Misreading the map...

Published in the Church of England Newspaper - 13 September 2013

I love walking in the Yorkshire Dales.

During my last visit there, I decided to walk up Great Whernside, a big bald moor rising above Wharfedale.  I set off with my map, bag and compass, quickly reaching the moor wall, beyond which there are few obvious features to help in finding the path.  As I checked my map, I saw a dotted line reaching up towards the summit so I set off, following it with the help of my compass.  I could see no visible path on the ground, but that was not unusual, and I pressed on across the moor.

Before long, I got into difficulties.  The ground became increasingly boggy, until I reached a point where I had to jump between tufts of marsh grass and dark sodden areas of peat bog.  I remember missing one tuft of grass and ending up thigh deep in thick peaty water scrambling to get out.  I checked the map again.  I was still on the dotted line but I realised that continuing on this route was both impossible and dangerous.

So reluctantly and carefully, I turned back and retraced my steps out of the bog and back to firm ground.

In the pub that night, I recounted my failed attempt to a local who looked surprised, and then roared with laughter when I showed him the dotted line I had tried to follow.

“That’s not a path” he said when he had stopped laughing. “That’s a parish boundary!”

Reflecting on this later, I saw the absurdity of what I had done.  I had diligently sought to follow the map.  I had followed this dotted line carefully and accurately.  But because I had misread the map my progress had ground to a sticky and dangerous halt in a miserable bog high up in the Dales.   The map wasn’t the problem – it was my interpretation of the map which was at fault.

I can’t help but think that we have made the same mistake in our understanding (or misunderstanding) of the Bible and homosexuality.  As the church, we have joined together a faint dotted line of scattered verses and have thought we understood the map of the scriptures.  We have tried to follow the path faithfully, only to find ourselves getting stuck in an ever more treacherous bog.

And now we have ground to an uncertain halt.

As the Archbishop of Canterbury noted in his address to General Synod, the world has moved on, and the church’s stance on sexuality, same-sex partnerships, and now marriage is putting us at odds with society at large.  At the recent opening of the new headquarters of Evangelical Alliance he spoke about the way in which the church’s position on sexuality is alienating younger people.  “We have to face the fact that the vast majority of people under 35 think not only that what we are saying is incomprehensible, but also think that we are plain wrong and wicked and equate it to racism.”

In Australia, research by the evangelical group Olive Tree Media showed that 69% of non-Christians surveyed said that church doctrine on homosexuality is a ‘belief-blocker’ – only exceeded by child abuse in churches.

As Evangelicals, we are passionate about sharing the good news of Jesus Christ in a way that opens hearts to a personal relationship with Him.  Yet our interpretation of Scriptures has led us into a dangerous dead-end where we are alienating the very people we want to reach.  We have sought to follow the Scriptures – our map – but perhaps we have misread them just like I misread that dotted line, and have found ourselves alone in the wilderness as a result.

On the moor, there was only one option for me – turn back and look again.  Perhaps we need to do the same.

Rev Benny Hazlehurst
Accepting Evangelicals

www.acceptingevangelicals.org

The Cardinal Sin...

So now we know…

We know what drove Cardinal Keith O’Brien to be so dogmatic and so offensive to people in same-sex relationships.

Last year the Cardinal was voted ‘Bigot of the Year’ by Stonewall after his outspoken campaign against same-sex marriage. 

At various times he described same-sex marriage as a "grotesque subversion”, an "aberration" and he likened it to slavery.

In May 2005 he told members of the Scottish Parliament that homosexuals were "captives of sexual aberrations" and writing in the Scottish Catholic Observer, he said

“The empirical evidence is clear, same-sex relationships are demonstrably harmful to the medical, emotional and spiritual wellbeing of those involved, no compassionate society should ever enact legislation to facilitate or promote such relationships…”   http://www.sconews.co.uk/latest-edition/14858/scotland-fails-homosexual-people/ 

So when allegations emerged from Catholic Priests of ‘inappropriate behaviour’ it must have been utterly devastating.  The Cardinal resigned almost immediately, and now he has all but admitted that the allegations are true.

Such is tragedy of Cardinal Keith O’Brien.

The Roman Catholic Church appears to be responding to this by saying that the church has always had both saints and sinners in its ranks, but this is a gross over-simplification.   Speaking so strongly against same-sex relationships while all the time knowing the history of his own desires and sexual actions, reveals a man filled with self-loathing who learned to live with himself by transferring that anger and self-hatred onto others.

It is the classic vicious circle that almost always ends up in the kind of abusive words and actions which we have witnessed.

At its root is a concept of ‘sin’ which is defined not by what damages people and society, but by the application of an arbitrary set of rules claiming some divine authority.  For some, the authority for such arbitrary spiritual laws is the Church, for others it is the Bible, but the effect is the same - condemning people to live in this twilight world of secret shame and misdirected anger.

The approach is not just limited to Roman Catholics of course.  Evangelical Alliance recently updated its guidance on responding to homosexuality.   At its heart are ‘Ten Affirmations’ which should guide and direct evangelicals in their pastoral and theological attitudes to gay and lesbian people.  The first one begins with the words, “We recognise that all of us are sinners, and that the only true hope for sinful people – whatever our sexuality – is in Jesus Christ.”

While the intention behind this opening is benign, encouraging all evangelicals to recognise their own sinfulness rather than just focusing on the ‘sinfulness’ of homosexuals, it reveals something much deeper in the mindset of the writers – that when we are talking about homosexuality, we can only be talking about sin.

For them, this is the non-negotiable bottom line, and everything which follows is based on that assumption.   Their authority is a reading of the Bible which is just as selectively legalistic, arbitrary, and inconsistent as the Roman Catholic theology that led Cardinal O’Brien to the torture of his alleged double life.

 But the God I serve is not arbitrary, legalistic or inconsistent. 

 When Jesus was asked about ‘The Law’, he consistently directed people to look at the Spirit behind the Law, rather than being limited to the legalism of the words themselves.   And when the New Testament declares that love, not law, is at the heart of the Gospel it never says “unless you are gay”.  God has been unfolding his plan for the redemption of human kind from the Garden of Eden onwards, and every generation has learned that this redemption continues to unfold as we seek to order our lives and society in a way which enables everyone to love God and their neighbour more fully.

The harm which Cardinal O’Brien spoke out against when he said, 

“The empirical evidence is clear, same-sex relationships are demonstrably harmful to the medical, emotional and spiritual wellbeing of those involved, no compassionate society should ever enact legislation to facilitate or promote such relationships…”  

… is as misdirected as his own self-loathing. 

What he should have said is, 

“The empirical evidence is clear, religious or cultural repression of same-sex relationships is demonstrably harmful to the medical, emotional and spiritual wellbeing of those involved, no compassionate society should ever enact legislation to facilitate or promote such repression…”  

The cardinal sin in this affair is not that of ‘homosexuality’.  It is the sin of a religious institution which created the toxic mixture of moral repression, secrecy, abuse of power, tortuous inner conflict and misdirected self-loathing – and then used it to oppose the aspirations of those in genuine, loving same-sex relationships.

This is this sin which both the Church and Keith O’Brien need to reflect on and repent of – not the ‘sin’ of homosexuality.

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.

The Bishop of Sodormy?

I have to confess to being slightly surprised at the recent Church of England announcement that the Bishop of Sodor and Man has been appointed to chair the review of Civil Partnerships.

It’s not that there is anything wrong with Bishop Robert Paterson.  I am sure that he is a fair and open person with a wealth of experience that can be brought to bear on the issues that the church needs to face.

My surprise came from the part of the UK where he serves  as Bishop – The Isle of Man.

The diocese of Sodor and Man is the smallest in the Church of England, covering the 28 parishes of this beautiful island in the Irish Sea.  I first became aware of it when researching the implications of a proposed Clergy Discipline Measure on Doctrine.  The measure would have enabled doctrinal complaints to be made against clergy and bishops, initiating a kind of Spanish Inquisition to investigate alleged doctrinal impurity!  Under the terms of the proposed legislation, I discovered that a mere 10 people in the Isle of Man Synod could force a formal disciplinary investigation into the beliefs and practise of the Archbishop of Canterbury or York with all the ramifications that such formal proceedings entail!  Thankfully, I was part of a group of clergy in General Synod who succeeded in getting the legislation thrown out, and to this day it has not returned.

But it is the reputation of the Isle of Man that raised my eyebrows when I learned that their Bishop would chair the review into Civil Partnerships, because historically, the Isle of Man is famous for 3 things – liberal tax laws, motorbike racing, and homophobia.

Armed with its own parliament and legal system, it was the last part of the British Isles to de-criminalise same sex acts in 1992 – a full 25 years after the mainland.  Its attitudes were so well known that actress Emma Thompson famously joked that it was a place that ‘stones gays’ – although she got it wrong and accused the Isle of Wight instead!  When Civil Partnerships were introduced in the UK, the Isle of Man stood out against them, only changing its mind amidst much controversy in April of this year. 



Douglas harbour

Then there are the jokes (which date from pre 1992) about homosexuality being illegal which is ironic when you can only get there by entering Douglas – jokes which are still repeated today.   And finally there was a friend of mine who misheard when I said that the review of Civil Partnerships would be led by the Bishop of Sodor and Man – he thought I said the ‘Bishop of Sodomy’!

So was this a wise choice on the part of the House of Bishops?  Surely it would have been better to choose a bishop from a more neutral diocese, or at least one without the antigay reputation of the Isle of Man?

But then again, perhaps there is more than a little wisdom in this choice – after all, the Isle of Man has a lot in common with the Church of England.

Both represent relatively small communities in the UK, enshrined in historic law, each with their own law making bodies.   Both are instinctively conservative in outlook and slow to embrace change.  Both have sections of their communities who would much prefer to pull up the drawbridge and keep themselves to themselves, rather than deal with the realities of a changing world.

And yet the Isle of Man has found a way to embrace change in the area of sexuality.  Despite its history and the internal controversies which Civil Partnerships has brought, it has found a way to move forward and embrace new understandings and new ways of living.  Despite its cultural instincts, it has and is making changes.

Perhaps there is a parable here for the Church of England.  Perhaps its leaders and its parliament can show the House of Bishops and the General Synod how to embrace a more open approach to people of all sexualities.  Perhaps they can show us that when change comes, the sky does not fall in as a result.

So perhaps the Bishop of Sodor and Man is exactly the right person to chair the Church of England’s Civil Partnership review – and many same-sex couples in the Church of England will certainly be hoping he is.

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

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

Prevention or Abuse?

I came across a shocking book last week which is being advertised in the USA.  What shocked me was both its content and the person whose articles are promoting it - Chuck Colson of Prison Fellowship .

The book is called "A Parent's Guide to Preventing Homosexuality" and is by Dr Joseph and Linda Nicolosi.  Dr Joseph is described as a psychologist specialising in gender disorders.

The articles begin with the heart-rending story of a little boy whose parents suspected that something was wrong when he was aged just 5.  He was playing with dolls, liked dancing and the colour pink.   Nicolosi described the boy as a "prehomosexual male" and says that "without intervention, he had a 75% chance of growing up homosexual, bisexual, or transgender."

The solution for such boys appears to be intervention  to 'interrupt an unhealthy mother-son bond" by replacing it with a strong but caring father-son bond.

He talks about the "toxic blend of sensitive temperament and an environment in which the boy does not receive affirmation ... to develop a masculine identity".

Leaving aside the many questions I have about these presuppositions, I am appalled by the potential abuse to children which this book could evoke.  I have pictures in my mind of paranoid parents constantly assessing the 'risk' of their children becoming homosexuals - using the book to measure the percentage danger that they were facing.  I wonder what lengths they will go to in order to 'interrupt the unhealthy mother-son bond' in children as young as 5 years old.  I wonder how some fathers will take it upon themselves to be 'stronger', motivated by fear and prejudice.

When I first saw the article, I thought it must be a new book to warrant the attention, but when I looked into it, I found it was published in 2002 by IVP Academic (what were they thinking!)

I suppose that Chuck Colson thinks that this is a good time to push it again.

The whole premise reminds me of a time in history when left-handed children were forced to 'become' right-handed by having their left arm tied behind their back.  Perhaps we ought to bring that back too?

As a left-handed straight male who can remember a time when I was interested in dolls, but who has never fancied a man, I think that this needs to be called by its real name - child abuse.  Children need to be nurtured, not 'prevented' -  they need to be valued for who they are, not treated with suspicion and fear for what they might become - they need to know that they are loved for themselves, not conditionally according to their likes, dislikes and tastes.

The only results I can envisage for Dr Joseph's patients are increasing inner conflict, strained psychotic parental relationships, and a whole load of therapy that will be needed in adulthood.

But Dr Joseph Nicolosi is not interested in wholeness in the way in which most Psychologists are.  He is a founding member of NARTH which campaigns for 'Reparative Therapy' and 'Re-orientation' for homosexuals against the views of all the mainstream American Psychiatric and Psychological Associations.

In an interview at the launch of the book, Joseph and Linda are asked what parents should do if their child says they are gay.  They respond by saying, "Parents can make it clear, lovingly, that they're grieved by their child's lifestyle choices. They can also clarify that they don't believe that that gay is ultimately "who a person is," in the deepest sense."  So the appropriate response is grief, hurt disappointment, and denial.

Practising those views on adults is bad enough - but extending them to children?

That is abuse.

Today I am ashamed to be an Anglican.

Today I am ashamed to be an Anglican.

The accounts of David Kato's funeral have shocked and depressed me as I think of his family and friends gathered there to mourn, but instead being subjected to a kind of pastoral rape.

Yesterday I wrote in hopeful terms that there was an opportunity for the Archbishop of Uganda to live up to the proud Christian history of his country, to bring peace in the midst of conflict.

His predecessors stood up for the Gospel and for justice, and some gave their lives for it - the church he leads now is doing neither.  The Gospel they have chosen to embrace appears more ready to condemn than to love, by its actions as well as by its words.  That is not the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

The appalling way in which his funeral was handled has ensured that a new martyr has been born in Uganda  - and the role of martyrs has always been a powerful force in the spirituality of Uganda.

But unlike the martyrs which the Church of Uganda celebrates, David will be the kind of martyr who, like the prophets of the Old Testament, shines a light into the lives of those who profess to be God's people.  What will that light show?

It will show an Archbishop in Uganda who has remained silent, while other Archbishops speak out, and even Presidents express their deep sadness.  It will show a church which is content to Scapegoat a vulnerable minority, rather than face its own moral bankruptcy.  It has shown the world who the real 'violators' of Lambeth 1:10 are - those who refuse to listen to others - those who refuse to assure homosexuals  that they "are loved by God and that all baptised, believing and faithful persons, regardless of sexual orientation, are full members of the Body of Christ" - those who refuse "to minister pastorally and sensitively to all irrespective of sexual orientation".

Repentance is needed in Uganda - but it is not the repentance of the gay community - it the repentance of a church that has lost its way.

Today I am ashamed to be an Anglican.

(For an account of David's Funeral - follow this link)
... And if you have read this far, please go back and read yesterday's blog  'A Tale of Two Ugandans' which put this in context.

A tale of two Ugandans

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bible says No - Part 2 - Leviticus 18

The first rule of understanding the Bible is prayer.  The second is context.

There is the story of a person who prayed and picked verses in his Bible to read at random. 

• The first verse said,  "And Judas went and hanged himself"
• The second was more disturbing when he read "Go thou and do likewise"
• The third verse nearly put him off reading the Bible forever when he read the words "What are you waiting for!"

He was reading Bible verses but not putting them in context and it could led to a very nasty conclusion!

If we want to find out what the Bible is saying  to us today, we have to read it in context.  There are actually 2 contexts we need to be aware of.  The first is an awareness of the people and cultures it was first written for.  Secondly, we need to see the verses we are reading in the context of the surrounding passage and indeed Scripture as a whole.

This is especially true of controversial issues such as the verses on homosexual sex.

The first prohibition is found in Leviticus 18:22.  Among a number of sexual no-no's, it says ...

²² ‘Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.' (NIV)

This might seem clear enough,  but there are 2 issues which make it far from an 'open and shut case' The first comes as we look at what else is described as “detestable”  in Leviticus.

Leviticus 11 is a good example:

“¹²Anything living in the water that does not have fins and scales is to be detestable to you.

So apparently, prawns, shrimps and crab are detestable and although my wife may agree with that (she hates any shell fish!) that doesn't make it an eternal law.

There are also other things which are forbidden in Leviticus which, if they applied today,  would mean that many of us are living in sin   Eg. Leviticus 19:27 commands, "‘Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard."   This is set alongside another command that prohibits eating steak cooked 'rare' (vs 26).  And yet these commands which are hard to get our heads around today, are alongside others which we would endorse wholeheartedly like "Do not degrade your daughter by making her a prostitute"! (vs  29)

There is more to reading this part of the Bible than  simply extracting single verses, if we are to understand which rules apply today and which do not - and indeed what the rules do, and do not, prohibit.  They were written in a very different culture with its own taboos and concerns, and some of the commands in Leviticus reflect that culture, while others reflect the eternal will of God.  The challenge is to discern which are which.

The second issue with Leviticus 18 is the word which the NIV Bible translates as 'detestable'.  We sometimes forget that the Bible was not written in English!  What we have is a translation, and the constant challenge in any work of translation is discerning how to best convey the fullest meaning of the words we translate.  This is not an easy task - as evidenced by  the large number of translations out there.

The Hebrew word in this case is   תעב 'to-ebah'.  The King James version translates it as 'abomination'.   In the list of sexual no-no's in Leviticus 18, 'lying with a man as with a woman' is singled out in the list as 'to-ebah'.   So what does this word mean?  And what picture would it have evoked in the Hebrews who first heard it?

The word 'to-ebah' occurs many times in the Old Testament, and is primarily associated with the worship of idols.

In Deuteronomy, there are 15 verses which use the word, and 12 of them either refer to idolatry.

One example is Dt 27:15

⁵Cursed be the man that maketh any graven or molten image, an abomination unto the LORD, the work of the hands of the craftsman, and putteth it in a secret place.

Another,  (Dt 23:18) links 'to-ebah' to money which came from  male temple prostitutes.

In the books of Kings and Chronicles, 'to-ebah' is used 10  times, almost all of them referring specifically to the worship of idols and again there is a link in 1 Kings 14:24 with male temple prostitutes.

²³For they also built them high places, and images, and groves, on every high hill, and under every green tree. ²⁴there were also male temple prostitutes in the land. They committed all the abominations of the nations that the LORD drove out before the people of Israel.       

So there would have been a clear and specific link in the minds of the people of Israel between 'to-ebah' and idolatry, and between homosexual sex and religious male prostitution.

The link between 'to-ebah' and idolatry is also present in Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel.  The only book of the Bible where this does not apply is the book of Proverbs which uses the word 'to-ebah' in a bewildering variety of contexts.   But then the book of Proverbs is poetry, written in a different style and with different aims.  The Old Testament scholar, RN Whybray, in his commentary on Proverbs says "It cannot be too strongly emphasised  that Proverbs is an entirely different kind of book from the other OT books; indeed it is unique.  It served an entirely different purpose ...   Proverbs has one unifying characteristic: it is written entirely in poetry  ... Suffice to say that in general poetry makes up in allusiveness what it lacks in precision."  

If we set aside this poetic use of the word in Proverbs, we find that in up to 80% of the times 'to-ebah' is used, it refers to false worship or the worship of idols, and in some of those references there is a clear link made with male temple prostitution.

So why do we assume that it applies to  same-sex relationships?    Looking  at the evidence, it is much more likely  that when Leviticus condemns 'men lying with men as with a woman', it has homosexual temple prostitution to idols in mind, which is a world away from a self-giving loving committed relationship between 2 people of the same sex today.

The most frustrating thing about "Computer says No"  (the Little Britain comedy sketch which started this series)  is the fact that no explanation is given, no discussion takes place - there no analysis of why the answer is 'no'.  Both the Scriptures and LGBT people deserve so much more than that.

Next time - 1 Corinthians 6...

For the First Blog in this series - Bible says No - follow this link.
For the next Blog in the series - Bible says No - part 3 - follow this link