Taking offence...

I have been struck recently by the number of offensive comments which are being made by conservative evangelical Christians against LGB&T people.

In a long and painful thread on my Facebook page recently, the ‘sin’ of homosexuality was placed alongside murder, adultery, theft, violence, & paedophilia by one well known church leader.

And in a recent survey by Evangelical Alliance participants were asked how the church should respond when sinful behaviour comes to light in the church.  Almost inevitably, one of the ‘sinful’ scenarios outlined was "An openly gay or lesbian couple wanting to be involved in church life." This was immediately followed by, "A convicted sex offender wanting to be involved in church life".

It is hard to underestimate how offensive this is to LGB&T people.

Even when conservative evangelicals try to be conciliatory, they often fail to see how offensive their statements are.  In response to Steve Chalke’s recent statements in support of same-sex partnerships, Evangelical Alliance have taken the step of making their guidance on “Biblical and  Pastoral Responses to Homosexuality” available as a free download – previously it had to be purchased from them.

It tries to be reasonable and balanced, reminding us that we are all sinners and should not look down our noses at other people’s sins.  One of the editors is Andrew Goddard with whom I have worked and for whom I have the greatest respect.  Yet even so, most gay and lesbian people will find its contents highly offensive.  Perhaps conservative evangelicals genuinely do not realise how offensive their statements are?

So I have decided to turn things upside down.  I have done this not out of malice or a sense of getting even, but rather in the hope that it might help conservative evangelicals to understand how it feels to be portrayed in a way which they will probably find offensive.  

At the heart of EA’s “Biblical and Pastoral Responses to Homosexuality” are ‘10 Affirmations’ which form the backbone of the book.  I have rephrased each of them to represent they way in which many gay and lesbian people will hear their carefully crafted statements.

I have called the re-written version “The 10 Commandments of the Evangelical Alliance” and I hope that they will cause some conservative evangelicals to think twice before making fine sounding but offensive statements against gay people.

I apologise in advance if you read this and take offence – causing offense is not my intention – as I am sure it is not your intention either.

The 10 Commandments of the Evangelical Alliance

1.      Thou shalt focus, first and foremost, on sin - and not love.  All expressions of ‘love’ shall only be based on our foundational concept of ‘sin’, and not on the character of God, or the quality of relationship.  Above all, 1John 4:16 shall not apply when we talk about homosexuals.

2.      Thou shalt attempt to be loving towards homosexuals, recognising that we have often failed to do so in the past and present.  Thou shalt also pretend that our continual focus on sin and our highly conditional and restrictive acceptance of homosexuals does not victimise or diminish people who are attracted to the same sex.

3.      Thou shalt pretend that marriage is, and has always been between one man and one woman entered into for life, contrary to the majority of marriages in the Bible.  Recognising our superior moral high ground, thou shalt focus all your indignation on homoerotic sexual practice as incompatible with God’s will, as revealed in the way we tell you to interpret the few bits of Scripture which appear to say something on the subject.  Thou shalt not listen to anyone else’s interpretation of Scripture.  In doing this we reject any suggestion that we are being narrow minded.

4.      Churches shall only offer an unconditional welcome to those homosexuals who agree with what we say – except for the condition that if they change their minds, we will change our attitude towards them too.  Thou shalt not let these people call themselves ‘gay’ or ‘lesbian’ or ‘bisexual’, but instead encourage them to minimise their sexuality by referring to themselves as ‘those who suffer from same-sex attraction’.

5.      Thou shalt not accept or endorse the fact that other Christians, including evangelicals understand sexuality differently.  Thou shalt only support churches whose Biblical interpretation is impervious to change.

6.      Thou shalt fight as hard as possible against Christians and Churches who seek to encourage life-long, faithful, committed partnerships, while doing comparatively little to encourage heterosexuals to live out their marriage vows faithfully and permanently.

7.      Thou shalt hold up as iconic examples, all homosexuals who have successfully emasculated (or efeminated) their same-sex attraction, while ignoring all examples of same-sex couples who have lived faithfully together in life-giving partnerships for many years.

8.      Thou shalt support and encourage individuals and organisations which seek to change, heal, re-orientate, and deny those who suffer same-sex attraction any possibility of finding fulfilment in a loving, life-giving, exclusive relationship with someone of the same sex.  Thou shalt do this in spite of evidence of damage or coercion from those who have suffered from such ministries.  Thou shalt also ignore the overwhelming majority of professionals in psychology, psychiatry, and mental health.  They are not Biblical and do not know what they are talking about.

9.      Thou shalt expel from church membership and ministry all those who take a different Christian view on sexuality.  Such relational consequences in church membership are a natural response to anyone who disagrees with us and their blood shall be on their own heads.

10.  Thou may offer a highly conditional welcome to any actively LGBorT person who is brave enough to walk through our arches (although we never mention Bi or Trans people as we clearly don’t know what to think about them).  They are welcome as long as they accept that we have the right to preach at them, make them feel uncomfortable, and restrict their membership and participation.  They shall be left in no doubt that the only way to the Kingdom of God is by renouncing their sexuality and embracing our values, prejudice, and the version of God we present, made in our own image.

 

If you want to read the real book from Evangelical Alliance, you can download it from this link – alternatively, Andrew Goddard (one of the authors) has posted an admirably brief summary of the “10 Affirmations” which are at the heart of the book.

 

Update (26 March 2013)

I appears that Evangelical Alliance has today removed the optoin to downlaod the book from their website for free - the links above now go a page which simply lists the '12 Affirmations' as the authentic mainstream evangelical view, and invites you to buy the book.  I find it strange that last month they wanted as many people as possible to read it, but now they seem to have suddenly changed their minds.....

Setting the record straight on Civil Partnerships...

“There was a 30% breakup of Partnerships with gays last year - and it only became law recently!!!”   Gerald Coates, 19th March 2013.

This direct quote comes from my Facebook page yesterday where Charismatic church leader Gerald Coates launched an unnuanced attack on anyone who would dare to suggest that same-sex partnerships can be anything but sinful.

His views and opinions on same-sex relationships are of course his own - and he has a right to hold them – but what particularly disturbed me was the blatant untruth of this statistical claim.

It is not just Gerald Coates who makes such claims.  I have heard similar ones from a number of traditionalist Evangelical clergy and ministers.  For some people who hear them, they have been repeated so often that they must be true!  And it doesn’t help when well known Evangelical church leaders like Gerald Coates repeat them with such force.

So what is the truth about Civil Partnerships and rates of dissolution?

Below is a summary of the available statistics from the ONS (Office for National Statistics) who provide official government statistics on a whole host of areas of public life.  Please feel free to follow the links to see the source documents.

Untruth Number 1:

Contrary to Gerald Coates claim – the statistics for 2012 have not yet been released.  The latest available statistics for Civil Partnerships are for 2011.

Untruth Number 2:

The ONS statistics for 2011 show that there were 6,795 new Civil Partnerships registered during the year.  It also shows that the number of dissolutions (the equivalent of divorce) was 672 – which is less than 10% of the number of new Civil Partnerships.

That does not mean, of course, that 10% of those new Civil Partnerships were dissolved, merely that  672 of the total number of registered Civil Partnerships (over 48,500) were dissolved in 2011.

Untruth Number 3:

So perhaps the year on year statistics show a higher rate of break-up?  Not atall.

In the period 2005-2010 (the first 5 years of Civil Partnerships) 42,778 Civil Partnerships were registered.  But during this same period only 1,007 ended in dissolution.  That is a break up rate over 5 years of 2.35%, making Civil Partnerships much more successful than marriage where long term statistics indicate that 42% of marriages are expected to end in divorce.

If we add the 2011 figures to this, we find that by the end of 2011, 49,572 Civil Partnerships had been registered and 1,679 had ended in dissolution.  That makes a cumulative break-up rate of 3.38% - a long way short of the 30% that Gerald Coates and others have claimed.

All of the above shows that in the short time since Civil Partnerships have been lawful in England and Wales, rates of dissolution are far below the rate of divorce.

But what of the longer term? 

Divorce rates are measured over much longer time period and the rate of Civil Partnerships which end in dissolution is increasing.  Perhaps in the longer term, that will show that Civil Partnerships are less stable than married relationships?

Or perhaps not…

The ONS have spent a lot of time analysing marriage and divorce trends and have concluded that just over 15% of marriages end in divorce during the first 6 years – compared with 3.38% of Civil Partnerships during the first 6 years – again showing that CP’s have been much more successful than marriage at keeping people together in their first 6 years. (Population Trends - The proportion of marriages ending in divorce  - Table 3)

Furthermore, there are countries which have had the equivalent of Civil Partnerships for much longer that the UK.  What do their statistics show?

Denmark was the first country to introduce registration for same-sex partnerships – back in 1989 – providing over 20 years of statistical data to analyse.

Their experience has been that Civil Partnerships are much more robust and long lasting than heterosexual marriages.  I am grateful to Dr John Pike in Bristol for researching this and for the following conclusions:

"Data for registered same-sex partnerships in Denmark^[i] are particularly interesting since it is the country with the longest experience of official same-sex unions, since 1989. The cumulative number of partnerships rose steadily from 1400 male and 491 female partnerships by 1992 to 4347 male and 4732 female partnerships by 2012. Numbers of partnerships which had been dissolved were 26 male and 22 female by 1992 and 981 male and 1231 female by 2012. Allowing for partnerships where one partner had died, the cumulative dissolution rate is 17% male partnerships and 20% female partnerships. Directly comparable data for heterosexual marriages and divorces are not available, but over the same period 1992 to 2011, the divorce rate in Denmark varied between 38.6 and 43.6 percent.”

Conclusions:

So whichever way we look at it, Gerald Coates’ claim of a 30% break-up rate is a blatant untruth.  Not only that, but the evidence from this country and others with far longer experience, is that Civil Partnerships are much more successful that heterosexual Marriages in helping two people to stay together.

Jesus said, ‘If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free’ – that is my prayer for Gerald Coates today.

Update: 

Gerald Coates has clarified/retracted his claim yesterday about Civil Partnerships.

He has written on my Fb page today commenting, "My 30% was taken out of context - it came from an article in the press at the end of last year - noting that 'last year' [ 2011] there had been a 30% rise in dissilusions. (The eqiuvalent of divorce as I am sure you know.) I wasn't making a big deal of it."

So everyone can see if it was taken out of context, I include a screen clipping below of his Fb comment from yesterday... and I will leave others to judge whether the 3 exclamation marks he used are making a big deal of it or not.

---

[i] Data from “Danmarks Statistik”. Publication “Befolkningens udvikling” 2011 at http://www.dst.dk/Pubomtale/16600. Table 7.1 (p. 89) is on registered partnerships.

Happy. clappy, and out of the closet!

Today The Independent have published a very positive article on pro-gay evangelicals.

The article by Jerome Taylor came out of his research into a less reported side of Evangelicalism which is growing in both numbers and confidence.   Although still a minority, this more open approach to sexuality is both Biblically rigorous and genuinely evangelical.

In recent years, more and more evangelicals have been growing sceptical about traditional evangelical teaching on sexuality.  For example, in 2011, in research by Evangelical Alliance, over a quarter of evangelical Christians questioned at major evangelical festivals and conferences declined to agree with the statement "Homosexual actions are always wrong."  Interest in groups like Accepting Evangelicals is also growing - attracting over 30,000 hits per month on its website last year.

But most encouraging is the fact that we are starting to see evangelical churches and fellowships who are welcoming LGB&T Christians as they are, with their partners, and celebrating with them.  At the moment the numbers are small, and they tend to keep fairly quiet about their change of heart, but the change is beginning.

The real breakthrough will come when those churches gain the confidence to speak out publicly about their open and welcoming ministry.  Then the tide will really begin to change, and LGB&T Christians across the country will be able to rejoice in finding a spiritual home where their faith is nurtured and their gifts are welcomed.

In the meantime, I am encouraged by the article in the Independent (apart from the dodgy guy in the photo) and I hope you will be too!

Women's Ministry & Homosexuality - a response to Stephen Kuhrt.

Last month the Church of England Newspaper published an article by Stpehen Kuhrt, Chair of Fulcrum, on the difference between accepting women's leadership in the church, and accepting homosexual relationships.

Today they have published my response...
___________________________________________________________________

The connection between the debate over women's ministry and that of homosexuals has been a bone of contention among evangelicals for many years.  On the one hand, the Biblical texts on the role of women in the church have been re-examined and re-interpreted by 'open' conservatives, whilst on the other hand, a similar process has been resisted with much more energy when it comes to homosexuality.  In addition, there are those who have prophesied that the acceptance of women into ministry and headship would lead inexorably to the same pressures to reconsider the place of homosexuals in the church on a slippery slope away from Biblical truth.

At the heart of each issue is how we as evangelicals treat verses in Scripture which, at first sight appear to speak out clearly against change on either of these two issues.

In Stephen Kuhrt's recent article "Women's ministry and Homosexuality" he meets this issue head-on.  He tries to provide a rationale for conservatives like himself who want to follow the re-examination of Scripture in regard to women's ministry while continuing to resist any movement on homosexual relationships.  In doing so, he is attempting to defend that position from attacks from conservatives and liberals alike, while also trying to ensure that the 'slippery slope' argument does not hold back the full inclusion of women in the ministry of the church at every level.

And he is right in when he identifies significant differences between the two issues.   No-one has ever suggested that women in general are sinful if they seek a loving, faithful, self-giving relationship (except if that relationship is with another woman).  No conservative has suggested that women should seek to seek healing for their sexual identity or embrace abstinence in order to be acceptable to God and the church.  Women can be clearly identified in the Bible, and are present in almost all New Testament contexts, and Paul is clear in his radical theology that "In Christ there is no male of female".  Indeed it would be profoundly sad and inappropriate if there were people who would oppose the full inclusion of women in the church's ministry simply because they were opposed the inclusion of homosexuals.

But having said that, there are striking parallels in the process of discernment for both issues.

Both require us to re-examine Biblical texts which, when taken at face value exclude any change in traditional teaching.  In the case of women's ministry, the verses include clear statements excluding women from having authority over a man, and describing the idea of a women speaking in church as 'shameful'.  In the case of homosexuals the verses which exclude are well known to evangelicals, even if their meaning and context is less clear.

The process of re-examination which is needed in both cases is also similar.  Proponents of a new understanding on either issue call for the texts to be considered within their cultural context and purpose before being weighed against other passages of scripture which might point to the possibility of a more inclusive approach.

Both issues require an openness from us to be challenged on our own received cultural presuppositions and norms - what we think is 'normal' and 'obvious' because of the Christian culture we have been brought up in.

The difference, as Stephen Kuhrt points out is the lack of identifiably 'gay' people in the early church.  While a careful reading of Roman 16 reveals the possibility (or probability - depending on your point of view) of women in leadership, there are no such examples of openly 'gay' people.  But this absence in Scripture is not surprising, as it is similarly difficult to demonstrate a model of exclusive, partnered, faithful same-sex relationships in secular society at that time either. 

The same cannot be said of our society today. 

Homosexuality is identified by the vast majority of people as an orientation rather than a recreational choice.  There are plenty of examples of same-sex relationships today which exhibit the same characteristics of love, commitment and fidelity as marriage.  Indeed, there are partnered homosexual Christians in ministry and leadership in a wide variety of churches.

The joy and blessing which Stephen Kuhrt has found in welcoming women into ministry at his own church is wonderful to read about, and there are many who have experienced that same joy and blessing as they have begun to welcome LGB&T Christians into their churches in a more inclusive way.  Those of us who have experienced the blessing which LGB&T Christians can bring, know that full inclusion in the church - of women and of homosexuals - will further demonstrate the joy and blessing of faith in Jesus Christ.

The debates of women's ministry and homosexuality are different - but the issues which they call us to address have striking parallels, as are the potential blessings which full inclusion in the church will bring.

Rev Benny Hazlehurst

Secretary of Accepting Evangelicals
www.acceptingevangelicals.org

Published in the Church of England Newspaper - 9th September 2011

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.

Accepting Evangelicals ...?

There are 2 significant lies at work among Evangelicals today.

The first lie is that you can't be an Evangelical Christian and be pro-gay - ie. support and affirm same-sex relationships.

It has been a useful lie for more conservative evangelicals in the struggle against the rising tide of inclusion in society and the church - but it is nevertheless a lie.

To begin with, it is a factual lie.  Research by Evangelical Alliance in the UK (with an impressive sample size of almost 15,000) has found that 27% of Evangelical Christians declined to agree with the statement that "Homosexual actions are always wrong"  Of those, 16% actively disagreed, and 11% were unsure.  While this is still a minority of evangelicals, it shows conclusively that there is now a significant proportion of evangelicals who have moved beyond the traditional teaching on this issue, and begun to embrace a more inclusive understanding.

But more than just a factual lie, it is also a theological lie.  Being an evangelical has never been defined by your attitude to homosexuality.  It has always been about a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, preaching the Gospel, and understanding the Bible as the inspired Word of God.  And the same survey amongst evangelicals revealed that this is still the case.

99% of those questioned said that their faith is the most important thing in their lives

95% said that the Bible was the inspired Word of God

94% believed that Jesus is the only way to God, and that the Bible has supreme authority in guiding their beliefs, views, and behaviour.

The difference is that more and more evangelicals are realising that the Biblical evidence for condemning same-sex relationships is nowhere near as conclusive as they had been told. And many are coming to the conclusion that the Bible doesn't talk directly about same-sex relationships at all - merely the  twisted forms of sexual activity which are just as much a danger for heterosexuals as homosexuals.

Fact:  It is possible to be an Evangelical Christian and be pro-gay.

The second lie is that you have to be either pro-gay or anti-gay.

Again this lie has been encouraged by those who want to polarise the issue in people's minds.  They pretend that there is no middle ground, and yet there clearly is.

In addition to the growing number of 'gay-affirming' evangelicals, there is also a growing number who are willing to 'accept' the Christian integrity of same-sex relationships, even though their own understanding of the Bible does not allow them to affirm them.  To begin with, this may sound confusing, but it is a position which we find in many areas of Christian life and fellowship. 

Baptism is one such example for evangelicals.  Many evangelicals outside the Church of England, do not practise infant baptism.  They believe firmly and truly that to be baptised, you have to be able to make a conscious decision to repent and believe the Gospel.  There are good scriptural grounds for this, and it is more difficult to make a watertight case for infant baptism from the verses of the Bible.  It is an issue which evangelicals could have heated debates on (indeed, I have had such heated debates on a number of occasions!)  But it is not something over which evangelicals fall out today.  Baptists, Evangelical Anglicans, and Pentecostals are happy to stand side by side, to work together on mission, or worship together at  the big Evangelical Festivals.  There are very few people who would say "If you baptise babies, you are not an evangelical" and Evangelicals who disagree quite profoundly about baptism still find themselves able to pray together and bless each other.  Those who believe in 'adult only' baptism do not affirm infant baptism, but they accept the Christian integrity of those who do.

The same is beginning to happen in attitudes to same-sex relationships.  There is a greater openness to acknowledging that we won't always agree in our interpretation of Scripture, but that does not need to stop us accepting one another in the love and fellowship of Christ.

The group Accepting Evangelicals, which I help to lead, is a network of just such people who want to see the church move past the polarised and highly charged debates which are often displayed on the issue of sexuality.

It is made up of a wide spectrum of people - both those who would affirm same-sex relationships, and those who would simply accept the Christian integrity of those relationships even though they disagree.  It is a network where evangelicals can listen to each other, rather than shout at each other.  It is made up of gay Christians, straight Christians, men and women, old and young.

So - here is the advertisement - if you haven't visited the Accepting Evangelicals website, why not have a look.  We have just given it a face-lift, and made it easier to navigate.   We are also starting a weekly 'AE Blog' on the site, with the opportunity to comment on the issues raised.  You can sign up to receive our monthly newsletter without any commitment, or if you want to join, membership is free.

Fact:  Evangelicals do not have to be polarised on the issue of sexuality.

"Bible says No ..."

(If the link above doesn't work try this link.)

I have had the first negative comment on my Blog!

Anonymous said ....... "You are an Evangelical and you presumably know your Bible yet you say homosexuality is fine ? Accept the people, sins and all, but the practice is not OK and you should know it. Goodness, there are plenty of Biblical admonitions about it. I`m not even an Evangelical and it seems crystal clear to me."

I am actually amazed that it has taken so long. When we launched Accepting Evangelicals in 2004, we immediately had a flood of the most awful emails expressing the hope that we would die a slow painful death and burn in hell. So actually, this mildly negative comment is not only long overdue, but also extremely polite and reserved.

What has not moved on, however is the mistaken belief about what the Bible does and does not say on the subject of same sex relationships.

Far from there being 'plenty of Biblical admonitions' on the subject there are only a handful of verses which talk about homosexuality, and understanding exactly what they mean or refer to is by no means straightforward. Yet the perception remains in many people's minds that this is an open and shut case.

Even Theologians who are committed to a conservative line against same sex relationships, acknowledge that there is not much in the Bible to go on. One such theologian is R.Hays, is quoted in the Church of England's official document on the subject "Some issues in human sexuality" (2003). He talks about the "Slender evidence of the New Testament" in relation to homosexuality -and he is right. It is mentioned on only 3 occasions, and only one of these contains any attempt to portray a theological explanation for why such attraction might be wrong.

The Old Testament is no better. There are only 2 clear references, both in the same section of Leviticus (18:22 and 20:13) and the second is merely a reiteration of the first for the purpose of setting down a penalty for the 'crime'. Other references in Deuteronomy are almost universally understood to be about temple prostitution whether heterosexual or (by inference) homosexual, so contribute nothing to the current debate on same-sex relationships.

Other passages - eg the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19 - whilst having a sexual component to them, are not principally about homosexuality, but about rape, inhumanity, and breaking the laws of hospitality which were deeply ingrained in fabric and culture of the Middle East. Hence it was considered acceptable(even proper) for Lot to offer his daughters to be gang raped by the mob in order to protect his visitors!

On top of all this, Jesus appears to have been entirely silent on the issue, and if you are a lesbian, you can rejoice that there is even less to go on. Leviticus refers exclusively to men, and only one of the three references in the New Testament (Romans 1) includes sexual attraction between women.

So far from there being plenty of Biblical admonitions against homosexuality, the reality is that the Biblical evidence is both flimsy and fragmented. We need to delve deeper to see what exactly is being considered in those verses and to see to what extent it might apply today.

The problem is, just like the Little Britain sketch where the bank clerk says over and over again 'Computer says NO!' - there are many too many Christians who are content to roll out the same mantra time after time - 'Bible says No!' - without ever considering the evidence and what the Bible actually says.

That doesn't mean that what the Bible says is unimportant however. As an evangelical, I consider it vitally important to build my understanding of the Christian faith on the Bible.

So over the next few months, I will be using my blog to take a close look at what the Bible says on same sex relationships, and what that means today. I know, of course that I am not doing anything new here, as many have trod this road before me, but as long as there are people out there who think the same way as Mr/s Anonymous, I think it needs to be done. I just hope and pray that anyone in that position will be a little more responsive than the bank clerk in Little Britain.

To see Part 2 - follow this link

Open Evangelical?

"There are plenty of evangelicals out there who have left the door so widely open that they are virtually indistinguishable from... Inclusive Church"

These words were written recently by Andrew Carey (son of the former Archbishop of Canterbury) who is a columnist in The Church of England Newspaper. Like many columnists, Andrew Carey is often outspoken and I often find myself at odds with his kind of right wing ecclesiastical conservativism.

The context was his musings about the new Church of England General Synod which has just been elected for the next 5 years. It will be more Evangelical and more Liberal, he said, but then implies that it can be hard to tell the difference these days!

Now I have nothing against Inclusive Church - I do support their aims, and have attended their Executive Committee meetings in the past - but I objected to the way he was trying to say that any Evangelical who embraces a more open and inclusive approach has lost everything distinctive about her/his understanding of the Christian faith.

So I fired off a letter to the editor, and this week they published it ...

Here is what I wrote...

Dear Sir

I was fascinated by Andrew Carey's description of the new Synod (15th October) and in particular, his perceived overlap between evangelicals and liberals.

While I am pleased to see that Andrew now recognises the growing number of open evangelicals, I feel that he is perpetuating a mistaken view which is a grave danger to the Evangelical movement . That mistake is to define evangelicals by what they are 'against' rather than what they are 'for'. Any movement which is simply defined by what it shuts out is destined to a slow and painful demise. To seek to define evangelicals in this way will do exactly the same, and the church would be the poorer for it.

As a evangelical, I am for the preaching of the Gospel, enabling people to have a personal faith in Jesus Christ, and encouraging people to read the Bible themselves as the inspired Word of God. I believe that is at the heart of being an evangelical, and is a healthy approach which is, life giving, inspirational and challenging.

In an age where secularism is growing, and more & more people regard the church as outdated or irrelevant, isn't it more important than ever to be defined by the positive things we stand for, rather than by the things we are against.

I hope that Andrew Carey is right when he predicts a more evangelical General Synod, and I hope it will be indeed be a more open kind of evangelicalism, not simply the sort that seeks to shut people out.

(Thank you CEN)

The Living Word ...

I sometimes get worried by the attitude some of my brothers and sisters have to the Bible. It is the attitude that says "if I can find a verse for it - it must be right" or "If I can find a verse against it, it must be wrong".

I remember clearly my time at university in the Christian Union where, as in most CU's of the time, fierce debates took place on whether scripture was inerrant or merely infallible (!) The Word of God is the source of our faith we were told - without the Bible we would not know the will of God - it is the source of our understanding of God. Whatever we need to know, there will be a verse somewhere with the answer to our question, if only we look hard enough!

Now don't get me wrong, I do believe that the Bible contains everything necessary for salvation. I also believe that it is inspired by God for our "teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16). But I also worry that we can take that too far, believing that the Bible gives us the full picture of the will of God on every conceivable subject.

The Bible does not claim to tell us everything about God.

• Jesus said that if we don't believe when he tells us of things on earth, how can he explain the things of heaven? (John 3:12)
  
• And John's gospel ends by pointing out that if all the things that Jesus did were written down, "the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written." (John 21:25)
  

Indeed, Jesus did not say that when the Scriptures are complete, they will guide us into all truth - he did, of course, say that "when The Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you in all truth".

And there is the key to our understanding of the scriptures. I believe that they are the inspired word of God, but without the Spirit of Jesus at work in our lives they remain just words. When I recall that "The word of God is living and active" (Hebrews 4:12), I must also remember that it is Jesus who is the complete, living Word of God in all its fullness (John 1) and that it is only in Him that I can begin to understand the mystery of God's will.

If we really want to know what God wants of us, the Bible is the first place we should look, but as we read, we need to ask the Holy Spirit to open our hearts and minds to Jesus Christ, the living Word of God, rather than simply looking for proof texts.

There were those in the Bible who looked for proof texts, and who tried to sew everything up in a neat and tidy bundle. They were the Pharisees. I don't think that Pharisees were particularly bad people on the whole - they had just become so focused on the letter of God's law that they forgot the Spirit of that law. Everything they taught could, I am sure, be traced back to the written word of God, and yet they had got it so wrong, as my Gospel reading reminded me today (Matthew 23:13-22).

I f we are to avoid the same mistake, we need to remember that the Word of God is indeed living and active - and we need to invite Him into our hearts to help us as we read.