Are we seeing the start of a cultural shift in sexual mores?

I've been involved in a small group in my university of staff concerned about so-called 'lad culture'. I share the group with feminists and gay-rights activists. We talk a lot about issues of consent. It is recognised that sometimes women are the perpetrators of 'laddish' behaviour and men (hetero and homo) the victims. However, on that last point, we should note that it does seem that the biggest problem is men on women and where it goes in the other direction it is about an imitation of the worst behaviour and attitudes and as such is a cultural reflex; a kind of equality gone bad.

In a piece advocating a zero tolerance approach to sex with minors, an interesting further dimension arises, foregrounding issues of consent and wider cultural attitudes to sex which set a context for abusive actions:

It’s like drink-driving. Decades of relativism on that issue were probably fair to nice folk who were driving home after a glass or two and meant no harm. But a lot of people died. So now we have an absolutist approach and a lot of mildly tipsy drivers have been very harshly punished – perhaps unfairly in the immediate, individual sense – but far fewer people die. No, Adam Johnson, child abuse is not a grey area | Victoria Coren Mitchell | Opinion | The Guardian

For a while now I've ben wondering whether this is laying foundations for a very different sort of social contract around sexual behaviour than has been around since the mid 20th century. Here's why I'm wondering that.

It seems to me that a great deal of the 'sexual revolution' has been on terms formed by patriarchy: presumed female compliance and male rights (often grounded in a 'might is right' sensibility) with an ethic rooted in a walk-away attitude which recognises very little emotional entail. This background, I suggest, meant that the sexual revolution was conducted largely on patriarchal terms in many ways. And Christian ethics on the matter were caught in a double bind of having been associated with a quasi-Gnostic attitude towards matter and body and so simply pleasure-denying -and hypocritically so- on the one hand. And on the other hand, it had been stated and explained through a cultural lens inextricably bound up with patriarchal assumptions and attitudes albeit ones that forked from the more libertine versions of patriarchy.

But, what I think we may be seeing in the world outside of the the churches and other religious sub-cultures, is a problematising of presumed sexual liberties. What I mean by this is that the recognition of not just physical coercion but also psychological coercion and grooming begins to erode the presumption of consent until it is fairly obvious and explicit. In time this constructs a degree of hesitancy about the idea of sexual intercourse early in a relationship particularly where drink or drugs may have been involved.

And in another cultural strand, we have a recognition of the profound psychological impact of assault and particularly of unconsented sexual contacts of all kinds (verbal, touching or violent). Such recognition is partly related to issues of psycho-somatic unity drawn from the discoveries and implications of scientific research and treatment of the aftereffects of abuse and a growing realisation about the mechanisms of grooming, priming etc. In conjunction with a rightful concern for the vulnerable and more careful thinking at institutional levels (and thus in terms of training in workplaces etc) about rights, equality and diversity, there is a fuller cultural groundswell towards care and caution in matters of sexual expression, I think.

To be sure this is not the same as a former 'Christian' sensibility based in "sex only within marriage" (contaminated as it was by ideas of property and male supremacy /female incompetency). However, it is nevertheless an ethic based on consent, care and awareness of vulnerability and consequences.

Christian sexual ethics need to be rethought and restated against this background.  Much groundwork for this has actually been done (I think of the work of Jack Dominion, for example) but I think that Evangelicals probably need to re-examine the presumed interpretations rooted in Genesis 1 and 2 and a handful of NT texts.

That's as far as I've got with that, really at the moment. I would be interested in comments that help push the ideas above forward or at least engage with them constructively. I'm not so interested in restatements of the 'traditional' positions: I know them well, want to keep faith with the best intents and insights of them but I want also to tackle whether the cultural matrix for interpreting sexual mores is changing in the kind of way I'm trying to sketch above and whether Christian theology can engage the positive aspects of the changes in an open and yet critical manner.

Churchgoers keeping quiet on gay marriage

It's an interesting little window that this opens up into British Christianity. At first I was not sure whether the results of the survey were indicating that of the c.50% who held more 'liberal' views, 38% were quiet about it or whether it was 38% of the total surveyed Somehow the former seemed more likely. However, this paragraph in the report seems to indicate the latter.

A survey of worshippers across the main denominations, found that Christians were effectively evenly split on whether same-sex relationships should be considered sinful.But 38 per cent of those polled said that they believe churches should accept and affirm same-sex relationships but are reluctant to say so openly. Churchgoers keeping liberal views on homosexuality ‘secret’ - Telegraph

Now, what I find interesting is the implications about church life because 38% is a big proportion when we are considering something like feeling unable to express views. But when I think about it I can understand, I suspect, the dynamics. It's probably a bit like what I hear some Muslims saying about expressing less conservative views in Mosque influenced communities. That they feel that the religious discourse space is owned by the conservatives and that they do not feel sufficiently empowered religiously to gainsay the official statements. Perhaps because they don't have a sense that they may be more than a small minority allied with the sense that the tradition seems to favour the conservative interpretations and that those who hold those interpretations hold the influential positions by virtue of having been through the system and in position because they are entrusted with it.

I've also been inside systems where a particular line has been dominant and where it is difficult to speak a different perspective. Those who are already in positions of respect and trust by dismissing or even ridiculing, or perhaps even aggressing against 'unsound' opinions and maybe even people. This is a very strong signal to others in the community to discount or even take ostracisitive actions. This means that at the very least the ideas are discounted and quarantined and those holding them are dismissed or even ridiculed. All of which functions as a fairly effective social control.

The worrying thing, of course, is that it inoculates dominant perspective holders from considering issues that may actually be helpful for them in the longer term (whether or not they end up agreeing). All of this can be seen in the way that Steve Chalke was responded to by Evangelicals when he announced that he now considered that Scripture was not against committed lifelong-intended homophile sexual partnership. The gatekeepers of soundness denounced him and others picked up or reinforced this dismissal. Very few actually offered arguments that properly engaged with Chalke's arguments, many reiterated arguments which Chalke had shown to be less than conclusive.

All of which makes me wonder about whether we can work, as churches, on better ways of disagreeing. It seems to me that derision, abuse, dismissal and ostracism of people who disagree is not loving our neighbour as ourselves. I can scarcely think it possible that any of us, finding ourselves wishing -even compelled- to express a minority viewpoint or disruptive idea would want to be on the receiving end of the disdain or outright abuse that Steve Chalke saw (and I saw directed at him on Twitter and Facebook). And the consequence of that observation is that if we wouldn't want that ourselves, why do we think we have a right to pass it on to others?

More, we should ask ourselves how we would like to be treated given that we could be wrong: how should those who disagree correct us? Well, isn't that the way we should offer to correct others? All of which says that churches should be communities where we disagree humanely, with a desire for the good of the other and with a teachable humility because we could ourselves have something to learn. The 38% who don't feel able to say what they think are a testimony to us as churches that we still have a way to go on this.

Let's not let guys off the hook about porn

While I deplore that women have had photos of themselves in compromising situations or vast undress distributed freely without their consent, I am really, on reflection, a bit concerned about this:

I was in a loving, healthy, great relationship for four years. It was long distance, and either your boyfriend is going to look at porn or he’s going to look at you.Jennifer Lawrence on nude photo hacking: 'It is a sexual violation. It’s disgusting' - People - News - The Independent:

What I find  disturbing is the apparent acceptance that her boyfriend would consume porn when away from her, and that somehow this is to be expected and not censured to some degree.

First of all I'm disturbed because it buys into a view of male sexuality which is both demeaning and also potentially dangerous. Demeaning because it implies that men are not able to say no to porn. Newsflash: men are able to say no and to avoid it, on the whole. Honestly, it's true. Part of the problem may be that men have been given a free pass on this.

There is research indicating that a number of men are ruining their  ability to respond well sexually because they are rewiring their responses via porn in ways that are not conducive to good relations with potential partners. If that is so (and it makes sense as well as being indicated in research), then women who are partners should be discouraging their boyfriends, lovers, partners, husbands from porn not accepting it. Personally, I can't really see how it isn't a kind of mental-affective adultery, and all the worse because it's not even in a relational and affectionate context. And it seems to me that Ms Lawrence's response is recognising that: she'd rather he looked at her image than some other woman's).

I think that this is an important point: it looks to me (and I have to admit that I have no real insider insight on this) like it is contributing to the objectifying women by making such objectification virtually inevitable.

And that is why it is dangerous: it seems to me that the use of porn is helping to construct a set of attitudes that make it more likely that women are going to be viewed as mainly bodies to be penetrated than as friends or colleagues.

Men can and do learn continence of gaze and thought.  When we are motivated by beliefs and affections that emphasise respect, faithfulness and mutuality between people of all genders, men are able to grow into gentlemen in the best sense. I have deliberately chosen a slightly old fashioned term there because I think that we have been underrating the virtues at the heart of being a gentleman: consideration of others, a spirit of service and of self-restraint for the greater and common good. These are virtues that sit ill with the consumption of porn when it is understood in its wider context.

So I appeal to Ms Lawrence and others; don't let the men get away with it, don't collude in the myth of unavoidable lust. It demeans men to pretend that we cannot control our urges -though God knows, so many men collude in their own demeaning. It doesn't have to be so..

Why is gay sex biblically condemned? Not your usual answer ...

I was wondering what I was going to read when Matt Stone drew attention to this article by  Nigel Chapman
Gay Sex for Evangelicals - Chapman-2013_Gay-Sex-For-Evangelicals_v1-4_26-April_final.pdf: I thought it might be a simple restatement of what is currently the usual evangelical stuff on the issue, but as it was Matt, I wondered. Have a look, but if you want a sense of why,

 To answer my starting question: Why is gay sex biblically condemned? Because it is profoundly abhorrent and immoral in the cases which scripture addresses, and for the reasons which it gives. But as Romans 1 makes clear, the case we must address is different. When the reasons that establish immorality and abhorrence in the biblical cases are applied to permanent and involuntary same-sex attraction (orientation) and faithful and monogamous same-sex unions (gay
marriage), then we see a clear and clarifying pattern: the reasons that condemn do not apply, and
the reasons that apply do not condemn. Biblically, this case is not the good but unattainable ideal. But just as biblically, it’s not a moral evil. We should stop treating it like one

  It doesn't deal with the argument drawn from Genesis 1 and 2 but others have done that. See here. Also commend this book for a closer examination of the other exegetical issues.

God's gay agenda

 This is the next wave: an Evangelical pastor who is partnered with someone of her own gender making a case as a somewhat Pentecostal Evangelical not only for acceptance of gay people in covenanted partnerships within the church and the ordained ministry of the church, but more than that: for a special purpose for gay people within God's purposes.

This book looks at the so-called 'clobber' texts and does so in a way that will commend itself to those who do theology as Evangelicals. These texts are successfully 'disposed' of in the sense that it is shown that for the most part, what they are about is either inhospitality or idolatrous religion.

it is often said that Jesus never said anything about what we call homosexuality, Sandra Turnbull challenges that. One of the 'new' things this book does is to look at the word 'eunuch' firstly in Jesus' teaching and to make the case that part of the semantic field of the term in the gospel and in the history and culture around it, is to refer to those who are constitutionally unable to make a heterosexual marriage even though they may be genitally intact -notably what we call homosexuality. This makes it considerably more plausible to see a potential affirmation by Jesus of 'gay' people, including couples and also in the early church.

I was very skeptical about this but I'm, if not convinced, at least now considering this. Sometimes I think that Sandra overstates her case and once or twice I think the argument looks a bit contradictory, but I think that the main direction of the argument is not unduly affected by those.

It will be very interesting to see Evangelicals in the Charismatic and Pentecostal traditions wrestle with this book.
God's Gay Agenda

Marriage, sexuality and the CofE

Mark Vernon has written a very helpful piece responding to the new CofE report on marriage (engendered by the recent debates around marriage equality). The piece is here: Where's the good news? - Philosophy and Life:
In it Dr Vernon outlines the main thesis and critques it ...

...that marriage is a 'creation ordinance', defined as between a man and a woman, as apparently implied in Genesis. This is either making the norm the rule or reducing the rich myths of Genesis to a formula. If it's the former, it's simply a category error. If it's the latter, it's an appallingly reductive reading of scripture that strips it of life.  ...  The idea that Genesis sanctions the nuclear family is, actually, a modern idea: I believe it can be traced to John Locke's 1690 Essay Concerning the True Original, Extent and End of Civil Government. Then, a legal definition of marriage was required because before, committed relationships had gained their social sanction by being made before God. Also, before then, families rarely looked like Adam and Eve under the fig tree because people died too often: hodgepodge families seem far more likely to have been the norm.

The first point in the quote above is what I too recently came to understand: that the 'traditional' Evangelical scriptural argument is a category error -making the norm a rule (as I try to say here and note that Steve Chalke realised).

It's important to be reminded that this argument is essentially a modern one, though I think that we should note that marriage liturgies for a long time have referenced Adam and Eve. It is important however to note the variation that has constituted marriages historically. Such accepted variation makes it hard to sustain an argument that traditional marriage is being defended: whose 'tradition' and why is it defended? We should also note that the Bible is replete with counter-examples to the Genesis ideal as latterly interpreted. If we avoid making the norm the rule, then scripture seems to 'sanction' a wide variety of patterns.

The Evangelical Brand and the RC Brand

I've not myself used the term 'brand' in thinking about the way that church traditions operate. But actually, now I've had a bit of time to consider it through the lens of this article Out of Ur: Giglio & the Weakness of the Evangelical Brand I think that in a world where the broadcast media have been so dominant in public discourse, of course some of what happens around 'churchmanship' takes on the character of branding. The interesting thing is the voluntariness of the corporate body concerned: congregants take on the branding of their own free will. Probably this has some kind of similarity to the way consumers may identify with a brand and give it loyalty.
Anyway, the article uses the notion of brand to help elucidate some recent trends in the USA with regard to sexuality. The crucial thing to note is that for the general public at least Evangelicals are marked by relevancy.

Given this commitment to relevancy, when evangelical leaders refuse to accommodate to the culture on matters of homosexuality it appears to those outside that they are violating their own brand. While Catholic clergy are understandably behind the times ...

And so for some people this sets up a kind of dissonance which I've seen myself in relation to how people respond to me. I have sometimes found that there is a pleasure when people discover that 'despite' being a priest, I'm not very 'religious' and seem to understand and enjoy a number of things about contemporary life that they don't think 'go with' religiosity. They seem to enjoy the idea that perhaps spirituality doesn't have to hedge about with thorns and briars their joys and desires (to marshal Wm. Blake's words). However, then they may make an assumption that therefore I'd be okay with something that I have questions about (usually something like sexual activity outside of a committed relationship) and then there is palpable confusion. Which I suspect is rather like ...

While Catholic clergy are understandably behind the times, the gay community has trouble believing that evangelical opposition to same-sex marriage is predicated on a principled religious conviction or tradition. As one leader in the LGBT movement asked me, “Evangelicals are fine with ignoring many other parts of the Bible, so why do they insist on holding on to a few verses about homosexuality?”

And that is indeed a good question. Part of the proble, also, is that the hermeneutic is so obscure. At least with RC's it's clear that tradition and 'the Pope says' is more or less the last word and if they change its only after a very long time (there's an awareness, at some level, that many of the principal arguments of the protestant reformers were conceded eventually but only after about 400 years).

This leads to an articulation of what many of us who do or have identified with the label 'Evangelical' now wrestle with.

There are a great many Christians who are looking for a new public identity--a new banner--that is distinct from the tainted brand of evangelicalism we’ve inherited from the Religious Right. We’re looking for one that retains the theological orthodoxy of Scripture as well as the historical commitment to the common good that earlier manifestations of evangelicalism affirmed.

Though there is one other dimension that some of us bring to the ring: a sense that we don't want to cede the label to the 'headbangers'. But terms like Red-Letter Christians do look awfully attractive alternatives.

Consider it possible you may be mistaken -about sexuality

I've been trying to see whether a discussion can take place via Twitter. By 'discussion' I'm thinking not just a bit of merry banter reaffirming each others' cameraderie over the great goal you've just seen, but rather trying to engage across some very different opinions in a topic that raises heat but often little light. I think I'm coming to the conclusion that this isn't a good way to conduct such dialogues -at least not as the exclusive medium.

 To be fair I embarked on this without thinking it through; to be frank I was a bit annoyed at some responses to Steve Chalke's coming out as a pro-gay Evangelical. Not least because despite his being fairly careful to argue 'evangelically' there were detracting comments which mostly didn't really engage with whether he might have a point, but rather went about bolstering the boundaries of a supposed orthodoxy based on misrepresentations, often, of his orthodoxy.

The phrase going through my mind in all of this is some words of Oliver Cromwell to the Kirk's general assembly in 1650

you have censured others, and established yourselves "upon the Word of God." Is it therefore infallibly agreeable to the Word of God, all that you I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ think it possible you may be mistaken.

Another thing going round my head is the thought that it's all very well having an infallible Bible, but unless you have infallible interpretation, it may not do you any good. The problem for a lot of the responses I've seen is an implicit assumption that our interpretation is straightforwardly right. I'm shocked to be reminded how much everyday readers of the Bible are unaware of their own hermeneutical biases and what a lot of questionable assumptions are smuggled into their (our) handling of Scripture. Many of us need constantly to be reminded of how our own cultural starting points lead us astray. Anyway, as with so many things in Christian living, learning humility is no bad thing, and it seems to me that Cromwell was counselling interpretive humility and charity. I'd say that interpretive charity (to name  further virtue) involves considering not only that we might be wrong but that others may well have good intentions, helpful insights and a genuine relationship with God (which does, I know, go counter to the evangelical typical propensity for salvific suspicion).

Anyway, perhaps some examples of attempted dialogue with some comments may help. I've removed names and aliases to take too much personal 'ad hominem' stuff out of it; I want to focus on the arguments, rhetorical strategies and my responses to them, rather than people.

So here's one snippet of exchange (which did have interweavings from other interlocutors which I've left out at this point.

Tweet: Is 2 Timothy 4:3 a description of the heretical Steve Chalke

me: No

 Tweet: 2 Timothy 4:3 seems a fair description of the heretical Steve Chalke

me: Only if you've already decided SteveChalke is wrong. What if 2T4.3 means homophobes find teachers to suit prejudice?

Tweet: to answer your rather odd question, that would be in contention with the whole body of scripture. Steve Chalke is out of line

Me: out o line re received understanding -which could be wrong: how are received u'standings supposed to be questioned? cf slavery.

Tweet: God's word is immutable. You cannot conflate slavery with sexual perversion. And in any case scripture never affirms either.

Me: Scripture affirms slavery and Xns defended it Biblically. Conflatn only at level of Xns reviewing understand'g of Bible's messg

Commentary: Of course, to describe SC as someone who is false teacher giving an audience what they want to hear (to confirm their ungodly living) presupposes that he is wrong. The irritating thing about this is the way that it seems to evade dealing with the issues raised in terms that Evangelicals are supposed to be strong on -arguing from (and about) scripture. This is apparently replaced instead with a simple dismissal without any attempt to engage SC's arguments on their own merits. It looks like it has been met with, well, prejudice: 'SC has articulated a view that doesn't agree with mine/ours: he must be a false teacher'. Actually, there's a tad more by implication: 'SC is only doing this to curry favour with (presumably) liberal secularists and the gay lobby.' ("He loves them more than us")

What my remark about homophobes is getting at is that the possibility of suiting itching ears cuts both ways. It could, in principle, apply to teachers who preach to people who are against faithful homophile relationships and find in scripture a way to scratch that anti-gay itch and shy away from any exegesis or reflection that might question that. It's quite clear that there are enormous pressures to continue to pander to the itching ears of the anti-gay crowd -if you don't, you'll get 'cast out' like they're attempting to do to SC "if you don't continue to produce interpretations that impossibilise gay relationships, we'll oust you from our club -don't bother us with the facts". I suspect my interlocutor hasn't really taken account of how hard it might be to feel constrained to take a position that earns the opprobrium of the constituency that has been ones home and sourced ones co-workers for so long: it is more likely that SC would find he would naturally want to produce an interpretation that doesn't upset his constituency: Evangelicals.

The point is that the 2 Tim passage is too much a wax-nose in a case like this. Both sides can accuse the other of pandering to the itching ears. If someone is going to make that accusation, they need to be prepared to engage in the dialogue properly and not just, so to say, throw bricks over the wall.

Okay, another bit of the interleaving dialogue, a different tweeter.

I'm assuming you're not familiar with the bible?@**** is right, looks more like eisegises than exegesis 

Me: I sus I'm more familiar wi Bible than u. Eisegesis = part o what #SteveChalke is q'ning. Engage with issues not psn 

 And then another snippet raising a similar issue:

You're clearly liberal I've no desire to debate with one who holds their own ideals above scripture

Me: Y're wrong: not liberal; interested in what scripture actually says vs received opinion. My ideals formed by scripture first.    

This is quite a disturbing rhetorical move. But first a quick vent of my outrage: 'not familiar with the Bible'? -I'm constantly finding that fellow evangelicals are lamentably ignorant both of contents and hermeneutical strategies. So if my reply sounds a little 'haughty' it was perhaps more in the vein (I hope) of Paul's 'boasting' which was strategically deployed in order to defend important insights and not to give his opponents' arguments a free-pass. The point is I'm well-acquainted with scripture and well-used to handling it in theological debate and in fact I've spent a lot of time, thought, effort and argument in relating my ideas to scripture and in trying to understand scripture whole and letting it speak into cultural (even church-cultural) norming. "As to evangelical 'righteousness', faultless ...".

Okay, I'll admit it: I've taught theology at secondary school and Higher Education level as well as from the pulpit -though I know that for my interlocutors this may count for little. I know this because I'm an evangelical and have shared the formation in suspicion towards those suspected of unsoundness (and if you follow up that link, I can affirm the things that the author classes as not being liberal theologically): it's a catch 22 situation; you can never prove your bona fides as long as you ever question any received interpretations or doctrines -even if you do so on biblical grounds.

Anyway, back to 'disturbing': it's just that typical Evangelical ploy (I know: to my shame, I've used it myself in the past, when I was keen to demonstrate my Soundness) that when someone says something outside of what we're used to, we tend to assume they must be liberals or ignorant of scripture. Problem is: sometimes scripture is actually more challenging than we're prepared to hear: it's 'liberal' sometimes. Sometimes scripture even seems 'ignorant' of itself...

So, moving on. There was another theme that emerged in conversation.

Me: out o line re received understanding -which could be wrong: how are received u'standings supposed to be questioned? cf slavery.

Response: God's word is immutable. You cannot conflate slavery with sexual perversion. And in any case scripture never affirms either.

Another respondant: God tolerated slavery as He tolerates divorce, but he speaks clearly against perverted same sex sex.

Me: Scripture affirms slavery and Xns defended it Biblically. Conflatn only at level of Xns reviewing understand'g of Bible's messg

Me: point is: Xns convincedly defended slavery from Bible -took #SteveChalke -alikes to reconsider. mutatis mutandi.

The point about slavery seemed to be confusing -I thought that it was clear that this was about a change of how the Bible was read and used in relation to a social-ethical issue. But I don't think people got that at all. I think this reveals one of the difficulties of doing this via Twitter: a helpful point can't be just 140 characters sometimes.

The point I was /am trying to make is basically that when the slave trade and the institution of slavery was challenged in Britain and beyond in the 1700's (and a bit before too) it was challenged by Christians (evangelicals prominent among them) on Christian theological grounds. But their argument was not straight forwardly Scriptural in the sense that there is no clear text to support their position. On the contrary much of the Bible is slavery-friendly in terms of specific texts. The NT has many passages where either slavery is unquestioned and some where it is merely limited but by being the subject of instructions on how to be a good slave or a good slave-master, is accepted even affirmed after a fashion. Thus there were many Christians -Evangelicals among them- who argued that slavery is acceptable (provided it is humanely done).  The Hebrew Bible similarly makes provision for slavery and even, in a sense, recommends it (providing for people to sell themselves and even to extend a period of servitude).

This left Evangelicals and other Christians with an eye to the Bible arguing a more nuanced position. Basically the kind of argument that has to be made against slavery in order to get it banned with the support of Evangelicals is that scriptural acceptance of slavery is an accommodation to the  unthinkableness of changing rapidly something that was endemic, widespread and finely-woven into the fabric of economic life. The unthinkableness was reinforced by examples in scripture and life of relatively benign slavery. Thus they argued that slavery is accepted in scripture merely 'tactically', that is: it's not as God's best but it can be accommodated as something to be put up with and mitigated where possible.

However, this is not an argument against slavery, it is for the acceptance of slavery. Something more is needed to tip over into campaigning against it. For this one has to argue that the 'camels' of scripture rather than its 'gnats' are counter-slavery; the big themes and main ideas lead towards removing slavery when the opportunity presents itself. These big themes are things like an equality of human beings before God, love of neighbour as oneself (on the whole, who wants to be a slave? So ...), the brotherhood of Christians such that in Christ there is neither 'slave nor free'. This latter theme comes up in Philemon and Paul's advice to Philemon concerning a runaway slave points quite clearly in the direction that the Christian thing to do is not to enslave fellow believers. And then not just fellow-believers: how can love of neighbour justify enslaving anyone?

The analogy I'm trying to make is that the issue of faithful, committed homophile relationships might similarly require us to recognise that the texts apparently pointing to not accepting such relationships may be cultural accommodations (or even outrightly not applicable when you check out the detail). But also the point would be that the sidelining of some texts in favour of more weighty themes is not unknown and in the case of slavery has become so unproblematic that it's hard for many contemporary Christians to conceive of Christians justifying slavery from scripture. Yet once upon a time it was 'obvious' to most Christians that slavery is fine (provided you do it nicely).

Christians can and do change our minds quite considerably about interpretations of scripture.

Now that isn't an argument in itself for accepting homophile relationships. It's an argument for being open to the possibility that this might be a 'slavery' moment and that obvious, 'natural' interpretations that we've inherited 'might be mistaken'.

I happen to think that Steve Chalke has articulated several reasons why we should look again (see my earlier posts). The task now is to weigh those reasons, not simply to cling fast to inherited reasons. They could be mistaken. It's certainly not a time to go around dismissively refusing to engage such reasons in their own terms and disrespecting people who disagree with us. Not least because the way that many Evagelicals are behaving at the moment is failing to commend them to a wider world. The world can't say 'see how these Christians love one another' because what they are seeing is 'see how these Christians slag one another off and hate people who are different through no fault of their own'. I can't see how positioning ourselves like that in the public eye can serve the gospel.
1 John 4:16 should figure more highly in our thinking and acting.

Tweets, twits and the word of God

I've just been reading twitterati responses to Steve Chalke's reappraisal of homophile relationships (see my blog post a few days back). I'm a little concerned by the failure of many conservative responses to think through the logics of their responses. (PS -'twits' in the title may seem provocative -I understand that 'tweeters' or 'twitterers' might have been less so lest anyone think I was passing a judgement rather than simply enjoying the word play. Iow -no offence meant and the word is now enshrined in the permalink).

Here's a few that concern me and some comments on why I'm concerned |(I'm not naming people because I'm wanting not to get into personalities but you can find the originals at Twitter #SteveChalke).

How often does apostasy begin with a leader taking the authority of the Bible "seriously"?

This one concerns me because it implies that the only way to take the authority of the Bible seriously is by only letting it say what we've already decided it says. This, of course, would not pass the slavery test.

Or this one

So cofe and #stevechalke have both entered the Christian hall of shame. Anymore takers compromise and popularity awaits! But heaven doesn't

Ironically, this one works by appealing to popularity -in this case stay popular with 'our set' by rejecting popularity with 'their set'. Compromise and popularity work both ways and both are neutral with regard to truth.

Then there are the reactions that almost literally demonise those who disagree:

How many more so-called #Christian leaders like #SteveChalke will betray the Saviour?The #Church is riddled with a Judas spirit.

This worries me because there's no discussion allowed: 'my/our interpretation is right, end of ...'. And so there's no way to recognise the Christian bona fides of those designated opponents. 'Judas spirit' completes the demonisation allowing those who disagree to be written off as beneath contempt and certainly consideration as real Christians. Even 'love your enemy' would be better! This is the equivalent of sticking fingers in ears and saying "Lalala". The problem with this is that outsiders will see that and see someone precisely trying to remain faithful to the Saviour by upholding justice and compassion (at the very least) and being met by some of the so-called faithful not acting with love and generosity and mercy. Hardly going to commend the faith, is it? When we disagree we do so in public. The way we disagree is part of our message. If we fail to treat one another in disagreement as we would ourselves like to be treated, we have signally failed to love our neighbour as ourselves. The watching world will note that we don't really take Christ's most fundamental teaching seriously and conclude that we are indeed hypocrites.

Back to a response that fails the 'further implications' test:
If you follow the path of 'Did God Really say...?" You walk straight towards its author! Doesn't generally end well.
The problem with this is that it is actually too broad. The effect of this move is to outlaw any questioning of received interpretations (and by 'received, in effect 'our ...' or 'my interpretation' is meant). The point of any Bible study is to discover what God might be saying and any honest discussion has to ask 'does the text say ...?' in relation to contexts whether these contexts are historical, cultural, textual, developmental or whichever. This is not the same thing as saying 'did God say...?' as it is seeking to understand in the first place.

This is compounded by a misleading implied hermeneutic of the Genesis 3 passage alluded to. In Genesis 3 the serpent asks 'Did God really say ...?' and presents an exaggerated and deliberate misunderstanding of God's instruction to Adam. The purpose seems to be to create a conceptual space which by implication portrays God as a niggardly power against humanity. This is not what Steve Chalke is doing. In actual fact, he's probably doing the reverse.

Of course, the real frustrating difficulty here is that it takes a particular result of the enquiry into what God might think of sexuality (one that could be flawed by human frailty and sin) and uses that conclusion to outlaw other conclusions without entering into an enquiry about whether the means by which that conclusion has been reached actually do 'hold water'. In a sense it 'forgets' that it too is a result of interpretation while dissing other views for being evil interpretations.

How about this

another step away from evangelicalism

Which seems implicitly to define evangelicalism as a position on human sexuality: Steve actually engages the debate as an evangelical -he uses Scripture as authoritative and recognises the wider debate. This response is a further example, I think, that too many Evangelicals actually rely on the authority of their leaders' interpretations and positions than on the values of historic and classical Evangelicalism.

So, it's sobering to note how many response seem to be more about shoring up received interpretations than engaging with the substantive issues raised.
For further tweets and comments on them go here.
For an earlier post asking just what counts as sex and suggesting there should be some comparability between homo and heterophile relationships ....

The Bible and homosexual relationships

Interesting: I think; this:

 Was the author intending to enshrine the view that all lifelong sexual unions should be exclusively heterosexual because this is a ‘creation ordinance’? Or, is this simply the normative illustration, whereas the critical truths of the story lie elsewhere? If it is the former, then it is perhaps legitimate to refer to practising homosexual sex, even within a lifelong relationship, as having ‘fallen short of God’s ideal’ and to state that those who are not heterosexually orientated are ‘in need of restoration’. But if it’s the latter, then does the ‘norm’ necessarily infer the ‘ideal’? Or is it like the ‘norm’ of being right-handed, which never implies any failing of those who are born left-handed? If so, then neither of the earlier negative definitions is appropriate, but instead cause a great deal of unnecessary pain and, sometimes, terrible tragedy.

... is Steve Chalke making basically the same argument as I made here, about two-thirds of the way in under the sub-heading "What's wrong with the creational argument?". I think he is. I like the left-handedness illustration. But I think that Steve and I both need to work at sharpening up the expression of the fundamental insight so that the arbitrariness of extending the moral imperative to gendered-difference is seen even more readily.


The Bible and Homosexuality: Part One | Christianity, Sexuality:

C of E, same sex marriage and ethical mismove

I have been uncomfortable to be associated with this: I don't think I agree with the Church of England response to Government same sex marriage consultation -which is a shame because I'm supposed to represent the CofE.

At the heart of the submission is this paragraph:

Such a change would alter the intrinsic nature of marriage as the union of a man and a woman, as enshrined in human institutions throughout history. Marriage benefits society in many ways, not only by promoting mutuality and fidelity, but also by acknowledging an underlying biological complementarity which includes, for many, the possibility of procreation. The law should not seek to define away the underlying, objective, distinctiveness of men and women.

And this, I think, also outlines the heart of the objection is from an Evangelical perspective. As such it captures my own erstwhile difficulty with affirming homophile relationships from what I used to understand as a biblical perspective. Let me offer a boiled-down version of the what is probably the mainstream Evangelical position as I have experienced it being passed on in England.

Many British Evangelicals are properly wary of using Levitical law and incidents like Sodom and Gomorrah in discussions about homosexuality. They rightly recognise the cultural differences and hermeneutical difficulties of making a straight transfer from such texts to contemporary life. Such considerations do actually impinge on the thinking (though you'll still find some unreflective 'strategies' of Bible reading which are inconsistent to uses in other areas). The main argument for Evangelicals of this more nuanced ilk is grounded in Jesus' teaching about divorce where he appeals to Genesis 1 and 2 saying that the reason that divorce is not good (and for the moment I don't want to get into divorce per se) is that "at the beginning "made them male and female,'" and that "For this reason ...  they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate"

Now, it may not at first sight seem relevant: what has divorce to do with homosexuality? Well, note that the passage links sexual dimorphism with marriage and also with sexual activity ('one flesh' is usually understood as mainly about that -though I am wondering whether that really holds water). That leads to the main argument -popularised by ethicist David Field in 'Homosexuality -a Christian Option?' (the question is answered negatively, but within an argument that discounts many traditional objections like the Sodom one). David Field's argument (from memory) was, effectively, that Jesus is saying that the purpose of sexual activity is to cement a lifelong partnership between one man and one woman. I'm not sure if I've stated that in a critique-proof way but I hope I've captured the main thrust of the argument well enough.

For a long time I was convinced by that argument. At the same time I found I was not homophobic, that is I had no personal difficulty with homosexual people (to the extent that some thought I might be gay myself) and advocated equality for homosexual persons in every other way. I thought of it as being similar to an attitude to adultery or heterosexual unmarried partnerships:  I may not condone the activity, but that is no reason to discriminate against people in other areas of life or to take away their rights.

However, I have come to believe that this suppodsedly Biblical approach is fundamentally flawed and cannot sustain the weight being placed upon it. And once it goes, there is no longer any good reason not to accept that homosexual relationship can be analogous to that between a man and a woman. In fact, once that reason has faded away, the arguments for acceptance of gay partnerships gain pre-eminent force. Those arguments were ones that troubled me (when I was persuaded by David Field's position) for a long time and I was aware that the only reason I didn't go with them was that Biblical argument rooted in the reading of Jesus' supposed understanding of Genesis 1 and 2.

The arguments that disturbed my certainty.
The arguments that disturbed my contentment with David Field's position were things like the following.

One important disturber of my peace was realising that homosexual people don't choose their orientation and consequently that it seems to be an injustice to deny them, point blank, expression of something fairly fundamental to their being in the world, and it certainly seems cruel too.

Then there were the many Christians I found who were good and wholesome growing Christians who were in same-sex partnerships; if God is so concerned, I thought, why would God bless their spiritual lives so without challenging them -yet that challenge really didn't seem to be coming; rather they were blessed and being a blessing. Was God calling us to be less merciful than God?

I also found unconvincing the concomitant idea that if something isn't God's 'norm' or best, we should 'outlaw' it. Contrariwise: there are things that are not the way that we would say that God wants them to be ultimately but which we 'make room for': divorce is perhaps the most germane and obvious, (and some people would add taking up arms in a just war). It seems to me that the logical corollary of this argument is to deny the deaf community the use of sign language because God's norm or best is for them to be hearing. (I say that without intent to be offensive, I trust it is not and apologise if it comes over badly; I think it is affirming of deaf people).

I also found the fact that 'gay cure' therapies seemed not to work on the whole and the times when they apparently did were probably to do with bisexuality, given their paucity. I felt that if the traditional view was right, such therapies ought to have more success.

There is also the intuition that the prohibition of homophile relations should make sense in relation to the law of Love: loving others as God loves and as we love ourselves. If we bracket out, for the moment, promiscuity and other 'unhealthy' ways of living out sexuality (which are on a par with heterosexual morality, btw) and we are dealing with a consensual, equal relationship in which mutual respect, comfort and aid are given and received, then how is that bad? If God is love and those who live in love live in God (1 John 4.16), then this kind of relationship shows forth God. it's hard to see how a sexual dimension to that can be so fundamentally wrong that it erases the goodness of the love. If homosexuality is so fundamentally wrong, then there ought to be intrinsic consequences that quite clearly run against the law of Love: I have not found any. And while that's not a determining argument, it is a consideration that considerably weakens the plausibility of the main position I had held.

Relatedly, it seemed to me that 1 John 4.16 would imply that a loving committed homophile relationship was good and right save only the sexual expression. It then seems quite hard to argue against the sexual expression of such a relationship if it is exclusive and lifelong in intent and unlikely to prove a danger to others.

I also found it intriguing that where an acceptance of the possibility of committed loving homophile relationships reigned, churches seemed to be able to reach out and see people coming to faith from the gay communities. This raised the kind of issue above about God's apparent blessing. More than that, it is hard to escape the parallel with the Church in Acts finding God pushing it to accept gentiles by converting them and giving them the Spirit.

I was also concerned to discover that suicide rates among homosexual people were comparatively high as were other stress-related health outcomes, it seemed to me that the attitudes of stigma that were a large part of the cause of those negative mental health outcomes were being propped up by church attitudes. At the very least, this means that the church has to work a lot harder to affirm gay people to the fullest degree it can in conscience. I fear that this is no way happening and cannot happen without a more fulsome acceptance on an emotional level, and I do suspect homophobia proper (ie people having a strong personal reaction against other people) lies somewhere at the root of that problem.


What's wrong with the creational argument?
So, having dealt with some of the outlying matters, what happened to my reading of that main 'Field' argument? Well, it seems to me now that reading the texts that Jesus refers to in his reply about divorce as a command, in effect, is to over-interpret by making an 'is' into an 'ought'. The 'is' part of it is men and women, being attractive to one another and the possibility of sex and children. That's the way things are: that's an 'is'. The 'ought' comes in at that point: a regulation of these possibilities and the desires that come with them so that they work for the particular and common good (and I won't here go into all of that, suffice to say it's about justice, well-being and love). The problem with the Evangelical view, as per David Field, is that the 'ought' gets moved back onto the male and female aspect so that being male and female becomes a moral imperative rather than simply being recognised as the way that things tend to be normally. This works oppressively when applied to situations where the 'normal' isn't possible: when the 'is' of gender difference becomes an 'ought' -similarly when the 'is' of general child-bearing becomes an 'ought' to the childless or would be if the 'is' of general sexual 'potency' becomes an 'ought' to the injured or ill.

I think that the fact that Jesus was talking about divorce in a context where same-sex relations of any kind are not in view is a big hint that we should be wary of applying it beyond that context in ways that would make unjust and oppressive situations if applied rigorously according to the widened understanding of Field and others. We know that in several parables of Jesus, reading more from it than the main point being addressed is dangerous and misleading. It seems to me that similar caution is warranted here.

Furthermore, I really don't think that anyone reading Jesus' teaching here would really think that gay sex was in any way implicated, anyway. In fact Jesus' teaching about neighbour love and love in relation to behaviour would tend to point towards allowing responsible, loving, committed homophile relationships as a just and loving way to proceed.

It seemed to me, too, that there is a fundamental problem with a reading of a moral argument in scripture that works oppressively, when the underlying deep structure of scripture is about love and justice. But that is not necessarily decisive if there is a possibility that there could be something about the practice that turned out to be ultimately injurious in terms of love and justice. But it seems to consistently emerge that the injurious things turn out time and time again to be the results of things that would be similarly injurious amongst heterosexual people, that is, they are nothing to do with homosexuality per se.

The other major text for me was -and for many evangelicals (but not fundamentalists -who tend to read so flatly that any text apparently about homosexuality is simply read across without much hermeneutical work) still is- the argument in Romans 1. But here I think the argument  is strong that the characteristics listed in verses 29ff don't fit faithful committed gay Christians and therefore their situation is not in view. Similarly it seems to me that gay Christians do not fit the profile of idolatry in verse 23 and so the 'giving them up to'  of verses 26 and 27 simply does not apply. Therefore it is reasonable to read this part as general condemnation of idolatry and its effects on general social morality -which may include people engaging in experimental sex outside of intentionally lifelong partnerships (and possibly, in the original context, kinky sex as part of 'religious' rites).

So, all in all, I don't think that the complementarity of the sexes is sufficient reason for  continuing to define marriage exclusively in heterosexual terms. I certainly don't think that it would be a reason to put at peril the church's position as a legal registrar of marriages. Even for those who don't think as I now do on the topic: I can't see it's much different from the issue of marrying divorcees in church -a matter of conscience can be accommodated in such a case -and given that it is now easier to be married in parishes one is not domiciled in, the possibilities of finding clergy who can in conscience preside over the ceremony.

I'd commend following this up by having a look at this web-site. Also read this sermon.

Note that some minor revisions of wording and addition of headings took place a few days after posting this article.

Responding with Christian love to our homosexual neighbours

This gives a constructive approach to dealing with homosexuality. Interestingly it emerges from a case-study scenario which asks the reader to imagine they are confronted pastorally with a young person who is just realising the predominant direction of their sexual affectviity is homophile. I've added emphasis to a phrase I think is particularly important.

What welcome should you receive? I pray it might be something like this ...
“God loves you - just as you are. He made us all for a purpose - there are no "reject goods". In Christ, gay and straight are equally welcome!
We want to affirm you as a person! Gay orientation is not in itself sinful. Some in the church believe that all homosexual activity is wrong. Others believe that the Bible supports all loving faithful relationships. But though we disagree among ourselves, we will not make you a victim of our theological conflict.
We give you the whole Bible, focussing on what is really important, like John 3 v 16, Matthew 28 vv 16-20 and Romans 5 v 8, but engaging with you on the challenging bits.
Above all we will accompany you on your Christian journey and learn from you as you learn from us. As we travel together, we pray that the Holy Spirit will break forth yet more light and truth from God’s word.”
Martin Stears-Handscomb

The sexualisation of ... well, everything ...

It is too much not to comment further, after what happened on the train on Thursday ...Too much, too young? Retailers still selling over-sexualised clothing to kids | Society | The Guardian: "Retailers came under increased pressure today to take sexualised clothing for young girls off their shelves,"
I'd have written it off as a grumpy old man moment on my part were it not for my son agreeing with me. Scenario: train carriage with assorted people including a family with kids of around 8. Also present is a hen party. Nothing wrong with that necessarily except this lot are drinking cocktails (also not necessarily a problem) with straws in the shape of erect male members. And my issue with that is that in a public place where children might be, that is not really acceptable. I wouldn't want to be answering the question from an 8 year old, "What's that?".

The pressure towards early sexualisation isn't only the 'nasty promotional' companies. It's adults who think that sexual references in ordinary public places is not a problem. It's a lack of modesty about such things. Modesty is in part about protecting the vulnerable.

Bishops Jones and Ipinmoye, gays, GAFCON and warfare

I'm not wanting to comment just at the moment about the main substance of this article; encouraging though it is on a number of fronts:
Church Times - Jones queries conservative view on gays.

No. What I want to try to understand is what this bit means.

"Bishop Ipinmoye’s reiteration that he wished to remain a mission partner, in spite of Liverpool’s stance of being “on the way to a position similar to the Church’s attitude to pacifism on matters of homosexuality”."

What it appears to say is ... well, 'in spite of' indicates, normally, that what follows is disagreed with by the speaker or the reported-speaker. So, what follows should be regarded as stating a position with which Bp Ip inmoye disagrees. Therefore, what Bp Ipinmoye seems to be saying is that -given his perspective, remember- that pacifism is unbiblical and a novelty to Christianity brought about by compromise with cultural trends. Of course, this is the reverse of the truth. Pacifism is almost universally recognised to be the more biblical position for Christians (it's the natural interpretation of Jesus's teaching) whereas the non-pacifist set of positions is the 'concession' to cultural and political 'realities'.

The irony is, of course, (assuming that the reporting is fair and I've interpreted it about right) that by accepting the (I assume) just war position the bishop is adopting a basic hermeneutic and ethical manoeuvre which he is presumably disallowing in the sexuality debate. Yes folks, that's right; I think that if you can justify bearing and using arms as a Christian, then you have done the basic ethical and hermeneutical work to accept homophile marriage.

The hard work is really for those who are more disposed to the NT and the Church's original approach to warfare. For those who have already agreed that 'hard reality' and/or the demands of justice sometimes trump ethical 'niceties', then the game is up. GAFCONs emperor has no clothes.

So I call on GAFCON members either to take a distinctly and unequivocal pacifist position, or to recognise homophile relationships as marriageable.
If you'd like to see what James Jones said, look here.

One in five is against monogamy, according to The Observer's Sex Uncovered survey |

THis is a trailer article One in five is against monogamy, according to The Observer's Sex Uncovered survey it trails for a longer section, and it's got a catchy (do I hear 'sexy'?) come-on: "One Briton in five does not believe that monogamy is desirable, while three out of 10 do not think it is natural, according to The Observer's Sex Uncovered survey,"
I'm interested because I think that we need to realise how deep the PR job we have to do for Christian values in our post-whatever culture. And we have to 'sell' them in terms that make sense to our host culture. That is if we think that some Christian values, such as these, are actually good for society and individuals in it. I would say that at present we have a major difficulty even being heard on such matters past the expectation that we are going to simply repeat the 'just say no' mantra that 'everyone' thinks we have tattooed to us when we're baptised. So where do we start?

Anyway have a look at the articles: there are some interesting surprises in there: most men are happy with the size of their willy, for example (who'd have thought it looking at the emails that clog our spam filters?). Also 82% of respondants denied having ever being unfaithful to their partner and of those only 10% had done so regularly (I make that something just under 2% of the whole sample). Furthermore 79% do believe monogamy to be desirable (that's the glass is half-full interpretation).Interestingly, too, the rating of the importance of sex in a relationship varied: "Compared with those who are married, those who are single are twice as likely to view sex as the most important factor" Which puts an interesting perspective on the result that there was nearly a 50/50 split over the issue of whether respondents considered that it would be possible to maintain a healthy marriage without sex.

Homophile and homoagapaic?

Ever since a college forum on human sexuality in the summer term, I've been musing over the fact that I find the arguments against homosexual relationships (I'm talking about non-promiscuous, here) based in Romans 1 less and less convincing. And today I read something that seemed to make sense of the implausibility, for me.

Pill may be responsible for divorce rate?

Now that title may get your attention, let's nuance it a bit: firstly by saying that the 'conclusion' is not stated in this article reporting the research on the pheromonal effects of the contracteptive pill. Contraceptive pill 'can lead women to choose wrong partner' | Science | guardian.co.uk. Secondly, if my extropolation is correct, I don't think it could be claimed that it would be entirely responsible for divorce: clearly, there are many factors, but this could be one and perhaps a strangely significant one.

Here's the skinny: "'The results showed that the preferences of women who began using the contraceptive pill shifted towards men with genetically similar odours,' the University of Liverpool's Dr Craig Roberts, who led the study, said. 'Not only could MHC similarity in couples lead to fertility problems, it could also ultimately lead to the breakdown of relationships when women stop using the contraceptive pill, as odour perception plays a significant role in maintaining attraction to partners.'
Being on the pill simulates a state of pregnancy, which may reverse a woman's reaction to male odours."
This becomes a really intriguing line of thinking...

military pornography

This is a mini rant. Actually 'rant' is not the right word, it's more a sharing of puzzlement.

It starts with a Christian friend building a model of a piece of medieval military technology and my thoughts moved from there to thinking that I was uncomfortable with the subject matter of the model because it was about a piece of technology designed to endanger life and property. I then got to wondering why it was that as Christians we generally think it's okay to have an interest in military history, literature and paraphernalia but would have problems with someone showing similar interest in the history of sexual infidelity, bondage equipment or pornography. And yet the Christian position on warfare is probably just as circumscribed as that on sexuality, perhaps more so: war is either not to be entertained at all, or if it can be then it is only a last resort with heaviness of heart. Given the justification given for engaging in war in the Christian tradition, it is actually pretty hard to justify certain levels of interest in matters military when compared with matters to do with sexual expression.

I suspect that this shows up a degree of acculturation which may not be healthy in western Christians and which makes, by implication, interesting comparison and comment on our attitudes to sexuality. I'm tempted to take the view that I won't accept certain arguments in respect of homosexuality unless the proposer of those arguments makes consistent arguments with regard to war and peace also...

Rowan Williams: gay couples reflect the love of God

This could be a bit mischievous: this is not something that Rowan Williams has just recently said/written, rather it's about 7 years old and it was well-known what his views were on the matter, so this is nothing new at all but the timing could be difficult. What gets my interest, however, is the lead sentence: "Gay relationships can 'reflect the love of God' in a way that is comparable to marriage, according to the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams."Because I think that this is one of the main disquieting observations for those who hold to the 'modified' traditional evangelical approach (creation mandate rooted in Gn.2:28 etc). If we take seriously 1Jn4:16 "So we have known and believe the love that God has for us. God is love, and those who abide in love abide in God, and God abides in them." It's a sentence used in wedding services in Anglican churches, and it challenges us as we look on committed, faithful, gay relationships where love is clearly present at the heart. Can we truly say that there is nothing of God in this? And if there is, how should we honour it and nurture it? This is the real hard case for the 'traditional' view, imho. By repudiating certain acts, there is a danger of repudiating and destroying that which is genuinely of God and if Jesus is about not putting out a smoldering wick or not breaking a bruised reed ...
Rowan Williams: gay couples reflect the love of God | World news | The Guardian:

Thoughtfulness on the gay debate

I thought this was quite a succinct intro to some of the moredeveloped issues in the debate, written without rancour and debated in the comments similarly. Click on the heading to this post