treat our sexed bodies has a huge impact on how we feel about ourselves, especially so for women. For Christians, this is confirmation that we are body-soul (‘psychosomatic’) unities, and not spirits or souls who happen to have bodies. Our bodies are who we are, not what we have.
Because our sexed bodies are such a big deal, this has often made issues around sex, marriage, and sexuality very difficult to talk about, since they are deeply personal, and talking about them with others risks exposing our deepest hopes and fears. In reaction to that, our culture is currently engaged in a furious debate about these issues, precisely because they are so important. In fact, many both within the Church and outside it do not believe that we can ‘agree to disagree’, since they believe that the Church changing its teaching is essential for the wellbeing of sexual minorities, and is non-negotiable. Whichever way you look at it, sex matters.
Given that sexuality is so important to us, and in our culture, it would be odd for the Church not to have something important to say.
2. There have been huge changes in culture
When cultures and societies are in stable periods without much change, then there is not much need for discussion. But when change happens, there needs to be conversation and exploration, since we do not know what the implications of change might be.
Since at least the Second World War, Western culture has been convulsed by changes relating to sex, sexuality and marriage. The war itself challenged social roles for women and men; this was followed by a conformist reaction; and this in turn was challenged by the ‘sexual revolution’ of the 1960s and beyond. Feminism challenged the social significance of bodily difference, and this in turn challenged the importance of motherhood and therefore parenting—a move which some feminists now think was bad for women.
The challenge to the importance of bodily form has been exacerbated by the rise of the internet. It is now possible to have what feels like a meaningful relationship with another person without ever being in their bodily presence. The reinforces a sense that our ‘true’ selves are our inner selves, detached from our bodies, and so it is our feelings and emotions that tell us the truth about who we are. This approach has been described as ‘expressive individualism‘, and it has huge implications for culture, ethics, ideas of truth, and for Christians, what we think the gospel says.
It is this change which is behind many of the arguments for accepting same-sex marriage. If we are defined by our interior desires, and not by our bodies, why shouldn’t two people who desire each other get married, regardless of their bodies? It is fascinating to note how recent this change is; I was at university with both Evan Davies, a prominent gay campaigner within the BBC, and Angela Eagle, a gay member of Parliament, which is the world’s gayest—yet same-sex marriage wasn’t even on the agenda when we were students.
Since this call is founded on massive changes in understanding what it means to be human, this raises big questions for Christians, because…
3. In the biblical narrative, what it means to be human mirrors the truth about God
To put it in more theological terms: anthropology is the mirror of theology. The story of Scripture is the interwoven thread of the actions of God towards humanity and his people, and their response to him. For every truth about God, there is a corresponding truth about what it means to be human. God is creator, which means that we are creatures; we are finite and limited, unlike God, and there is a givenness about who we are which means we cannot simply create ourselves. God is holy, and calls us to holiness—but we are sinful, and in need of forgiveness. God is saviour, one who graciously rescues all who call on him—and so on.
This means that, when we change significantly in the way we think about what it means to be human, without realising it we end up changing the way we think about God. I have noticed, in engaging in the debate about sexuality, something curious: almost all the people who are arguing for change in the Church of England’s doctrine of marriage are universalists, that is, they believe that ultimately all people will be saved, whether or not they respond in repentance and faith to the call of God found in the good news about Jesus. I think the connection here is that acceptance of gay sexuality as a parallel to other-sex marriage is based on the idea that what is, is what ought to be. We should affirm people as they are rather than call them to any kind of change. This seems to me to be at odds with the core message of the Scriptures, and the central preaching of Jesus, who called people to ‘repent and believe’ (Mark 1.15), that is, turn away from what is, and live a new life; he came to ‘call sinners to repentance’ (Luke 5.22) and not merely affirm them as they were and are.
In particular, the creation story of male and female, affirmed by Jesus as the basis of our understanding of marriage (Matt 19.4), becomes in the biblical narrative a metaphor for God’s relationship with his people. Many have argued that this is about hierarchy, but in fact there is no sense of hierarchy at all between the sexed in either Genesis 1 and 2. Rather, this is about the unity of difference; the man and woman are ‘bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh’, but are also distinctively different from one another. God is repeatedly described as Israel’s husband (Is 54.5); Hosea’s marriage to Gomer offers a picture of God’s relationship to his people; Jesus describes himself as the bridegroom who will be united with his bride, the people of God (Matt 9.15 and parallels; Matt 25.1); and the return of Jesus, the making of all things new, and the presence of God with his people is described as the ‘wedding feast of the lamb’ (Rev 19.7, 9) with the New Jerusalem, the people of God, as the bride (Rev 21.9, 22.17). All this imagery is lost when marriage is between two people of the same sex.
4. Jesus’ teaching on marriage was clear and consistent
When Jesus was challenged in Matt 19 and Mark 10 about the interpretation of a regulation about divorce in Deuteronomy 24.1, his response is instructive. The debate was between the school of the rabbi Shammai, who read the text as saying ‘he should not divorce his wife except he find an indecent thing’, that is, she has been unfaithful; but the school of Hillel read it as saying ‘…except he find in her indecency [and a] thing’, that is, either she has been unfaithful, or there is any other displeasing thing. The question Jesus is asked is not ‘is there any reason why a man can divorce a woman?’ but ‘Do you agree with ‘any reason’ divorce or not?’. Instead of getting into the minutiae of this textual debate, Jesus stands back and looks at the big picture—not just of the creation of woman and the institution of marriage in Gen 2, but further back to the creation of humanity in Gen 1. Marriage should be understood as arising from God’s creation of humanity as male and female. After all, if there was not sex difference, there would be no sexual desire in the first place!
Jesus’ view of marriage as between a man and a woman was entirely typical of first-century Judaism, and consistent with the rest of Scripture. All ancient cultures (and many modern ones) recognised that a small minority of the population were different, in having a settled attraction to those of the same sex. In the ancient world, marriage and procreation were seen as key to the survival of society, so such people could be perceived as a threat, but there was often some sort of provision made for them. The Old Testament is unique amongst Ancient Near Eastern texts in not doing so—on the basis of God’s creation of male and female as the basis for sexual relationships. That is why all mainstream, critical scholars agree that the biblical texts and the teaching of Jesus is clear and consistent—though many of them think it is wrong.
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”).
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).
It is common to hear people claim ‘Jesus never said anything about homosexuality’. But he did not need to—just as he did not need to say anything about incest, or other specific aspects of sexual immorality, since there was a clear consensus in Judaism on these questions, rooted in the sexual prohibitions in Leviticus. Jesus was concerned about issues of sexual immorality, and his reference to porneia would have been heard by anyone listening to him as including same-sex sex within that category of immorality.
5. Paul took the teaching of Jesus into the gentile world and made it explicit
We do find explicit rejection of same-sex sexual relationship in Paul’s writings—but not very often. Again, the reason is that Paul assumed that both Jewish and Gentile followers of Jesus followed Jesus’ own teaching about marriage, and accepted Jewish sexual ethics, rejecting same-sex relationships of all forms, which had wide acceptance in the first-century world. William Loader has probably written more than any other scholar on the questions of sexuality in the New Testament.
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).
Some claim that the ancient world did not know what we do, that some people appear to be ‘born gay’. But that is not the case. Virgil’s Aeneid includes a narrative about Nisus and Euryalus, male warriors and lovers, who are depicted as exhibiting the same manly virtues as Aeneas himself. Centuries earlier, in Plato’s Symposium, the speech of Phaedrus depicts same-sex sexual desire as more virtuous than men’s love of women, and notes it is a desire for life-long commitment, whilst the speech of Aristophanes offers a ‘biological’ explanation for settled same-sex attraction. Tom Wright comments:
As a classicist, I have to say that when I read Plato’s Symposium, or when I read the accounts from the early Roman empire of the practice of homosexuality, then it seems to me they knew just as much about it as we do. In particular, a point which is often missed, they knew a great deal about what people today would regard as longer-term, reasonably stable relations between two people of the same gender. This is not a modern invention.
The late E P Sanders, a major Pauline scholar of the last generation, in his 2015 book on the Apostle Paul included specific sections on sexuality in the first century, and Paul’s teaching.
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…
Diaspora Jews had made sexual immorality and especially homosexual activity a major distinction between themselves and gentiles, and Paul repeated Diaspora Jewish vice lists. I see no reason to focus on homosexual acts as the one point of Paul’s vice lists [in 1 Cor 6.9] that must be maintained today.
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 ‘fathers’ of the early church were consistent in rejecting all forms of same-sex sexual relationship, frequently citing both Jesus’ teaching that marriage was based on the creation of male and female, and Paul’s teaching in Romans 1 and 1 Cor 6.9. And this was one aspect of the early church’s distinct, counter-cultural approach to sexual morality—which most Romans and Greeks found deeply offensive, because it challenged their cherished ideals of masculinity. Rodney Stark, in The Rise of Christianity chapter 5 ‘The Role of Women’ demonstrates not only how counter-cultural this ethic was, but how it was a key part of church growth, both by attracting many to its ethic, and leading to greater fertility amongst Christians, so that the community of faith grew from one generation to the next.
7. The doctrine of marriage is embedded in the Church of England
For Anglicans, the doctrine of marriage is embedded in the structure of the Church of England in surprisingly strong ways. Not many Anglican clergy spend their leisure hours reading the canons of the Church—but this debate has put the spotlight on them. Here is the relevant canon (which means rule, or law) on marriage:
B 30 Of Holy Matrimony
1. The Church of England affirms, according to our Lord’s teaching, that marriage is in its nature a union permanent and lifelong, for better for worse, till death them do part, of one man with one woman, to the exclusion of all others on either side, for the procreation and nurture of children, for the hallowing and right direction of the natural instincts and affections, and for the mutual society, help and comfort which the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity.
2. The teaching of our Lord affirmed by the Church of England is expressed and maintained in the Form of Solemnization of Matrimony contained in The Book of Common Prayer.
3. It shall be the duty of the minister, when application is made to him for matrimony to be solemnized in the church of which he is the minister, to explain to the two persons who desire to be married the Church’s doctrine of marriage as herein set forth, and the need of God’s grace in order that they may discharge aright their obligations as married persons.
Three things to notice here. First, this canon is quite clear that the Church’s doctrine of marriage is directly derived from the teaching of Jesus. Secondly, the possibility of remarriage after divorce with the previous partner still living has not changed the doctrine of marriage: when I conduct a wedding, I still believe that the couple are making a lifelong commitment, even if sin might threaten that. Thirdly, because the Church of England is established by law, this canon is part of the law of the land, and was approved by Parliament.
The reason why this is such a big deal comes from the reference in the second paragraph to the Book of Common Prayer. As Canon A5 makes clear, this, along with the other formularies, forms the constitution of the Church of England:
A 5 Of the doctrine of the Church of England
The doctrine of the Church of England is grounded in the Holy Scriptures, and in such teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church as are agreeable to the said Scriptures.
In particular such doctrine is to be found in the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, The Book of Common Prayer, and the Ordinal.
If we change B30, then we are going to have to rewrite A5. If we do so, then it would be hard to argue that whatever we end up with remains the ‘Church of England’ in any meaningful sense. It will have a completely different constitution, foundation, and basis for doctrine.
8. Marriage between a man and a woman is the teaching of the church catholic
In his outstanding book, Marriage, Scripture, and the Church, Darrin Snyder Belousek makes this observation:
The creational-covenant pattern of marriage…is a consensus doctrine of the church catholic. Until the present generation, all Christians everywhere have believed, and every branch of the Christian tradition has taught, that marriage is man-woman monogamy… Marriage, the whole church has always confessed, is not only a monogamous union but also a man-woman union.’ (p 52).
If the Church of England changes its doctrine of marriage, it will be distinguishing itself from being part of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church on this important issue—as it has already forfeited its place in and leadership of the Anglican Communion.
9. The teaching of Jesus that marriage is between one man and one woman is a gift the world desperately needs
The Christian sexual ethic, including the core claim that marriage is between one man and one woman, has served in the past to restrain men’s desires, given women security, and protected children. It is no accident that the sexualisation of anthropology, and the belief that having sex is a key part of human fulfilment, has led to some appalling material being used in schools, exposing children to inappropriate sexually explicit images and ideas.
Mark Regnerus, in Cheap Sex, has analysed the massive shift in approaches to marriage and sexuality in the West since the 1960s. He notes that, in the past, there was a kind of social contract: men wanted sexual intimacy, and women wanted security. Marriage was the structure in which each party’s needs were met. The liberation of sex has undermined this, so that men ‘pay less’ in commitment for sexual intimacy, and women lose the security they had. Both end up as losers.
Feminist atheist Louise Perry also thinks that changes arising from the sexual revolution, and its rejection of both marriage and motherhood, has been a disaster for women, and ‘made modernity sterile’. Our detachment of sex from procreation is leading to a catastrophic decline in fertility and childbirth; in South Korea, the fertility rate is the lowest in the world, at 0.78, which means that every 100 people will have only 15 grandchildren. In the UK the rate is 1.53, which means that 100 people will have only 58 grandchildren—the population will nearly halve after two generations.
Of course, none of this is the result of agreeing with same-sex marriage. But all of them spring from the assumptions that lie behind the affirmation of same-sex marriage—the shift to seeing sex and sexuality as identity, ideology, and pleasure, in contrast to historic Christian and biblical understandings. I am not suggesting here that traditional approaches to marriage are without their (sometimes serious) problems, or that marriage solves all the world’s ills. We are fallen, sinful people, and sinful people in marriage still sin. But the loss of a cultural belief in male-female marriage, shaped by Christian doctrine in Christendom, has been very damaging.
10. Only churches which continue to believe that marriage is between a man and a woman are growing
Churches which have changed their doctrine of marriage have all divided and declined, often catastrophically. The Episcopal Church in the States is facing terminal collapse in attendance, whilst bishops take clergy and congregations to court to sue for possession of their buildings. The Methodists, Presbyterians, and Mennonites in America are all splitting on this. In the UK, the Methodists decided last year to agree ‘contradictory doctrines’, and in the short time since, there has been widespread collapse in attendance. The Scottish Episcopal Church affirmed same-sex marriage in 2017; membership has declined from 32,141 in 2015 to 24,039 in 2021 (a 25% drop) and Sunday attendance has fallen from 12,596 to 7,644, a 40% drop in six years. Affirmation of same-sex marriage has accelerated, not reversed, the decline.
Whilst attendance in historic denominations who are debating this is plummeting, church-going overall in England and Wales is not in decline. It is the ‘new’ churches, who consistently uphold the historic teaching on marriage, who are growing, and attracting young people. I see this in my own city: the only churches in Nottingham which are growing and attracting young people hold to the teaching of Jesus on this question. There are some individual churches around the country which affirm same-sex marriage and are growing, but they are relatively few and far between, and they buck the trend at denominational and national level.
So those are my reasons for believing that this debate is a big deal for the Church of England.
To my first group of critics, who seek change in the Church’s doctrine, I say: you are pressing us to turn from the teaching of Jesus and the consensus of the church catholic on an issue which is of great importance to people, which will do them harm, and which will ultimately change the fundamental nature of the C of E.
To my second group of critics I say: yes, this might not yet have a direct impact on your important ministry—now. But this debate, and the pressure for change, will bring division, decline, and self-destruction on the Church in which you minister. It is cutting away at the very foundations of what you want to do—and unless you add your voice to those who feel compelled to resist, this will end badly.
I think it goes back further than the 1960s. It might be argued that the Renaissance and the Protestant Reformation unleashed ideas that elevated human autonomy as a central feature of self -identity. The former laid the groundwork of ‘what feels good to me’ and self-actualisation, and the latter led to a multiplicity of denominations with each interpreting the Bible as they see fit. The explosive growth of this phenomenon in recent years IMO, has come about due to the influence of the internet which acts like a massive amplifier.
Unless the church can clearly articulate a vision of what being human is and show that it is morally superior to the moral absurdities of progressive secularism like we are now seeing being fed to our children in schools, then society will continue along the way it’s going.
Thanks Chris. I wouldn’t disagree with that—it has been a long trajectory.
But I think the logic of this has only had an impact in terms of sexuality since the marginalisation of the body in the 1960s…
But I think the logic of this has only had an impact in terms of sexuality since the marginalisation of the body in the 1960s
The technology of the sixties allowed the existing theoretical principles to be put into practice by the general public rather than just dissolute Romantic poets. But technology can’t be uninvented, so the fight must be on the battleground of the principles. Fortunately we now have ample evidence that what might sound like appealing theoretical ideas always lead to misery in practice. Unfortunately that doesn’t seem to have led to the extinction of Communists.
Perhaps there are more ancient sources. Gnosticism privileged the immaterial over the material. The worship of individual autonomy seems to reflect that whisper: “you will be like gods.”
Yes indeed. Some people characterise our current moment as ‘a new gnosticism.’
In some ways, gay and trans anthropology is quite Platonic.
A Platonic relationship, in the truest sense.
1 Timothy 3:1-5, says it all to me.
We live in an age where it is fashionable to be “lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God’; and where many may have “an outward form of religion, but deny it’s potential moral power”. (cf. 1 Tim. 3:5).
In my opinion, the case for same-gender sexual relations can be effectively refuted on the grounds of medical science, Christian and Jewish traditions, and above all, Scripture.
As if there’s any substantially valid distinction between “Christian tradition(s)” and Scripture 😉
Great article. Of course, we can say ‘none of this is the result of…’ but statistically factors at one more remove can very often have a far higher percentage effect than factors at one fewer remove.
Tom Wright often justly complains that he agrees with those who think they disagree with him – his only beef is that they do not see as wide a context as he does.
There is no particular cutoff point beyond which context ceases to be relevant. It is all relevant.
The butterfly’s wings in chaos theory are misleading. They are indeed relevant to the setting off of a natural disaster, but not in isolation but only in combination with all other factors.
Ian: “God is repeatedly described as Israel’s husband.”
People often use metaphors that draw on what an audience is familiar with… and the accepted culture at the time.
Jesus often deployed familiar things in his exchanges.
So it’s not hard to see the image of a husband and wife being used in a culture where that was by far the dominant norm.
The heart of the husband-wife metaphor in relation to God and God’s people… is not about reproduction, it’s not about the genders per se… it’s about covenant love.
And gay couples can know and express and experience covenant love too.
It’s just that, speaking to his audience back then, that example would be lost on them.
The heart of the husband-wife metaphor in relation to God and God’s people… is not about reproduction, it’s not about the genders per se… it’s about covenant love.
Actually it’s not, it’s about two different, complimentary things being joined inseparably together.
You’re literalising the metaphor.
The core issue isn’t sex, it’s covenant love.
You’re literalising the metaphor.
No, that would be saying God was a man and Israel was a woman, which would be silly.
The core issue isn’t sex, it’s covenant love.
The core issue is not sex or covenant love, it’s a joining of different yet complementary equals.
There’s nothing automatically godly about a covenant, any more than about commitment (so often quoted as a positive characteristic of SSUs). The Bible talks about a “covenant with death”; and thieves who “commit” to help each other burgle, do nothing but multiply the sin.
Where husband and wife was the dominant norm?
What a strange culture that must be.
After all, family trees and biology show that the way human beings come about is rarely in that manner.
As for their being married – who would want that statistical level of stability?
I think there’s a bigger problem here. We’re being invited to believe that God created male and female, and instituted marriage, not because to do so was good, but in order that St Paul would have an appropriate metaphor to use about Christ and Church in the 1st century. Such an invitation reduces God to a dilettante puppetmaster. It’s quite at odds with how God Himself describes creation or the nature of His instructions to His people.
We’re being invited to believe that God created male and female, and instituted marriage, not because to do so was good, but in order that St Paul would have an appropriate metaphor to use about Christ and Church in the 1st century.
No one has actually suggested that.
“Marriage should be understood as arising from God’s creation of humanity as male and female. After all, if there was not sex difference, there would be no sexual desire in the first place!”
You don’t think men can have sexual desire for other men? Or that women can have sexual desire for other women?
I don’t think your second sentence reflects reality. A lot of people don’t desire a person ‘because, in principle, when all’s said and done, they have different sexual organs to me’. They desire a person because they look attractive, they like their personality, they feel protective towards them, or they just gel together.
The desire and attraction is still driven by their hormones, and their sexual nature (not least that great sexual cockpit, the brain)… it’s still sexual desire if they sexually desire a person who is ‘same-sex’.
I am making a logical, biological, and theological observation.
If in nature there was no sexual reproduction, only vegetative reproduction, there would be no sexual desire.
That’s quite different from saying if there was no sex difference, there would be no sexual desire.
Faithful evangelicals will need to do more than sign a petition. Time to declare “the debate is over – now for action”. Action to Christians often of course means the use of words (the sword of the Spirit), but further debate with the opposing party within the church is clearly futile. We should embarrass heretical bishops and archbishops. Most of them match the psychological profile of an administrator rather than a leader, and will probably resort to bullying using the authority of their office rather than their personality – but back down if the pressure is kept up. I’ve specified some actions on the June 15th thread.
Amen, Anton.
“Jesus’ view of marriage as between a man and a woman was entirely typical of first-century Judaism, and the consistent with the rest of Scripture.”
I agree.
But Jesus was talking to that audience, so the obvious image for marriage for them was one man and one woman. The core point he was making was that marriage involves a covenant and givenness between two people, and that covenant is important.
Since the audience had no conception as man-man sex as a basis for marriage in their society, it was obviously not the best vehicle for Jesus to use, when talking about covenant love.
He does not condemn such a relationship. He doesn’t even mention it, anymore than he mentions computers or astrophysics. It’s just not the helpful platform for connecting with his audience on the importance of faithful covenant love.
Of course, we should also bear in mind that the New Testament narratives were written by ‘reporters’ who culturally (in their religious cultures) couldn’t conceive of marriage between men as legitimate. That was their culture. But it may not be ours.
God is numinous, and far deeper than us (obviously). So there are all kinds of ‘unsaids’ of Jesus, behind his ‘knowns’ and teachings. Being honest I agree there is no affirmation of man-man sex in the narratives. But it’s a leap to claim God could not conceive of it.
The very fact that heterosexual marriage was so typical of 1st Century Judaism, in itself explains why Jesus would reference and frame teaching on marriage around a culture they were familiar with, without at any point specifically outlawing possible future cultural understandings of covenant love and fidelity (which of course gay and lesbian couples can do with devotion).
‘The core point he was making was that marriage involves a covenant’ No, the core point he was making was that it was between one man and one woman. Why on earth are you ignoring the actual words Jesus uses?
I’ll answer that one: because it would be “literalist”, lol.
“It is common to hear people claim ‘Jesus never said anything about homosexuality’. But he did not need to—just as he did not need to say anything about incest, or other specific aspects of sexual immorality.”
The fact remains that none of the biblical authors report hearing Him say anything specific about homosexuality. Or if they did, they were so culturally immersed (and maybe homophobic) that they didn’t really ‘hear’ Him.
Also, I think it’s a bit sad to couple gay issues with something abusive like incest (or as others do, bestiality). Love and marriage between two men or between two women can be deeply devoted, sacrificial, caring, brave, protective, loving.
There is no similarity with having sex with your sister or mother, or disgusting stuff with animals.
It is Leviticus which condemns it together with those things, in the same passage. What attitude did Jesus take to the written laws of Moses?
‘none of the biblical authors report hearing Him say anything specific about homosexuality’ Why would they? Why would be need to?
Why is consenting incest between two adults ‘abusive’? Why cannot it be ‘deeply devoted, sacrificial, caring, brave, protective, loving’? I think you are being incestaphobic here. Repent!
You could be right on that one!
I suspect most people think marriage between brothers and sisters is a bit dodgy.
Whereas I’m pretty sure most people (in England) think gay sex is perfectly alright.
And the church has no authority to tell them how to behave. But the question is whether God thinks gay sex is perfectly alright and what then to hold believers in God to.
The incest example is difficult because I know so many find it offensive to compare/ contrast same sex relationships and incest.
Jonathan Haidt (non Christian social psychologist) in his book the Righteous Mind speaks of moral taste buds and why people think things are morally wrong. He says these are : Care/harm
Fairness/cheating
Loyalty/betrayal
Authority/subversion
Sanctity/degradation
He argues that Western culture focuses on the 1st 3 and Eastern and more traditional culture focuses on the final 3.
The reason incest is becoming challenging for those who are more politically or theologically liberal – is that the taste bud that is mostly used is care/harm – we look for a victim and if there is no victim then it is seen as ok. With incest the only victim would be a possible child but with full proof contraception (if possible) there is no victim, which makes it hard to oppose except relying on a different taste bud – sanctity and degradation.
For progressive Christians from what I observe the issue is the first three taste buds and it is about justice, love (no victim) etc . For orthodox Christians we think God’s commands appeal to all 6 taste buds and some things we may not know anyway.
It’s not about what people in England currently accept or don’t accept (only 1 to 2% actively go to church in most places.) Majority opinion can be very wrong – in the early 20th century many Westerners preached eugenics including many clergy and some Bishops (eg Bishop of Birmingham).
The key is what does scripture say in its entirety and interpreting it in light of the whole swathe of salvation history (creation to new creation), in its context and in light of Jesus.
Thanks, Andy, that is really helpful.
Worth noting, though, that Bible Society research shows that about 10% of the population attend church monthly… Don’t believe everything you read about the decline of the church!
(Blog post coming soon on this…)
Only very recently, if indeed the majority now think that. For thousands of years, the vast majority thought it inappropriate.
Some things are shocking to mention, and others are not live issues in a given culture. Either one of these factors is sufficient.
Also, list the things Jesus *does* mention. It is very short when we compare it to the list of things he could have mentioned but does not.
Also his preoccupations are not ours, and vice versa; and if we expect them to be, that shows only one thing: our self-centredness.
Christopher,
Yes, the argument what Jesus does or does not mention is a non-starter.
I think I am correct (and if not I am sure someone will point it out) neither the Hebrew Bible nor Jesus specifically condemns sex between a father and daughter.
Nor does he condemn females identifying as males. Or as cats.
I’ve asked my cat what he identifies as, but he won’t tell me.
I’ve asked my cat what he identifies as, but he won’t tell me.
Oddly mine identifies as a schoolgirl.
You are incorrect. Lev 18:17
“‘Do not have sexual relations with both a woman and her daughter. Do not have sexual relations with either her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter; they are her close relatives. That is wickedness.”
This precludes a man from having sex with his daughter.
Actually, it doesn’t precisely preclude it, as long as he doesn’t also have sexual relations with the girl’s mother at the time, lol
FACTCHECK: “in South Korea, the fertility rate is the lowest in the world, at 0.78, which means that every 100 people will have only 8 grandchildren. In the UK the rate is 1.53, which means that 100 people will have only 58 grandchildren—the population will nearly halve after two generations.”
Radio 4’s “More or Less” with Tim Harford (21 June 2023) checked the maths on this and concluded that ‘grandchildren’ should be ‘great-grandchildren’. That’s still a massive decline but an error worth correcting.
I incorporated that. The error was predicting 6 grandchildren, when the figure was 8. It would be 6 great-grandchildren, and the Telegraph article was revised in the light of that.
(I looked for the link after listening to More or Less)
I was/am still puzzled by this. I get:
Generation 1: 100 people (50 women)
Generation 2: 50*0.78 = 39 people (20 women – rounding up)
Generation 3: 20*0.78 = 16 people (rounding up)
Generation 4: 8*0.78 = 6 people.
Other than this, great article!
Ah yes, you are right. Sorry, I was quoting from memory. All the same—drastic.
Incidentally, on More or Less they gave the UK fertility rate as 1.78 I think—which is out of date.
“Since the audience had no conception as man-man sex as a basis for marriage in their society, it was obviously not the best vehicle for Jesus to use, when talking about covenant love.”
I think that statement is simply nonsense. SS relationships in a covenantal basis (or not), was well known in antiquity. It was nothing new. The suggestion that our ‘modern’ view of SSM and homosexual relationships is somehow a new cultural phenomenon the Jews had no conception of is not borne out by the evidence.
Jesus would have been aware of Torah and what it had to say about male and female and the right sexual relationships between them. He had no reason to mention homosexuality. The Jews only had to look at their surrounding pagan culture to see it. To infer that because Jesus never mentioned SSR/M means that its OK, is just sloppy thinking.
Play fair, Chris. I said no concept of man-man marriage “in THEIR society”. Of course some people would be well aware of the idea of men living together in Greek and Roman culture etc. But Jesus was addressing people in THEIR society… a religious society… where I believe this was simply cultural anathema.
Also I did not think Jesus thought it was OK (or perceived as OK by the people around him). I said he did not say anything specifically about man-man sex. We only have the cultural perceptions of other people, later in the New Testament. Just because they knew about stable gay relationships in other cultures, did not make them think it was culturally alright in theirs. They wrote from inside their own culture and the limitations of its parameters.
I quite strongly believe that the religious 1st Century Christians and Bible authors did not think ANY man-man sex was okay. But I attribute that to their cultural view. One society’s views may not work in another’s. But the important things – devoted covenant love… holiness… grace – those things are constant, even if societies change in what they think is holy or unholy.
‘But I attribute that to their cultural view. ‘ Why? The biblical texts are very clear: this is because of God’s creation of humanity male and female.
You are making the very odd assumption that somehow first century Jews lived in some cultural ghetto. ‘Galilee of the Gentiles’? Jews in the diaspora?
They were acutely aware of the culture around them, and often paid a high price for being distinctive, not least on sexuality.
Actually, they weren’t.
Not in South West Asia.
“Diaspora Jews had made sexual immorality and especially homosexual activity a major distinction between themselves and gentiles.”
This is just culture.
I agree that the biblical narratives do not affirm man-man sex. Personally, I strongly suspect that the religious communities of the early Christians from whom biblical texts emerged were culturally hostile to man-man sex too. That also is culture.
But when people write texts, they will often write from inside their own cultural upbringing, beliefs, and practices. So it’s entirely reasonable to suppose that the New Testament authors and their communities were culturally opposed to man-man sex… but that they did not have the insights or authority for their cultural views to be extended and imposed on all societies for all time.
They were primarily concerned with ‘holiness’. But different cultures and societies have differing views on what is ‘holy’ or ‘unholy’. The key thing when reading these texts 1900 years later is not the man-man issue (which may be provisional and what seemed unholy to them at the time)… but the importance of holiness itself.
The key imperative was and is: ‘Be holy’. Examples of what is perceived as unholy may vary across centuries and societies… but that we must seek holiness… THAT is the constant.
But when people write texts, they will often write from inside their own cultural upbringing, beliefs, and practices.
Do you, or do you not, think that God is the ultimate author of the Bible?
‘Do I think God dictated biblical texts to the fallible humans? No God didn’t.’ Susannah, it is odd when you are others here have to resort to crude paradise of those you critique.
I can only think that either you have not bothered to understand what evangelicals actually think, or you don’t have any real arguments.
You can’t seriously believe in cats spilling ink on manuscripts or wind blowing through windows and destroying manuscripts until the author recorded what God intended?
It’s called ‘providence’ and it’s a standard part of Christianity (but being a Deist there’s no reason you’d know that, I suppose).
Andrew, I must have missed the reference to cats spilling ink.
But I have no idea why you are attempting to judge me by someone else’s comments here.
It does seem to be a way to avoid the content of what I have written above.
I must have missed the reference to cats spilling ink.
Andrew Godsall is referring to a previous discussion where he claimed that the Bible could not be the Word of God because that would mean that God overrode the free will of the human authors by forcing them to write what He wanted.
I pointed out that there are many ways that God can influence what human beings do without overriding their free will. The ink-spilling cat was a slightly facetious example that Andrew Godsall has fixated on. A more serious example was, say, a man who wanted to go on a certain aeroplane that was destined to crash, and God causing a storm which made him miss the flight; thus God achieves His end (saving the man) but no one could say the man’s free will was overridden.
Far from being the kind of whacky out-there idea Andrew Godsall likes to pretend, this is merely the standard doctrine of general providence, whereby God works His will through the natural forces of the universe (as opposed to special providence which involves breaking those laws in a miracle), that all Christians believe. After all we know that God has both the ability and the inclination to use the natural forces of the universe to achieve His ends (shipwrecking Paul on Malta, for example, or causing an earthquake at the exact right time and place to free Paul and Silas). C.S. Lewis wrote about it; so did Calvin, so did Thomas Aquinas. It’s what we are relying on every time we pray to God to bring someone we care about safe home from a journey; for if God were either incapable or unwilling to order the natural universe what would be the point of such prayers? (Of course sometimes the answer to such prayers is, ‘No’; God is not a cosmic ordering service. But sometimes it is ‘Yes’ or there would be no point praying).
Applying this to the Bible then we see that God has both the ability and the inclination to affect the natural universe; and given He has chosen to communicate with us through the Bible it makes sense that He would use general providence to ensure that the communication He gives us is kept safe — and indeed we find that throughout all the manuscripts of the Bible books we have the core doctrines are remarkably uncorrupted, thus enabling us to reconstruct to a high degree of certainty what the originals said.
Asked for examples of what this protection might look like in practice, I mentioned a cat spilling ink over a page where a scribe had miscopied in some significant way, forcing the work to be redone with greater care, or a gust of wind blowing the errant page into the fireplace.
Andre Godsall finds this either hilarious or revolting, I’m not sure which, but I’m unsure why as it’s really no different in nature to blowing a ship off course or causing a tremor of the earth. Perhaps Andre Godsall just things that God only works in grand gestures like storms and earthquakes, and that smaller works of providence are beneath Him and it is an affront to God’s dignity to suggest that the God who wrecks ships might concern Himself with the stepping of a cat. But is not the difference in scale between a storm and God already so great, so infinite, that it makes just as much sense for Him to care about a cat’s paw as a shipwreck? Indeed does not sending a storm to wreck a ship require God to work on an even smaller scale than a cat, down to the flapping of a butterfly’s wings? And do we not know for sure that God not a sparrow falls from the sky but that God allows it — so by the same principle no cat steps anywhere but God allows that paw to land in that particular place.
So there are any number of reasons why, although Andrew Godsall likes to make out that I am crazy, in fact nothing I have said on this matter is out of the mainstream of what all Christians have believed through the centuries.
Andrew Godsall’s problem with it is merely that Andre Godsall is not a Christian but a Deist.
nothing I have said on this matter is out of the mainstream of what all Christians have believed through the centuries
I mean, as I think I mentioned before, it’s in the Westminster Confession. Can you get a better provenance than that?
And Ian you seem to deliberately misunderstand what I have said.
Susannah was replying to S, who has made the ridiculous comments about cats spilling ink and the like many times. You jumped in on her comment about God dictating texts. She was responding to S who certainly does believe that. And I replied that of course that is not what evangelicals believe, and I know full well that Susannah does not believe that either. But S, who had asked the question of her, does believe that.
And I’m not at all judging you by other people’s comments here. I also know for a fact that you don’t believe any of the nonsense about cats spilling ink or wind blowing a manuscript away until the human writer got it down correctly. And that, of course, was the point I was making.
Evangelicals do of course vary – there is not one size that fits all. But I respect you as a biblical scholar, and know full well you don’t subscribe to that kind of nonsense.
If you know that, why did you ask the question above?
It’s called rhetoric …..
I was making a point. Not asking a question. The context gives that clarity.
“It does seem to be a way to avoid the content of what I have written above.”
As to what you have written above, that was all said during the Feb 2017 debate at Synod that led to the LLF process. It was all said during the shared conversations and during the rest of the LLF process.
General Synod has voted for a particular direction and the paper for July makes it clear that the working groups have been making head way. Attempts to reverse what GS has already agreed will not really be likely to succeed.
Far more important than sexuality is the Archbishops’ Council decision to terminate contracts of two ISB members. Quite unbelievable.
The Archbishops’ Council is an absolute disgrace. The sacking of the two ISB trustees who were actually winning the confidence of survivors, and dared to criticise the Church leadership, was a cowardly action. So much for independence.
“You are only independent until we decide to fire you.”
They have presumably been fired BECAUSE of their independence.
The ISB trustees were due to address General Synod in July, and the whole issue of the ISB and independence was set to be discussed and debated. By pre-empting that rational process, the Council has set safeguarding back, crushed independent voice and critique, and acted top-down in a way that subverts the trust of those who have been abused. Kudos to the Bishop of Birkenhead for calling this action out. It is not the ISB trustees who should be fired.
This ISB was only ever interim—that was made clear at the outset. Part of their role was to deliver the next stage; they made no progress; and there was a complete breakdown of relationship which was clear when we met them.
The AC has been absolutely committed to getting to fully legally independent safeguarding, and that is still the aim.
But what does any of this have to do with my post here?
Please re-read your last paragraph again, Susannah? Are you really saying that subjective perception is that what holiness amounts to and how it is determined? Even cross culturally, nationally toady? Really?
How is it defined? What is its measure, standard?
What does the whole canon a scripture-The Holy Bible – have to say? Anything?
What is the relation of sin, to holiness?
How do we seek holiness, if we don’t know what we are looking for?
Does repentance, change of behaviour, thought and word and deed have anything to do with it?
And what is the relation of the Holiness of God, to the holiness of humanity, particularly Christians.
How does your last para apply to God?
And as God’s love is only ever Holy love, what does that look like? In our relation with him? And in our relations with others?
Susannah, are you planning to comment on every single sentence of this post? You have already posted about twice as much as anyone else.
Can you give others more space?
Yes – sorry. Just read this request. I will step back from further comment.
‘This is just culture.’
Sorry—this is just an absurd and fanciful claim. You are contradicting the careful study by a leading biblical authority, E P Sanders, who think gay marriage is fine, but is clear that scripture is consistent against it, on theological grounds.
You really don’t have a better argument?
Who is the only scholar available?
I’ve just been listening to someone who would disagree.
BTW surely what’s sauce for the Susannah is sauce for the Simon?
Where do I say he is the only scholar?
Every single reputable mainstream critical scholar agrees with Sanders on this. I listed them previously.
You did.
It’s not exhaustive.
And it depends on your definition of ‘reputable’.
And it depends on your definition of ‘reputable’.
Ah, you mean you have a disreputable one who disagrees? Does this phantom counterexample have a name?
‘My theologian goes to a different school, you wouldn’t know her, but she totally agrees with me.’
Where to start. Jesus never said one thing about homosexuality but did about divorce except for adultery. Yet the hardline evangelicals have no problem with marriage of divorcees, just blessings of homosexual couples. Paul also opposed women priests, yet the author has no problem with that, just blessings of homosexual couples. So it is scriptural interpretation read solely to exclude homosexual couples.
The Church of England has approved blessings for homosexual couples via a majority vote of Synod on proposals from the Bishops. The Prayers will be approved next month. There is not even a change to its doctrine of marriage which was confirmed to be holy matrimony of one man and woman. So a compromise was agreed between liberal Catholics, some of whom wanted full marriage for homosexuals in C of E churches and evangelicals, some of whom wanted not even blessings for homosexual couples.
Be assured, if you try and resist even the blessings further there will be full on civil war between liberal Catholics and evangelicals in the C of E and it will not end until one side wins. The differences are not only on sexuality, liberal Catholics are far more interested in preserving the traditional Parishes and historic churches of the C of E than church planting in new buildings and new areas which obsesses the evangelicals. The elements are there for a civil war within the Church of England and if the blessings compromise is rejected that is what will happen. Yet Parliament and the King being more sympathetic to the liberal Catholic than evangelical position ensures ultimately the liberal Catholic side within the established Church of England would win and hardline evangelicals would have to leave and form their own charismatic churches or join local Pentecostal or Baptist churches
Which hardline evangelicals? I am just a mere Christian, and I hate the very thought of d******.
The phrase ‘have a problem with’ suggests the problem resides in the person. That is insulting and also sloppy thinking. The problem, when this phrase is used, resides in the proposal: as in – ‘XYZ was seen as problematic.’.
Hi T1,
“Jesus never said one thing about homosexuality but did about divorce except for adultery.”
Where is that in the Bible?
The church has been mistaken about the Bible’s teaching on divorce and remarriage – but not about homosexual acts.
I do at least have some logical sympathy with those Christians, be they conservative Roman Catholics, evangelicals or Anglo Catholics who do follow all the scriptural rules of the Bible. That would be opposition to women priests, opposition to divorce except in the case of spousal adultery and opposition to homosexual sexual relationships. I may disagree with them but I can see their logic.
What I find absurdly hypocritical however are those evangelicals who are fine to remarry divorcees in their churches even without spousal adultery, fine to marry heterosexual couples who slept together before marriage and fine to have women priests. Yet they are not fine to allow homosexual couples married in English civil law and committed to each other to even have a blessing in their church
Jesus taught that remarriage after divorce is possible in certain circumstances, and Paul affirmed women as apostles.
Your problem is with an odd straw man of your own making, not with actual evangelicals or orthodox Anglicans.
Yes, when the spouse had committed adultery, not other circumstances.
Paul on women priests ‘Women[a] should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church
‘ https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=I+Cor+14.34-35&version=NIV
“I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.”
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=I+Tim+2.11-13&version=NIV
Again, how very weird that you are proof-texting, and ripping verse both out of context and without attending to any of the massive discussion about these verses.
Why do you do it? I can only assume you don’t have any real arguments to offer…?
https://www.psephizo.com/biblical-studies/can-women-teach-part-i/
Simon, I have had enough of your trolling. Please come back in a day or two when you are ready to actually engage in respectful discussion.
Ian
I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2019&version=NIV
Matthew 19 9
Golly–do you only do theology by proof-texting?
https://www.psephizo.com/biblical-studies/does-jesus-permit-divorce-for-any-reason-in-mark-10/
T1 The argument is not simply between liberal catholics and ‘evangelicals’. There is a range of views amongst evangelicals themselves and significant numbers who support blessing and often marriage.
There are a few Anglo Catholics left in the C of E who also oppose homosexual marriage as well as their traditional opposition to women priests and women bishops too.
Overwhelmingly however though most of the above crossed the Tiber to Rome years ago once women priests and bishops were allowed in the Church of England. So the main division in the Church of England is between evangelicals or liberal Catholics. That even filters through to Archbishops of Canterbury, with liberal Catholic Runcie followed by evangelical Carey, followed by liberal Catholic Williams and now evangelical Welby. On matters of sexuality liberal Catholics are almost all, with a few exceptions, more accepting on matters of sexuality than evangelicals (as well as being more high church)
I am not clear how ‘significant’ the numbers are. EGGS grew by 50% to be the largest group in Synod when it aligned itself with historic evangelical teaching.
And I have not yet found anywhere an argument that the theological method or interpretative approach of ‘affirming evangelicals’ has any continuity with previous evangelical thought.
In your own article, you agree that the Bible depicts marriage always and everywhere as between one man and one woman—and yet for same reason say that that teaching does not apply today.
Synod affirmed no change to holy matrimony being between one man and one woman, just blessings for homosexual couples with prayers to be affirmed next month.
In your own article on the last Synod elections, they are now mirroring party political blocks. Rather than Labour and Conservative in the House of Commons and Lords you now have the Evangelical Group on General Synod supported by the Church of England Evangelical Council and the Human Sexuality Group supported by the liberal Catholic Inclusive Church. As you also point out the results split down the middle, in both the House of Clergy and House of Laity the evangelicals and liberal Catholics both got about 40% but neither a majority. The liberal Catholics slightly ahead in the House of Clergy and the evangelicals slightly ahead in the House of Laity
https://www.psephizo.com/life-ministry/what-will-the-new-general-synod-look-like/
‘just blessings for homosexual couples with prayers to be affirmed next month.’ I don’t know how many times we have to correct your error here. No prayers were approved.
Ian, is that really so? I may not be the only one to be confused. From the website of Holy Trinity Church, Bracknell:
“General Synod has now approved the Bishops’ paper ‘Prayers of Love and Faith’ which provides suggestions which can be used in the Blessing of Same Sex Relationships.” Holy Trinity is going full steam ahead, and probably other churches also are.
Yes, it is. Holy Trinity are in error, and appear to be suffering from confirmation bias.
I don’t think the comparison with lying is a good one. Obviously lying is wrong whereas same sex relations are not obviously wrong in the same way. Having said that I believe there are situations where not being completely honest can be an act of kindness. I believe our bishops arrive at their conclusions after much prayer and heart searching. Maybe I’m naive but I am with those who say let us move on.
It is a question of what is sin? That is the commonality.
Obviously lying is wrong whereas same sex relations are not obviously wrong in the same way. Having said that I believe there are situations where not being completely honest can be an act of kindness.
‘Obviously lying is wrong, having said that I don’t think lying is always wrong.’
Thanks John. Two observations.
First, lying is included in NT vice lists, along with sexual immorality, which for Jews and early Christians included the prohibition on same-sex sex—and sometimes this is made explicit.
Second, the point I was actually making is against the argument ‘Sexuality is not in the creeds; therefore it cannot be a first-order issue’. Lying is not in the creeds either, but you would certainly want to separate from bishops who said it was ok.
“For Anglicans, the doctrine of marriage is embedded in the structure of the Church of England in surprisingly strong ways.”
Canons, doctrines on some issues (women priests anyone?), can change. Look at Scotland.
That’s the journey the Church of England is on too.
There is nothing wrong with the Church of England listening to the Holy Spirit, and exploring conscience and text on these issues, and collectively deciding what to do.
Marriage doctrine may change. We are no longer living in the 16th Century.
“rewrite A5. If we do so, then it would be hard to argue that whatever we end up with remains the ‘Church of England’ ”
It may not seem exactly the same, but it would still be the Church of England, just with some changed views, collectively explored.
I think you may be grasping at straws, because if there’s a will there’s a way. If the Church decides its ‘Mind’ is to accommodate gay marriage, it will change whatever rubric necessary.
But it will still be the Church of England.
The journey the Church of England is on is not to be prescribed by anyone.
But if they do prescribe it, that is evidence to others of their assumption that things must happen the way they say.
Marriage doctrine may change (in 1 or 2 ways). That is the same as saying it may change in any way at all (any of millions of ways, including fundamental changes), whichever way we dictate.
‘We are no longer living in the 16th century’:
You fell straight into the chronological-snobbery trap.
It may not seem exactly the same, but it would still be the Church of England, just with some changed views, collectively explored.
If it’s no longer grounded in the scriptures then it can’t be the Church of England because it wouldn’t be a part of the Church. It would have turned its back on God.
‘Canons, doctrines on some issues (women priests anyone?), can change. Look at Scotland.’
You will have to look quickly. Because of these changes, they will not exist in ten years.
‘That’s the journey the Church of England is on too.’ You asserting that does not make it true.
“In the UK the rate is 1.53, which means that 100 people will have only 58 grandchildren—the population will nearly halve after two generations. Of course, none of this is the result of agreeing with same-sex marriage.”
No, it’s to do with economics. With the price of houses and the cost of living, it’s quite an upper-middle class privilege for both partners not to have to work… to survive, to afford a home etc.”
“the loss of a cultural belief in male-female marriage, shaped by Christian doctrine in Christendom, has been very damaging”
I really don’t think so. I think you’re pinning the woes of the world on ‘the gays’. Whereas in fact, heterosexual people have to be accountable for their own failings, or for pornography, or trafficking, or sexual attacks, or objectification of women etc etc.
People don’t get divorced because of ‘the gays’.
There are pluses and minuses to changes in social attitudes on sexuality. We no longer imprison people for gay sex. Women are more empowered. The majority of people in the UK (68% in 2017) think there is nothing whatsoever wrong with men having sex with men. Consequently gay people are more protected in society from discrimination. We are more open about sexual and gender diversity, enabling more people to lead good lives as themselves without having to hide.
If most heterosexual couples no longer feel they need to be married, that is not the fault of gay or lesbian people. We should be encouraging more people (including gay and lesbian people) to marry, to commit, to live in covenant love.
I think it is too easy to portray gay people as ‘symptomatic’ of everything that is wrong in the country today. That would be kind of vilifying, akin to saying “If we hadn’t had so much migration, things would be better in England.” It’s not true, but it’s easy to portray a minority as a symptom of what’s wrong, when in fact (in that example) it’s bad politicians.
‘People don’t get divorced because of ‘the gays’.
That is precisely what I said. But changes in marriage, including an affirmation of SSM, arise from fundamental changes in our culture’s anthropology.
“The teaching of Jesus that marriage is between one man and one woman is a gift the world desperately needs”
Gay and lesbian couples are gifts as well… gifts to many church communities… gifts to families… gifts to work places.
I’d re-phrase your assertion:
Marriage is a gift the world desperately needs.
Principles of covenant love, fidelity, commitment – shored up by marriage for those who choose to marry. Whether straight, gay, lesbian.
Your response to Ian’s developed, key -point-coherent and cogent article appears to be somewhat scattergun and conflicts with your comments on other occasions that you agree it can not properly be argued that scripture supports sss or ssm,
And your argument is reduced to; culture determines, that holiness is culturally determined and you pass swiftly on as do all others seeking to revise scripture and doctrine.
My comment to you @ 4:13 pm above is therefore repeated:
Please re-read your last paragraph again, Susannah? Are you really saying that subjective perception is that what holiness amounts to and how it is determined? Even cross culturally, nationally toady? Really?
How is it defined? What is its measure, standard?
What does the whole canon a scripture-The Holy Bible – have to say? Anything?
What is the relation of sin, to holiness?
How do we seek holiness, if we don’t know what we are looking for?
Does repentance, change of behaviour, thought and word and deed have anything to do with it?
And what is the relation of the Holiness of God, to the holiness of humanity, particularly Christians.
How does your last para apply to God?
And as God’s love is only ever Holy love, what does that look like? In our relation with him? And in our relations with others?
I’d also ask, is all covenanted sex, holy? Can it be sinful?
“Only churches which continue to believe marriage is between a man and a woman are growing.”
Not true, at least in terms of church communities in the Church of England. It’s a sweeping generalisation. There are socially liberal churches that are growing. It also overlooks the truth that some socially conservative churches have suffered decline. Additionally, it does not factor in how many millions of people may be alienated and disgusted by an organisation that STILL only marries straight people. The perceived discrimination tarnishes the brand for many people.
In schools today, most young people affirm their gay friends, affirm gay relationships, and kids from conservative Christian churches are a tiny minority, out of step with their peers.
You cite the CEEC declaration which says: “In due course we will publicly issue the names of supporters…”
The names remain hidden at present, and I wonder what % of clergy, and lay people will be on that list when (if) it finally goes public? I suspect less than 5% of the total number of ordained and even fewer (1%?) of lay people.
CEEC appears willing for an accommodation of plural consciences on gay sex to co-exist in the Church of England. Albeit they want some kind of ‘church within a church’ with its own province etc.
That is not really a starter, because most people just want to carry on their parish life, they are not obsessed by the sex issue to the extent of some clerics, and besides that, as an Established Church the Church of England cannot accommodate a Province that does bars trans people from ordained ministry. As part of the Establishment, that part – not to mention other aspects of discrimination – is out of touch with reality and highly unlikely to be agreed.
Far more reasonable and mature is to say:
1. If you want to marry a gay person, marry a gay person.
2. If you’re straight you don’t have to.
3. If as a priest/minister you don’t wish to bless (later marry) a gay couple you don’t have to.
4.If as a priest/minister you do wish to, you can.
The Structure of the Church of England carries on as before, but we live and let live, we love each other even if we have different views. We accommodate plural consciences, and respect the right of conscience on these issues.
But what we DON’T do is insist that only the conscience and views of one half of the Church of England MUST be imposed on the other half.
If in conscience a person cannot accept that tolerance and accommodation, then they can decline to stay in the Church of England. All this subject to the decision-making ahead as people explore the MIND of a Church which actually has two minds on this issue. Only accommodation of plural views on sex can ‘square the circle’ and avoid a schism. Most middle church people in the pews have no appetite for schism. They just want to carry on with all the rest of parish life… alongside their communities… and the many pastoral needs beyond the single issue of sex.
What’s that about generalizations, Susannah? And a one way street of tolerance and accommodation? And vociferous cultural drivers and reflexes?
A phrase, in the mood of Tina Turner, comes to mind: “What’s God got to do with it?”
This is getting out of hand. Could you pause please?
I read your request above, and stopped posting. I’ve now scrolled down to this request, and once again, yes, I have stepped back from further comment.
So… why did you start again after Ian admonished you the first time? Can you really not help yourself?
We could save a lot of verbiage on this thread if we simply asked you and certain others to name a single objective social good brought about by SSRs (let alone SSMs), or a single objective social good that would be lost if they were to vanish from the earth.
But what we DON’T do is insist that only the conscience and views of one half of the Church of England MUST be imposed on the other half.
Please stop with this. You explicitly stated in comments to the last page on this topic that you want to insist that your conscience and views on this topic are imposed on anyone who disagree with you.
Ian Paul’s use of EP Saunders is selective. In ‘Paul: The Apostle’s Life, Letters and Though’t (SCM 2015), Sanders, is indeed clear that Paul does not have any sympathy with homosexual practice and is following the standard Jewish line of his day. But then he states his own position – ‘as a Christian I agree with the liberal attitude toward homosexuals in much of contemporary Christianity.’ He concludes that, ‘We should let Paul say what he said, and then make the decisions that we should make, which should take into account the modern world, rather than only the ancient world’ (p.370). So for Sanders, the text is not the final word.
But that does not negate the basic premise being made. Only that
Sanders doesn’t agree with what Paul thought.
David, ‘So for Sanders, the text is not the final word.’ As I say precisely above. What is ‘selective’ about my quotation?
Sanders does not believe that scripture is authoritative for Christian life and belief. The Church of England, in its canons and formularies, does.
And to believe this is the very definition of evangelical. So do follow Sanders if you wish, but please be honest that this is neither an Anglican nor an evangelical way to do theology.
Ian I find this response selective to be honest. Happy to leave it.
I find this response selective to be honest. Happy to leave it.
is the reason you are not happy to respond that Ian is completely correct and neither the quotation nor the response was in any way selective, and you are wrong to find it so?
I’m sure you would be happy to leave it; closure, with a mere subjective, personal, last-word assertion, rather than a discussion and explanation and evidence of how it is selective.
Ah yes – Geoff and S always turn up now to add their definitive views. No comment limit for them I note.
No comment limit for them I note.
None for you either so you can’t blame that for you having no response.
David, well I am not. It is not part of a respectful discussion to lob in a sleight like that and not elaborate.
I would be grateful if you could explain your comment or withdraw it.
And your comment about ‘limits’ is misplaced; a few people here comment a lot, which I find frustrating. But Susannah overwhelmed the comments with literally thousands of words of comment, I think as much as my article.
I would like to reform the comments system, but there is not an easy way.
One easy way to exclude the very obvious and text book trolling and attacking of people rather than content is to require a real name and a valid e mail address. It is very odd that you do not require that.
I do prefer that, but one anonymous contributor says useful things and engages in serious debate, whilst one identified person dumps tens of thousands of words without proper engagement.
So I don’t think it solves the problem.
And one anonymous contributor continually engages in trolling and you refuse to address it.
I have frequently asked people to comment less often. I will act on any example of trolling.
For the n thousandth time, the liberals high handedly claim unilateral authority to duck out at (conincidentally?) precisely the very early point in the discussion where they find they have no answer.
Yes–curious, that.
So for Sanders, the text is not the final word.
In other words, for Saunders the Bible rules out same-sex marriage but the Bible is wrong.
Isn’t that exactly the point being made?
So actually the quoting isn’t selective, it is accurate?
‘none of the biblical authors report hearing Him say anything specific about homosexuality.’ – misleading. ‘Porneia’ includes homosexual acts in the literature of this period, and Jesus included it in his list of evils (Matt.15.19f). In reply to a question about divorce he gave two choices: either heterosexual marriage (‘that is why a man is to be joined to his woman’, based on Gender 1 and 2) or ‘eunuch’ i.e. celibacy (Matt. 19). The gospels have about 26 references to Jesus’ words on sexual behaviour. All of them are in line with the traditional view of marriage as heterosexual, exclusive and lifelong. Even his comment about Sodom must be read in the light of the contemporary understanding of it. Both Philo and Josephus describe homosexual practice as wrong and Josephus calls it sodomy.
Thanks–that is a helpful summary.
‘Our bodies are who we are, not what we have.’
This is surely incorrect, both experientially and theologically. We do not in reality think of ourselves as bodies, but as souls (even if few would use the term – ‘centres of consciousness’ would be less religious). That is why we commonly speak of ‘my body’: our bodies are what we have, not who we are. Likewise Jesus says, “The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak.” He does not agree that “our flesh is who we are”. Again, “It is better for you to enter life with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into the Gehenna of fire.” What matters is not whether you have one eye or two eyes, because ‘you’ are not your body. A good deal of Pauline theology/anthropology depends on the distinction – see second half of Romans 7, for instance, summarised in Rom 8:7. How can one coherently argue against sodomy, adultery and general promiscuity except on the basis that the spirit and the flesh are opposed, and the flesh is to be resisted?
This is also why all this talk about feeling as if born in the wrong body only makes sense on the basis that people do distinguish between their bodies and their souls, between their experience of life as conscious beings and their external, merely physical bodies. They do so inconsistently, of course, because these days everyone is taught to believe that there is no such thing as spirit, there is only matter – atoms. It does not help when even theologians fail to make this vital distinction.
This is surely incorrect, both experientially and theologically.
No not really.
We do not in reality think of ourselves as bodies, but as souls (even if few would use the term – ‘centres of consciousness’ would be less religious).
As you later point out, we do not think of ourselves as either consistently. This is why subjective experience on this matter is not to be trusted.
That is why we commonly speak of ‘my body’: our bodies are what we have, not who we are.
But we also commonly speak of ‘my soul’.
Likewise Jesus says, “The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak.” He does not agree that “our flesh is who we are”.
In which case He doesn’t agree that ‘our spirit is who we are’ either, does he?
Again, “It is better for you to enter life with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into the Gehenna of fire.” What matters is not whether you have one eye or two eyes, because ‘you’ are not your body.
Surely that’s not why it doesn’t matter, the reason it doesn’t matter is that being thrown into the fire is worse than losing an eye — which is true even if you are your body. In fact especially if you are your body, it’s better to lose an eye than for your whole body to be burnt up. If you weren’t your body then it wouldn’t matter if your body was burnt up in the fires of Gehenna.
How can one coherently argue against sodomy, adultery and general promiscuity except on the basis that the spirit and the flesh are opposed, and the flesh is to be resisted?
Again the reverse is true — why does it matter what we do with our bodies if we are not our bodies? What exactly is wrong with promiscuity if the thing which is being abused, our body, is a mere vessel, a shell that we will someday slough off and leave behind?
The point is the ‘we’ are ensouled bodies — we are both our bodies and our souls. Not like animals which are their bodies or angels which are their souls.
Regarding your last point, I think it is rather obvious that we have bodies, with which our souls are intimately bound. Otherwise, I disagree with all your attempts to disagree, including with the suggestion that animals do not have souls and angels bodies.
Otherwise, I disagree with all your attempts to disagree, including with the suggestion that animals do not have souls and angels bodies.
Well, animals have souls in the sense that they have forms; but their souls aren’t the same sort of thing as human souls.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aquinas/#SoulBody
To ‘S’;
Re : Animal ‘souls’.
If there is a white horse in heaven (Rev. 19:11), then why not my Pet dog, Rex ?
Good to see you back, Dr. Steven.
We are always in need your learning and gravitas.
“The early church’s distinct, counter-cultural approach to sexual morality”.
But the culture that the early church’s sexual ethic was counter to no longer exists.
Its now an orphaned counterculture. You can’t apply it to post-Sexual Revolution culture because it was never designed to address it. It does not speak to present conditions at all.
The culture in the first century was that (male) desire was more important than bodily form or discipline in relationships. Are you suggesting that we do not see anything like this in modern culture…?!
It counter-cultural nature was rooted in biblical anthropology—a belief that God created humanity bodily male and female. How has that changed?
I am a bit surprised that you think a Christian, biblical theology of sexuality has nothing to say to the contemporary world. Are you being serious? This might help: https://www.psephizo.com/sexuality-2/what-is-a-biblical-theology-of-sexuality-part-1/
“Are you suggesting that we do not see anything like this in modern culture…?!”
That’s exactly what I’m suggesting. Greco-Roman sexual mores were hierarchical and male-centred with marriage being based on economics and families being large and multigenerational (the Roman Paterfamilias was in charge of much more than just his immediate nuclear family; he ruled a true household).
Present day sexual mores are individualistic and female-centred, with marriage being based on “falling in love” and “personal fulfillment”, and families being small and nuclear (to say nothing of the proliferation of single parenthood).
What Carl Trueman calls” expressive individualism” was simply not a value in Greco-Roman culture.
Whenever I read biblical authors like Paul I simply do not see anything that speaks to post-sexual revolution culture, except in the most general sense.
Present day sexual mores are individualistic
Yes.
and female-centred,
No — who has benefited most from the sexual revolution, men or women? It sure ain’t women. Men have got what they have always wanted: infinite access to consequence-free sex.
Whenever I read biblical authors like Paul I simply do not see anything that speaks to post-sexual revolution culture, except in the most general sense.
God’s design is universal, but every culture is corrupt in its own way. You have correctly noticed that the sexual corruption of our society is different to the sexual corruption of Rome. But the Bible doesn’t speak against any particular kind of corruption: the Bible simply speaks of God’s design. That’s why it speaks to us now exactly as much as it spoke to the Romans.
“Men have got what they have always wanted: infinite access to consequence-free sex”.
A very small subset of men got that. Sex is only cheap for women and that small subset of men. People are actually having less sex than ever before, and a 1/3 of men under 30 now report having had zero sexual partners since they turned 18. For many of those it’s zero partners, period.
The Sexual Revolution was a feminist revolution and the feminists got everything they ever wanted. They’re more miserable than ever, but that speaks to feminism’s ability to profit from its own failures.
“But the Bible doesn’t speak against any particular kind of corruption”.
Wrong. Old Testament authors are specifically reacting to Ancient Near Eastern sexual mores and New Testament authors are specifically writing in reaction to Greco-Roman sexual mores.
“The Bible simply speaks of God’s design”.
We’ve had this conversation before. Your view of “God’s design” just proves my point. Its only applicable in the most general sense. When biblical authors are talking about things like marriage they are not talking about the same thing we are. You’re operating under the Typical Mind Fallacy, assuming that the audience/authors of the Bible think exactly the same way you do.
You’re operating under the Typical Mind Fallacy, assuming that the audience/authors of the Bible think exactly the same way you do.
Given that the ultimate author of the Bible is God, I most certainly am not assuming He thinks the same way I do.
You do realise the ultimate author of the Bible is God, right?
What time period(s) was the Bible written in, and who wrote it down?
Does that matter? They point is that God is the ultimate author of the Bible; the Bible is His written communication with humanity. All humanity in all eras, not just when the ink happened to be put on the paper.
Wrong answer.
The books of the Old Testament were written in the context of Ancient Near Eastern culture.
The books of the New Testament were written in the context of Greco-Roman culture and Second Temple Jewish culture.
The books of the Old Testament were written in the context of Ancient Near Eastern culture.
The books of the New Testament were written in the context of Greco-Roman culture and Second Temple Jewish culture.
True but irrelevant. The Bible is God’s message to humanity, so it is applicable to every context, not just the contexts it in which happened to be set down on paper.
When the OT addresses sexuality, it does so in the context of Ancient Near East culture. Sometimes it concurs with wider culture, sometimes it departs wildly, but its always in reference to that culture.
Likewise with the NT and Greco-Roman culture.
It definitely isn’t written in reference to 21st century North American and Western European culture. When it refers to concepts like marriage and family it isn’t referring to the same things that we are referring to when we use those terms in day to day conversation.
The Bible simply doesn’t mention marriage, sexuality, and family as they are conceptualized in present day culture. There are many things the Bible doesn’t mention. Where the Bible doesn’t address something then it is the church’s job to exercise its sovereignty and make a judgement on what is to be done.
It definitely isn’t written in reference to 21st century North American and Western European culture.
It’s written in reference to God’s intended design for humanity, which is the same in the 21st century as in was in the first. That’s the point.
The Bible tells us how to do things right. The fact our culture does them wrong in a slightly different way to another culture doesn’t matter.
What did marriage and family in Greco-Roman culture look like?
What do marriage and family look like in 21st century North America and Western Europe?
How do they differ from each other?
What is marriage and family supposed to look like?
What is marriage and family supposed to look like?
Like God designed it to.
Q. What is marriage and family supposed to look like?
A. The way they’re supposed to look.
That’s not an answer. That’s just a restatement of the question.
That’s not an answer. That’s just a restatement of the question.
Okay then; it’s supposed to look like one man and one woman becoming one flesh and being faithful to each other for life. The rest is details.
“One man and one woman becoming one flesh and being faithful to each other for life”.
So that’s it? That’s your only criteria?
It certainly wasnt the criteria for 1st century Jews. Polygamy was still very common, for instance.
“The rest is details”.
1st century Jews didn’t believe that, Romans didn’t believe that, and I’m reasonably sure that even you don’t actually believe that.
So that’s it? That’s your only criteria?
That’s the necessary and sufficient condition, yes.
It certainly wasnt the criteria for 1st century Jews. Polygamy was still very common, for instance.
And polygamy was wrong then just as it is wrong now. Because right and wrong don’t change.
1st century Jews didn’t believe that, Romans didn’t believe that, and I’m reasonably sure that even you don’t actually believe that.
You’d be wrong; I actually do.
“And polygamy was wrong then just as it is wrong now. Because right and wrong don’t change”.
The OT assumes that polygamy is normal. It also assumes that arranged marriages, bride prices, and multigenerational households are the norm.
“You’d be wrong; I actually do”.
No you don’t. Are you saying that you would be fine with marriage being based on economics, with bride prices, and much older men having arranged marriages with teenagers, as long as your criteria are otherwise in place?
Are you also saying that you’re fine with a individualistic, consumer view of marriage, including a hypercompetitive dating market, late in life marriage, low fertility, homeownership being out of reach, low wages, and atomization as long as your “sufficient criteria” are otherwise in place?
The OT assumes that polygamy is normal. It also assumes that arranged marriages, bride prices, and multigenerational households are the norm.
And it assumes the same thing about slavery. Slavery is normal, and wrong, just as polygamy is normal in some cultures, and wrong. Lots of things that are normal are wrong. That’s part of living in a fallen world.
Are you saying that you would be fine with marriage being based on economics, with bride prices, and much older men having arranged marriages with teenagers, as long as your criteria are otherwise in place?
As long as no one was being forced into marriage against their will, yes.
Are you also saying that you’re fine with a individualistic, consumer view of marriage, including a hypercompetitive dating market, late in life marriage, low fertility, homeownership being out of reach, low wages, and atomization as long as your “sufficient criteria” are otherwise in place?
Again, as long as no one is being forced into marriage, yes.
(Although I’m not entirely sure what ‘low wages’ have to do with marriage. The price of labour — just like the price of everything else — follows the law of supply and demand; it has nothing to do with marriage, except perhaps indirectly if women who marry remove themselves from the labour market thus reducing supply and therefore driving up prices.)
If wages are low then it is difficult, if not impossible, for men to support a family on a single income. Most people will not be financially stable enough to get married and support a family until their late 30’s or older.
So that’s it. All you care about is a small set of criteria. As long as those are in place then it doesn’t matter how broken and disastrous the marriage/dating market is.
You are like the Jews who rioted in AD67 because a pagan spilled the blood of birds on the ground of a synagogue. That’s how the famous Jewish revolt started. Eventually those same people committed the even greater sin of spilling human blood on the grounds of the temple in Jerusalem. By AD 70, they and their temple were both destroyed.
Myopic crusades for purity only lead to ruin and to the commission of even greater sins.
If wages are low then it is difficult, if not impossible, for men to support a family on a single income. Most people will not be financially stable enough to get married and support a family until their late 30’s or older.
I don’t see what that has to do with the morality of marriage. Wages are set by the law of supply and demand.
So that’s it. All you care about is a small set of criteria. As long as those are in place then it doesn’t matter how broken and disastrous the marriage/dating market is.
Those are the minimum standards for marriage as God intended. Obviously extras might be desirable, but those are the bare minimum.
But have I convinced you that I really do mean what I say? You were claiming above that I didn’t believe it, do you admit you were wrong?
You are like the Jews who rioted in AD67
You are too kind. I doubt I would have the courage to riot. I would like to think, if it came to it, that I would stand up and be counted as a dissident, but I suspect I would just keep my head down and try to live a quiet life.
I thought you couldn’t possibly believe that because I assumed you were sane. I guess I did get proven wrong.
And if you think being compared to the Jewish rebels of AD 67 was a compliment then you have taken away exactly the wrong lesson from that story.
Thanks Ian, 10 excellent points, any and all of which will be useful going forward in the imminent debates that will re-ignite around next month’s Synod votes.
One small point – I think it’d be best to stick to pre-pandemic figures on membership & attendance for heterodox churches, or only use post-pandemic figures in comparison with (so far) orthodox churches. The Scottish Episcopal Church’s 40% drop in attendance between 2015 & 2021 may actually be better than the CofE, for example. 2022/23 figures will be more instructive.
Yes, they will—but I am not sure they will be any better…!
If anything prominent LGBT authors have identified that certain aspects of Western society, such as industrialisation and urbanisation, (rather than the church) have been responsible for making sexuality a big deal.
As gay historian, Prof. Martin Duberman has explained:
“It isn’t at all obvious why a gay rights movement should ever have arisen in the United States in the first place. And it’s profoundly puzzling why that movement should have become far and away the most powerful such political formation in the world. Same gender sexual acts have been commonplace throughout history and across cultures…It’s still almost entirely in the Western world that the genders of one’s partner is considered a prime marker of personality and among Western nations it is the United States – a country otherwise considered a bastion of conservatism – that the strongest political movement has arisen centered around that identity.” (Left Out, 2002)
It more the case that wider Western society (rather than the church), that has made sexuality such a big deal by elevating and essentialising sexual attraction to the status of what LGBT advocate, Joshua Gamson, calls
“a quasi-ethnicity complete with its own political and cultural institutions, festivals, neighborhoods, even its own flag.”
He continues: “Underlying that ethnicity is typically the notion that what gays and lesbians share—the anchor of minority status and minority rights claims—is the same fixed, natural essence, a self with same-sex desires.”
The essentialisation of same-sex desire as fixed behavioural identities is in direct conflict with Church teaching.
There is no reason for Christians to adopt the fairly recent Western belief that the gender of a person’s real or desired sexual partner is a prime marker of human personhood when that belief derives more from 20th century Western LGBT legal advocacy than from either scientific research, or scripture and church tradition.
It’s perhaps sad that this article misses out an important element of why this is such a big deal. For some people the stakes are extremely high. When a straight couple comes to the Church, if they are unmarried, they are encouraged to marry. We do not say that because they have had sex before marriage, they cannot now get married to each other and must either live celibate single lives or go and find other marriage partners. If they are married, but this is not their first marriage, we do not tell them they ought to get divorced (again) and try to return to their original spouses. Nor do we tell single straight people that they ought to choose to remain celibate. We tie ourselves in knots just finding ways to say it’s ok if they end up single. This is in stark contrast to the approach to gay people. If they are in a relationship, we tell them to split up. If they are married, they ought to divorce. If they are single, they ought to embrace a lifetime of celibacy. Some people in the Church go further, and historically this has been disastrous, and encouraged gay people to enter opposite-sex marriages. None of this is a trivial sideshow or abstract intellectual game.
I shan’t respond to every point (as that will make for an article-sized post) and much of the material would be arguments I’ve made elsewhere. But to a few points Ian makes:
Sexuality is a big deal, and this would imply that it is real. It is not a social construct to be ignored. As 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.”
There have been changes in Culture, but I don’t think Ian gets the emphasis right. The second argument borders on a rejection of the first – i.e. this is foolishness of believing there is some inner soul that is our real selves separate from the physical world. But the first argument was adamant that sexuality is real. The soul and the body are entwined. The big societal change has been the change in our views of marriage and women’s role in it. We now not only think marital rape exists, but is illegal. We reject the idea that women exist as a vessel for male sexual outpouring. We do not see marriage as a political/business/breeding contract. We would be horrified by a man marrying a woman just so he could apprentice in her father’s business. We very strongly expect a couple to be in love before they get married – i.e. you marry because you’re in love. You don’t marry for a share in the business and hope that love develops along the way. This is what shattered the old approaches of simply expecting gay people to enter into straight marriages. It’s why people wait longer to get married. It has upsides. You can read 1 Corinthians 7 and see it’s more egalitarian views on marriage as being closer to this modern idea, than the more historical experience. But it is also vulnerable to fantasies about love and romance, and that’s a problem in the modern world.
The requirement to repent and change, begs an important question in this discussion. What is the change being offered to, or expected of, gay people? In the ancient world expressions of homosexuality were seen as an overflowing or excess of sexual desire – i.e. you had so much sexual desire that it couldn’t be contained in your marriage, or affairs with mistresses, and went into homosexual acts as well. The change therefore was self-control and channelling sexual desires into the marriage bed alone. In the 20th century, we thought homosexuality could be cured – either through drugs, therapy or prayer. The change therefore was to stop being gay and start being straight. That was found to be nonsense. Now we recognise (the CofE has been clear on this since 1992) that sexuality is not a changeable thing. And that makes the question very different. If no one was really gay, not permitting gay acts is not a great burden. But now we know people really are gay, this isn’t a question of whether a thing is permitted, it’s a question of what they are to do.
When a straight couple comes to the Church, if they are unmarried, they are encouraged to marry.
Not just ‘encouraged to marry’; they are told that either they marry or they split up (or at least, stop having sex). Marriage is not optional in that case, it’s obligatory.
Nor do we tell single straight people that they ought to choose to remain celibate.
No, but we do tell them they should abstain from sex until and unless they get married.