Gay Rights (or the sexual orientation regulations) - part 2

Cool stuff - thanks for posting that here. Puts my mind slightly at ease from a design/publishing point of view. I run a company that isn’t overtly Christian, but I do want to make sure that we’re not being made to do things under the law that I’d rather not [rather not pay taxes either, but there's a greater good issue there].

Regarding the last post on this topic - perhaps the church is acting like a phobic 6 rather than an 8 with a 7 wing. Settled on your enneagram type Rupert?

Hey Dan - thanks. The stuff from the House of Lords is pretty clear isn’t it? I think i will have to do a bit more research on the enneagram to make any comments on how the church is acting … would you like to make some further comments on that?

I think i am a 9, but can’t really remember what that means! Others think i am a 3 though!

This whole issue for me raises some wider questions of Christian ethics and how we apply those ethics to our lives, and to what happens when our lives intersect those who do not believe as we do.

Its clear to me that, following (the apostle) Paul, that Christians are called to holiness, and that involves adhering to a different set of sexual ethics (as compared to the rest of the world) as 1 Corinthians and indeed most of the NT makes perfectly clear.

Its also clear that not all sins are equal. Paul commands the Corinthians to throw one man out of the church for his sexual sin (incest), but others (visiting a prostitute), he simply reprimands. Clearly he sees that some sexual sins are worse than others. At the same time, NT writers are not concerned with preaching ethics to the lost. Instead, they preach Christ. To them, holy living is something only that those who follow Jesus are called to.

I hope everything I have said so far is uncontroversial. But all this leads to some (to me) difficult questions.

- where do we draw the line between advocating an ethic for only Christians, and advocating an ethic for the world. Do you see what I am driving at? Why do we apply the ethic of freedom from slavery to everyone, but “don’t have sex before marriage” just to Christians? Given the dangers of STDs, unwanted pregnancies, etc., its not clear to me that this is just an issue of a rule for Christians.

With my gay and non-Christian friends, I find myself being somewhat inconsistent as to my witness to what it means to be holy. If a friend of mine was advocating stealing, I might mention that I thought that was wrong. Indeed, I have done this on several occasions. But when another friend of mine announced he was gay, I did not tell him I thought that was “wrong”, or that living with another man in a romantic/sexual relationship was wrong. (Actually I am not even sure what it means to say it is wrong to be gay. Christian and NT ethics seem to be concerned with behaviour, not internal states of being.)

- Does this mean there are different types of “wrong” ?

I know fine well that we need to preach and show Christ, not morals. But I also know that ethical and holy living can (sometimes) be a good witness to the fact that we are living a different life, especially when blatant talk of religion and spirituality is so taboo in many spheres (schools, workplace, etc.).

- one blog comments states that Christians should “refute” sex before marriage as much as they should “refute” homosexual relationships. Now I have used such an approach myself in evangelism to explain to a bloke on the street the Christian take on homosexuality. He seemed to be pleased with the response I gave. However I think its more complicated than that. This is because:

a) a couple that engages in sexual activity before marriage has committed a sin (according to the general witness of the NT). But the desires of their heart(s) are not sinful. They merely have sinned by not getting married first. In summary, the activity in not inherently wrong, but the context of the activity was.

b) a gay or lesbian couple engages is sexual activity whether or not married or in a civil union has committed a sin according to (the apostle) Paul (and according to N T Wright, for those that dispute the bible translations of the key words in question here). Not only is their sexual activity wrong (and therefore inappropriate for Christians as Paul points out in 1 Cor 6) but the very desire of their hearts is wrong, for there is no circumstance in which it can be expressed without sin. Clearly this is a different order of sin, and a different problem to the above.

Am I venturing into the philosophy of ethics here?

I love Jesus and also love all my friends, whether they are gay or straight, sexually activate or not. But I really struggle to know how to bring wisdom and ethics up in conversation. I feel that if I ignore the subject altogether, I am not truly loving my friends.

Apologies for a wandering and vague monologue…can anyone add their thoughts to this?

Thanks Rupert, going to the horses mouth is always helpful, although in practice it would be up to the courts to determine what as legal etc - no case law as such now but good to know what the intention is.

Oh btw I’ve tagged you…
http://paulmayers.blogs.com/my.....agged.html

Hi Alastair, i love your Qs/thoughts not least as they wander over much the same ground as my own and I still too have not come up with many a salient answer that doesn’t end up with cos it’s in the bible which is not really helping get to the heart of the matter, lol.

If it helps you at all I wrote this post on christian ethics http://paulmayers.blogs.com/my.....clean.html

where my point is that our ethics come with both action and a cost - it is not so much what we tell others but what we do ourselves, or in short we have to point out that not only do done of us make the bar we are prepareed to do something about that gap in terms of loving action.

As someone who has had a very tangled sexuality i have found that the perfect christian ethic of a pure sexuality was not helpful to me in that I could not talk about my situation, it was who i was and the tug was always there to be me - it was a truth [as it was who i was] on the other hand it was not the truth of who i was in that was not my fully formed identity - confused, might be easier to read about it here…
http://paulmayers.blogs.com/my.....ive_t.html

It was only when i started to be open, to find the courage to talk about where I was and whether that was who i was that God helped me with a loving community to reveal more and more of what was false with my picture of me and what was right about it…

In this context i think we need to look at the honest fact that christian ethics makes sex a hard subject, whether you’re single, married and want to have sex with someone else [or not have sex with your spouse etc] or gay and want to have sex with someone else…

Why would God care about our sexual behaviour - well i think that is a Q of commitment - i think we would do wise to move away from marriage [which is a society construct, just a take a look at the history of it] and instread see it as a formal commitment. In other words God is saying we find the best in ourselves and others where we commit to one person, where we have to learn to face our selfishness and learn about a love that is based on giving not getting, laying down our rights etc. It is then not a Q of sex but a Q of commitment. Outside of commitment i could have sex with whoever i wanted but what that ends up as is me fulfilling my needs and using other people to do so, it encourages me to move on when things are difficult, to live a me centred, me first existence. And of course all the pain, heartache, selfish, cheap, desperate, short term living that comes with it…

God is then setting guidance in place cos he loves us ands knows if we go against the moral grain of the universe we will pick up splinters - we will be hurt, we will hurt others, we will become users and abusers and consume each other, doing whatever we want to satisfy our own hungers which i’ve found from experience tend to not really be satisfied [hence the eroticised culture in which we live where sex sells and we evaluate ourselves by how many orgasms we have, or the quality of them, or the beauty of the person we go out with etc...]

We could maybe extend this loving God to not just sex but to sexuality - we could say that commitment is part of the equation but God also wants us to have a fully realised healthy sexuality which is something i wonder how many of us have - whether gay or straight do we live with a sexual script which sees us addicted to porn, or shaped by the past so we our sexuality is disconnected/distant or is overwhelming, we seek to medicate the pain, to deal with how we have been shaped often by seeking in our sexuality to capture something lost and in turn are captured ourselves by the own chains of our life.

I can only use myself as a case study but in hanging out with people who for instance wanted to dominated, if they were female they usually had an issue with their father, more often then not he was absent and they missed having that male presence in their early teens and sort to have an authority figure now. Or they had experienced dominating parents and had learnt to associate that with love and therefore had sexualised it.

For me I experienced a passive father figure and a dominating mother, i also saw how force could give you power and therefore determined to be dominating myself and use force if necesary - which influenced my sexuality so that I needed to be dominant and found the sense of power erotic.

Now I am not saying that everyone can blame their parents, or that everyone’s sexuality has been shifted in the way that mine was - only that i can see that my sexuality was not very healthy now but at the time it was how i felt. If we all carry some degree of damaged sexuality the Q becomes not what is damaged about you but what is damaged about me, do i use my sexuality to manipulate? am i sexually shut down because i don’t know how to talk about it as my family never did? am i afraid of having children? am i unable to cope with the expectations of my partner? etc etc

if we talk about our sexual brokeness and practice healing of that, can have a story to tell that might start well i was attracted to men but it was because my uncle abused me when i was little and never really faced it just thought it was the way it should be…

or i needed to have sex with as many women as possible as i never felt attractive growing up and i just want to feel atrractive/loved…

or whatever… but then can tell a story of a more fullfilled, health, less selfish, more open life as a result maybe we are saying something more than just this is the ideal. maybe we are saying yes let’s be honest, whether i am ready to face it or not it is likely that i will have issues around commitment and issues around my sexuality - God is not about condeming us but about helping us live life to the full, caring not just about what makes me happy now but about my characture… in order to start facing deeper truths I need to be part of a community where I can be loved, accpted, be honest in and do the same for other people.

I need to be less judgemental about other people’s sexuality and focus on my own - i might be married but am i committed to my job more than my wife? I might be hetrosexual but i am addicted to porn as it feeds a need in me/creates a buzz to help me feel good about myself…

I need to be aware that I cannot do this by myself - that Jesus is about helping me find a life that is healthier, whole, fulfilled and that there are people in my community who share this story of their own journey… that we are empowered to help people who are ready to face the truth and that includes ourselves…

Does it then become a Q of saying in my community we teach this as I think it is helpful in helping live out this more fulfilled way but it is unlikely that you will feel like living like that - that you need to belong first and believe…

that the holy spirit takes us on a journey of revealing truth to us and each other but that truth is a loving one that inspires us to change as much as giving healing, life, new perspective so we can change…

Is that more costly but ultimately healthier than saying you must do this or that when all of us know that we can not keep every aspect of the law anyway? What price tag does grace come with? Or are we gonna be like the older brother in the story of the prodigal son who throw a jealous fit because we lived as hetrosexuals [denying our own commitment/sexuality wounds]and here is the Father celebrating all these gay people [who maybe are starting to recognise their own]???

And what am I going to do as a result… how am i going to be generous and gracious?

Thanks Paul, given me lots to think about and dwell on there…will maybe write some more once I have time to process all you have written!

Thanks for doing all of this. IT was GREAT reading. I think there are similar issues in the US…and I so agree with you (more on your first post) when you said that you’re not sure if the “ack! they’re gonna make us preach pro-gay sermons…” camp is actually telling the whole truth… And a BIG HUGE yes on the interesting divorce between fornication and homosexuality…God sure appears to despise the one and turn a blind eye to the other, huh? At least if you listened to some folks tell the story…

Great comments btw…hm. Lots to think about…

Thanks Alastiar and Paul for the comments. Good conversation and no easy answers I think!

A few thoughts:

* I have always seen a different ethic for followers of Jesus, and society. The sermon on the mount, i think is a personal manifesto, but not something that can be imposed on society.

* I personally don’t see any scale of sin in the NT. I think the difference is the effect of the sin. For example, Jesus says that anger against someone is as serious as murder (ie. both are sin), but clearly one has a greater effect than the other! Therefore there are different consequences for our actions (when we go a different way from God), but i think in God’s eyes, all is the same.

* That for me, is why we speak boldly about things that affect others (eg. injustice, slavery, stealing etc). But where two consenting adults are engaged in something that doesn’t harm others, i don’t think we can impose a Christian ethic. We can warn of STD’s, unwanted pregnancies etc, but i don’t think just saying what they are doing is wrong will be that helpful.

* and (trying to get it back on topic!), when we Christian bang on about “don’t do this”, “don’t do that” etc. i think we appear so different from the man/God Jesus we are trying to represent. Somehow broken people came to him. Most broken people don’t come to us, as they expect and receive judgement. That is something i really want to see change.

Hey Molly,
thanks for visiting, and posting a comment. I have been lurking on your blog for while and enjoy reading! I really agree with you, and interesting to know it is similar in the US. I do think we need to be so careful that what we say is true, not judgemental and consistant.

thanks rupett, I’m with you on the sermon on the mount - i love the way Jesus says things in it like “for you who are ready for the truth i say…” it is a reminder to me that we have a kingdom life style that is now but how much we live it out possibly depends on how much of the truth of those words we embrace, which starts off embracing the Truth who spoke them…

which i think is something about embracing the love that comes from the truth - we can’t just impose an ethic but we can be witnesses to the truth and we should be witnesses by being loving, open, generous and all the other ways that Jesus is for each of us.

I think our judgement needs to start [and end?] with ourselves - what scale are we applying - i like the paslm which says search ME oh God… reveal in ME any darkness…

Spot on Paul i think. You are touching on something there about truth being something relational, rather than propositional, which i am musing on for a post in the future…

* I have always seen a different ethic for followers of Jesus, and society. The sermon on the mount, i think is a personal manifesto, but not something that can be imposed on society.

Yes, I’ve seen that as well…clearly following Jesus puts our behaviour and morals in a completely new category.

* I personally don’t see any scale of sin in the NT. I think the difference is the effect of the sin. For example, Jesus says that anger against someone is as serious as murder (ie. both are sin), but clearly one has a greater effect than the other! Therefore there are different consequences for our actions (when we go a different way from God), but i think in God’s eyes, all is the same.

I’ve often heard this POV espoused, but I have to admit I have trouble following it. Apart from the evident truth that all sin is sin, what theological reasons do we have for saying that there is no scale of sin? The couple committing incest in the Corinth church were doing no harm to anyone, and nobody in the church had a problem with it. Given that most commentators see this as non-biological incest, the issue of interbreeding doesn’t appear to enter in. So why did Paul hand him over to Satan?

The husbands visiting prostitutes, however, were not in a loving comitted relationship such as the one above. But they were merely warned to “flee from sin”, and not thrown our the church.

The first thing that comes to mind then, is that Paul has a scale of sin, where incest is de-facto worst than casual sex, regardless of the damage or fall-out from these activities. Is there another way to read it?

* That for me, is why we speak boldly about things that affect others (eg. injustice, slavery, stealing etc). But where two consenting adults are engaged in something that doesn’t harm others, i don’t think we can impose a Christian ethic. We can warn of STD’s, unwanted pregnancies etc, but i don’t think just saying what they are doing is wrong will be that helpful.

That’s helped me a little to get my head round this. But it must be more than just consent being the deciding factor. Otherwise why help someone who is self-harming? Surely they are consenting to their own actions. Surely the love of Christ goes out even to those who “consent” to unhealthy, selfish, unwise, or sinful lifestyles, behaviour, etc. I can think of one Christian ministry in particular that is doing amazing work bringing the love and life of Christ into an industry where in theory everyone is an adult consenting to sexual sin.

* and (trying to get it back on topic!), when we Christian bang on about “don’t do this”, “don’t do that” etc. i think we appear so different from the man/God Jesus we are trying to represent. Somehow broken people came to him. Most broken people don’t come to us, as they expect and receive judgement. That is something i really want to see change.

Broken people did come to Jesus, but did he not more often than not highlight sin in their life? The rich man was rebuked for his love of riches. The woman at the well was reminded that “she did not have a husband”. The woman caught in adultery was shown love and grace but also told “go and sin no more”.

Would it be fair to say that the following:

1) in the past the church has been unloving and judgemental, speaking the truth in hypocrisy

2) The contemporary reaction to that is to be loving and non-judgemental, speaking words of understanding and affirmation

3) The biblical and correct approach would be to be speak the truth IN LOVE, that is, with sensitivity, correct timing, kindness, gentleness, generosity, etc. This would involve, as we saw Jesus do, highlight sin in an attempt to help people turn towards the God who loves them.

?

Alastair - thanks for the comments. I think it will take me a couple of days to have some to think of a response …

I see more news is breaking on this topic, this time regarding Christian adoption agencies being forced to promote same-sex adoption.

See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_.....293115.stm

“The Church of England has backed the Catholic Church in its bid to be exempt from laws on adoption by gay couples.”

I remember reading about this happening in the States. In one state I think the Catholic adoption agency, by far the best one in the state, was forced to close, because it could not continue operating and deny same-sex couples the opportunity (n.b. not the right!) to adopt.

I think this is really sad and is a true cause for concern.

Perhaps this is a case of the church and society take extreme views on this subject. I would have thought it was common sense that a child should have, if possible, both a mother and father. Its hard to believe that this basic self-evident truth is now being questioned.

I’ve heard politicians say that the reason for so much antisocial behaviour and problems in Britain is due to family breakdown. So why are pro-family movements always being attacked?

I think we also need to formulate a new theology of family…we need some framework to think about all these issues…

From the news article mentioned above:

“He said the Church was ‘absolutely’ against discrimination, and also did not believe homosexuality was a sin.”

Very interesting. Is that the official position of the Catholic and/or Anglican church? I wonder what N T Wright would say about it…

Are they saying in effect,

“we are not against homosexuality, we are just pro heterosexual ?”

Also later in the article:

“[There are fears that] religious groups would be obliged to rent out halls for ‘gay wedding’ receptions.”

I think this all brings up the wider issue about whether accepting or promoting something you believe is wrong or unwise is in itself wrong or unwise. All comes back to ethics in the end…