41 forum messages posted by
Ken Petrie

While the monarch is crowned by the Archbishop as a symbol that authority proceeds from God to the monarch and thence to the ministers and Parliament, our whole theory of the legitimacy of Government relies on the Establishment of the C of E and all that entails.

The bishops are in the house of Lords likewise to symbolise that theory of authority, and they are appointed by the current circuitous process because they may one day sit there.

If we allow Government to set the precedent that constitutional arrangements can easily be changed, what is to protect us from a Prime Minister who decides five years isn't long enough and he will stay in a few more? Who is this Queen anyway? We need clear sight of what will replace the current arrangements and how the Government is to be constrained to stay within it. Otherwise we degenerate into another Burma or Zimbabwe or North Korea or...

First I will defend my comment about DNA. It is the mechanism by which so-called racial characteristics are transmitted, so it does differ to that superficial extent. Because it is the mechanism by which they are passed on, it is capable of being misconstrued as another way of referring to them.

Because I too knew George when he was Principal of Trinity, I know he would never intend it that way, and was just jumping on a modern metaphorical use without realising there was a more literal interpretation that could be taken. When he was Archbishop he was frequently accused of such gaffs by an unsympathetic media who I think resented his humble origins, but on this occasion I happen to think the gaff is real.

I certainly would not say he is a disaster. He is a wise and knowledgeable scholar, and big-hearted and humble in spirit - everything a pastor should be. He was also always intensely busy, and I imagine finds retirement hard to bear. Maybe he is writing a book or two to help fill the time. I hope so. He has a lot to give.

It was unfortunate to use the expression "DNA" as a metaphore for identity when ethnicity is a factor. It does look as if he failed to read through what he had written before submitting it.

The real problem is that we live in an over-populated, extremely unequal world, where desperate people wish to migrate. We have responded by closing borders, which is part of the social breakdown which is slowly happening as the human race fails to deal with the problems it is creating. We are  making the world a dangerous place and then some of us are attempting to wall ourselves into a fortress in the vain hope it will keep the dangers out, which of course it won't.

The idea that the global South will allow the North to prosper endlessly at their expense and will stay quiet is an absurdity. As the pressures mount times will get increasingly perilous, just as St Paul predicted.

It would be wonderful if they did. The problem is I have yet to see a Biblically-consistent convincing argument for considering homosexuality as part of the image of God rather than part of the fallenness of nature, when all the Biblical references I know seem to treat it as an example of the latter. Maybe I'm missing something, but all the pro-gay arguments I've come across seem to rely on a presumption that personal experience must reflect God's intention ('God made me this way') rather than the fallenness of the human condition. This over-individualises Creation and seems to ignore the Fall, but without that there's no Gospel because there would be nothing to be saved from. I am quite open to seeing a new understanding, but it has to be convincing, and nothing I have seen so far convinces me.

Much is sometimes made of Paul's phrase "against nature" in Romans 1, to argue he only intended homosexuality by those who were not naturally so inclined. The problem with that is threefold: Paul was not generally against sexual habits per se, but saw them as an indication of what motivates people, there was no concept of sexual orientation in Paul's day, so how could he consider homosexuality natural for some but not others, and Paul did not generally view "nature" as something good. To him, "spirit" was good and "nature" was faulty at best. So I don't find the argument convincing. It seems to distort rather than illuminate the Scriptures.

The onus is on those arguing for a change to demonstrate their position, so let them do so. I am waiting to be convinced.

I would tend to agree. What is really happening here is not a sliding of standards, but simply a more careful reading of Scripture. Jesus was clear about two things:

1. Divorce is lawful, but is a provision for human sin. It is not a way of avoiding sin.

2. A subsequent marriage is technically adulterous because divorce is not actually effective in ending the previous commitment.

However, we have to see it in context. The pharisees had raised the subject to "test" (ie discredit) Jesus. He frequently condemned divorce while claiming to uphold the Law and they saw this as an inconsistency they could exploit. In fact, there was no inconsistency. It was simply that the pharisees confused Law with righteousness. Jesus was not giving pastoral instruction, but exposing their hypocrysy.

Previously, though, the Church interpreted the statement "let not man separate" as an instruction not to permit divorce, when it is actually a strong statement of indignation at the human belief we can somehow go through a process on earth that will change things in God's sight, and the identification with adultery as something to which the commandment "thou shalt not commit adultery" should be applied, and therefore an implied instruction that remarriage is forbidden.

However, that is not in harmony with Christ's mission. He came to bring forgiveness and further chances in life, not to close down the opportunity to try again to those who have failed in mariage, and the point he was making was technical and theological rather than pastoral. So divorce, and certainly remarriage is sinful, but that is not quite the same as saying it is forbidden, though it is to be avoided where possible and should never be condoned. There is such a thing as the lesser of two evils in Christian ethics (cf just war theory) and it must be considered whether it is a greater evil to condemn a hypothetical innocent victim of divorce to loneliness and proclaim that as Christ's command, than to 'allow' them to commit the technical sin of marrying when they are still in God's sight married to someone who is long gone and did them a great evil by abandoning them.

There are complex arguments involved which I lack space for here, but it is clear people will differ on whether they think a case can be made. For my own part, I must declare an interest. I am divorced.

To answer the question: I have a BA (Hons) i n Theological Studies.

There is, of course, the "hermeneutical circle" -  a theory which suggests the more one reads Scripture, the more Scripture will start to shape ones presuppositions. Of course, it can only work if one is prepared to read in a detached way, and to have one's presuppositions challenged by it, and it takes time.

I find it helpful not to read too closely most of the time. We Evangelicals are tempted to dive in and analyse in great depth, and most of the Bible was written simply to be read, rather than pulled apart and studied in great detail. The gist can sometimes be the real message, and sometimes will reveal that a verse by verse reading will give almost the opposite of what is truly meant!

Proof texting is generally a pejorative term, referring to taking short fragments and applying them out of context to prove what one already things, rather than allowing the Scripture to form what one is to think. If I'm honest, there's far too much of it about because it makes a lazy or hard-pressed preacher's job much easier than explaining all the details of an issue, and most congregations appreciate simple knock-down answers more than a challenge to think something through. Most people want rules rather than principles, sadly.

However, if we are to be formed by Scripture, we have to be prepared to take the rough with the smoothe. It will challenge us and we will have to face the implications when it does.

I think that last point in your post on Sunday is very well said, Celinda. The whole problem seems to me to revolve around a struggle by the two sides to force their view on the other without trying to understand what the truth might be. I'm glad there are signs of a genuine consideration of such facts as we have beginning to emerge here.

As I see it, there are several aspects to the problem: social, psychological, biological, and theological being the four I find obvious.

Socially and sociologically, we live in a culture which has a unique take on sexuality and sees it as central to our identity. Over the last century or so it has developed a theory of sexual orientation which is somehow perceived to be innate to each individual and therefore essential to their being. To reject it is to reject the person. It seems to ignore the fact that many people change their perceived orientation during life, that children frequently bond only with their own sex and for many that changes after puberty, that some people conclude they are homosexual after a failed marriage, and some homosexuals fall in love with members of the other sex and get married, sometimes successfully, and sometimes not. I'm not referring to intervention here. This is just how some people's lives unfold.

This notion of an orientation creates a dualistic view in which people are divided into homosexuals and heterosexuals, with a third category (bisexuals) being grudgingly acknowledged to deal with those who don't fit. This dualism suggests the homosexual minority is a different kind of person to be tolerated or persecuted, and since most people prefer tolerance to persecution, the trend is to make it compulsory. Against this is a small minority of violent people who are looking for an excuse to persecute people and see the labelling of homosexuals as different as an ideal excuse. Such violence must always be condemned.

But the need to create the bisexual category coupled with the variety of real experience should cause us to question the orientation theory. Life just isn't that neat.

However, if we reject the orientation viewpoint we also undermine the difference and equivalence model on which current government policy is based, and on which campaigning groups base their arguments. We are left instead grappling with the full mystery of human nature without easy quick-fix answers. It will take a long time to work through.

Psychologically, we are formed by our experiences which come from both internal and external sources, including cultural ones. It is therefore not surprising that most people will try to fit their understanding of both self and others into the prevailing cultural paradigm. However, that does not necessarily validate the paradigm and part of our calling as Christians is to challenge the paradigm (cf Rom 12.2). There can be no question that people's identity exists and that might provide a point of contact, but none of us can presume our identity is an accurate reflection of how others see us or how God sees us. It is a subjective reality which needs to be heard, but might also need to be challenged. This, of course, applies whichever side of the debate we are on.

Biologically, we don't yet understand whether there is a straightforward biological (genetic or otherwise) process at work here. It might be reasonable to expect some biological input to this phenomenon, but we lack the real evidence. I suspect it is too simple to expect a single cause because of the wide variety of human experience, and because we are a complex mixture of intelligence and instinct which is almost certain to manifest itself in unpredictable ways. A simple genetic cause of homosexual orientation would be self-defeating, since it would be a suicidal gene tending to influence the bearer against its own propagation. Such a simple gene would not survive many generations and would therefore be extremely rare. This almost certainly means a genetic cause would have to be more subtle and complex, and probably a side effect of other useful characteristics only expressed in a minority of cases.

Talking of causes could also lead us into the trap of medicalising the issue, which leads to the temptation to attempt "cures", as has been done in the past and continues to be done in some places, and brings us firmly back to the original subject of this thread. There are two obvious dangers here: the first is that medicine is a field for qualified practictioners practising on the basis of clear evidence, and there is a real danger of "quackery" from people whose motivation is not genuinely evidence-based, or whose qualifications are suspect. Would it be unreasonable to compare this with the penchant for lobotomy in 1950s America? As the evidence is currently not available it is difficult to see how medical practitioners would proceed. The second danger surrounds the issue of who would decide when treatment might be necessary or appropriate. The ethical issues are enormous, especially if compulsion became involved with respect to people who are quite content with the way they are! I shudder at the thought.

On the other hand, does that mean people who are unhappy with their current state should not be able to seek understanding in the hope of either self-acceptance or change? People do that all the time for other perceived problems and in the absence of evidence why should they not be able to do so if their sexuality bothers them?

My fourth aspect is theology. Evangelicals are primarily theological in our approach to problems, and we trust experience and feelings far less than a soundly argued theory based on, or at least consistent with, Biblical texts. That is why the way to build trust with Evangelicals is to address the theory. Emotional appeals cause Evangelicals to feel manipulated in an attempt to distract us from what we believe really matters; God's view as revealed through Scripture properly interpreted. They may even make us fear others are being manipulated in an attempt to marginalise us (and God!) That is why this issue has become so big; because the two sides are talking across each other without engaging and the result is distrust and fear. (This does not prevent some Evangelical preachers making highly emotive appeals in their sermons, but that should not mislead people into thinking their primary mode of thought is emotional.)

I understand the key text for the Christian understanding of sex to be the first two chapters of Genesis, especially 1.27 and 2.23-24. Jesus himself referred to the latter to answer the Pharisees' attempt to trap him on the subject of divorce. The argument in Genesis can be summarised in our modern context as "two sexes, therefore marriage" which is at variance with our host culture's "love, therefore marriage". It is because there are two sexes that human beings pair up. If there were three sexes we would presumably seek trios. It is also clear from Jesus' teaching (Mt 19.6 and Mk 10.9) that marriage belongs to God and is not subject to human authority. Just as God defines the week as beginning on Sunday, so he defines the nature of human sexuality and marriage. Human governments might think they have the authority to change these things but they are simply manifesting the blindness we call sin.

Which brings me to a second point. Christian anthropology sees all humanity other than Christ's as falling short of the ideal, and this is true of our close relationships, sexual feelings, and intimate practices just as it is in the rest of our lives. He came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. When the Pharisees brought Jesus an adulteress to see whether he would uphold the law, he challenged them to produce a sinless member to begin the stoning, because they could not do so, and they eventually gave up and left. Jesus then set the woman free with an instruction not to sin again, but she was human, prone to sin, so while she might not have committed the same sin again, we can be pretty sure she continued to sin in some way or other for the rest of her life, just as we do.

Because marriages, like everything else human beings touch, will always bear a certain amount of taint from human sin, it follows that a certain humility is necessary in our approach to this divine institution which we mar through our involvement.

Sadly, the Church has not been very good in its witness to these two truths. For whatever reason, bishops and clergy are too keen to celebrate marriage only as the good gift of God and to ignore the shortcomings of human beings. Therefore, when it was suggested there might be some penitential element when a marriage was celebrated for a couple, one of whom had a previous spouse still living, the General Synod rejected it. I believe the ordained members felt that if a marriage could be seen as sinful it shouldn't be happening at all, and to make provision for a flawed marriage was somehow to undermine the ideal itself. But the contrary is true; it is only by acknowledging our failings that we uphold the ideal which, for us, is unattainable.

I wonder whether this is because the English Church is quietly absorbing the sentimental over-expectation of our host culture, or because it has never been able to grasp the implications of Luther's slogan, Simil justus et peccator. We live in the tension St Paul decribed in Romans 7.21-25 and it is only through Christ that we can amount to anything worthwhile at all. The warning at the end of verse 25 is also apposite. If we seek to enslave ourselves to God's law we will only become slaves to sin.

I also find the language of orientation and equivalence unconvincing, especially if it is divorced from an understanding of our broken fallenness, because that would imply God effectively made not two sexes, but four. It is only in the context of universal shortcomings that any of this makes sense to me. If everything we do as human beings is inadequate, it is only by acknowledging our failings and our dependence on Christ that we can give glory to God and uphold his ideals which are beyond our strength. That is not to say we should not strive to be better - Jesus said "Be perfect as your father in Heaven is perfect." (Mt 5.48) - but we should never fool ourselves we can fully succeed.

So we should not be seeing this problem in terms of homosexuals and heterosexuals, but of sinners in need of forgiveness, and doing the best we can to serve God in Christ while relying entirely on him to make up our shortfall. If the marriage service had provision for penitence we would be able to see that more clearly. All of us are inadequate in our lives and all of us can only do the best we can in the circumstances we face. Why then is this one activity being singled out as an example, either as a line that must not be crossed, or as somehow exempt from sin? It is neither. It is just one expression of human inadequacy among many others, including all real marriages.

I wonder whether this might provide the beginning of a basis for a way forward. For if we understand that we are often unable to separate in our lives righteousness and sin, as the wheat could not be separated from the tares (cf Mt 13.24-30, 36-43), and just as marriages contain things which are bad (eg jealousy, disharmony, unfaithful thoughts, predatory or demeaning sexual appetites) so homosexual relationships contain things which are good (eg love, friendship, support, comfort), is there not room to affirm what is good without condoning what is controversial? Might not the Church be able to make pastoral provision to do that? Might we not be able to uphold the ideal of marriage while recognising that all real lives fall short? Might not that recognition itself bear witness to the ideal? For it is by recognising our sin that we also recognise from what we have fallen, and can teach others what should be but sadly is not.

What stands against this?

Well, first of all there is Jesus' own understanding of what he was teaching in the parable of the Wheat and the Tares. While his words are open to a degree of interpretation, the simplest reading is that he intended good and evil people rather than the good and evil in each person and that is certainly how it is often translated. The question for us, I think, is does one rule out the other? Secondly, there is I Corinthians 5, although perhaps that needs to be read in the light of II Corinthians 2.5-11.

If the Church can find a way to acknowledge all our failings as the basis for teaching the ideal, might we not have the beginnings of a solution to this problem?

The problem we have here is that we are trying to understand the objective truth behind a subjective phenomenon, and that is not easily done by either scientific or theological methods.

Now, of course, it could be argued that all knowledge is subjective. However real the objective might be, our knowledge of it is a subjective experience, but without descending into Cartesian doubt, most of us will accept that what we experience subjectively is generally based on an objective truth. If it were not so we could not safely undertake any number of daily activities, from crossing a road to walking down stairs.

From that acceptance springs a corollary: that what we perceive subjectively originates from an objective fact. Hence, although we might be fond of saying "beauty is in the eye of the beholder", we do not act as if that were so. A man in love does not think he is biologically programmed to be entranced by his beloved's qualities; rather, he proclaims how wonderful those qualities are. Similarly, we do not react to a colourful sunset by saying "I find that beautiful" but ask "isn't that beautiful?" and we tend to be put out if the other person disagrees with our opinion. It is generally not considered polite to do so.

Which brings us to another aspect of the subjective: it is influenced by culture.

Now, of course, any particular view of the interpretation of Scripture is every bit as cultural as views about individual identity or freedom. However, the job of the Christian exegete is to try to minimise the effect of culture on the interpretation, and yet to do that it is often necessary to engage with at least two cultures: that of the reader and that of the writer. Failure to do so will only ensure the interpretation is coloured by the reader's culture, and the likely result is that the reader will impose his or her expectations on the text.

So it is not surprising (ie I don't find it surprising) that the two sides of the homosexuality debate largely fail to engage. One is coming from a simple reading of Scripture informed by popular Christian assumptions about the relationship between sex and morality (though by that they really mean ethics), and the other is coming from an experiential framework coloured by the secular assumptions about sexual motivation which have developed over the last hundred or so years, together with a horror of what unfair treatment and attitudes led to in Nazi Germany.

Because they do not engage, both sides remain convinced their view is the only sensible one, and that if they shout it loudly enough and persistently enough it must prevail, but if they fail to do so, the truth will be eclipsed by the lies coming from the other side. That may be an extreme way of expressing it, but I think the caricature contains a fair approximation which can be borne out by posts on this and similar forums where one side asks 'how do you interpret such and such a Scripture?' and the other side replies 'how would you feel if it happened to you?' These two questions, both valid in their own terms, just don't meet.

This is where I think (another subjective opinion) Andrew and Glynn's article begins to be useful. It has started to grapple with some terminology which might allow us to find a shared basis for understanding what might be true. By introducing us to the APA's term, "sexual orientation identity", they have brought us something both sides can recognise as an objective fact. It is the objective fact of a subjective experience, and it can tell us nothing about the underlying truth behind the experience, but at least it enables us all to recognise that the experience is real, and that, for any compassionate Christian, represents progress. For it provides a small patch of common ground where both sides can stand to examine the issue. We must search for other agreed bases so we can build up a common perspective from which to research the issue.

Once we have enough common ground, enough understanding of what we are seeking to to, we should be able to discuss and seek agreement on how we use the tools available to grasp the issues involved. These tools must include those most passionately treasured by the two (or more) sides - the Scriptures, justice, experience; which should not be at odds but somehow are being portrayed as so in this debate.

It will not be easy. It will require the discipline not to descend into insults if an argument is not going as we would like. It will also need the maturity to accept the implications about the relationship between the Christian identity, the image of God, our fallenness and Redemption. There can be no guarantee of success but if we don't try we will simply continue to fail to engage and that will prevent us finding any kind of truth to put before the world. For faced with two contrary views both claiming to be true, the world will see no truth in us at all.

I would like place on record that I disapprove of this bill. However, I do  not wish to do anything which might endanger my brothers and sisters in Africa or in Islamic countries.

If I am to protest against anything, it is the loud-mouthed sloganising which obstructs true debate and allows bills like this to be proposed and get serious consideration. Sadly, all sides on all issues seem to use far too much of that tactic. I conclude they are more interested in getting their own way than finding the truth.

Christians need to oppose such a selfish approach to truth-seeking.

There is, I think, also a technical problem in the way the forum works which can confuse the issue. I don't post that often, but when I do I frequently find my log-in times out while I'm typing. Then I don't know whether my post has gone or not.

There needs to be more feedback when that happens, and also, if the time-out could be set to a reasonable period, say half an hour or more, it wouldn't happen so often.

An excellent analysis in many ways. Yes, it is the Church's function to be an alternative to the world's way of living. I think we all understand that but are often woefully inadequate in expressing it.

The point about the conflation of marriage as defined by God and taught in Scripture with the civil institution in which the State registers people's status is well made. I have been trying to say it for a long time. A couple of different sexes living together in a long-term relationship which includes full intimacy are married in the Biblical understanding, and all the responsibilities which fall on a married couple fall on them. They must keep to the lifestyle of faithfulness required by their relationship. It might have been better if they had brought their relationship before the Church or State to clarify it and register their interest - indeed It could be argued not to do so is irresponsible because it creates vulnerability if one of them dies - but that is not the essence of marriage and they should not be condemned as if they are having casual sex.

But there is still a lack of vision here. The key thing about a Christian lifestyle is not what we do, but who we do it for. The worldly person lives for Self. The Christian lives for God. This is fundamentally at odds with the consumer society. Every time we do something for personal satisfaction rather than to advance God's purposes as we understand them we commit idolatry, for we dethrone God in our hearts and put ourselves in his place.

We need to stop banging on about sex or our message wil not get through. Already I hear people asking "Why should it matter to the creator of the stars what I do with my genitals?". People are not understanding our message because it concentrates too much on one area of life. We need to oppose our culture at a much deeper level. It is the selfishness and greed which are wrong; not just the sexual expression of them.

The point about the crowd is more difficult to apply in England than America because the ecclesiology of an established church gets in the way, but there is a lesson to be learned there, just the same.

The equivalence is not between 'for' and 'in' but between 'for', 'on behalf of' or 'because of' (the possible meanings of hyper followed by the genetive) and 'in the name of'. The English term 'on behalf of' can mean either 'for the benefit of' or 'in the name of' but I'm not sure the Greek can go quite as far in the direction of 'for the benefit of' as the English does.

I am not sure who could be said to benefit from our baptism (ourselves, the Gospel, the Kingdom, the world?) but it is clear we do it for the name (ie reputation) of Christ, because of what he has done and our desire to be identified with it and with him. If that cannot be described as being baptised 'for' him I don't know how else to describe it. He is the purpose of our baptism. We are of course baptised in the threefold name, but that should not be used to obscure the motivation and purpose.

In my previous post I expressed reservations because John Reaume has pointed out that the use of third person for the people involved indicated St Paul was not thinking of all Christians or even the typical Corinthian Christian. It is surprising how much clarity a few hours' reflection can bring. The logical people intended by the Apostle's 'they' (or 'those') would be those who, not believing the Resurrection, nonetheless got baptised. What an absurdity! How inconsistent! They deserve to be mocked for it and mock them he does. Are they in the habit of being baptised for dead people, for an unrisen Christ would be no different from any other deceased, so if they will do it for him, why not for others. Hence, in my interpretation, the plural hoi nekroi. He clinches his arguments by making his opponents look stupid, which, of course, they are if they want to be part of the Church when they don't believe the Gospel.

But what puzzles me is why I seem to be alone in this without a good argument to knock me down.

The argument on CARM that Paul was alluding to a pagan practice is also possible, if the religion was still practised at the time he was writing, although it has the difficulty he might have appeared to be endorsing the pagan beliefs and risked introducing syncretism into the Corinthian church. Again, it is the absence of any qualification or warning which presents a problem here.

Clearly we can't know exactly what St Paul meant, but it is odd most commentators seem to ignore the flexibility of the language and repeat speculation the evidence seems to me to be against.