Will the sun still rise tomorrow?

Later tonight a new era begins in England and Wales as the first same-sex marriages are celebrated.

As the clock strikes midnight, marriage between two people of the same gender will become legal and the first couples will tie the knot.

There have been dire warnings about this change to the law here and elsewhere in the world.  In the USA a radio commercial proclaimed that  “Terrible consequences will affect everyone and everything imaginable forever if same-sex marriage goes ahead!” and here same-sex marriage was described as ‘grotesque’ by a senior church leader who later had to leave his post after admitting pressurising fellow priests into sexual encounters.

Into this mix I would like to contribute two things.

The first is a speech I gave last November at the Law Society in London in a debate etitled, “Protecting Diversity, Belief, Conscience, and the new definition of Marriage”

The second is a speech by a New Zealand MP in their debate on same-sex marriage.  The title of this post comes from that speech.

Enjoy…

Speech to the Law Society – 12^th November 2013

Ladies and gentlemen, let me first say thank you for your invitation to speak in this debate tonight.

When I received the list of other speakers for this evening, I have to say that I was a little overwhelmed as being the only non-lawyer on the platform for a debate at the Law Society!

 

But then it occurred to me that I am also likely to be the only person on the platform who has any experience of actually marrying couples and preparing them for marriage. During  my twenty-two years of ordained ministry, I have always taken marriage preparation just as seriously as the Big Day itself.  I have always met with the couple several times in the months leading up to their wedding – not to talk about hymns, flowers, or rehearsals – but to talk with them about what makes a successful, life-giving and life-long marriage.

So maybe I do have something to contribute after all…

Ever since same-sex marriage rose up the political agenda here and around the world, there have been those (especially people of faith) who have felt threatened by it.

It has been denounced by various Christian leaders in this country as “grotesque, dictatorial, and shameful”.  There have been accusations that it will devalue the marriages of heterosexuals and that it will put religious freedom in jeopardy.

Perhaps that fear is encapsulated most clearly in this quote from October in a radio commercial in Hawaii, before their Senate vote on same-sex marriage.  The radio commercial said

 “Terrible consequences will affect everyone and everything imaginable forever if same-sex marriage goes ahead!”

And yet here we are today with the same-sex marriage bill having been written into law for England and Wales and awaiting the first such marriage soon.

So are the warnings coming true?   In particular, is same-sex marriage in this country a threat to religious freedom, belief and conscience?  The answer is a resounding “No!”

The government has been at pains to protect religious freedom, faith and conscience, in the drafting of this law.  They have put in place the “Quadruple lock” to protect faith groups from being compelled to do anything against their beliefs or conscience, even going so far as to declare it illegal for any Church of England priest to celebrate a same-sex marriage.

And this has been recognised and accepted by many who oppose same-sex marriage.  For example the Evangelical Alliance is the oldest body of evangelical Christians in the UK claiming to represent over 2 million people.  They campaigned against same-sex marriage, and yet since the law gained royal assent, they have produced a “Marriage FAQ’s” for member groups and churches.  Twelve of the twenty-two FAQ’s consider the question of compulsion and churches’ right to refuse to conduct or facilitate same-sex weddings.   In every single one of those questions, the answer was “No – you cannot be compelled” and “Yes – you have a legal right to refuse” to conduct or host a same-sex marriage.

The reality is that the safeguards in the Same-sex Marriage Bill more than cover the right to religious freedom, faith and conscience.

But there is a diversity issue relating to belief and conscience which is deeply pertinent today – and that is the diversity of belief about same-sex marriage among members of churches and faith groups which is not being recognised or expressed by churches, denominations and faith groups.

A YouGov poll conducted by the University of Leicester in January 2013 found that even then

•  More Anglicans thought that same-sex couples should be allowed to get married than thought they should not.
• More Anglicans supported the right of same-sex couples to get married than opposed it.
• As well as, more Roman Catholics, more Presbyterians, and a majority of Hindu’s and Jews

But this is certainly not being represented by the leaders of Christian denominations. 

Even when the deeper question was asked , “Do you think that same-sex marriage is right or  wrong?” over a third of all Christians polled said that they thought it was right!

And I hear from Christians up and down the country who would like to see same-sex marriage happening in their church, and that includes local church leaders!

So where is this diversity being acknowledged and expressed in the official stance of most Christian churches?  The answer is that it is not.

I stand before you today as an Evangelical Christian who is not only in favour of same-sex marriage, but who also longs for the day when I will be permitted (by my Church) to officiate at such a wedding – and I am not alone.   I have come to this conclusion after careful, prayerful examination of the Scriptures, my belief, and my conscience.

So as we consider ‘Protecting diversity, belief and conscience in the new definition of marriage” today, the real question we should address is this:

“When will our churches and faith groups recognise, protect and give expression to the differing beliefs and conscience of their members in relation to marriage today?”

I look forward to our debate tonight.

Ten years on...

(A personal reflection)

Last month was a significant milestone for our family.  It was the 10^th anniversary of an event which changed our lives forever.

On the 4^th April 2003, at about 9:30am, my wife Mel was cycling to Yoga through the busy streets of Brixton when a lorry turned left without looking or signalling, and she was dragged under its wheels.  She was pushed down the road under one of the front wheels for about 10 metres and when the 18 tonne truck came to a halt, it was quite literally resting on top of her pelvis.

Those who know us or our story, will know that by some miracle she survived, but it led to month after month in hospital after hospital, and on a number of occasions she was at real risk of dying, even years after the accident.  Today she is partially disabled, suffers chronic pain, and has to take tablets by the handful two or three times a day.

As you can imagine, the impact on our lives was dramatic.  For Mel, the effects are obvious:  pain, disability, loss of identity, depression and the side-effects of all the drugs have taken their toll.  Instead of looking forward to returning to work when both kids went to school, she had to limit her ambitions to learning to walk, time and time again, and staying out of a wheelchair for as many years as possible.

Our children were just 3 and 4 years old when the accident happened.  Zac was settled in the reception class at school but Iona was still at home with Mel looking after her as a full time stay-at-home mum.  Mel was just beginning to loosen the apron strings taking her to a play-group while she went to Yoga.  She always left with the promise “Mummy always comes back”.  For both the kids, the change was enormous, going from mum always being there, to seeing her in hospital for a few minutes every other day because she was simply too ill for anything more.

But for me too, the change was greater than I could have imagined.   I was vicar of a busy parish in Brixton, London.  As well as leading the church, I was also responsible for overseeing several projects including a ‘Foyer’ homeless project, employment training company, charity shop, café, and youth team.  I was a member of the Church of England’s General Synod and an adviser to the Government on urban regeneration.  I had co-written a resource book on ministry in run-down housing estates and was getting invitations up and down the country to speak to groups of church leaders.

Slowly, one by one, all these things were stripped away as I found I simply couldn’t keep up with my working responsibilities alongside being mum and dad to the kids, supporting Mel in hospital and caring for her at home, and dealing with my own sense of spiritual brokenness.  “Why did you let this happen, Lord?  We were constantly sticking out our necks for you – couldn’t you have watched our backs?”

First to go were the speaking engagements and promoting resources for estates ministry.  I had spent 7 years developing the resources which went into the book, but now I found myself having to say no to invitations to help others use them.

The work with the Government went next as I simply couldn’t attend the residential meetings up and down the country.  I had been one of 20 people selected out of 600 applicants to serve on this national Community Forum, but now I found myself having to tender my resignation.

Then I had to scale back on the local projects I was overseeing, even though many of them were fragile and at a critical stage.

And my work at General Synod (the Church of England’s parliament) slowly became too difficult to do.  I could only attend about half the meetings, and even then had to miss things because of last minute complications, or a sudden downturn in Mel’s condition.

Then finally, 18 months after the accident, after Mel had survived another series of major operations, my health failed.  A combination of exhaustion and PTSD finally caught up with me and I was signed off work by my doctor.  For the first few weeks, I found myself unable to answer the door, pick up a phone or switch on a computer.  When I left the house to take the kids to school, or take Mel to her many out-patient appointments, I could hardly speak to people, except in one-word answers.

Soon we realised that we had to leave London and find somewhere quieter to live – somewhere where we could both heal.  We had been totally committed to living and working in the parts of London where others choose not to go because of poverty, crime or violence.  We never thought we would do anything else, but now we found ourselves moving to the other extreme – a sleepy village in comfortable, rural middle-England.  The stripping away of my previous sense of Christian calling, ministry and vocational identity was now complete.

But in all the trauma and exhaustion, there is one thing that we will always be grateful for.

I now see that for years before that fateful day, God had been challenging my sound, traditional, conservative theology of sexuality. 

Just like Peter on the roof of Simon’s house in Joppa, he had been challenging my perceptions of what was clean & unclean in his eyes, time & time again (see Acts 10) and just like Peter, I had refused to listen.    I had stuck to what I had been taught.  I had remained steadfast in the ‘Biblical’ teaching I had received since my childhood.  I had repeated the conservative evangelical mantra, “The Bible says its wrong” over and over again when it came to same-sex relationships.  I had signed letters to the Church of England deploring any relaxation in this strict moral code.  I had told gay friends who were ordained that I thought they should leave their ministry if they refused to repent and amend their lives.

But then in the brokenness which followed Mel’s accident, God gently lowered the sheet once again, sending to me gay Christians who tended my wounds – who prayed with me and for me when I couldn’t pray – who held me close to Christ when all my spiritual strength was gone.

And when I went back to the Bible to look again at what it said about such people, I found that the blinkers had gone.  The same blinkers which Peter wore when he said “No Lord” – the blinkers which meant that, when I went to the Bible, I already knew what it was going to say, even before I read it.  Those blinkers were gone, and for the first time I saw how weak the Biblical case was for condemning same-sex relationships.

Like the scales which fell from Paul’s eyes after his conversion on the road to Damascus, I now could see properly for the first time, and the world looked very different.

The rest, as they say is history.

The new understanding which came out of our tragedy has taken me down roads I never could have imagined.  I remember sitting in a Communion service at an LGB&T conference recently and feeling more at home than I do in most churches.  My wife and I have been able to talk about her Bisexual orientation – something we both knew, ever since we met, but had never been able to be talk about – and we are closer than ever as a result.  Our children live in a family where there is no conflict between faith and sexuality and their faith has flourished.  Even as teenagers, they are the ones who look disappointed if Mel or I say we can’t go to church this week.

So was this all part of God’s plan?

No – I can’t say that – but I do know that God promises to bring good out of even the darkest situations, and we have been blessed by the good He has brought into our lives despite all the pain.

Sometimes it is only when we are broken that God can work to reshape our lives.  That brokenness can come from our own actions, or the actions of others, or even from random events at work in our world, but God can use even the greatest tragedies to open closed hearts to his love.

I am only sorry that I was so stubborn and hard of heart when God’s sheet was being lowered down to me before Mel’s accident – and that it took such a traumatic event to change my mind.  My prayer for others, who struggle with this issue, is that it will not take such a tragedy to open their hearts to a new understanding of God’s will.

As this 10^th Anniversary has passed, Mel and I still struggle with depression, flashbacks and the on-going effects of that terrible day, which is partly why I have been so quiet recently.  But in Christ we are more than conquerors through him who loves us and we are profoundly grateful for the good that he has brought out of the evil of that day.

Unconditional Joy

I recently came back from our family holiday in Polzeath, Cornwall – and it was fun!

The highlight, as always, was body boarding in the waves on this famous surfing beach.  Being picked up by the waves and propelled forward in the surf alongside other excited boarders as we raced towards the sands is nothing less than fantastic.

And as I looked left and right at others being carried along by the waves, I saw and felt something wonderful.  Unconditional joy!

It is the kind of joy that leaves everything else behind.  Whatever worries or stresses may have been around in the rest of our lives simply fell away as we sped towards the shore.  Uninhibited smiles broke across faces, divisions and social barriers fell away.  Old and young, fat and thin, cool and not so cool, all united for those few moments in the joy of riding a wave.

It was the wonderful power of unconditional joy and I think that we need more of it in our lives.

Many of us lead such complicated lives, juggling different responsibilities and spheres of life.  Work, home, faith, aspirations, expectations, joys and sorrows all mixed up inside of us – which mean that we rarely experience truly ‘unconditional’ moments like these.  It is the power of the ‘yes-but’ in the back of our minds which impinges on pure, true joy - the potent inhibition inside us that stops us surrendering to the joy of the moment - and we are the poorer for it.

I also think that Christians are particularly bad at this.  We are too self-conscious to surrender ourselves to pure joy – there is always the bit of guilt or concern for others that holds us back. 

Let me give you a trivial example – saying Grace before a meal.

I always thought that saying Grace was about thanking God for what he has given us, but so often any thankfulness is immediately followed by a reminder about all the people in the world who don’t have enough to eat. 

Now before you think me heartless or complacent, let me say that I do take seriously the needs of the hungry in the world.  As a family, we give financially every month to support aid and development.  In fact, when I left work recently to be a carer for my wife, it was the one piece of our giving which was non-negotiable, and we have gone without things to maintain it.  But why do we have to spoil the joy of sharing together in a family meal by this need to counterbalance our thankfulness with an equal dosage of guilt?

Then there are those times in church worship when the joy of God touches our hearts.  All too often, I have held back from embracing that joy unconditionally because of worrying about other people around me who may not be feeling so uplifted!   Yet unconditional joy has a unifying power – like the power of the waves at Polzeath – uniting very different people – even strangers – in a moment of pure enjoyment.

And there is also a deeper need to let ourselves go once in a while - to get lost in the moment.  As I have reflected on my experience in the waves at Polzeath, I have also found myself reflecting on another area of life where the unconditional is so important and yet so rare – Unconditional Love.

As Christians we are called to mirror God’s unconditional love for us.  The love that causes the sun to shine on good and bad people (Matthew 5:45).  The love that took Jesus to the cross, while we were still sinners (1 John 4:10).  The love that runs to meet the prodigal son and throws its arms around him without waiting for apology or contrition.

And we often pretend that we offer unconditional love to each other.  Yet so often there is a ‘yes-but’ in our love for brother, sister or stranger, than means we hold something back.  And in the process, our love becomes conditional and tainted – it becomes dependant on that person meeting our expectations in one way or another.

Conditional love is not God’s love.  Conditional love is not empowering, liberating, overwhelming, or transforming.  Conditional love does not open our hearts and wills to the love and purposes of God.  Rather, it set limits on how much we mean to God.  It sets limits on what God can do.  It seeks to steer us rather than embrace us.

And as I have reflected, I have come to realise that there is a link between Unconditional Joy and Unconditional Love, and it is this…

Until we are able to embrace Unconditional Joy,

we will be unable to offer Unconditional Love.

Or put another way, until we are ready to let go of the ‘Yes-but’ in our joy, we will be unable to let go of the ‘Yes-but’ in our love.

So I am grateful to the waves of Polzeath for giving me a glimpse into the power of unconditional joy – for the strangers with whom I felt united as we rode the waves in those moments of joy – and for the God who loves us without conditions and who longs to fill us with his unconditional joy.

Not to be read by children!

I think that I was about 7 when by father made a serious mistake at a primary school service in the parish church where he was vicar.

In the run up to Christmas, in a talk on gratitude, he foolishly made the remark, “Of course some of us know who we really need to thank for our Christmas presents.”

The fuse was lit.

A small girl went home after school in tears because that vicar had said that there was no Father Christmas.  Her parents were outraged and rung the local newspaper who immediately picked it up and ran an article the next day.

Within hours of it going to press the vicarage was inundated with phone-calls from the press – local newspapers, nationals, radio stations, and finally, a photographer from The Sun turned up on the doorstep asking for a photo of my father and I playing with one of my toys from last Christmas.

In the midst of this the BBC rang the Bishop of Manchester for comment.

“Did he know” went the question, “that one of his clergy was going around telling children that Father Christmas doesn’t exist?”

The Bishop thought for a moment, and then simply replied, “I didn’t know that belief in Father Christmas was a fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith.”

I have been prompted to tell this story because of news coming out of the GAFCON meeting this week.  According to the Daily Telegraph they have, ‘criticised what they called “revisionist attempts” to abandon basic doctrines on issues such as homosexuality and “turn Christianity merely into a movement for social betterment” during Dr Williams tenure.’

As a result they think that the Archbishop of Canterbury should lose his role as figurehead of the world-wide Anglican Communion.

Now there is a debate to be had as to whether it is appropriate for the Archbishop of Canterbury to be so caught up in the strife of world-wide Anglicanism that he (or hopefully in the future, she) is inhibited from displaying the right kind of leadership in the Church of England….

But... and this is a big BUT…  I have to ask the question,

Since when has a doctrine of homosexuality been a basic doctrine of the Church of England – let alone the Christian Faith?

Did Jesus say anything about it in the Gospels?  - No. 

Does it appear in the Creeds? – No. 
Does it appear in the 39 Articles of Religion or the 1662 Prayer Book? – No.

So how is it now being portrayed as a basic doctrine of the Church?

What is more, if this is true, it only provides more evidence that the Church of England is institutionally homophobic.  After all, if it is a basic doctrine of the Church, then our whole existence as a church has, as one of its foundational doctrines, an anti-homosexual faith.  You can’t get much more institutionally homophobic than that.

In truth, however, the traditional understanding of homosexuality is not a basic doctrine of the Church of England, the Church in general, or the Christian Faith as a whole.

Like belief in Father Christmas, it has acquired a status in some parts of the Church which might lead the unwitting observer to that conclusion, but to mis-quote a former Bishop of Manchester,

“I didn’t know that belief against homosexuality is a fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith – because it isn’t!”

Pain in the Body of Christ

I have recently gained a new insight into Paul’s analogy of the Church as the Body of Christ in 1 Corinthians 12.

It came from a helter-skelter on the pier at Weston-super-Mare last week. As I reached the bottom of the spiral slide, it suddenly switched direction and I was thrown to the other side, and managed to crush one of my fingers in the process.

A visit to the local hospital revealed that I had shattered a bone into 3 pieces.  It was just one bone, and a small one at that, at the tip of my middle finger on my left hand.  It has to be splinted up for a month and I have been told not to use it.

But the impact on my day to day life has been out of all proportion to the size of the bone which was broken.

For the first few days, I had to keep my hand elevated in a sling to reduce the swelling.  I am left handed so I have had to learn how to do things with my right hand.  Simple things like brushing my teeth or eating a bowl of pasta have become a real challenge.  Typing with one hand – doing the washing up without getting my splint wet – the list of implications could go on and on.

And when I forget to be careful and knock my left hand against something – it hurts!

Just as Paul said about the body, “If one part suffers, every part suffers with it.”

Paul was painting this picture to teach us about the Church – different parts joined and knit together to make the whole – every part important – every part interdependent on the other.  When one part of the church is in pain – the whole body is in pain.

As I reflected on this I found myself thinking about the pain which the continuing controversy about same-sex relationships, Civil Partnerships and same-sex Marriage is causing in the church.  Which parts of the Body of Christ are hurting now in the midst of Government consultations, uncompromising statements by leading church figures, and banned bus poster campaigns ?

Certainly, there are gasps of outrage and horror from the conservative Christian groups.  There is also deep discomfort among clergy and ministers who find themselves having to face same-sex couples in church who might challenge their preconceptions or church allegiances.  But this is not real pain – it is the discomfort of a slight bruise or a shallow graze.

The real pain is amongst lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Christians who are constantly having their identity, faith and sexuality questioned – treated with suspicion, distrust or open hostility.  The ones who face the invisible sign outside many churches which says “Not welcome here”, or “Please find somewhere else”.  The couples whose love is not recognised or accepted by churches which refuse to pray for God’s blessing on their committed partnerships - or are prevented from doing so by authority or fear of others.

These are the people who are truly hurting in our current intransigence, and the hurt runs deep – right to the bone.

As a consequence, the whole body is in pain.  Just like my broken finger, that pain and injury affects the whole body.  Tasks which should come naturally, almost without thinking, become unfamiliar and burdensome. Some activities even become impossible until the healing takes place.

There are some in the church who say that they are fed up of all this sexuality stuff – “It’s all we ever seem to talk about” is a phrase I’ve heard more than once. “There are much more important issues we should be addressing” is another.  But like Paul said (and my broken finger bears witness to) when a part of the body suffers, the whole body suffers – even when it is a comparatively small part of the body as a whole.

The truth is that we will not function properly as the Body of Christ while we continue to inflict this pain on our gay brothers and sisters.  Our mission, our presence in society, even our message will continue to be severely impaired by this pain.

I like ‘The Message’ translation of the verse I quoted earlier (1 Corinthians 12:26).  It goes beyond most when it says,

“If one part hurts, every other part is involved in the hurt, and in the healing.”

The time has come for the Church to minister in the way that Jesus did, by focusing on healing rather than judgment.  It is time to open our hearts.  It is time to be the Body of Christ.

Can you change marriage ?

When the Government published its much awaited consultation on same-sex marriage last Thursday, the battle lines had already been clearly drawn.

On one side are the Prime Minister, gay pressure groups, and the majority of MP’s in parliament  who, according to all calculations, would back such a measure in a free vote.

On the other, ranks of church leaders from a range of denominations who have denounced the proposed ‘re-definition’ of marriage as, in varying degrees, grotesque, dictatorial, and shameful.

A common assertion among the latter is that you simply can’t change marriage.  Marriage is what marriage is, and no-one has the power to alter it – not government, nor church nor equality activists.   According  to the Archbishop of York, it is not "the role of the state to define what marriage is.  It is set in tradition and history and you can’t just [change it] overnight, no matter how powerful you are."

The Archbishop is undeniably right of course, when he points to our current understanding of marriage as "a relationship between a man and a woman" but what he fails to acknowledge is that definitions, understandings and laws relating to marriage have been constantly changing through human history, biblical history, and church history.

If we go back to the Bible, we find that for the bulk of biblical history, marriage was polygamous with many wives equating to male power & success.  Neither the Gospels nor the Epistles ever put a formal end to this model of marriage and yet it is one which few would advocate today - our understanding has changed dramatically from the examples of scripture.

In pre-Enlightenment times marriage was more about property than about love, with political order and social standing high on the agenda for budding brides, grooms and their families.

In the Prayer Book the reasons for marriage are clear - first for procreation of children, then as a remedy against sin, and then finally for the mutual 'help and comfort' of the couple – little about love here.   Brides were ‘given away’ from one man to another. Marriage between family members which were forbidden, included a prohibition on marrying your wife’s sister after her death.  This came from a mistaken understanding of consanguinity – that because you became one flesh with your wife, so you shared the same family blood with her sister.  So strong was this belief that when an act of Parliament finally legalised such marriages in 1907, clergy were permitted to refuse to conduct them - an interesting parallel in today's debates about same-sex marriage.

Today’s theology of marriage can be found more in the modern marriage service of Common Worship than in the Prayer Book.  Here we find the Prayer Book introduction substantially re-ordered and changed.  Marriage is first and foremost about enabling two people to be 'united with one another in heart, body and mind' as they 'grow together in love and trust'.  Then it is for the 'delight and tenderness of sexual union' within 'joyful commitment to the end of their lives' and after all that, it is the 'foundation of family life in which children are [born] and nurtured'. Even here, the square brackets reveal a changing recognition of more complex realities in the raising of children.

So when those opposed to same-sex marriage claim that you can’t just change marriage, it is a selective view of history at best because clearly it has been changed time and time again.  The real issue must be about the substance of marriage and whether same-sex relationships can be embraced within that essence.

Many people in the church and wider society have recognized the marks of marriage in committed  same-sex relationships around them.  Bishop Nicholas Holtam referred to these recently when he said, “I think same-sex couples that I know who have formed a partnership have in many respects a relationship which is similar to a marriage and which I now think of as marriage.”

Indeed, when David Cameron asserts that he supports same-sex marriage because "society is stronger when we make vows to each other and support each other", he is echoing the modern marriage service when it affirms that marriage "enriches society and strengthens community."

And there are several pointers within Scripture which might direct us towards an understanding of marriage which is not dependent on gender difference.

When God sought to provide a suitable companion for Adam in the Garden of Eden, he said “It is not good for the man to be alone”.  Gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people exhibit the same yearning as Adam.  Just because they find that the person who completes them is of the same sex, that does not abrogate the need which God meets in the creation of another human being to complete Adam’s yearning for a suitable companion in life.

In imagery of the Church as the Bride of Christ (often quoted as a justification for opposing same-sex marriage) we easily forget that the Church comprises both women and men who will, in some sense be a bride to Christ as part of His Church.

In Galatians, Paul calls us to a radical new reality in Christ as gender becomes irrelevant in Christ who enables us all to be born again into a new creation.

As the Government consultation begins, we need to grapple with these issues.  We need to engage in theological debate and prayerful reflection, rather than knee-jerk reactions claiming eternal authority for an institution which is incapable of change.

The role of the Established Church is not simply to act as a line of last defense, but to guide our nation in examining our understanding of God and society.  Marriage is not an immovable object - the question is what direction should it take today?

A Permanent Law?

I have been reading the book of Exodus again recently - a chapter a day -  trying to get into the mindset and culture of the people of Israel in the times of the Old Testament Law.

This week I have got to the part which describes the designs and rules for the tabernacle and its contents, and for the clothes which were to be made for Aaron and his sons.  The instructions are highly detailed, leaving nothing to chance, and are described as "a permanent law for the people of Israel and must be kept by all future generations". (Exodus 27:21 - New Living Translation)

Aarons robes reminded me of the vestments which my more Anglo-catholic colleagues wear adorned with gold and bright colours.  They are something which I have never quite connected with in my own spirituality, but know how much they mean to others, and here they are in scripture, as the clothes of the priests as they enter the presence of God. 

Then I thought of how different the Exodus descriptions are compared to the environment I find most conducive to worship.  My personal worship heaven would be a modern, well-lit room with comfortable chairs, arranged in a curve rather than straight constricting rows.  A good sound system and worship band to lead and inspire.  A digital projector carving pictures and words in light on a large screen, encouraging me to look up as I pray, reflect and sing.  Colourful modern banners lining the walls and a lectern standing central on the stage, bathed in the warm glow of a spotlight for the preaching of the Word. How different this is to the tabernacle in Exodus!

But then again, we all have our preferences, customs, rules and rituals when it comes to worship.

I remember an Anglo-catholic priest coming to my Evangelical theological college to preach.  He was there to help us poor low-church protestants and charismatics understand a little about what is important to those whose worship is  'further up the candle'.  Just as he started to preach, someone rushed up to him and attached a lapel microphone to his robes and then sat back down, slightly embarrassed that he had forgotten to do this earlier.

The priest paused for a moment, and then said - "You know - this is how rituals grow.  In the future this may well become part of our liturgy.  Every week, just as the preacher gets up to speak, someone with come forward and attach a small object with a wire to the preachers clothes.  By then, of course it will be highly symbolic, with lots of bowing and carefully rehearsed hand movements.  It will be engraved in artistic writing with the letters ' M I C ' but, following generations of technological developments, this will be a cryptic word which no-one uses anymore and  few understand.  A bell might sound to emphasise the importance of the moment and to call the congregation to listen carefully as the Word of God is unfolded.  Particularly devout members of the church may be moved to raise their hands into the air and cry 'Alleluia' or make the sign of the cross.  And everyone except the most scholarly of church historians will have exactly no idea why we do it!"

So what about the verses in Exodus that describe its rules for worship as ' a permanent law for all generations' ?  The truth is that every generation fashions its worship in a way which speaks to them - now even more than in the past - but shouldn't we be all obeying the permanent law of Exodus 25 to 30, particularly those who call themselves 'Bible Believing Christians'?  Are we living and worshipping in sin because we do not follow the designs and rituals of this ancient age?

In reality, if I went to preach that in any modern church, I would be dismissed as utterly mad!  On the way to being thrown out of the door, I would be pointed to John 4:23 where Jesus said that true believers will worship in spirit and truth.  I would be told that the 'permanent law' of the Old Testament is not as permanent it might first appear, and that reading the Bible in that kind of simplistic way is not what God calls us to do.

So why do we still  apply other parts of OT law as permanent fixed markers of the will of God today?  (eg Leviticus 18:22)  And why do we allow the prevailing interpretations of Scripture in our time dictate how we should read and understand the Bible in ways which imply the same permanence?

When Jesus directed us to 'spirit and truth - when Paul says we no longer live 'under the law' - we are being called to a radically new and more complex way of living under God.  It is more complex because it does not rely on legal codes, ancient or modern, but on a relationship with the living God.

Perhaps that is why we need the 'new heart' of flesh that we are promised in Ezekiel 36:26 to replace our heart of stone.  

Bible says No? - Part 4 - Romans

When I started this series in November last year, I never dreamed it would take me so long to finish!

We have looked at the Biblical evidence for condemning same-sex relationships and found that it is not as clear cut as many of us have been told. As we have seen Bible verses taken out of context in Leviticus 18, 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy do appear to take the same approach as the clerk in Little Britain’s ‘Computer says no’. But context is vital to understanding Scripture, and usually, when something is prohibited in the Bible, there is a Biblical explanation for why. The verses we have looked at so far do not provide that. There are no reasons, no explanation, just ‘Don’t do it!’ – whatever ‘it’ is….

The one exception to this is Romans 1. Here finally, there appears to be some theology going on – some attempt to explain the purposes of God and the waywardness of human nature. The central verses are 26 & 27:

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

The passage is often used to explain why same-sex acts are wrong. For many Christians, it explains how people became homosexuals – that same-sex attraction is the result of a perversion of natural, God-given attraction and emotion. Such desires are the result of exchanging natural feelings for unnatural ones. It is the rationale behind ‘homosexual healing’ which seeks to re-orientate homosexuals into heterosexuals by a combination of prayer, confession, forgiveness and self-discipline.

But wait a minute… Verse 26 begins with the words “Because of this…” – which means that we should ask ourselves ‘Because of what?’ And as we read back in the chapter, we find a very different rationale emerging.

So why had God given them over to shameful lusts?

In Romans 1:18-25 it is clearly because …

They knew God through creation, but neither glorified him nor gave thanks to him (vs 18-21)

They exchanged the glory of God for images & idols which they served and worshipped (vs 22-25)

In Romans it is idolatry (worshipping other gods) which leads people to God’s wrath, shown here as in so many places in scripture, by God abandoning them to the consequences of their own choices - and the homosexual lusts which Paul is describing are the result of the rejection of God and morality.

But this does not describe the LGBT Christians I know. They have not exchanged the glory of God for created idols. They are prayerful, devout, committed Christians, worshipping God faithfully, and giving him the glory.

I remember the day when this light dawned in me for the first time! I finally saw what my gay Christian friends meant when they told me that they did not recognize themselves in the Biblical passages which condemned homosexuality – and indeed what I read now was not describing them.

But there is more – as we then read the next few verses of Romans 1, the picture becomes even clearer:

Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.

Do gay people fit this description? Have they all become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed, envy, murder, deceit and malice? Are they gossips, slanderers, God-haters, inventing ways of doing evil? Are they senseless, faithless, heartless, and ruthless?

For anyone who has gay or lesbian (or indeed B&T) Christian friends, the answer is a resounding ‘No!” This does not describe them, so how can it be that Paul is writing about them? And if he is not writing about them, then yet again the Biblical proof texts we have been given do not apply to the loving same-sex relationships we see today.

So who was Paul writing about?

The answer of course, is staring us in the face – Rome! The epistle is, of course, a letter to the church in Rome – the centre of the Roman Empire – the seat of power. It was also the centre of Roman religion, politics, the Emperors & the ruling classes. These ruling classes were famous for their ruthless greed, intrigue and debauchery – and it was this pagan society about which Paul was writing. Roman society and Greek culture were the environments in which Paul saw same sex activity, alongside all the idolatry of the Greco-Roman world. It was not born out of love, or orientation, but out of pagan practices, greed, lust and abuse of power.

Needless to say – this is not the same as a loving, faithful, self-giving, same-sex relationship.

It is true of course, that homosexuals can embrace promiscuity and immorality, just like anyone else. It might even be argued that in the moral vacuum which the Church has created by condemning all sex between homosexuals, we are responsible for pushing the gay subculture in that direction, resulting in some of the more extreme expressions of same sex sexuality. But heterosexuals are by no means immune from such temptation, as witnessed by the exponential rise in pornography over the last 30 years. Expressions of sexual greed not make all heterosexual expression wrong - neither do they make all homosexual expression wrong.

The Christian faith rightly stands against pornography and debauchery because it impoverishes our humanity, transforming people into mere objects of lust. But the church has always encouraged and blessed expressions of mutual love and self-giving - the ultimate expression of which is marriage.

Romans 1 does not condemn LGB&T people seeking to give and receive love in a mutual life-giving relationship. In fact it has nothing explicit to say about it at all, in common with the rest of Scripture. And if the Bible does not condemn loving faithful, committed same sex relationships, why does the church condemn them?

I began this series with a comment on my blog, calling on me to look at the clear and numerous Bible verses which condemn same-sex relationships. Having done so, it is clear that what the Bible condemns is not those loving committed relationships which groups like Accepting Evangelicals are advocating. Simply repeating the mantra ‘Bible says no’ is not an option. The few verses of Biblical evidence which exist are at the very least unclear, rooted as they are in the context of historical cultures very different to our own.

And yet the church has used these half dozen verses to place a burden of judgment and shame on LGB&T people which the rest of us would find impossible to bear. If we continue to do so, we will be no better than the Pharisees who Jesus reprimanded. “They tie up heavy loads and put them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.” (Matthew 23:4)

Where same-sex relationships of love, faithfulness and commitment are concerned, the Bible does not say no – and neither should we.


If you would like to read the earlier parts of this series, follow the links below.

Part 1 - Bible says No... - click here

Part 2 - Leviticus 18-  click here

Part 3 - Corinthians and Timothy - click here

More or less human..?

Hollywood and  a  prominent scientific body are both addressing the issue of bio-medical ethics in very different ways this summer.  Both are highlighting  the issues behind the use of human tissue and DNA in animals for research.

Predictably, the Hollywood approach in 'Rise of the Planet of the Apes'  (released in the UK this week) treads the well worn apocalyptic  route - the scientific creation of a 'more human' ape which is then mistreated and rebels, leading to a battle between humans and apes for world supremacy.

The Academy of Medical Sciences, on the other hand, is calling for better regulation on the increasing use of human material in animals for medical research.  This is necessary, they argue, otherwise  we might find ourselves faced with a scientific 'fete accompli' of genetic hybrids with increasingly human attributes.

In short, the creation of a mice with 'human' livers is one thing (and already exists) but an ape with a 'human' brain would be quite different.

Potentially this is a huge issue.  As genetic and stem cell research develops, the ethical issues about using human material in animal research raises significant moral, theological and ethical questions for the human race.  The definition of what constitutes a 'human being' may in time come under increasing scrutiny if elements of 'personhood'  in animals are artificially developed in such experiments.

And yet the ethics of making animals 'more human' seems to make few waves in the Church.  The Church of England did contribute to the Academy's consultation last year, although my guess is that few people are aware of the document, never mind its conclusions.  (Find it at http://www.churchofengland.org/media/45701/achmresp.pdf)

The Church's response to the Academy takes a pragmatic approach.  It considers possible definitions of what constitutes a human being as well as potential issues of 'personhood' in relation to developing animal research.  It concludes that most current experiments would seem to be ok, but there is a line to be drawn when we create something which is more human than animal (wherever that line might be).  It seems to be ok to make animals 'more human' as long as we don't go too far.  The response is measured, sensible, and well argued, despite the fact that the balance it tries to establish will not engender universal agreement among Christians.

When I compare this to the church's debate of homosexuality, I find a huge contrast.

Unlike bio-genetic research, the church's position on homosexuality makes huge waves, and it is not at all pragmatic.   While giving the green light to making animals 'more human' , the church's response to homosexuals is to make them 'less human'.  It does this by telling them that God requires them to set aside a fundamental part of their humanity -  their longing to give and receive love in a mutual intimate relationship with someone they love.  The potential for such relationships is at the very heart of what it means to be human and when we deny LGB&T people this possibility, we reduce their humanity in the name of God.

In short -  the Church of England seems to think that it is ok to make animals more human, but not ok for homosexuals to be fully human.

The irony is that many of the issues which the Church of England has grappled with in human/animal experiments resonate clearly with the Church's ongoing e debate on sexuality!

In its response to the Academy, the Mission and Public Affairs Council of the Church of England deals with the question of what is considered 'natural' or 'unnatural' by noting that:

'Research may challenge some of our most fundamental beliefs and presuppositions but this is not sufficient reason to prohibit or to restrict it.'

and yet there are many Christians today who continue to regard homosexual relationships as 'unnatural' despite evidence to the contrary and the Church colludes with this world-view.

It goes on to say that.. 

Many scientific or medical techniques and practices that most people currently accept, such as organ transplantation or the use of psychiatric drugs were once widely deemed to be unacceptable because they challenged prevalent interpretations of human identity and personality. Fundamental beliefs may, at times, act as an initial defence mechanism against untrammelled experimentation but it is correct to challenge such beliefs and to engage in thoroughgoing discussion with regard to their veracity and significance.

and yet the Church has not allowed such an open approach to developing understandings around perceptions of sexuality.

The response also considers other concerns  which resonate with debates over sexuality, namely that such experiments on animals

·         will lead to moral or societal confusion

·         is an affront to human dignity

These concerns are often raised by those opposed to the acceptance and blessing of same-sex relationships, and yet the CofE considers none of these to be insurmountable in bio-genetic research.  So why are they insurmountable when it comes to allowing LGB&T people to express their humanity fully?

Perhaps this confusion arises from a misunderstanding of the role of God's laws.   I recently heard an evangelical theological college lecturer teach that "God's laws are there to make us more fully human". 

If this is the basic premise, then those opposed to blessing same-sex relationships can claim that obeying laws against same-sex acts makes homosexuals more human, not less.

But there is a fundamental error in this understanding of God's law.

It is God who makes us fully human at our creation in the womb - we are all born fully human irrespective of obedience or not to God's laws - and anything which is fully human cannot be made more fully human!   The purpose of God's law is to enable us to express that humanity fully in our interactions with God and others.  We can see this in Jesus' statement that loving God and our neighbour is the heart of the God's law. (Matthew 22:34-40) and in Paul's radical statement in Romans that 'love is the fulfilment of the Law'. (Romans 13:10)

So the test of any of the many laws we find in the Bible (often written in the context of specific cultures and points in history) is whether they enable us to express our humanity more fully , or whether they reduce it.  The experience of the vast majority of LGB&T people is that setting aside or denying their sexuality reduces their ability to truly express the fullness of their humanity. 

Should we allow unbridled experiments on animals using human tissue or DNA in the name of science?   Like the Church of England - I think not.

Should we continue to lessen the humanity of LGB&T people by telling them that God wants them to live in way which sets aside their sexuality?  Unlike the Church of England -  I think not.

And perhaps there is a wider issue here as well - that while the church continues to dehumanise LGB&T people, we lessen our right to be heard on other issues of humanity - and that is not a path we should follow.