Third, whilst Bishop Jones is correct to call for a more reasonable debate in this area, the reality on the ground is that in the places in the Anglican Church where the revisionist side has advanced its cause, the side-lining and ejecting of those with a conservative theology has always followed. Philip Ashey of the AAC last month produced a magnificent cataloguing of the way that in North America those who follow a traditional sexual theology have been persecuted (the word is not an exaggeration) by liberals in power.

In the secular arena it is very clear that groups like Stonewall are prepared to create such a situation here in the UK. Whilst it is alarmist to currently suggest, like the Bishop of Winchester has, that the changes proposed by Lord Alli’s amendment on Civil Partnerships will allow clergy right now to be sued, the trajectory of the progressives is clear in the words of Ben Summerskill of Stonewall when he says:

Right now, faiths shouldn’t be forced to hold civil partnerships, although in ten or 20 years, that may change.

Colin Coward of Changing Attitude agrees.

Is Lord Alli’s amendment a Trojan horse as some claim? I very much hope so.

And this is not simply about “alternative interpretations” of the Bible. I have sat in a meeting with one of the leading proponents in this country of the revisionist position. That person was asked, “If it could be demonstrated beyond all doubt that the Bible permitted no other sex for Christians then sex within a marriage of a man and a woman, would you change your position?” The answer was a clear, unequivocal “No”. For this person the issue had already been decided a priori to engaging with the Scriptures and no amount of Biblical theology would change their mind. So much for a conversation about what God was saying.

I commend Bishop Jones for wanting to have a graceful and compassionate conversation in this area, but the evidence is that those who are revisionist are not in this just for the mutual exploration of ethical dilemmas, they are in it to change the very face of the Church, regardless of what Conservatives think.

Fourth, Bishop Jones is simply incorrect to sweep away the scientific debate in a manner that assumes that sexuality is a fixed given. The best scientific research indicates that human sexuality is a complex interaction of nature and nurture, and thus it is probable that for each person that experiences same-sex attraction there is a unique interplay of various factors. That is why recently I have written against the imposition by some conservatives of particular development models of human sexuality on all those who self-identify as homosexual. While the “absent father” narrative is deeply insightful for some (including this author) leading to healing and orientation change, for others it is not relevant, and indeed can be damaging if one attempts reparative activities based upon its assumptions. At the same time the insistence by some revisionists that sexuality is biological in origin and therefore cannot be changed is a scientific naivety and flies in the face of good evidence that for some sexual identity and ever orientation is fluid and malleable.

Ultimately one cannot rest an ethical argument on “I was born this way, so it must be good”. We would not treat paedophilia, or alcoholism, or kleptomania or polygamy or any other number of sinful desires in that manner and therefore neither should we homosexuality.

2 Comments • Print-friendly • Print-friendly w/comments

Comments:

“If it could be demonstrated beyond all doubt that the Bible permitted no other sex for Christians then sex within a marriage of a man and a woman, would you change your position?” The answer was a clear, unequivocal “No”.

SHOCKED!!! Shocked I say…

[1] Posted by B. Hunter on 03-09-2010 at 02:24 PM • top

Presuming that by “we” the Rev. Ould means all of those involved in debate over the topic of sexual conduct appropriate to Christianity, I would respectfully challenge the assumption which he states in the last quoted sentence, i.e.

(w)e would not treat paedophilia, or alcoholism, or kleptomania or polygamy or any other number of sinful desires in that manner

Quite to the contrary, there are published reports of quotations from polyamorists, et alii, who consider themselves affected by this debate who are quite ready to “treat pædophilia, polygamy” and presumably other sinful desires in just the way the Bishop is suggesting. I would even be willing to bet that most of us are aware of the name or acronym of at least one, if not several, of those organizations devoted to furthering the acceptance of such disordered behaviors, some members of which wish to be considered as faithful and upstanding Christians.

And therein lies the problem. This is a “camel’s nose under the tent” moment, and the capitulation proposed by Bp. Jones is quite simply removing society’s rational barriers to an onslaught of such capitulations. The only question, absent the eschaton is in what order they will come.

One of the common characteristics of many people whose behaviors and desires are profoundly disordered is that they have no wish to consider those behaviors as anything other than normal. And they have at least as great an interest in encouraging a worldview that requires others to see them in the same way, i.e., as not disordered.

That is one reason that a considerable proportion of the population is aware of the pun that “the Nile is not just a river in Egypt.”

Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer

[2] Posted by H. Potter (aka Martial Artist) on 03-09-2010 at 05:04 PM • top

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.

Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere about the crisis in our church. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments that you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm, its board of directors, or its site administrators.