Hold the tension

Our preacher on Sunday was talking about the balance between working hard and resting. In the sense that on the one hand we have to ‘let go and let God’, while on the other hand the imperatives of the gospel are that we should spare no effort to save the lost. He was talking about how these two truths appear to be opposite to one another. And then, holding his hand forward, palm vertical like the prow of a ship cutting a path through the water, he waved that had side to side to illustrate that “we can not cut a Christian ‘floppy middle line’ – we have to take those two opposites as they are and hold them in tension”


Which is interesting, because that is almost exactly what I have been thinking recently.

Too often, as Christians, when we face such opposites within our faith, we either have a war with major casualties and bloodletting (or at least mutual excommunications) or else we fudge a compromise where neither side is happy.

I think we need to do more of this ‘holding things in tension’

Obviously there’s the Trinity itself – three persons but definitely ONE God.

Then there is predestination and freewill.

Then there is suffering – the work of an evil Satan under the command of a holy God.

More controversially, the equality of genders but the maleness of Church leadership????

Perhaps we should affirm that priesthood is male while continuing to ordain women – holding two opposing doctrines in tension. (Don’t quote me as holding any of these positions on this I’m just musing theoretically)

What I’m really leading to is homosexuality.

We have denominations – seeking pure holiness through the Scriptures – that avow that marriage is between opposite genders for complementarity to reflect the image of God. And we have denominations – seeking pure justice through the Scriptures – that avow that we are all equal and have equal sanction to marry for love.

There’s no scope for compromise, but do we have to have one doctrine or the other? Does one have to win, while the other loses? Do we have to have public wars and excommunications? Can either of these churches represent the wholeness of God? Can a church be pure while perpetrating injustice? Can a church truly be just while sanctioning marriages that [may] fall outside of God’s perfect will? Can any one church, in its monochromatic unity, truly represent a multi-faceted God?

I believe we need to hold the tension. We need to have unchanging traditional churches upholding unchanging traditional doctrines, sticking exclusively to heterosexual marriage. We also need to have flexible churches that look in the mirror and say ‘sorry, we got that wrong’ and adjust as necessary, willing to marry same-sex couples. We have this already, but what we don’t have is mutual respect or the understanding that unity does not mean uniformity. We can hold radically different and opposing doctrines while still respecting one another as genuine expressions of God’s heart. We don’t have to understand it. We just have to hold the tension.

Doubts about my position on homosexuality

Thinking aloud.

Its not as simple as I thought.  The church of england response to the government equalities office consultation “equal civil marriage” makes me less convinced about my line on complementarity than I used to be. One theory that I have been taking on board is that homosexual people exhibit characetristics of both genders, and that therefore the image of God (which requires both Male and Female in marriage to be complete) is still fully reflected in a gay couple. But if you have two men who are each [say] 25% female, that still only adds up to 50% of the amount of 'female' required. Mathematically you could argue that a male homosexual [25% female say] should therefore only be permitted to marry a lesbian [25% male, say].  BUt all that assumes that it is a mathematical thing.  It may be that just any mixture of the two genderswill suffice and its not a thing that can be expressed mathematically at all.

Another line of thought in my head is that since am fairly Calvinist in my views on predestination, I do believe in a Mr or Miss Right.  And so for me to accept gay marriage implies that God has also planned a Mr Right for John and a Miss Right for Jane.  And while its easy enough to accept that God is merciful to people in their need, its a bigger pill to swallow that he is actively and premeditatively involved in this way.

I suppose I am still in a position where although I have my ups and downs in theological terms, the reality of a conservative view on these things is that people who try desperately hard with much prayer to cease being gay often end up commiting suicide rather than continuing 'sinning'.  For which I admire them - I am not that devoted!  But the fruit of the doctrine - suicide - implies to me that the doctrine is wrong.  'By their fruits you shall know them' applies to doctrines too.

Bishop Alan on homosexuality (and stuff)

I insist that everybody reads this:

bishopalan.blogspot.co.uk - beyond-sneering

Seeing the impact of conservative views about homosexuality

Very interesting chat at one of the BBQ’s I attended over the Jubilee weekend.

Setting the scene:

One of my main concerns in returning to my original church has been its conservative stance on homosexuality – which as I have explained in detail in previous posts I have moved away from; not becoming a wishy-washy unscriptural ‘liberal’, but using conservative Bible Study tools to conclude that we got it wrong. In my first four services back at the church, three of them contained comments that would not have made a homosexual feel wanted.

And when I have had a chat with the Vicar, he has said that he recently attended a [conservative] seminar on the topic, and was planning to hold some discussion of it in the PCC.

At the BBQ I found myself talking to the Assistant Minister, who was at the same conference. She said that she had felt uncharacteristically angry during the same seminar, because they kept referring to it as a lifestyle choice.

She has a bit more insight that many: her first husband was a gay man who got married in the hope that it would cure him of homosexuality. But of course, it did not – he was never able to consummate the marriage, and they ended up separating. Having never been truly married, she then married someone else on the rebound and had two children. But the marriage did not work, and now we have an assistant minister who on paper is twice divorced – which does not go down well in all circles. Now it turns out that her son, when he hit puberty, found himself to be gay. This caused him great distress. It was not at all what he would choose! He spent a lot of time sobbing. Eventually his Mum picked up the clues and said “Are you worried about your sexuality?” He pushed past her, but later texted her “yes, I am”.

He went to the church youth leader – “I have a lesbian friend who would like to come …” He was given chapter and verse about the sinfulness of it all. Uncomfortable at the church, he went to the Elim Pentecostal church. They tried to cast demons out of him.

Eventually the lad let it slip to his Dad. If the Dad was a nicer chap he would have still been married to the lads Mum. He had a very old fashioned view of everything – (including women’s ministry in the church which is why he could not handle his wife being ordained resulting in their split), and he was not skilled in expressing his views diplomatically. So the lad - who had never taken any kind of drugs - took an overdose of caffeine tablets.

This is the consequence of conservative views of homosexuality and the unloving way that they are usually expressed. “Love the sinner but hate the sin”, they say, but that’s not what they do.

So it was good to be able to support our assistant minister, and give her pastoral support instead of her giving it out all the time. She really needed a sympathetic ear.

She asked me to pass on to her a paper I wrote ion 2008 describing my changed views.

She also let slip that one lady in the church – who I always see in the company of another lady that is rather butch – is a lesbian. It figures. She should not have told me, but I’m not too surprised. But I also know this lady to be a truly practising Christian – it was she who when we were unemployed gave us 100% of her competition winnings, which I think she really needed herself.

So please pray that when this issue is discussed in the PCC, that the Holy Spirit will be present. We need the discussion to be civilised, gentle, and loving, but also frank and honest. We want to remain true to scripture; we don’t want to make culturally convenient excuses. But we don’t want to be causing severe heartache to people unnecessarily.

More thoughts on homosexuality

I have had some interaction with Pastor Rommel Weekly of the Gay Christian Fellowship at
http://www.gaychristianfellowship.com/

In round one, he helped me very much with a how the concept of 'one flesh' might be interpreted in the context of gay christian relationships.

In round two, he flummaxed me on my interpretation of Romans 1.

I had been following through on my idea that Leviticus is Temple Prostitution, ergo so is Corinthians, ergo so is Romans (please see my previous posts for a fuller description). BUt Pastor Weekly goes with a more traditional view that in Romans Paul is indeed refering to homosexuality in a more general sense, seeing it as a symptom of paganism. Pastor Weekly seems to assert that although Paul was right to see it that way at the time it can't be extended to a universal condemnation of homosexuality. Something to do with the word 'natural' in Romans 1 being the same as the word 'natural' in the context of the length of men's hair, the requirement for men to have short hair being rarely preached on these says! Pastor Weekly claims to believe in the infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture. Now I have broken off my correspondence with him, because I couldn't put into words why I have trouble with his view of Romans 1. PArtly it's coz it looks like an excuse and its just to convoluted and far fetched. Partly its because if you make this kind of argument here, where does it stop? Which other scriptures can you disregard? And partly its because I'm looking for reasoning that will stand up to rigorous assault by skeptical conservatives. But as time has passed and I've let it cook in my head, I'm beginning to see where he's coming from.

Pastor Weekly: if you read this, please accept my apologies for not coming back to you direct and for quoting (or misquoting?) you on the web without consent. I can only recommend that my readers go to your site and check it out for themselves.

Gossip

I found out today that a former colleague has divorced and remarried.

It's none of my business to know why, but one is curious, nosey. The new wife is another colleague. Did he split with his first wife just so that he could have her?

So I guiltily ask someone what happened.

It turns out that it was his first wife that had been seeing someone else - the butch female security guard (who was supposed to have been 'doing it' with the female CEO for some time). So my colleague had been patiently and silently suffering for many years. I still don't know the order f events, but knowing a bit more of the circumstances I am less inclined to jump to conclusions than I was to start with.

Gossip is bad, but in this instance stopped me from misjudging someone.

(Plus it's another case of a homosexual trying to get along in a heterosexual marriage and surprise surprise, it doesn't work)

God's word to me

After doing the largely academic phase of my study of the theology of homosexuality, and coming largely to the conclusion that we have misread the scriptures and that the awkward verses of the Bible do not in fact ban homosexual acts, and having come to the conclusion that 'one flesh' can and does apply to homosexual relationships, I then set my studies before God. I placed them in front of his eyes for his perusal. I prayed:

"Lord I have come to the limit of my human understanding, and of my ability to make a decision based on reason. I now ask you to give me a divine revelation, and to show me which way I should go. I won't look for that revelation, since I will be reading into everything the answer I want."

I didn't give any timescale for an answer - its not for me to dictate such terms to God. But I was basically hoping it would come within a week. I was expecting a prophetic word from someone, or for something to jump out and surprise me.

My complete falling-out with my friend in America made me think it was a negative answer, but then I felt that was from the devil rather than from God, and this seemed to be corroborated by our reconcilaition. So the row ended up neutral in terms of guidance, and I was still searching.
In tonight's evening service the sermon was about simple prayers and simple answers. So I asked again. And then the final song said it all. Of course I can't remember what the song was! But it was a song celebrating the creation, and how each star is known by name. Who can question the individuality that God has built into his creation? I don't expect my reades to fnd this convinceing because God's word is personal - as Aslan ould say "that's not your story". But it was the answer to my question. God has made homosexual people as they are, and celebrates them that way. I now wish to join in that celebration.

I am still cautious about this, I may still be wrong. I am too scared to keep asking God for comfirmation, but it is such a big issue that I am really terrified of going wrong. But for now, until God directs me otherwise, I accept homosexual relationships as I do hetersexual ones. And if I am wrong, well the Lord knows I am wrong for the right reasons.

What if it was one of my children?

I was asking one of my work colleagues – a Bulgarian member of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church -about reports I have heard that between 500Ad and 1300AD the Orthodox Church developed liturgies for what amount to gay weddings. (Boswell J, (1994) The Marriage of Likeness: Same Sex Unions in Early Europe, London, Harper Collins) And as part of this conversation I explained my new position to him.

He did not agree with me at all!

Amongst his comments were:

1) The Orthodox Church has never changed its liturgies
2) Even if they did do this, it doesn’t make it right. Sooner or later some Bishop will decide that it’s OK to marry your dog!
3) Common sense tells us it is wrong
4) How would you feel if it was one of your children?

My responses:

1) Either my colleague or Boswell is wrong. Do you choose the academic who's done research, or the church member? [I have not read Boswell - just seen quotes from him in an internal church document]
2) Good point
3) Different people have different ideas of common sense. Conservatives' common sense is that we are made for heterosexuality. Gay people’s common sense tells them it’s their God-given nature. And in the past, common sense told us that women are subordinate and slavery is OK.
4) If it was one of my children? Well his is what this post is really about. There was a time when if one of my children told me they were gay, I would have been fairly distraught. I would have told them they could never fulfil their urges, even in a gay marriage. I would have advised them not to tell people. I would have imposed great burdens on them. They would be left in a position where they felt I was ashamed of them. I don’t want to be ashamed of my children! So now, if my child tells me he/she is gay, I can affirm them for what they are, and help them to live a happy and fulfilled life in partnership with God, not resenting him. So I’m not sure my friend’s question had the effect he intended! [PS none of my children is gay – as far as I know]

Where did they go?

You may have noticed that some of my posts on the topic of homosexuality have been deleted. I had made the mistake of naming someone in them, and when read in the cold light of day they were offensive to the person concerned and it was not right for them to remain. My apologies have been given, and seem to have been accepted.

In one of those posts I promised some feedback from my discussions with that person on the application of ‘One Flesh’ to homosexual relationships.

My correspondent’s conviction was that her relationship was a living example of ‘one flesh’, and that the principle does indeed apply to homosexual relationships. She was ‘married’ [she used those inverted commas – I think because of local legal reasons?] by her Christian Pastor, and she describes her partner as her wife.

She claimed to not be a theologian and for that reason did not attempt to back it up with chapter and verse. Which is OK – in my own experience the inner conviction sometimes comes first and the academic theology has to catch up later. And I suppose that my own conviction has also been for some time that gay marriage is OK, and my posts wrestling with the theology have been part of that catch up. And there are still some points to clear up. I am still looking for the academic theology to support my 'one flesh' conviction. No doubt some conservatives will argue that the experience of one woman is not a sufficient basis for a doctrine, and you have a point, but I'm working on it.

But I suppose, overall, I am a convert!

And if a raving homophobe like me can radically change my views, and over a two year period move from writing angry letters to parliament against the Sexual Orinetation egulations and come to a point where I endorse the idea of gay weddings in church, then I lay down the challenge to other readers of my blog.

Normal Life Adventure, with homosexuality and arthritis, kids and money, and preaching.

This blog is full of posts tracing my exploration of the theology of homosexuality – which no one reads – and it also contains a few small posts about my wife’s rheumatoid arthritis, which get lots of readers.

What links these two topics? Nothing at face value.

But my blog is about how a normal life, if lived with God, becomes an adventure. So as well as all the mundane stuff, I have these ongoing adventures – things I would never have imagined:

1. Radical changes of theology
   
2. Living with disability
   
3. Having 7 kids (so far)
   
4. Stepping out of the boat in faith financially to buy a large house
   
5. Becoming self-employed
   
6. Becoming a Licensed Reader in the Church of England

Which reminds me: On Sunday I preached that Faith and Action work together, and as an example I said that if you pray for money, usually the answer involves you going out and getting a job and working for it. Now, my finances have been deteriorating for some time as one the one hand my income decreases (I keep finding mistakes in my company accounts that I have to make up for by reducing dividends) while at the same time costs have been getting larger (for example, a letter from my energy supplier telling me they will increase my monthly payment by £50). So, having told the congregation that financial miracles whereby someone knocks on your door offering money are very rare, a man knocked on my door and, cutting a long story short, I have signed up to change my energy supplier, saving me about 20%.

Now it might have happened anyway, but when the timing of things, the coincidence, is unusual, it smells of miracle (or God-incidence) to me.

So my normal life is an adventure with God.

And nice to think that even if I am toying with what might be heresy, He still cares.

More thoughts on homosexuality

One of my 'liberal' views on this topic is that the Sodom story should be read in parallel to the story of Gibeah in the book of judges: a very similar story but where no same-sex act took place and yet the town was still punished by God. I have therefore stated that these stories are about hospitality, not homosexuality.

Now I have to concede that I am at least partly wrong, because Jude 7 says "Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion".

So clearly, God's word states that the problem was their sexual imorality and perversion.

However, we must be careful not to read too much into this. You might latch onto the word 'perversion' and say 'there you are, it's obviously homosexuality", but there are plenty of other perverse sexual practices. Raping visitors to your town is sexually perverse! And if through other study that i have done I have concluded that homosexuality may not actually be sexually perverse in itself, then the Jude passage does not prove that homosexuality was the sin of Sodom. We really have to be careful to read what the Scripture really says, not what our Christian heritage has made us think it it says.

Consider also the definition of Sodom's sin in this passage: Ezekiel 16 " 49 Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and did detestable things before me."

OK, a conservative scholar might jump to the conclusion that 'detestable' means 'homosexual', but this is not a safe conclusion and even if it were, it comes last in a long list of other stuff that most Christians are guilty of everyday but think nothing of it.

(And note that Sodom is charecterised as a female, which is strange if she is meant to represent male-to-male sexual penetration)

So while I have to refine my position, it turns out to make little difference in the grand scheme of things.

All refs from Biblegateway.com (sorry if this is a breach of copyright)

2009 Position Statement

So where do I stand on homosexuality? Confused as ever!

On one level, I have moved away from my conservative interpretation of Leviticus and 1 Corinthians 6 – having looked into it I now believe these refer to temple prostitution. I previously rejected this as liberal excuses, but it does actually work.

On another level, the doctrine of ‘one flesh’, which underpins the doctrine of marriage, does not seem to transfer well into a homosexual context. In response to this problem, one could say that ‘one flesh’ is not relevant to homosexual relationships, but the corollary of this is that the principles of fidelity, abstinence etc do not apply either, and you then have an unequal situation where gays have a free-for-all while heterosexuals are subject to the constraints and limitations that arise from ‘one flesh’.

Therefore, if one is to accept the validity of homosexual relationships, then one has to have some kind of theological framework in which those relationships would work. I would like ‘one flesh’ to be transferable, but if it is not, I would look for something of equal weight, depth and importance. And I can’t find it yet. I get the feeling that this is something where there is diversity of opinion in the homosexual Christian community, with no consensus as to the place of ‘one flesh’ or civil unions.

This makes me turn again towards conservatism. But I don’t like the things I left there. No matter how much one talks of loving the sinner but hating the sin, the fact is: they don’t feel loved. And if they don’t feel loved, it’s because they are not loved.

So my present position is this:

I would rather sin by tolerating something that might be sexually immoral than sin by perpetuating something that is definitely unjust.

But I am still looking for that framework to explain how homosexual relationships should work in a Christian context. Please point me in the right direction!

New vision on Civil Unions

I am surprised no one has commented on the way i have changed from ultra conservative to a much more tolerant and understanding position on homosexuality. I thought the conservatives would be enraged and tell me why I am wrong, and that Liberals was be pleased but call for more movement.

So is it because

• you don't care?
• you don't talk to heretics?
• you don't want to expose your own position?
• You don't know what to say?
• You are scared I might be right?
• You have not read it?

I think it's probably the either the first or the last!

Click on the 'homosexuality' tag below to see all my posts as my views have moved.

Blessings and frustrations

I understand that a Vicar in London has recently ‘blessed’ the relationship of two gay clergymen and is in trouble with his Bishop for it. He states that this is not a defiance of the church, because the church only issued ‘guidelines’ about this. This is clearly not done in the spirit of Windsor or any other conversation about thses things.

However, to do this such a short time before Lambeth is an outrageous provocation. It sets a precedent. It pressurises Lambeth to make decisions based on such events rather than on the principals of discerning the divine will first. It may be that they have rushed into doing this in case Lambeth decides to ban such actions. But the result is just that it gets the liberals a bad name, showing them in a negative and obstinate light.

Speaking as someone who now cautiously endorses civil union, surely patience would have been better?

And while I’m having a rant, I get frustrated by people who expect clergy to live to a higher standard, because they are ‘setting an example’. Well surely, if it’s not OK for them to do it then its not OK for anyone else either? And if it’s OK for the laity then why is it not OK for the clergy? Holiness and morality do not distinguish between clergy and laity. The same rules – whether conservative or liberal – must be applied equally to all.

How to 'counsel' in sexuality issues?

I have recently re-established contact with Christian friends in Spain. They are friends of my ultra-conservative parents. Their son is gay, their daughter lesbian, so they lament their lack of grandchildren. I am not supposed to know about their offspring’s sexuality. So in my new mostly-liberal perspective, how do I discreetly encourage my friends without causing offence to them and without shocking my elderly frail parents into a very literal heart attack?

Theologically Conservative, Liberal at Heart, but changing 2

I have not posted to my blog for ages – a kind of fast I suppose. I have been holding back because I was asked to run a seminar on the topic of homosexuality for my church, which took place last week, and while I was preparing I needed to focus and not get distracted. Plus my view was changing from day to day, plus my brief for the evening was changing from day to day.

In the final plan, I had to present the ‘Conservative’ view, while a Vicar from another church presented the ‘Liberal’ view, followed by a discussion session.

The turnout of 19 people was disappointing, given the size of the church. Attendees included the Area Dean, one celibate gay, one ultra-conservative retired clergyman, and one extremely liberal member of the congregation, and one non-Christian husband of a conservative member of the church, who says that homophobia in the church is the main reason why he does not sign up..

My talk was, needless to say, brilliant. On the other hand, the other Vicar’s response didn’t really respond to my points. He was coming up with stuff like “All scripture is God-breathed but some parts are more God-breathed than others”, and the usual mushy nonsense about seeing it through the culture of the day. Yes there is a valid case for this if done properly, but not if it’s just to dismiss the inconvenient truths.

During the discussion I was able to put across my mew-found ‘conservatively-liberal’ or ‘liberal for conservative reasons’ ideas described in a previous post. I have actually written a 5500 word document to explain this, since you can’t really get it across in a debate. (I may prepare an anonymous version to pass to anyone interested) People seemed very interested that having been a strong conservative, I have changed. But the retired Vicar said “You do know that is not a standard evangelical position, don’t you?” Well, how thick does he think I am? But I don’t decide on doctrine based on whether it is Evangelical or not – I work out what I think the Bible is telling me and then find that this usually falls in the evangelical camp – only not this time.

One guy complained that there were 4 clergymen in the room presenting 4 conflicting views, and what he really wanted was clear guidance form the church.

Overall the evening was a success. No blood on the carpet, and everyone a little more open minded to the opposite perspective than they had been.

I had been terrified that by opening up about my new views I would be out of favour and lose my status in the church, though I felt I still had to proceed. In fact, although it has created some tension domestically, I seem to have survived in church.

So, if any of you out there prayed for me particularly or this issue in general, thank you!

Theologically Conservative, Liberal at Heart, but changing

Ahh at last. For some time Blogger has not accepted my password and I couldn’t write, but now its all sorted. I blame Google.

What has happened since I last blogged?

Well, the main theme is my ongoing internal debate on homosexuality.

My theology has moved.

Mainly because I have been having to do some research for the event at church. (by the way, they keep messing me about on this. The latest plan is to bring in liberal and conservative clergy to express the relative cases, and for me to present a more vacillating middle ground. How can I prepare for the vent when they keep changing what I am expected to do?) Yes... the research.

I read “Reluctant Journey” by George Hopper.

I have to say that the vast majority of this book was very weak, confused and self-contradictory.

Eg –

• While proclaiming to be Evangelical, George dismisses swathes of the OT as just a product of ancient Israelite culture and basically, well, wrong. If he was truly ‘Evangelical’, he would recognise the OT as ‘God Breathed’ so even allowing for culture it would still be right.
  
• While proclaiming that the crucial verses in Leviticus apply to temple prostitution and homosexuality as we know it was unknown, the people wrote the book against homosexuals for fertility reasons. This can’t be, if as he says a) the verses are not about that and b) they don’t know of it.
  
• While insisting that homosexuality is a biological given, he says it was unknown in OT times.

Etc

BUT, in the midst of all this nonsense, there was actually a bit of good Bible study regarding those crucial verses.

He agrees with me that it all hangs on the definition of ‘arsenokoitai’ in Corinthians. He demonstrates that this word stems almost letter for letter from the Septuagint translation of Leviticus. Again, I had already worked something like this out. But where I had focused on that word, in Leviticus he looks also at the word translated as ‘abomination’. The Hebrew word translated thus here is different from where ‘abomination’ appears in the English elsewhere. It is a Hebrew word that is linked directly to idolatry.

Moving on to the NT, he compares the lists of sins in various books. He finds that references to homosexual acts are only found in letters to cities which had particular issues with temple prostitution. The more general letters don’t have it. Now I have a feeling that I spotted an inconsistency in his argument here, which I need to go back and check because I was tired when I read it. But if correct, it is significant, and it is the kind of exegetical technique that works for me.

So what is my response to all this?

Well, as an evangelical, and a fairly intellectual one who likes to have all t’s crossed and i’s dotted, this is the kind of approach that I like. I can dismiss the more wishy washy parts of Hopper's book as trash, but here is something that might stand up to the scrutiny.

And if it is the sensible, logical, etymological approach that I think it is, and if it is right, then it does definitely take out the fundamental central plank from my historical opposition to homosexuality. I have defined it as a sin based on what I thought was a clear wording in the scripture. But now, if true, it turns out that I have got it wrong, and what I thought defined all homosexual acts as sin cannot necessarily be extended to all such acts, just as heterosexual temple prostitution being forbidden does not outlaw other heterosexual acts.

This is a fundamental shift in my position.

Now there are still many questions unresolved. Hopper argues that the Bible is silent on modern civil unions, therefore they are OK. I would say that silence does not mean it is OK. Besides, for heterosexual marriage there is a whole weight of scriptures affirming the rightness of it but nothing equivalent for civil union, and there is a lot of theology around ‘One flesh’ – Eve comes out of Adam but in sex they are re-united into one flesh. Also man:woman = Christ:church etc.

So I remain confused as ever.

But I find that I have definitely changed. No longer am I nauseated by even thinking of gay acts – I can now see them in a positive light. I now have a method of accepting civil union that is potentially consistent with my evangelical approach to theology and God's word.

Yet there is still a deep fundamental terror that I am letting the devil deceive me into going against God’s will, and that as a preacher I will lead others into sins as well.

I don't want to bless what God has cursed.

I don't want to curse what God has blessed.

We can but continue to study and ask for Him to have mercy on us when we get it wrong.

Theologically Conservative, Liberal at Heart 4

Regular readers will know that I am due to present the ‘liberal’ case on homosexuality to my church, while a colleague presents the ‘conservative’ case. Not that he is conservative and I’m liberal, just that those are the cases we have been asked to represent.

Well, the ‘conservative’ guy has dropped out, claiming to be busy.

So: it will probably be down to me to present both sides.

In some ways this is a pain because it means more work for me. But overall, I am pleased because to present just one side of the debate would not be true to myself. Doing both means that I will be able to fully express my conservative head and my liberal heart, applying compassion to the conservatism and presenting a more academic and theologically balanced background to the liberalism.

A date for the event has also been set – 3rd June. But how can you really do justice to this topic in one evening? Please pray for this event, that I may be the mouthpiece of the Holy Spirit, that he might bring the right mix of people into the congregation, and that the church may find the way forwards on this difficult issue.

Interesting BBC news items

It's official. it's not just pie in the sky. Christians are happier then athiests NOW.

The least biased BBC article on homosexuality ever.

Theologically Conservative, Liberal at Heart 3

Well, it looks more definite. The Vicar mentioned at PCC that we need to have a debate on the topic of homosexuality. This is a massive shift for him!

He has now arranged in principle for a weekday evening near the end of May. I have been asked to present the liberal case, while a friend – not the university professor I mentioned before but a retired teacher who is also a Licensed Reader – will present the conservative view.

But now that I am starting to think about what I will say, I find myself drifting towards conservatism again making it hard to speak from the liberal perspective. I keep losing sleep about this whole business. I think it is so vital not only that we present clear guidance but also that the guidance should point in the correct direction. [1 Cor 14 “7Even in the case of lifeless things that make sounds, such as the flute or harp, how will anyone know what tune is being played unless there is a distinction in the notes? 8Again, if the trumpet does not sound a clear call, who will get ready for battle?”] And who really knows whatis the right direction?

“we who teach will be judged more strictly” [Jas 3.1]

If I teach the conservative view but it turns out the liberals are right, I will be judged for giving gays a hard time and placing obstacles to their faith.

But if I teach a liberal view and it turns out the conservatives are right, I will be judged for condoning and even encouraging sin [1 Cor 5:1-3 “1It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that does not occur even among pagans: A man has his father's wife. 2And you are proud! Shouldn't you rather have been filled with grief and have put out of your fellowship the man who did this? 3Even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. And I have already passed judgment on the one who did this, just as if I were present.”, Ezekiel 33.6 “6 But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet to warn the people and the sword comes and takes the life of one of them, that man will be taken away because of his sin, but I will hold the watchman accountable for his blood.”]

So, please pray for me

• to have the right words for my presentation
• to compassionately lead people into righteousness.