Once again we see a good and faithful priest of the church villified by someone like Bess trying to score points with a the home crowd. When Bess says: "I cannot allow myself to be seen as somebody who is saying one thing and doing the opposite. I would look like a madman," what he really is saying is: "I am unwilling to stand up for the Gospel and tell the people who hate gays 'you're wrong'."

Which of these two, Angela Infill or Calvin Bess, will be remembered as having stood up for the Gospel? Hint: Not the one who made an idol of the Bible.

Bishop Swing of California is right: This mutiny is going to fail because it's based on darkness, not light.

I don't really see the problem. As a lesbian, I totally agree with Leviticus 18:22 - lying with mankind as with womankind is definitely an abomination - and I follow it to the letter.

Next?

The kind of attitude that Bess is showing makes a sham of any agreement to dialogue and study the issues of human sexuality.
How can you dialogue and study when you won't even let the other point of view near you?
It gives me very little hope for the future of the Communion. For their three years sitting in the corner, the American and Canadian Churches may receive nothing, or very little in terms of being either heard or understoood if bishops such as Bess continue in this way.

“Who am I to go contrary to the word of God and stay a minister?” says Bess. and then cites Leviticus 18:22

The future of the Communion cannot be based on such a dead end way of reading Scripture. If everything in Leviticus is the Word of God unchangeable then Jesus, Paul and all the saints are unfit to be ministers of God. I know of no Christian community that doesn't go contrary to the Word of God as found in Leviticus unless it is some very observant Jews for Jesus congregation. The conservatives need to show the communion how they are reading scripture, what criteria they use that elevates the anti-homosexual portions above every other part of the text. It isn't enough to just claim perfect observance of an inerrant and homogenized text. It is an absurd position.

It would indeed be an absurd position, if the Leviticus text were the only relevant text in the whole of Scripture - but it is not. This is not to say I agree with Bess's decision, which seems pretty tragic.

It would indeed be an absurd position, if the Leviticus text were the only relevant text in the whole of Scripture - but it is not.

I'm delighted you feel this way.

There is at most one passage in the entire Bible that speaks against female-female sexual activity - and several important theologians (among them Augustine and Clement of Alexandria) did not read Romans 1 this way.

Since I'm a lesbian, I will henceforth consider the anti-gay position to "absurd," using your own criterion. Great! Now let's move on to feeding the Lord's sheep, as He requested.

Hi Bls - sorry, we appear to have a breakdown of communication between what I meant and what you took me to mean. Sorry if I didn't express myself very clearly, or perhaps you're simply using what I said to make a cheap debating point.

It was hardly as if I was saying that you have to find more than one text in the Bible to say something before you can take it as true... as if working out Christian teaching was a matter of totting up proof texts. That would indeed be absurd (although unfortunately that is the practice that some evangelicals adopt. I'm not one of them so sorry but no easily knocked down straw men here).

My point was that the Leviticus text in isolation can hardly be taken as the be all and end all pronouncement on sexual activity, since it is highly questionable whether Christians in the new covenant would be expected to abide by those kinds of instructions. Romans 1 is, of course, in a completely different category, as is Genesis 1-2 and the gospel texts where Jesus affirms that marriage and sex should be monogamous and lifelong between a man and a woman.

[Incidentally I would be fascinated to follow up the texts in Aug and Clement as I haven't come across their readings of Romans 1. Please could you provide references for me to look up?]

The view that gay sex is not right is not an anti-gay position. There are plenty of people who experience exclusively same-sex attraction but who think gay sex is not right. I used to be one myself. It's pretty absurd to see them as anti-gay unless you come up with some patronising psychoclaptrap or other about internalising self-hatred which no respectable psychiatrist of my acquaintance would endorse.

I agree we should get on with feeding the Lord's sheep. Does that not include passing on the moral guidance given in Scripture?

No, Sean, it is an anti-gay position. Those who are gay but still hold it are simply those who suffer from internalised homophobia, a primary cause of which are religious delusions. Incidentally, I don't know which psychologists or psychiatrists you know, but its a pretty well-established and accepted definition. Maybe your friends prefer the position of NARTH, whose members have been thrown out of every respectable organisation within their discipline.

I feel very sorry for them, but relieved that so few people are dragged into that particulartype of anti-gay thinking. There will be fewer still in the future, as coming out is now much easier. Indeed, I have chatted to two people from evangelical backgrounds online today, who I have supported as they came out, and in the process, abandoned the conservative religion which was making them so repressed and unhappy.

I look forward to welcoming you to freedom sometime in the future.

Sean Doherty,
I agree that Paul and the Gospels are much more improtant than Leviticus for teaching Christian morals. Jesus' discussion of marriage says nothing of homosexuality but clearly forbids divorce and remarriage. Yet no one in the conservative wing of ECUSA seems much troubled by second marriages even among the Episcopate. Why is a loose interpretation of Romans 1 considered to be Communion-breaking while a loose interpretaion of the Gospels is insignificant? For that matter, Paul spends just as much ink insisting that women keep their heads covered when they pray as he does worrying about homosexuality, but no one obeys the head covering rule in ECUSA or the Roman Catholic church any more.

"I look forward to welcoming you to freedom sometime in the future."

Feel free but you will be disappointed. I have found real freedom, in Christ, as opposed to the drab and ultimately futile life which is offered by the autonomy of the self (i.e. sin). Jesus has given me forgiveness and meaning and hope and there's no way I'm exchanging that for the mess of pottage which is the 'right' to choose your own morality.

My views are NOT an anti-gay position, any more than your views are not an anti-Sean position. I do not think you bear me any personal ill will simply because you disagree with me. You might, but there is nothing inherent in your views which necessitates that. This is so tired and so absurd. I think divorce is wrong but that doesn't make me anti-divorcees. I think Islam and Judaism are wrong but my Muslim and Jewish friends don't think I am anti-them. Why should homosexuality be so special?

No psych of my acquaintance would, as far as I know, subscribe to NARTH by the way - but they would certainly disagree that for someone who experiences same-sex attraction to regard gay sex as wrong is automatically and unequivocally internalised homophobia. I am not denying that the condition exists - I am sure it does - but I am denying your blanket, automatic assumption that people who disagree with Merseymike must have it.

Dmitri: on divorce. The reason why is that the gospels and Paul permit exceptions to the prohibition on divorce. Personally I believe that many evangelicals interpret these passages far too liberally - but it is much more clearly an area where disagreement proceeds from exegetical disagreement.

Some who believe that gay sex is not wrong also do so on exegetical grounds, and I have very little quarrel with them (e.g. Jeffrey John). But in my experience that is not the grounds on which most arguments in favour of revising the traditional teaching are made.

Head coverings: it seems pretty clear to me that Paul is discussing what is masculine and feminine in a particular cultural setting. I really don't see how that's analagous to homosexual activity, which is based on the creational difference between men and women.

"The view that gay sex is not right is not an anti-gay position."

I agree. As I see it, gay sex is wrong. But it is very unfair to proclaim that those who sincerely hold this view (which comes, as we see it, from the Bible) are in any sense "anti-gay." Such an allegation seems to come almost invariably when one declares where one stands on this issue. I've met and continue to meet with several gay people, and have no "anti" feelings towards them whatsoever. Please, please let's bury this notion - it is what we perceive the Bible teaches us, and nothing to do with personal feelings about others.

Merseymike:
"abandoned the conservative religion which was making them so repressed and unhappy."

It is difficult to know how to respond to this, as we don't know their circumstances, and one must not generalise. But to follow on from the above, if one believes or is taught that something is wrong, simply moving to another gathering where people persuade themselves that wrong is right is hardly the answer - this is to redefine this "religion" as you put it, on their own terms.

To simply reject something in the Bible is not, surely, the answer. I don't see the Christian faith as simply a pick-and-mix affair. Sometimes I wish it were, because there are some personal issues that I am seeking to get right with God about. It would be so much easier to say "I know, God, that you teach this, but affirm me because I'm going to ignore you on this one." But I think that the more correct approach is to seek God's strength to resist doing what I know is wrong.

With regard to homosexuality, much has been written - with considerable passion - about it. But - and I'm being frank about this - I haven't seen anything that persuades me that the Bible doesn't consistently see it as a sin.

Dmitri: The issue of head coverings is not really in the same league. Anyway, have you considered what women in those times signalled if they had their heads uncovered?

It seems absurd to me that she is being ostrasized for believing that homosexuals are also children of God and believing they are worthy of pastoral care. This belief, if I understood the findings of the Primates in Scotland, is germain to the pronouncement that persecution and denial of homosexuals to pastoral care are an anathema now in the worldwide communion. There is no scripture that justifies treating anyone as unworthy of God's love. Of course, I have always been somewhat mystified by this debate. Well, more power to her ... she has been persecuted for the kingdom of God, her salvation is now secure.

Merseymike is not correct here. There are rational positions and emotional (e.g., fear-based) positions. They are (obviously) not the same thing.

On a given topic one's reason may lead one to the opposite conclusion to one's emotions on a topic. There are plenty of possible examples:

(1) A person is aesthetically attracted to, and emotionally attached to, the elegance of evolution theory, but compelled to reject it for lack of empirical evidence at key points.
(2) Conversely, someone may be rationally convinced by evolution theory but emotionally repelled by its consequences for human dignity.
(3) Someone may have homosexuals as their best friends and be rationally convinced that theirs is a harmful lifestyle.

The dogma that all decisions are taken for emotional reasons is just that: a dogma. (Dogma being the enemy of scholarship.) On the contrary, the word 'decision' is more closely related to the words 'choice', 'rational' and 'reason'.

Likewise, the consideration of whether certain things make people repressed and unhappy is irrelevant to the truth of those things. Potential to make happy/unhappy is one thing; truth is another and quite independent thing.. Sometimes, in the real world, they are bound to conflict. We hope: not too often. But given that there is no logical connection between the two, they are never going to be in harmony or in parallel all the time.

Mike, thank you for your professional judgment on NARTH. When it comes to psychiatry and psychotherapy we must not listen to those charlatan professors Satinover, Socarides and Nicolosi. Dr Robert Spitzer of APA has clearly shown that same-sex attraction is immutable.

Leviticus 18.22: “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind"
Aah, but can one lie with womankind as with mankind? ;-)

More seriously, I find it sad that someone like Angela Ifill is condemned because she hasn't condemned. This polarising attitude sees people as either for or against, instead of perhaps questioning or trying to be a bridge.

"It seems absurd to me that she is being ostrasized for believing that homosexuals are also children of God and believing they are worthy of pastoral care . . . There is no scripture that justifies treating anyone as unworthy of God's love."

Well said Annie - regardless of my other thoughts on this matter I think you are 100% bang on the mark here.

Owain - Robert Spitzer's study found the precise opposite of what you suggest. I do think it is a highly selective study and not at all the concrete evidence which the ex-gay movement would like it to be though. See http://www.ralliance.org/SpitzerStudy.html

Oh, I haven't been convinced by the bogus 'love' of evangelical Christians for me , for a long time. I prefer to receive the genuine love and friendship of those who affirm and accept me and my relationship.

Not the conditional judgment of book-worshippers. I feel sorry for them but many do grow out of it - there are so many ex-evangelicals about, like virtually everyone else I knew during my two evangelical years,many moons ago...

dmitri wrote:
"Yet no one in the conservative wing of ECUSA seems much troubled by second marriages..."

Noticed that, have you ? ;) Indeed, the AAC mega-church here in town, which has one of the most vociferous "orthodox" rectors anywhere, is chock-full of divorced parishoners. And nary a complaint from said rector to be heard. Heck, *he's* divorced and remarried, too (www.christchurchplano.org)

But who needs that pesky Gospel, anyway ?! Not when you have a highly questionable interpretation of Paul to guide you...

Mersey,
There is a genuine reason to be clear about what happened here and the difference. I did not see that she is gay affirming at all. From the story, however, I saw that she is a person of compassion and, whatever her judgements, has offended by being inclusive in her ministry. I clearly see that there are three factions and one of them is teaching something so contrary to scripture, something so vile, that we should stop at nothing to stop them as they work to destroy all the good in the world. Yes, I believe it is that serious that they are hanging on these few verses in scripture as an excuse to teach hate in the name of God. The difference is distinct. What should be a respectful debate won't be given a chance until we make this one distinction quite clear and both faithful conservatives and liberals need to guard against it. And remember, here we are speaking internationally where persecution, even to death, is perpetrated in the name of God.

Annie

I hate to fixate this thread on "gay sex" but, once again, when gays are the subject, it's what those who oppose our equality ALWAYS fixate on.

What the heck do you, sean and ian, mean by "gay sex"? (as in "gay sex is not right"/"gay sex is wrong")

*Is whenever two people of the same gender touch each other "gay sex", or only if they're attracted to each other (i.e. homosexual orientation)?

*Or only if the love each other?

*Or only if they receive pleasure in touching?

*Or only if their "naughty bits" touch? (How naughty? Erogenous zones vary so widely from person to person! *g*)

*Or only if there's a "release of nervous tension", bringing satisfaction and contentment? (whereas if it's just to release anger, by pummeling another, feel free! {sarcasm alert})

*Is ANYTHING two men might do together, to be equated with ANYTHING two women might do together?

*Does consent mean anything? (age of consent?)

*Does life-commitment mean anything?

*Does monogamy mean anything?

*Does mutual faith-in-Christ (and asking His blessing of the relationship in which loving touch MAY be happening) mean anything?

. . . is all this to be smushed down into one lowest-common-denominator label: "gay sex"? (And then this catch-all *read into* sacred scripture?)

Sean, you have my sympathies. But in the same way Saint John says "for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen" (1John 4:20), you need to learn to love the "brother" which is *your own sexual being* (as opposed to our egos, which we should rightly surrender), in the way to which your sexual being is CALLED (which *might* be to celibacy . . . but probably isn't). Only then, will you be able to have a right relation to the Triune God who made you (gay).

Shalom!

Hmm...
Falling back on the fact that definitions are difficult (as they generally are, as well as being circular) is a favourite obfuscatory device. But it is purely negative, and therefore of little value unless some positive way forward is also recommended.

"What the heck do you, sean and ian, mean by "gay sex"?"

This is a good question, reflecting a deep ambiguity in our culture: boundaries between sexual and non-sexual relationships, physical touch, intimacy, love and affection etc can be very blurred.

In the instances I used the phrase "gay sex" I meant simply sexual intercourse between members of the same sex - I didn't intend it to mean anything more broad than that. Obviously it's not just any physical touch between members of the same sex just as when a man and a women hug or shake hands it's not necessarily sexual (even if they fancy the pants of one another). If you are talking about "how far can one go before breaking the rules" as opposed to "how can I live for the God who loved me and died for me" then there's already a problem.

". . . is all this to be smushed down into one lowest-common-denominator label: "gay sex"? (And then this catch-all *read into* sacred scripture?)"

I can see why this is offensive so I'm very sorry. My intention was certainly not reductionistic. I guess I was indeed using a lowest common denominator - but that is not to suggest that every situation is the same. Clearly sex takes place in all kinds of different situations. One night stands (for example) are on a different planet to sex in a consenting, loving, permanent, adult, committed relationship. I have no doubt about that - and yet that still doesn't mean that I automatically believe that all sexual activity in the latter kind of relationship is right (note e.g. my conservative views on divorce, where I think many evangelicals have just sold out).

"Sean, you have my sympathies."

Thanks but why are you sympathetic? It's not as if I'm unhappy!

"But in the same way Saint John says "for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen" (1John 4:20), you need to learn to love the "brother" which is *your own sexual being* (as opposed to our egos, which we should rightly surrender), in the way to which your sexual being is CALLED (which *might* be to celibacy . . . but probably isn't). Only then, will you be able to have a right relation to the Triune God who made you (gay)."

This doesn't really make a lot of sense to me... I especially don't really understand how 1 John can possibly be read that way. In any case, the way I love myself is by living the way God wants me to - because I believe his moral instructions aren't arbitrary but for a good reason. At the end of the day I follow a man who showed me that sex isn't necessary to living a fulfilled life, and that is a most amazing liberating fact in our world. At the end of the day I have a choice between ignoring my understanding of the teaching of the same book in which I meet and am transformed by that man, or obeying it because I believe he really loves me and would never tell me to do anything harmful. When you see it like that, there's no contest.

Which is fine if thats what you have convinced yourself, Sean, but I find conservative/traditional Christianity utterly unconvincing .

I mean, I have a choice between following an outdated an intellectually bankrupt approach to faith which would condemn me to a loveless life, all for pie-in-the-sky promises based on literal readings of a 2000+ year old book which the same realigionists read all sorts of supernatural mumbo-jumbo into - even though we really ought to know better by now!

Or I could have a living faith which takes account of the reality of science and contemporary knowledge, is rooted in principles of justice and equality, and I can live my life as part of a happy, fulfilled gay relationship.

I've tried the former, Sean, and I genuinely feel sorry enough for those who still think its true - I honestly reckon you are deluded. Still, your life - I hope you'kll be really happy one day, and if so, you'll look back on conservative Christianity and wonder how you were ever taken in.

No, Sean, sex isn't necessary.

. . . but LOVE is, and I believe that in your version of Christianity (which, as I understand Scripture, Tradition and Reason, I do not share), love is *defined out*.

"Thanks but why are you sympathetic? It's not as if I'm unhappy!"

I'm not talking a shallow "happy", Sean. I'm talking right relationship w/ God.

"At the end of the day I have a choice between ignoring my understanding of the teaching of the same book in which I meet and am transformed by that man"

Sorry, Sean, but I'm just not buying it: if you *knew* "that man" (God-in-Christ), you would see that he's Lord of Love, NOT Pharaoh of Denial (and Denial is where I see you stuck up, lacking a paddle).

I believe that your "understanding of the teaching of the same book" is flawed by blinders of *prejudice* (you had to learn "God hates gay sex" somewhere, and it sure wasn't the Bible to begin with!), making it impossible for you to hear what God is saying to you.

Go back again, and try to dig a little deeper into that "gay sex" thing . . . you'll see THAT'S NOT THE POINT.

The point is, you have to let God show you HOW to love your brothers (and/or sisters) IN RELATIONSHIP (*that* is transformation in Christ!), and not try to define for God what the limits to that love are.

God DOES love you, Sean, and He made your same-sex attractions for a reason: not as a "contest", but as a *means of grace*.

Blessings of Christ to you!

Mike I can't be bothered to point out all the straw men in your comment (on a cursory reading I count a minimum of 6) but suffice it to say that given a choice between your vague faith in a God who is barely capable of action and my experience of forgiveness and freedom in Christ I know which I'll pick (this is based on what I understand of your faith from our past interactions). It seems to me that your faith is far more like pie-in-the-sky than mine! Without a living, active and dynamic God who redeems real people from real sin how can there be real hope for humanity?

JCF:

I'm not talking about shallow happy either - but please explain to me how you think I am to be in a happy, right relationship to God whilst flagrantly ignoring the teaching of the man and book in whom he reveals himself?

Jesus is the Lord of love but the problem is you are trying to define love on your own terms. Sometimes Jesus told people they would go to hell if they didn't practice charity to the poor. Sometimes he told people that to have sex after divorce was plain adultery. He unmasked soft-soap religion in favour of truth. Was that loving? Of course. Was it pleasant? Not really. I am not trying to define for God the limits of love - precisely the opposite; I am trying to let him define it for me, because I know that's what's best for me. (In doing so I have found a very significant change and shift in my sexual attractions, such that I have fallen in love with a woman.)

I believe that we need love. But are you really going to tell me that the only way one can find God-given love is in a sexual relationship? And if it's not in some sense a sexual relationship, how does it differ from a good old-fashioned thing called friendship?

"[Incidentally I would be fascinated to follow up the texts in Aug and Clement as I haven't come across their readings of Romans 1. Please could you provide references for me to look up?]"

Here, Sean, is an article by James Alison, a priest in the Catholic Church, that discusses Romans 1 (and the relevant passage "For this reason God gave them up to dishonourable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural....") Here's the relevant quote from that article:

A quick show of hands in any English-speaking country nowadays would probably agree to the following statement: ‘This quite clearly refers to lesbianism. That is the obvious meaning of the words. To deny that this refers to lesbianism is the sort of thing that you would expect from a clever-clogs biblical exegete with an ideological axe to grind.’ Well, all I’d like to say at this point is that we have several commentaries on these words dating from the centuries between the writing of this text and the preaching of St John Chrysostom at the end of the fourth century. None of them read the passage as referring to lesbianism. Both St Augustine and Clement of Alexandria interpreted it straightforwardly as meaning women having anal intercourse with members of the other sex. Chrysostom was in fact the first Church Father of whom we have record to read the passage as having anything to do with lesbianism.

On this page, you will find the citations and/or texts enumerated (go to the section headed "Romans 1:26 -- Heterosexual Anal Relations or A New Ethic Condeming Lesbian Practices?"

Here, too, from that page, is a quote from Anastasios: "Clearly [the females of Rom. 1:26] do not go into one another [fem.] but rather offer themselves to men."

"I believe that we need love. But are you really going to tell me that the only way one can find God-given love is in a sexual relationship? And if it's not in some sense a sexual relationship, how does it differ from a good old-fashioned thing called friendship?"

I think the sex part has been blown way out of proportion. Sex is the expression of love, not the other way around. And sex - really, now! - takes only about 10 minutes out of the average person's week, give or take. (That's an exaggeration, of course, but you know what I mean.) The rest is about partnership, support, love, relationship.

But the Church forbids two people of the same gender, who love each other and want to live and die together, from entering into a "marital" relationship like this: "to have and to hold, for better or worse, in sickness and in health, till death do us part."

That's how it differs.

If the Church wants to forbid anal sex, then it should forbid anal sex; it might actually have a Biblical argument there (although Christianity is not based on micro rule-following such as this). The problem is when everything else is forbidden, and as you note, even dating or falling in love becomes forbidden - and these are among the most basic of things that make us human.

This isn't even to get into all the other stuff the Church as a whole gets up to: "reparative therapy," the forcing of heterosexual marriage upon unwilling people, etc.

Stop torturing us, and recognize that we're human beings like all others, and have ordinary human needs. Celibacy is a calling - and most of us haven't heard the call.

I guess this site doesn't accept HTML, so I'll just give you the URL for the page that contains the citations: http://www.othersheep.org/clobber4.htm

And here's the page that contains the James Alison article: http://www.courage.org.uk/articles/Romans1.shtml

BLS - thanks very much for those links. I haven't read much by James Alison before so it was good to read his in particular. He's a very engaging writer. I remain pretty unconvinced about the whole "exemplary rather than prohibitory" argument in Romans 1 though.

You said:

"The rest is about partnership, support, love, relationship . . . But the Church forbids two people of the same gender, who love each other and want to live and die together, from entering into a "marital" relationship like this: "to have and to hold, for better or worse, in sickness and in health, till death do us part."

I would have no problem with two people of the same sex entering into a public promise broadly of this kind. It would be like Jonathan and David's promises to one another, which are a beautiful expression of the depth and power of friendship. BUT I would add that I think it ought to be celibate, because it would be a covenant of friendship not of marriage, and I would add that it could not be exclusive, for the same reason. I would love it for my friendships to reflect that kind of level of love and commitment. What on earth could be wrong with that?

"even dating or falling in love becomes forbidden - and these are among the most basic of things that make us human."

Something else that is very human is not always being able to express one's love sexually. Some people fall in love with someone they can't have (e.g. married). No one (I hope) is saying that one can't fall in love. I am saying though that I don't believe every attachment of erotic love should be expressed physically, even if it is between two consenting adults.

"Stop torturing us, and recognize that we're human beings like all others, and have ordinary human needs."

Nice rhetoric but nobody's being tortured. Of course there are ordinary human needs - but sex isn't a right. Or if you mean the need of intimacy and deep, committed friendship, then I don't see anyone denying you that.

"Celibacy is a calling - and most of us haven't heard the call."

Neither have all the single men and women of my acquaintance but does that mean it's OK for them to have sex? It is a very narrow view of vocation which supposes it is all about receiving miraculous visions from the sky telling you what to do - as opposed to attempting to be faithful to God in the concrete situations in which you find yourself. 1 Corinthians 7 suggests singleness is a calling in this latter sense.

No-one ever said being a Christian was easy and that we get everything our own way. It is costly and hard at times. If, when you became a Christian, you were told you could have everything your own way, then you have my very deep sympathy that you were so heinously lied to.

Sean ; you forget that any amount of you telling me about your faith will really make no difference. Having been an evangelical for two years, I came to the conclusion that it is essentially delusionary. Nothing has happened in the twenty years since to change that opinion.

I'm sure you really do believe what you say, but then, so do people with all sorts of religious and other opinions. Its simply not convincing me. Its also the case that there's really nothing about conservative Christianity which I find appealing - when I returned to faith, it was to liberal Christianity via the Quakers, and a return to your conservative variety wasn't even under consideration. So, we simply talk at cross purposes.

I haven't forgotten any such thing; I am perfectly well aware how entrenched you are! Obviously, your wealth of experience as an evangelical means you are completely qualified to pronounce on the delusionary nature of my faith. Perish the thought that I might have thought about it myself but come to different conclusions to Merseymike!

Which no doubt you have. But, nevertheless, because you regard your experiences as real and genuine, you look askance on Christian viewpoints which would not fit that experience in terms of application of the bible and belief in direct intervention.

I mean, I could reverse what you say and apply it to me, but you wouldn't regard that as equally valid. So why do you expect me to do the same for your viewpoint, which utterly defies my experiences as you appear to think mine defy yours!

The point remains that I don't believe your religious viewpoint has anyhting very much to commend it, so it is hardly something I would wish to actively re-adopt, any more than you would choose to give it up, because you are convinced by it. I'm equally unconvinced..

Mike, what you are in effect saying is that you don't like what an evangelical believes, therefore you will make up something along your dispositions. You have in this thread alone made some pretty damning comments not only on evangelicals per se, but also even on the Bible, which even the most liberal would accept has at least some bearing upon the Christian faith!

You must forgive me being blunt, but I'm left wondering whether you have any faith at all, other than a libertine approach that permits one to do whatever one wants and believe whatever one wants.

"BUT I would add that I think it ought to be celibate, because it would be a covenant of friendship not of marriage, and I would add that it could not be exclusive, for the same reason. I would love it for my friendships to reflect that kind of level of love and commitment. What on earth could be wrong with that?"

I'm not at all opposed to something like this. But the fact remains that the relationship is not permitted to exist at all. Friends don't make these kinds of vows to one another; marriage partners do.

If gay people could marry - and decide for themselves how to conduct their own intimate lives, since according to conservatives the "homosexual act" is no worse than any other "sin" - I'd certainly accept that. We don't celibrate the sex act itself; we celebrate our love for our partners. If this were only about sexual behavior, none of this would be happening at all, in fact. People who desired homosexual sex would occasionally have it, confess, be absolved, and that would be that.

But it's not about sex. It's about "orientation," about our intimate selves, and about our natural attractions - and thus about "love." And so the reaction is against the effort to deny people emotional intimacy with people they love, for life. Love of this type is more than friendship; it's marriage. It's unique among relationships. That's what the vows are saying.

The "torture" IS occurring, though. I mentioned some of the ways this happens: "reparative therapy," marriage against one's will, etc. And I would add that the attempt to force people forgo intimacy, for life, is also torment. It's not just about sex, after all; you don't have sex with your partner upon meeting him or her at the train station. You kiss him; you hug him; you touch him. If you want to forbid genital contact among men - you can't really support this, scripturally, for women - then go ahead. But then allow marriage. Allow the vows for life; this isn't something that "friends" do, only intimate partners promise to care for one another for life. And allow people to work out for themselves how they will deal with the sexual aspect, because some of us just don't agree that an old purity code from another culture is still valid today. We know many "sexually active" couples who obviously demonstrate God's love one to another and to the world.

We disagree with you, IOW.

It's true that some heterosexual people, too, never find a partner; but this is sad, and we all agree that it's sad. It's not a sentence for life, either; there is always hope - except if you're gay. In that case, you must put this hope aside, without exception. This is highly un-natural. Anyway, the statistics say that 95% of Americans marry at some point or another; that's a pretty strong statement right there, don't you think? Further, you're in effect saying that people who have already made promises for life to their own partners, would have to leave them in order to become Christian.

That sounds deeply wrong, to me.

You're right that Alison is a good writer; check out some of his books. I haven't read them myself, but others say they're wonderful.

And the question asked above, the one that asks "what actually do you MEAN when you talk about 'gay sex'," is very pertinent, IMO.

Where does this "gay sex" thing actually begin and end? Are you really asking that gay people never go out on a date? Never even experience a kiss? I knew I was gay when I was about 10 years old. Should I have accepted, then and there, that I could never date or hope to fall in love? Isn't it a little weird to expect this of a 10-, or a 12-, or an 18-year-old? And for no really very good reason, except that "the Church says so"?

Does any of this really apply to me, anyway, as a woman? It doesn't seem to, according to Scripture.

If not, is the Bible really talking about "homosexuality"? Doesn't really seem like it.

If so, why am I asked to sacrifice for 80 years or so, for my entire lifetime, simply in order to obey a commandment that isn't even addressed to me?

It really doesn't make much sense, does it? This is the reason we're arguing about this issue, BTW; it's not to be perverse. It's simply because it doesn't make any real sense.

(BTW, Sean: have you heard about the kid in the U.S. who's being sent to fundamentalist camp to try to "turn him straight"? (Here: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/6/10/20406/0177). This is another example of the torture I was talking about, and this stuff has really got to stop.)

(Anyway, I promised myself I wouldn't argue about this topic anymore, so I'm going to cut myself off and get going now. So long.)

Mike: obviously. I'm not particularly posting here to try and get you to change your mind. I freely admit that my position isn't readily acceptable or perhaps even comprehensible to somebody whom doesn't believe major aspects of historic Christianity, e.g. a personal God active in human lives today and the (moral and other) authority of Scripture over Christians. At least you are highly consistent. I guess I am confused more by people who seem to be situated in historic Christianity yet set aside the authority of Scripture. NB this is not to say that all revisionists do this, since some do it on exegetical grounds.

BLS said:

"Friends don't make these kinds of vows to one another"

They do in the Bible. Not perhaps of the "to have and to hold" sort but certainly with that sort of level of intimacy and commitment. The church should and must celebrate these friendships.

"People who desired homosexual sex would occasionally have it, confess, be absolved, and that would be that."

Sounds OK so far as it goes but this is not what is being asked for. What is being sought is the appointment to positions of high authority within the church not people who will occasionally have sex and repent of it but people who publicly and unequivocally deny that it is wrong and that they even need to repent and be absolved.

It's nothing to do with orientation. I have spent years in evangelical churches of all stripes and have never so much as been criticised for what was my orientation. There are, of course, many homophobic bigots in the church who do attack people on the basis of their orientation. The church should discipline these bigots: if they refuse to repent and change their ways they should be removed from fellowship, i.e. excommunicated.

I accept the torture is occuring. It is obscene. 'Forced' marriages are totally wrong. Counselling may be helpful in various ways for people experiencing same-sex attraction but it seems pretty clear that the vast majority of 'reparative' therapies are highly bogus. But I am hardly torturing you, hence I objected to your rhetorical "stop torturing us" flourish. Please don't lump me in with every quack!

"And allow people to work out for themselves how they will deal with the sexual aspect, because some of us just don't agree that an old purity code from another culture is still valid today."

Once again, if it were just a purity code we would not be having this discussion. The most important texts are Genesis 1-2 which portrays sex as created for lifelong monogamous marriage between a man and a woman, and Romans 1 (Alison's paragliding aside) which reads homosexual activity in this light.

"We know many "sexually active" couples who obviously demonstrate God's love one to another and to the world."

Of course we do. But please explain to me why that should have the slightest bearing on discerning whether a sexual relationship is right. I have dozens of friends in sexual relationships who aren't married but love one another and love others. But I still believe that they should have carefully reflected on whether they should get married and only had sex had they then decided that they were the right lifelong partner for one another.

I simply don't agree with you that only intimate partners promise to care for one another for life, because I believe in something called the church. By baptism into Christ's body, I am called to care for the other members for life, and they are called to care for me. We are called to meet one another's needs for intimacy and affection. It doesn't often happen as it should and that's the crucial thing to be working on.

"Further, you're in effect saying that people who have already made promises for life to their own partners, would have to leave them in order to become Christian."

Huh? I hope I didn't say that! Please explain, I'm not sure I follow you!

I guess my fundamental angst about what you say in your second post is that there just doesn't seem to be any cross in it. There's no sense of sacrifice or laying down one's life and rights for Christ. It's just "it's too hard..." or "it's not reasonable to expect..." If Jesus has rescued me from the complete mess I have made of things and my rebellion and pride and death then that puts things in a very different light. It just suggests to me that what we're really arguing about is not the exegesis of Scripture (although I'd be more than happy to discuss that with you too) but about whether our perceived rights take precedence over God's will.

Let's put it this way: if you became convinced that Scripture/God really did say that homosexual activity was wrong, would you accept that? Maybe the answer is yes, in which case I gladly withdraw my last paragraph. But if the answer is no then the difference between us is at a far deeper level.

But bls, you make all my arguments so much better than I do! {smooch}

Pray for Nottingham, y'all!

I teach Special Needs children, Autistic, Down Syndrome, Pervasive Developmentally Delayed, Physical Support etr. Over the years I have had several gay students. You tell me how a high functioning down syndrome child chooses homosexuality over the conforts of a straight life and I"ll be happy to come to your church. This isn't a learned behavior. I don't believe its a choice. I see young people every day and I can say they're more interested in being like the hero's or dressed in Abercrombie and Fitch or having an IPod. They want to fit in and be like everyone else. Being gay would seem to me to be a pretty poor choice to fitting in. It precludes them from being "in" and invites terrible, horrible treatment by their peers. Although I have stepped in and reprimanded and discipline taunter's I can't change what they learn at home or what's reinforced by society. It's my job to provide a secure, and safe environment for all my students. I don't have the choice of exclusion nor would I want one.
All life is precious; the unborn, the hurt, the sick, divorced, and those who are gay. Isn't it time we stop hurting people and embrace them for the precious life they are? I'm sure Jesus would!

For those who use quotes from the Bible to support their orthodox point of view consider:

Pro-slavery rhetoric was Biblically substantiated yet we say its wrong.
Women are priest (and I'm not one who was in favor ) yet we have them (and I have to say some excellent ones/ladies). God had twelve male apostoles if memory serves me correct.
The old testament says "an eye for an eye..tooth for a tooth," yet Jesus says "give him the other cheek."
We've changed views already from strict interpretations. Don't let innocent people and inparticular children (teens are children to me)
suffer.

Yours in Christ,
Bob

I forgot.... I did post this on Titusonenice but the dear good father deleted it. I was dissapointed since I was hoping to at least be heard and considered. Is thinking dead? Reflecting? Maybe changing? I pray not.

Ian Wrote to Merseymike: "You must forgive me being blunt, but I'm left wondering whether you have any faith at all, other than a libertine approach that permits one to do whatever one wants and believe whatever one wants."

Yes, I'll be very interested to hear Mikes reply to that one.

Sean ; Your position is certainly comprehensible to me, but I think the divide is so profiund that there isn't a good deal of common ground.

A question. Given that I am not about to change my mind or leave my partner, is your aim to see people with my views and within gay relationships removed from the Church of England? Or do you agree with me that a parting of the ways should take place simply because the current climate and ongoing argument is neither feasible nor helpful in the long term?

What concerns me is that there clearly isn't going to be agreement but there is nothing much in the way of directions forward where we can both exist and continue to hold our views without a permanent continuation of the same arguments.

As far as 'libertine' claims are concerned, my gay Christian friends would find that amusing,given my commitment to monogamy and stable relationships. However, one does 'believe' what one chooses to think is right. I have yet to be convinced of the worth of conservative Christianity. Many have tried!

Come on Mike, tell us what you DO believe about meaning and Christianity..

Bob/Christian Fellow: I appreciated your comments. Certainly some Christians believe that homosexuality is a choice. I certainly do not believe that it usually is.

Mike: I certainly do not see people in same sex relationships as removed from the church. I certainly would never pronounce on their relationship to God or their eternal destiny, as some seriously presumptuous Christians do even though Jesus explicitly told us not to. The simple reason is that we all sin and homosexual activity is one sin amongst many and indeed I know many gay people in relationships who are far more Christlike than I am. If God accepts me, sin-ridden and rebellious as I am, I have no doubt that he accepts them who have taught me much about following Christ, even though that doesn't mean I agree with everything they do. In a sense it's not even the sin that I object to but the relabelling of it as not a sin.

But I don't believe it is a sin, Sean - so I would be a hypocrite if I said that was the case.

Sean: Nor do I (believe it is a choice). I've taught too long and watch very carefully students grow up and boom, puberty hits. For many it takes the form of Heterosexuality but for some no. I almost can tell for certainty from before puberty who many of the kids will be gay. After so many years you get a feel for these things though not always right. I feel it's just as natural for the "gay" person to feel the way they do as a straight person. I am tommorrow getting a letter of transfer from my home parish of 38 yrs to an inclusive liberal parish. My church was high jacked by the evangelicals and the AAC. Bob Duncan is the local Bishop. My priest looks at me as though I have the plague. I'm doomed to Hell for my views. This week I'm going to a birthday party for my gay cousin. Hey, I'm planning it and I've never had so much help and concern from so many people who happen to be "...". We are all precious, even the conservatives, although at times I have to really pray for help and understanding when engaging them. I'm sure they feel the same way.

I don't think Gay is a sin! If it's a sin and it's not a choice then are we saying God made them gay so they could be alone for the rest of their lives with out hope of being in a relationship? Thats like saying that because I'm Black I should abstain from a relationship because of my colour. This isn't a choice. What what a white straight person say if they had been told,"your white and your straight and you'll have to obstain from sex or a partner because God made you white and straight. Its a double standard. Its certainly not fair. As for the human sexuality factor pushed about by Bob Duncan, I have seen people born without penises, ears, anus etr. I've seen a lot of people who don't have compatible parts for woman/man sex. What it tells me is we make due with what we got. It also tells me Life sometimes takes diversions and all life is beautiful. It just we are so geared at looking at Paris Hilton or the like, that influences are perceptions.

I do apologize in advance for offending anyone. "M intersted in honest discourse, not being mean.
It's not in my nature.

Dona Nobis Pacem, Bob

But why should it necessarily be right to act on one's innate desires? Please note that innate and natural are not necessarily the same thing. bThe fact that one desires something proves nothing about the legitimacy or otherwise of fulfilling that desire. This is a big hole in your argument.

When one becomes saved the old man is dead and a new man is created in Christ! Alive unto the Lord and dead in the flesh! Pretty simple solution to many questions of right and wrong!

Tony