One year on

It was a year ago this weekend that I received my official diagnosis.

After all the scans, biopsies and blood tests, the results were in and it was cancer – advanced prostate cancer.   After we told family, friends and work colleagues, I wrote The Enemy Within.  A lot has happened since then.

By April this year, I had completed my initial treatment – hormones, radio and chemo (see After Treatment) and I settled into a less rigorous regime while monitoring my PSA which had been successfully driven down from over 300 to the mid-teens.

More recently however, things have taken a turn for the worse.  Although my PSA has stayed low, I did not experience the improvement that I hoped for after finishing chemo.  I have continued to work as much as I can, but day to day life has been getting harder.  All this came to a head a fortnight ago when I was admitted into the Dorset Cancer Centre in Poole for a few days to get back on track with pain relief, vomiting and constipation.

I had a new CT scan, and the next morning, much to my surprise, my oncologist appeared at the end of my bed to give me the news.  Despite all my treatment over the last 12 months, my cancer has continued to grow and develop.  Two of my lumber vertebrae are in an early state of collapse, and my lymph node cancer has grown to the point where it is putting pressure onto my right kidney.  The CT scan also revealed that the cancer has eaten away the bone in my right femur at the hip, and I am now on crutches to stave off spontaneous fracture.

Not the news we wanted.

Treatment has started again in earnest.  I’ve had two more courses of radiotherapy and been prescribed Abiraterone, which is only licensed in the NHS for later stages of prostate cancer when other treatments have failed.  Simply put, my cancer is outrunning my treatment.  Timescales are shortening.  We hope the Abiraterone may overcome this deficit but even then, it will only work until the cancer adapts again.

The care I have received in the light of this news has been phenomenal.  In the past week alone, I have had three trips to Poole for radiotherapy together with two home visits from our hospice nurse, another from their occupational therapist, and my GP is going to visit me regularly at home from now on.  My basic pain relief has been changed to Fentanyl patches which will work whether I can keep food down or not, by absorption directly into the skin.

Adapting to this news brings to mind the many hundreds of people who have been praying for me during the past year; some in person, with the laying on of hands, many more in churches, prayer groups and over social media.  Many of you have been praying for healing for me, for victory over the cancer and deliverance from this cruel disease. 

The reflections which follow in this post are for you with gratitude, but also wisdom.  Knowing how to react to bad news in the midst of prayer is a tricky one. 

Following a revival in healing ministries in the 1970’s, there grew up a theology in some parts of the church which said “if only you had more faith” you would be healed.  That was not helpful.  It passed the blame for unanswered prayers to those who were praying or even to the person being prayed for, adding a kind of spiritual torture to those who were already ill.

In response to this others pointed out that any Christian theology of healing must also have a theology of dying if it is to be to be balanced and complete.  Christ did not die upon the cross to bring us eternal life here within the imperfections of a fallen world. He died and rose again to open the gates to eternal life in a new creation free from pain, sickness, sorrow and death.  Restating this was not just the task of theologians.  I remember Christian pioneer rock-star Larry Norman reminding us of this in his 1972 seminal album “Only visiting this planet” (still well worth a listen if you can find it!) including a lyric from a Jim Reeves song, “This world is not my home – I’m just passing through.”

A more modern trend dealing with disappointment in prayer is to search harder for things which may be blocking the power of God in our lives.  Emotional scars, sin, bitterness or unforgiveness are prime targets, and while I know that emotional healing can bring physical healing – I saw this so clearly in my mother’s arthritis – overemphasis of this can also lead into a rabbit hole of introspection trying desperately to discover the key to unlocking the healing which is desired.

The truth is that death can also be God’s healing, releasing us from the fettered bonds of this life into the glory of God’s presence.  Paul reminds us in Romans that “the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us.” (Romans 8:18).

In my early 20’s, the Charismatic movement in the UK was challenged by the death of a major figure in the movement.  David Watson was at the height of his ministry as a renowned preacher, author and minister of the Gospel.  He saw God bringing healing to many, many people through his ministry around the world.  Then David was diagnosed with cancer and died at the age of 50.

I have mentioned David Watson’s last book (Fear no Evil) before.  Reading it again during this year, I have followed his journey from diagnosis, to the outpouring of prayer it provoked, with Christian celebrities quite literally flying in from all over the world to pray for his physical healing – a healing which David believed God would give.  After his terminal diagnosis and initial treatment, he continued with his ministry, took every opportunity to be prayed with, and yet the book charts with selfless honesty his journey to a place where he simply became open to God’s will, whatever that may be.

In Chapter 18 he wrote,

“Through the unexpected diagnosis of cancer I was forced to consider carefully my priorities in life, and to make some necessary adjustments.  I still do not know why God allowed it, nor does it bother me.  But I am beginning to hear what God is saying, and it has been enormously helpful to me.  As I turn to the Bible, I find passages coming alive for me, perhaps more than ever before.  As I praise God or listen to worship cassettes, my vision of the greatness and love of God is being continually reinforced.  I am content to trust myself to a loving God whose control is ultimate and whose wisdom transcends my own feeble understanding.”

In my own small way, that is where I am now.  My faith is strong but is also being moulded and tempered by the refiner’s fire and from now on, the prayers I would ask for me are as follows:

For God’s will to be done, whatever that may be.  If that is for healing, I am content to stay, but if my time is approaching, I am ready to embrace it.  This is not giving up and I have an extensive list of goals I would like to experience with my family before that day.  I also have a good many blog posts yet to write, publish and inflict on you all if you choose to read them!  But like Jesus in Gethsemane, my prayer to God is not my will, but yours.

Thank you to everyone who has been upholding me in prayer as well as everyone who has held us in their thoughts, sent their love and best wishes.  We are strengthened by them all.

The photo at the top of this blog post is from a hotel bedroom in Birmingham.  Surprisingly philosophical I thought, for a hotel…

Sunrise by the sea

I had a beautiful experience early this morning, praying be the sea.

The sky was cloudy above but clear in the distance towards the sunrise. The effect that was spectacular. Rays of sunlight and an orange glow fell upon the distant mountains creating a magical aura of celestial beauty around the horizon while the cloud above me blotted out the brightness of the sun.

As I said my prayers,  it occurred to me that praying often feels like reaching out to that celestial scene. We see God’s awe inspiring beauty in the distance. We are at once captivated by its beauty and drawn to it. And yet we know that for now, it is beyond our reach. Our lives are lived beneath the cloud, seeing the effects of the sun all around us, and yet not fully basking in its glory.

Then something else caught my eye.

A shoal of small fish swimming near the shore, just below the surface of the water.  As they swam, some of them came up to the surface and broke the plane of the water to feed.  As I watched, some went further,  propelling themselves out of the water completely – for a moment breaking free from their watery world before plunging back into the sea.

Why do they do that,  I wondered? They gain nothing from it. They cannot live above the surface of the water for anything more that a few brief seconds. Their vision would be just as unadjusted to seeing in air as mine to seeing clearly underwater.

Then I realised that the fish and I were both engaged in the same longing.  The desire to reach out beyond our world to that which, for now, is unattainable. The world which is beyond us, of which we see but fleeting glimpses. In the words of Paul we see ‘through a glass darkly’ as we await the time when we will see God in all his glory.

In our prayers we reach out to that fullness of God which is beyond us, enthralled by the beauty we see from afar. And we long for the day when we shall see God face to face.

The Power behind the Throne

There is a throne in Canterbury Cathedral called the Chair of St Augustine.

It is the chair on which the new Archbishop of Canterbury will be seated when he begins his ministry.  Named after the first Archbishop of Canterbury, it conveys the authority and responsibilities of the role to the new Archbishop and the Anglican Church.  It is an ancient throne, one of oldest in existence, and when the new Archbishop is seated upon it, the Church of England will have a new leader.

I first became aware of its power some years ago when I was part of a small group who went to talk to Rowan Williams about the mess the church has got itself into on sexuality.  We met in the Archbishop in Lambeth Palace.  We met him in the hope that we could persuade him to be more proactive in promoting a new spirit of openness.  We met him hoping to re-awaken those things which he knew to be true about the gift of God at work in people of the same sex who love each other.

We should have been pushing at an open door.  Rowan Williams had gone on the record many times before he was appointed Archbishop of Canterbury in support of greater openness, acceptance and inclusion. 

But as our conversation developed, it became clear that no such commitment would be forthcoming.  Time and time again, he referred to his role as the present occupant of the Chair of St Augustine.  He talked of the weight of history and responsibility which the occupant of that Chair carries.  He talked about the need to preserve what he had been given – what had been entrusted to him.  He talked about his role as Archbishop in terms of being a guardian.  He told us that what he thought (as an individual) was irrelevant because his job as Archbishop was to hold together the great responsibility which the occupant of the Seat of St Augustine is given.

Our hearts sank.  We had hoped to meet with an anointed leader for the future - instead we found a guardian of the past.  We had met someone who had been called to leadership because of his great gifts – but then neutered by the power of the institution which had called him – the power behind the throne.

I have seen it before…

I saw it at work among the Church Commissioners when fighting to preserve affordable social housing in the Octavia Hill Estates which they owned and managed.  When I met them as individuals, I met thoughtful genuine Christians keen to listen and engage.  But when I met them as an institution, entrusted only with maximising profits, a very different persona emerged.  The power of the institution had overtaken them – they had become ‘institutionalised’ – only able to act in the way which was expected of them, putting money first and people second.

I have also experienced the corrupting power of the institution at first hand - the subtle pressure to behave in a particular way contrary to personal conviction.  I experienced it when I was a member of the OICCU Exec – the committee which ran the Oxford University Christian Union.  I was asked to take on the role of Outreach Secretary – to encourage and enable evangelism.  I came full of hope for what we might be able to do together – with fresh ideas, hopes and expectations, but I was naïve about the power of the institution.

Before we started our work, we were all taken away for the weekend by UCCF to be trained for the vital role we had been given.  We were reminded that we were being entrusted with a weighty responsibility – the continuation of many years of faithful evangelical witness to the University.  We were reminded of the tools we were to work with – the Bible and the Doctrinal Basis.  We were told that if we did our job properly, we would ensure that the next generation of leaders in the UK were Evangelical Christians who would, in turn, ensure that we continued to be a Christian Country (what a pretentious heresy that was!)  Our role was not to bring innovation or change – it was to continue the work of those who had been before and to defend OICCU against error and compromise.

And I have to say that I was taken in.  The criteria for our decisions became not ‘what seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us’ (Acts 15:28)  It was to do what was expected of us.

I remember the moment when this dawned on me.

It was when we voted to revoke an invitation to one of the most gifted and fruitful evangelists in Oxford - Canon Michael Green – because he would not sign our Doctrinal Basis of Faith.  His preaching had brought many hundreds of students in Oxford to faith in Christ.   He went on to be Professor of Evangelism at Regents College Vancouver, and came back to lead the Archbishops Springboard for Evangelism.  He wrote over 50 books on Christian apologetics and evangelism, but he wasn’t good enough to speak at our precious Christian Union because he would not conform himself to the expectations of our institution.

We had allowed ourselves to become institutionalised.

As the Crown Nominations Commission meets this week to decide who the next Archbishop of Canterbury will be, I can honestly say that I don’t know who should be appointed.  But unless it is someone who is strong enough to resist the power of the institution, I am also tempted to say that it doesn’t really matter.

What we need is an Archbishop who is courageous enough to lead us in the way of Christ. 

Jesus was no defender of the institution.  He refused to be boxed in, channelled or handled.  His concern was to bring new life – not preserve old structures, and he would not be manipulated into meeting the expectations of others.

And that is the Archbishop I am praying for…

It's all about Me, Me, Me!

We have all met them.

The needy person in the pub or at the dinner party whose insecurities mean that they have to be at the centre of every conversation.  No matter what the subject, they always find a way of bring the conversation back to themselves.   “It’s all about Me!” is their mantra – even when it clearly isn’t.

Well I am sorry to say that the Church of England is becoming exactly that.

Whenever the Government tries to introduce some new legislation to ensure more equal access to some aspect of public life, the CofE has got into the most annoying of habits of turning the conversation round to itself rather than the people who are being excluded.

Whether it is employment legislation, or access to services, or Civil Partnerships, membership of the House of Lords  – or now same-sex Marriage – the Church is getting very adept at making itself the centre of conversation and crying out “It’s all about Me!”

The latest example of this came late last night in its response to Government proposals on Marriage.

“It’s all about Me!” we cry.  It’s not really about the gay people who would benefit from being able to get married – it is about what the consequences would be for the Church.   If you do this you will destroy our place in the nation – if you let gay people get married you will dis-establish the church – if you do this, you will undermine the monopoly we thought we had on saying what is and is not acceptable in marriage.  You can’t introduce marriage for gay couples because it’s not really about them – it’s about Me!

No wonder the nation is tiring of the pompous neediness of the Church.  No wonder people are being turned off from the message we preach.  No wonder people don’t want to come anymore, because at the end of the day, the needy person in the corner of the room is not attractive and certainly not the one that people want to spend their time with.

Jesus said, “Whoever wants to be great must be the servant of all.”  The servant puts the needs of others before their own needs.  The servant listens rather than pontificates.  God does not call the church to be a slave to society – but neither does God call us to make ourselves the centre of attention by twisting every conversation back to ourselves.

Until we rediscover this fundamental truth, I fear that we will continue to be a Church that is all about Me, rather than the Church that is all about Him – our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ.

Bisexual - or just greedy?

I have read a number of blogs recently which have mentioned bisexuals, and the following comment appeared on my recent post on same-sex marriage:

 

Could you clarify something for me, since I am not totally clear on everything you have said here. You rightly point out that part of the marriage vows are "... forsaking all others, be faithful for so long as you both shall live."

How do bi-sexual people do this? Do they deny one part of their desires, and only have one partner for life? Or do they have two partners, and "faithfulness" then means "faithful toward two different people at the same time", and so is redefining "faithful" to mean "not monogamous"?

The fact that such questions need asking show the misunderstanding there is about what it means to be bisexual.  This often leads to confusion among Christians (and even among some of the gay/lesbian community).

Those who are honest and open enough to say they are bisexual, often run the risk of all sorts of unspoken assumptions being made.  Indeed I used to do the same.

I remember making the crass statement once to someone who I now know to be bisexual, that I couldn’t see what the problem was – “if you’re bisexual you should simply find someone of the opposite sex to fall in love with – and then all would be well.”

Others seem to think that all bisexuals want to ‘have their cake and eat it’ needing sexual partners of both sexes to feel a sense of fulfilment.

So what is the real story on bisexuals?  Are they indecisive, fickle or greedy – or is there something deeper going on?

The following is the story of one married couple who have worked through this issue.  It is used with their full permission:

‘My wife & I are dedicated evangelical Christians. I am not bisexual – but my wife is.

The strange thing is – I always knew that.  Even though we couldn’t talk about it because I didn’t have the language or understanding to do so, I knew.   Soon after we met and fell in love I somehow knew that if our relationship didn’t work out, her next partner would probably be a woman.  I don’t know how I knew, but I did.

We never talked about it – how could we?  I was still a conservative evangelical believing that all same sex relationships were wrong.  On one level, we didn’t need to talk about it.  We were in love with each other, and in time, we made our marriage vows to each other, promising to love and care for one another, forsaking all others, until death do us part.

And yet, we did need to talk about it, because until we did, there was a part of who my wife’s identity that was closed off from our relationship – and that meant that there was a part of her that she could not share with me, and which I could not receive and seek to understand.

It was many years later - after I had realised how wrong I had been about gay and lesbian relationships – that we were able to talk together about this part of her which we both knew was there, but neither of us had been able to verbally acknowledge.

Now before any minds start racing with questions and wrong conclusions, let me state categorically that:

> My wife and I have both been faithful to our wedding vows.

> We have each ‘forsaken all others, to be faithful to each other, and we are just as committed to our marriage vows now as we were 20 years ago on our wedding day. 

> Since we have been able to talk with each other openly, there has never been any sense in which my wife has sought a same-sex partner any more that I would seek another opposite-sex partner. 

> We consider that either of these would be adultery, and we are dedicated to one another.

But since we have been able to recognise her bisexuality, and talk to each other freely, our relationship has grown.  My wife no longer needs to hide or ignore a part of who she is, and I have come to value her even more.  She has come to know that I love her for who she is (with nothing hidden) and I know that she chose me out of all the people she knew – not just the men!’

So the assumption that bisexuals will always ‘need’ or ‘choose’ to have partners of both sexes is clearly not the case.  In fact, I would argue that among Christians, almost all bisexuals I have encountered would say exactly the same thing.  They seek to live faithful dedicated lives with their partner – whatever sex that partner is.

There are of course some who choose a different path – just as there are heterosexuals who decide (for whatever reason) to have ‘open’ relationships or join ‘swingers’ clubs. I personally do not understand such an ‘open’ lifestyle, and would say that is not what marriage is meant to be.

There also those whose marriages have not proved to be the life-long, life-giving commitment they had hoped, and after a marriage breaks down a bisexual person may then fall in love with someone of the same sex.   But that does not make bisexuals greedy, indecisive, or fickle – just human.

All too often, Christians start at the wrong end of the issue.  We get pre-occupied with sex, rather than starting with love.  What most people long for is to meet the person who they fall in love with, and who falls in love with them.  If that love is deep enough, then a partnership will follow, and for many, the desire to make promises to each other in marriage.  This is the same whether you are gay, straight or bi.

The hard bit is to live out those promises (and not just the sexual ones) in a life-giving, life-long partnership – and that is exactly the same whether you are lesbian, gay, straight or bi.  It requires commitment, dedication and the strength to say ‘no’ sometimes out of love for your partner.

The only difference between bisexuals and gay/straight people is that their orientation means the person they fall in love with could be of either sex.

Which brings us to the heart of the issue:  being bisexual is about orientation, not about lifestyle.  Statistically, most people are attracted to people of the opposite sex, but some are attracted to people of the same sex, and some are attracted to both.  It is what we do with those attractions that matters.

It is high time that allowed bisexuals to be recognised for who they really are, not as some distorted stereotype.  It is time for us to listen rather than assume. 

As another Christian bisexual said to me recently, “I am bisexual and my lovely husband is straight. I do find I face a lot of problems if I am open about this, because of some awful assumptions and prejudices people have!  Even in LGBT circles I (very occasionally) face problems because people think I am being dishonest or do not belong in a gay Christian group.”

It is time for bisexuals to be able to speak freely about their sexuality without having to battle with the prejudice which would keep them silent.

The T-shirts pictured on this blog are from The Bisexual Index, and are for sale! 

There is also an excellent FAQ page which is an good place to find out more.

Doomsday and Dylan - something for the weekend..

With 2 world-changing events scheduled for the week ahead, I thought it would be good to have something lighter for the weekend.

The first is the end of the world as predicted by Harold Camping - US Christian radio guru.  This is the second attempt at predicting judgment day for the 89 year old, but undeterred by the embarrassing lack of action back in 1994, he is going for broke this weekend, predicting a world-wide earthquake, followed by the rapture as all true Christians fly up into the sky to meet the Lord.

The second event is Bob Dylan's 70th Birthday - who would have ever thought that he would make it this far?  Mind you, if Harold Camping is right, he won't - because his birthday isn't til Tuesday.

But if we all make it to Tuesday intact, this is the song I will celebrate his birthday with.  It's from the infamous 'Slow Train Coming' album back in 1979, when he sang and wrote about his new-found Christian faith in the same uncompromising way in which he wrote protest songs.

It's the last song on the album, and is suitably titled, 'When he Returns' (click to listen on Grooveshark)

The last verse says it all...

Of every earthly plan that be known to man, He is unconcerned
He’s got plans of His own to set up His throne
When He returns

Amen Bob - and Happy Birthday!

(Full lyrics are available here)

(Video's are hard to come by for this 1979 song so but if you don't mind the blurred image, give this one a go...)

Bible says No - Part 3 - Corinthians and Timothy

This is Part 3 in a series inspired by the 'Little Britain' sketch "Computer says No".  It seeks to challenge the perception that the Bible issues a blanket prohibition on same-sex relationships.

You can read Part 1 here, and Part 2 here.

This time -  1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1Timothy 1:10

The Apostle Paul has had quite a bad press in recent years.

As the Church has modernised its attitude to women, some of Paul’s statements have sounded antiquated, even prejudiced.  Not allowing women to speak in church is one example that stands out but there are others.  Protracted discussions about head-covering, and indeed headship seem a long way from the experience of many Christians today in an age of equality.   And that is before we grapple with other enigmatic verses about women being ‘saved by childbearing’!

In some places, this has resulted in some aversion to readings from the Epistles.  There have been services where I have almost heard a sharp intake of breath among the congregations when such passages are read in church.  The fact that orthodox theologians have felt the need to address this in recent years in books like “Did St Paul get Jesus Right?” shows how deeply this has been felt.

But to succumb to such a point of view is to underestimate and devalue Paul’s contribution to the New Testament in a way which is far from justified.  Alongside the few passages which seem to sit uncomfortably alongside modern understandings of society, there are a whole host of other areas where Paul’s radical and inclusive theology blaze a trail for which we should be profoundly grateful.

His uncompromising insistence of salvation through faith alone, freedom from the Law and life in the Spirit, are just some examples which are at the very heart of what it means to be a Christian.  His beautiful and universal description of love in 1 Corinthians 13, quoted by people of all faiths and none, deeply inspires us and moves us.

And on a deeply practical level, all men have cause to be deeply grateful to Paul for successfully opposing those who wanted to impose circumcision on male converts to Christ!

The secret to understanding Paul is to discern between theology and cultural practise.  Paul's theology is timeless and reveals to us in wonderful vivid ways the glory of God.  His cultural practise on the other hand, is focused within the culture of his day, the culture in which he lived.

The theology we find in Paul’s epistles is truly remarkable.   It is the theology of equality – in Christ there is no slave or free, no male or female, no Greek or Jew.  It is the theology of equal grace – it is by grace you have been saved, through faith, so that no one may boast.  It is the a theology that rejects the constraints of religious law in favour of being led  by the Spirit – the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace…. against such things there can be no law.  It is the theology of growing in understanding, not religious repression - for now I see in part, I know in part, but then I will know fully, even as I am fully known.

We can only be inspired by the love and power of God at work in this most zealous of Pharisees, called while he was a persecutor of the church, and yet who, in God’s grace, became the Apostle to the Gentiles – those outside the people of God, who were dismissed and looked down on by God’s chosen race.

But alongside this, we also see Paul grappling with the cultural issues of his day, and the impact they had upon the new, fragile churches he was writing to.  He was writing to a world very different to the one which we observe today.  He was writing to a world which accepted slavery as a cultural norm, where spectators revelled in seeing death in the arena, and in which human rights were limited and dependant on political status. He wrote to fledgling Christian communities made up of Jews and Gentiles with very different norms and expectations about what was proper and socially acceptable.  He wrote in a world where the religious practises of the vast majority of the population would seem bizarre and alien to us today.

So in the midst of all these issues, he tried to set down norms which would enable these Christian churches to function and grow in the Roman world, and yet not be conformed to it.    This is where we find Paul's pronouncements on the role of women for example - statements that were motivated by considerations of cultural practise rather than expressions of the radical new theology of the Gospel.

He also lived in a world which he did not fully understand.  Although he was clearly an educated Jew and a Roman Citizen, his culture was set firmly in the Jewish world, and as he went further and further in his travels across Turkey, into Greece, and ultimately to Rome, we find him grappling with the subtleties of Greek faith and culture as well as Roman politics.

It is within this mix that we find the briefest statements in Romans, 1 Corinthians, and 1 Timothy which appear to address the issue of homosexuality.  Today we will look at the 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10.

The first thing to notice is that the word ‘homosexual’ did not exist in Paul’s day.  In fact it only begins to appear in the in English language in the 19^th century.  The concept of homosexual orientation is one which is relatively new in human society.  There was certainly homosexual sex in the Greek world which Paul moved through, but that does not mean that monogamous, faithful, committed same-sex relationships were the norm.

Same-sex acts of various kinds existed in the Greek world between teachers and pupils, in the  military, in religious worship, and at the gymnasium.  Even today scholars find it a huge challenge to try to unravel their complexity and significance. 

But this is not the issue that Christians are grappling with today. 

The overwhelming majority of gay Christians today are not fighting for the right to indulge in promiscuous, religious, or hedonistic sex.  They simply want the church to recognise the same Christian ethic for them as for heterosexual couples, and increasingly want the same structures and sacraments to frame their relationships.  This would not have been what Paul saw as he journeyed through the Greco-Roman culture of his day.  What he would have been aware of, was the bewildering array of sexual activity which existed - much of which, as a Jew, he would have had little understanding of.

As a result, gay Christians have, for many years, said that they don’t recognise themselves in the things Paul writes about in respect to homosexuality (if indeed we can even call it that).  Put simply, the things that Paul condemned are not the things that LGBT Christians aspire to today.

On top of that, there are considerable problems in translating the words which Paul uses.  In 1 Corinthians 6:9 we find the verse, often quoted that says,

⁹ Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders ¹⁰ nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.  (NIV, 1984)

But the words translated as ‘male prostitutes’ and ‘homosexual offenders’ are far from clear in the Greek which Paul wrote.  The two words are ‘malakoi’ and ‘arsenokoitai’.

Malakoi also appears in the Gospels.  In Matthew 11:8 and Luke 7:25 Jesus asks people what they expected to see when they went to John the Baptist. 

What did you go out to see? A man dressed in fine clothes? No, those who wear fine clothes are in kings' palaces.

The word translated as 'fine' is malakoi.  More usually it means 'soft' and was often used in Greek language to speak disparagingly about people who were soft willed, spineless, or lacking in courage.  In English translations, it was not until the 20th Century that malakoi was given a homosexual meaning.  What was more common before that, was the meaning found in John Wesley's Bible Notes.  He defines "malakoi" in 1 Corinthians, as those:

"Who live in an easy, indolent way; taking up no cross, enduring no hardship"

Arsenokoitai is even more difficult to unravel.  It does not appear in any contemporary Greek texts, and appears for the very first time in 1 Corinthians.  One tool in discerning the meaning of words is to observe how they are used in a variety of contexts.  In the case of arsenokoitai, we have no contemporary contexts outside of Paul's writings to compare.  The only other use of the word is in 1 Timothy 1:10, where it is translated in the NIV as 'perverts':

⁹ We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, ¹⁰ for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine.

This lack of comparable examples to cross-reference has prompted many to ask how we can know for sure what Paul meant by it, and how can we translate it with any degree of certainty?

The most likely explanation is that Paul invented the word, by putting together two words from the Greek translation of Leviticus 18:22 which condemns someone 'who lies with a man as with a woman'.  But as we have seen previously, (Bible says No - Part 2) this condemnation was almost certainly linked to religious prostitution and worship of idols.  The command was designed to keep Israel separate from the dubious religious practices of the cultures around them, and free from idol worship.

This of course brings us back to what Paul saw in the Greco-Roman world.  He would have been aware of same-sex acts in the context of Greek religion, Greek education, Greek gymnasiums - in short 'Greek Culture' -  and he knew that the church must be kept pure from that in the same way that the holiness code of Leviticus was designed to keep Israel pure from the dubious practises and idol worship of those around them. 

So if we can have any degree of certainty about these words, it is that they condemned the Greek expression of same-sex acts , which are very different in context to that of gay men and women today, in loving, committed, faithful, exclusive same-sex relationships.

As we try to unravel 1 Cor 6:9 and 1 Tim 1:10, the case against homosexual relationships today becomes less and less clear.  The words Paul used are either unclear in their meaning, or are simply not found in other contemporary texts, inside or outside of scriptures.  Even Greek scholars find it hard to translate them with any degree of certainty.

I had always been told that ‘homosexual offenders’ in the Bible meant all homosexuals who had sex, regardless of the context, but I now find this impossible to justify.  There is a world of difference between a man and a woman having sex together in prostitution, as opposed to marriage, and we would never dream of treating those situations as comparable – so why do we assume that all homosexual sex is condemned in the Bible? 

If these verses can be translated in a way which condemns homosexual acts, then the acts they condemn are the wicked, immoral, idolatrous, adulterous expressions which the first part of 1 Corinthians 6:9 refers to - not the self-giving love that we observe today between people of the same sex who genuinely love each other and want to commit their lives to each other before God.

Next time - Romans 1 ...

A tale of two Ugandans

This week Uganda has been in the gay rights news once again, with the murder of leading homosexual David Kato in an attack my unknown assailants who beat him to death with an iron bar.

Such murders are, sadly, not uncommon in Uganda, but what makes this murder such a cause for concern is the fact that David Kato was one of over 100 homosexuals whose names and photographs appeared in Uganda's Rolling Stone Newspaper with the words "Hang them".  Following the article, many of those who were 'outed' have suffered attacks, and received death threats.

David Kato had recently won a court case against the newspaper preventing them from naming more homosexuals, and there is clear suspicion that his death may be linked to his sexuality.  Last year Uganda faced unparalleled international pressure when a bill was introduced in parliament which would have introduced the death penalty for homosexual acts.   The publication of names and photos of homosexual came soon after the withdrawal of the bill and many read it as encouragement for Ugandans to take the law into their own hands.

While the circumstances of his murder are still to be determined, messages of concern over his death have come from almost every quarter, including US President Barack Obama & Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton.

Also this week, another leading Ugandan made a stand on the issue of homosexuality, but in a very different way.

Archbishop Orombi of Uganda, is one of the leading figures in the Global South Group opposed to same-sex blessings, ministry and marriage.  In 2006, he led the Ugandan Bishops in unanimously declaring that they would boycott meetings where "the violators of Lambeth Resolution 1:10 are also invited" 

Lambeth 1:10 describes homosexual practice as 'incompatible with Holy Scripture' and true to his word, he was one of 7 Archbishops who have boycotted the Anglican Primates meeting this week in Dublin because of the presence of The Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church in the United States, Dr Katharine Jefferts Schori.

But Lambeth 1:10 also states "We commit ourselves to listen to the experience of homosexual persons and we wish to assure them that they are loved by God" and calls on "all our people to minister pastorally and sensitively to all irrespective of sexual orientation and to condemn irrational fear of homosexuals"

Now, surely, is the time for Archbishop Orombi to put the whole of Lambeth 1:10 into practice.

In  an article for the Anglican Communion in 2007, he notes that Uganda is the second largest province in the Anglican Communion, with over 9 million members.   He extols the benefits which the Gospel has brought to Uganda saying, "The gospel of Jesus Christ as revealed to us through the Word of God enables warring tribes to begin to coexist and to embrace neighbourliness."

He praises evangelists who "Instead of being armed with spears, they came armed only with the Word of God. Instead of a message of war and destruction, they delivered a message of Good News from the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ."

The time has surely come when this voice needs to be heard again in Uganda - with the Church acting as bringer of peace - to end to the tribalism of sexuality and to promote love and respect for all human life.

And the time has come for Archbishop Orombi to recognise the importance of fulfilling the whole of Lambeth 1:10, by using his influence in Uganda to stop the demonization of homosexuals. 

Nor would he be a lone voice in Uganda in calling for a new dialogue.  The influential Ugandan newspaper 'The Daily Monitor' has responded to the murder by calling for a new national debate.

What we need is an honest national dialogue on homosexuality in order to forge a consensus on the rights of those Ugandans who choose to be gay and those who oppose homosexuality as a lifestyle.

Holding puritanical and extreme views on the matter, whether liberal or conservative, will divide us, rather than help us find a mutually acceptable compromise.

People like David Kato and others who might be gay are Ugandans and enjoy the same rights and protections of the law as heterosexuals. We cannot send them into exile neither, lock them away, or hang them.

We need to have an honest discussion about how to ensure that their rights are upheld without violating the rights of other Ugandans.

Any Anglican province which does not take on Lambeth's call to "condemn irrational fear" and assure all homosexuals "that they are loved by God" could be described (in the words of Archbishop Orombi) as a 'violator of Lambeth 1:10'

And no-one would want the Archbishop of Uganda to have to boycott himself...

(Please also see my follow-up post 'Today I am ashamed to be an Anglican' which followed the Funeral of David Kato)

Double Standards in Conscientious Objection ...

The news that Cornish B&B owners have been successfully sued for discriminating against gay guests is likely to reinforce the growing accusations that the right to practise our Christian faith are being eroded or challenged in the UK.

Groups like Christian Concern have highlighted this in speaking out in support of Christians who feel their right to religious freedom been challenged by equality laws designed to uphold the rights of homosexuals.  These include the Relate counsellor who lost his job after refusing to counsel homosexual couples, a registrar who refused to officiate Civil Partnerships and the B&B owners, Peter and Hazelmary Bull.

In the words of Christian Concern, such laws have "led to Christians losing their jobs after refusing to compromise their beliefs at work".

Whilst I have every sympathy with those whose faith puts them in situations where they face moral dilemmas, I can't help wonder why some seem to single out homosexuality for this kind of Christian conscientious objection whilst ignoring other moral dilemmas.

There is, of course, a proud history of conscientious objection in this country.   My wife's grandfather was a pacifist and conscientious objector in the second world war, and suffered for it in prison.  His pacifism was rooted in his Christian faith, and he stood up for what he believed.

There are also many Christians who rightly choose not to work directly in areas where they feel that their faith and their job would be in conflict - whether it be in the arms trade, adult entertainment, gambling, or some areas of medical research.

But that is entirely different to the moral dilemmas which face many Christians in ordinary, day to day jobs, and which Christians almost universally accept (sometimes with a heavy heart) as inevitable in a 'free' society.

Examples might include the shop assistant in a newsagent who is faced with a customer buying a 'top shelf' pornographic magazine.  The Roman Catholic pharmacist who is asked to supply contraception.  The taxi driver picking up a customer who asks to be taken to an abortion clinic.  The stock broker or fund manager who is required to buy shares in companies with questionable records in the arms trade, environment, human rights or third world exploitation.  All of these situations could involve a Christian being asked to facilitate something which they might find morally wrong or questionable.

Years ago when I was a motorbike despatch rider in London, I often felt compromised by the company I worked for.  They charged more than anyone else for the letters we delivered, on the basis that each courier would only have one letter on board at any one time.  This was completely untrue of course, and we were often juggling several deliveries  at the same time.  Sometimes, a particularly astute customer would ask for reassurance when I picked up an urgent letter.  "You don't have any other jobs on board, do you?" was the standard question - and it placed me, as a Christian, in a dilemma.   I could lie and keep everyone happy, or tell the truth and lose my job.  In the end I found a way of fudging the issue, and my standard answer when challenged became "That's what you are paying for!"  which was true, even if it wasn't truth-ful.

The point is this.  Christians often end up facing issues of compromise at work.  That is simply the way life is.

Now perhaps we should  be less compromising.  Perhaps we should be more ready to witness to our Christian faith by refusing to do anything that goes against our religious beliefs.  Perhaps we should be campaigning for the right to Christian conscientious objection in every moral area of life - including other areas where Christians don't always agree (like pacifism, contraception, and the stock market).

But at the moment, it appears that almost all the 'conscientious objectors' whose cases are being highlighted by groups like Christian Concern and the Christian Legal Centre are related to homosexuality.

I don't see campaigns to encourage Christian shop assistants, taxi drivers, pharmacists & stockbrokers to stand up for their faith in the moral dilemmas they face.   All I see are a minority of Christians who want the right to single out homosexuals as the one group worthy of such conscientious objection, because for some strange reason, homosexuality is worse than all the rest.

Unless those same Christian groups encourage a policy of refusal for the full range of situations where faith creates moral dilemmas, it will not be seen as principled action to uphold freedom of religion - just prejudice.




PS.  I found the picture to illustrate this blog on a campaign site called "Stop Gay Marriages".  They descibe their cause in the following way, "without gays the world would be a better place we need to stop all gays marriages. they are absuly wrong and horrible".  Enough said ?