Some years ago I picked up a second hand volume of Chaucer's Canterbury Tales. Inside there is a handwritten note, "Sarah, with kindest love of her Affectionate friend, Elizabeth Dec XIX 1866" . The capital A for affectionate is Elizabeth's own. I wonder how many heterosexual women would now send such a note. I think that the sentiment is a friendship note not a sexual message, although I have no evidence for my supposition. I have based my supposition upon having read equally flowery messages in literature and inscriptions etc. The note does suggest to me that people had a deep level of love and care in their same sex non-sexual friendships just as we do today but they did not fear to express those feelings, as we might today.

With regard to sex and marriage is it worth looking at biblical definition(s) of marriage and how the church has changed it's views over the centuries?

Also does anyone know if the government considered extending the existing Civil Marriage legislation to include Gay People?

Thanks

Karen

Hi R and T

how are you both?

I was wondering if there was a place in this discussion to talk about the place of human friendship in human intimacy?

I'm not really sure exactly what I mean (ha ha) but I was thinking about another discussion I was listening to which I felt had said something really special.  This was the idea that, actually, the highest form of human intimacy was friendship.  It is what we are called to be, 'friends with God'.  We seem to denigrate the idea of friendship to the 'next best thing' to a sexual relationship, but I'm not sure that is right.  Jesus 'said' something very special, I think, when he was friends with humanity, in a whole and particular sense.  Anyone I have spoken to and including myself would say that the sexual nature of our marriages changes over time and it is not the sexual intimacy which keeps the relationship intimate in the long run, it is the friendship.  Maybe I am being too simplistic, of course the sexual intimacy in marriage is important, but maybe not nearly as important as we make it out to be,and not nearly as important as the friendship.

But, it seems that we deny the joy of friendship to a lot of men because if they are friends with men in the same way that women might be friends with women, then it might be seen as 'odd'.  I have very close friends who are women, but also over my life I seem to have been able to have great friendships with men, some people are uncomfortable with this and I do understand the reasons, but maybe it shows that we don't know how to really be 'friends'.

Jonathan and David were friends beyond the love of a woman - what a statement.  Jesus had a disciple who was beloved.

Maybe there is a place here to reinstate the the value of friendship as a part of intimate human existence.

Gotta go

Love Jody

Hi Tony,

Good points.

I was thinking in the car on the way to work this AM about the eschatological tension (the 'now' and 'not yet') and how much 'fulfillment' and 'desire' played a part in it.  Clearly God means for us to be 'fulfilled' and the more this can happen in the 'now' the more we are seeing the 'Kingdom come'.  I'm no martyr and find myself much more likely to settle for comfort 'now' as my main 'desire'.  However I don't necessarily see too much wrong with this since it also involves spending time with my daughter and wife (the source of a lot of happiness and comfort!) which I instinctively think is a 'good thing'!

When we see same-sex faithful, loving, giving, kindly, patient, forgiving couples then this is a demonstration of the kingdom (despite what any purist says) - and the happiness they feel isn't to be torn from them as some sort of 'projected self-delusionment'!  God forbid that I would ever be the one to tear apart what Christ has died for and built up!

My point, I think, is that I fully support the above statement and at the same time I really do see heterosexuality as the 'model' of human sexuality (within the same faithful, loving, kindly, giving context) - on ontological grounds.

How one reconciles these two (seemingly contradictory) convictions is a mystery - and I've struggled to try and hold them in the same thought together!  My only 'handle' is to reach for the Grace of God in all things and the fact that he often (if not always) blesses and nutures and builds up - even where we don't fully understand.  Because of this I guess it makes it risky to base theology on experience, since experience might be the 'exception' due to the Grace of God whereas theology, perhaps, needs to be clear on the goal and purpose to which God intends things - even if this means standing amazed as God blesses things which we believe don't comform to his own 'standard'!

Thank you so much for this opportunity to discuss this difficult topic lovingly!

Richard

Hi Jody and Richard, and thanks for taking up what I am trying to present as a problem for evangelicals who both want to stop being excluding but don't want to reform their position on the expression of gay sexulaity. It is difficult, I know. I am like you, Richard, in as much as I have moved to a much more catholic view of the sacramanets than I had when I was growing up!  I suppose my eschatology is more 'realized' than yours, though: when I pray for the Kingdom to come ... and God's will to be done on earth, I see the two petitions as closely connected. So deferring a solution to the life to come doesn't provide as much of a framework for me as for you (two?). The awkward thing about arguments derived from examples of people who are single and would like to be partnered is that the principle involved is sidestepped. A straight single might at any time meet the right person and enter a partnership and so marry: sexuality can find physical expression, with the blessing of the church. Gay people, though, are never in that position: the only thing on offer under any circumstances is celibacy -- and though this is only being publicly admitted about the position of the clergy, it actually applies to any gay or lesbian person. So something marks out gays and lesbians as different from the rest of humanity, in principle. (The other sorts of argument that people come up with are usually based on some model of physical or mental disability...) Presuppositions of this kind are what do the real damage to the personhood of gays and lesbians! The transformation of  our nature beyond this life isn't usually appealed to in questions like this one -- and the orthodox understanding is that grace perfects nature, and is perfecting it now -- through the sacraments and the sanctification of the Spirit. I think I understand the anxiety about church leadership, but it isn't empirically at all obvious that gay and lesbian priests offer a bad example. They are among the saintliest people I know -- specially the ones who have been forced out of their vocations and still stick with the church. A lot saintlier at any rate than threatening letters ad clerum! This in great haste, so apologies for shorthand if there is any.

Tony

Hi Richard and Tony

Richard, what you said was very clear (much more than me :-) and I really identify with what you were saying.  How this all might look practically, is still a wee bit of a tricky one, but continuing to discuss it must bear fruit at some point, I think.

Tony, I think I understand what you are saying about there being a false separation between praxis and act with regards to sexuality (and I guess other things).  I can, in a way see what you mean, in that our action necessarily is the expression of us and what we think and who we are in whatever area.  However, you seem to be saying that the only outworking for sexuality that is fruitful or 'full' is to express that sexuality in a particular way.  I think I would dispute this and not only for people of homosexual praxis, but for us all.  This has implications for single people as well, not many of whom, in my experience, choose to be single.  Are they not 'fully expressed' either?

I think it is so important for us to listen to all people, and in this area I guess to listen to the experience of gay people.  However, I think we are mistaken to focus on the 'gay' part and forget the 'person' part.  By this I mean that if, and I do mean if, if the 'proper' way to express our sexuality is either in a heterosexual marriage or celibacy, then anything other than that is hurtful to our personhood.  Now, I did say 'if' and I would still like to have a Scriptural debate about it if anyone can put forward that debate.  I think I have said here before that I am not nearly well versed enough to do that myself, but I have acknowledged that I feel the Scriptural argument is not as conclusive as any of us would like.

Having said this, it is still necessary for us to listen and hear the experience of people whose experience is significantly coloured because they are gay people and not heterosexual people. Whatever we understand about human sexuality, it will always be important to listen hard to people.

love Jody 

Hi Tony,

Thanks for your kind words!

I feel like I'm getting deeper and deeper into something which I feel less and less qualified (or experienced) to comment on - Brian McLaren said something similar in a conference that he hosted here.

However - in an attempt to respond to your post...

Re: The experience of Gay people:

'Gay sex is and unfolds and realizes who they are'

If my term 'praxis' sounded a bit 'clinical' it's because I guess I was trying to use the term wrt the 'theological aspects' - and so hunted around for a suitably theological term to define 'homosexual acts'.  However, you're right that these acts are more than just 'performance' and so apologies if I ignored that reality.  I feel the same way about Christians who refer to the communion as 'mere symbol', because it expresses to me much more than 'psychological memory triggered by sensory reception of wheat-product and grape-product'!

Yet I guess something that comes to mind is how much 'fulfillment' is the goal of this age?  Is it possible that to follow God's radical transformation might sometimes actually lead us away from fulfillment-now?  I say this because clearly those who would follow Christ will be at odds with parts of the current order and sometimes this tension leads into difficult places and experiences - some of our choosing and some chosen 'for us'.  I do say this most humbly because this is the issue that faces us all as Christians.  For example:  How much material wealth do we enjoy and embrace (which can produce a lot of happiness!) in this age?  How much time do we invest in our families and friendships?  How long do we suffer difficult relationships?

As I say these examples I am aware that the answer will be different for each of us according the Grace of God at work in our lives - but that isn't to say that we therefore can't promote the harder path if it is the call of God upwards to wholeness in the age to come.

Another practical example would be a friend of mine who recently ended a long and loveless marriage to go and live with someone else.  He really is a lot more 'fulfilled' and feels happier than he has done for years.  Does this mean that it is part of God's intention for wholeness that the expression of fidelity which is seen in the marriage vows be erroded and broken?

Re: The fullness of humanity:

'In the end we have to decide whether we can recognize and affirm the full humanity of gay people as they are and as they perceive themselves'

If by 'full humanity' you mean that they are human as much as anyone else is (and are thus recepients of God's Grace and Love and therefore deserving of ours) - then absolutely!  But I guess I would have an issue with the idea of 'fullness', since none of us can claim that destination yet - and part of being human in the now is realising the areas where we aren't 'full' and being honest about it.  This is part of the 'difficult way' that I referred to above.

To go back to something Jody raised earlier - where does my perspecitve ultimately take me?  What does it mean re: service/roles/leadership within the church etc...? (in an attempt to ground my somewhat abstract ideas!!).

I guess my foundation would be that it is the churches vocation to point to the Renewed Humanity which God has initiated in Christ Jesus - this will be part in 'Word' and part 'by example'.  I say 'part Word' because Teaching without Embodiment is empty, but also 'part Example' since our best attempts at 'Incarnation' are potentially still flawed and so must - themselves - sit under the truth about God's intention and purpose for 'full humanity'.  What this will mean for individuals who are part of God's New Creation community will vary according to the prompting of the Spirit, but I fully believe that a community that is receptive to the 'Word' and to the 'Spirit' (and I'm not trying to reduce this to some simple form of Charismaticism!) will increasingly reflect - by example - the model of New Humanity.

Leaders within the church bear the responsiblity of being 'one step ahead' in this process and so I guess I have a concern about the 'praxis' (relational or otherwise) of those who represent Christ to the community and so this will have a bearing on who is qualified for leadership.  Again, if we only articulate this qualification in terms of 'fulfillment' (of sense of vocation) we might be at risk of missing the difficult transformational road which God had set before us.

Richard

Richard

Thanks for your very clear account in your conversation with Jody. I can see very hopeful things in your insistence that human sexuality is variously broken. My concern, however, is that your model doesn't really listen to what gay people have to say. The phrase homosexual praxis sounds very grown up and calm, but it's just a greek way of insisting on the difference between orientation and acts, isn't it. Gay people don't think that their relationships, fully (physically) expressed and entered into, are like doing yoga or weightlifting -- or 'practising' medicine. Gay sex is and unfolds and realizes who they are. Gene Robinson said as much when he was in London. Secondly, the argument from 'natural design' that is fairly current is unhelpful. The idea of 'original design' seems to get us into the dubious company of intelligent design, and really doesn't have sufficient room for human (and natural) diversity. In the end we have to decide whether we can recognize and affirm the full humanity of gay people as they are and as they perceive themselves -- not compassionately explain to them that their experience is mis-perceived! If we can't do that, then something has gone wrong.

Thanks for continuing to think about the difficult business of listening to others. I wish I was better at it, so apologies if I've got you wrong.

in via

Tony

Hi Jody,

I sort of get what you're saying!

My intent was to, in some way, highlight the fact that 'the church' is connected to the rest of society (whether it likes this fact or not!) and decisions made by either party have a bearing on the other.  In light of this, it is the churches 'vocation' to promote a new way of being human as a witness and a model to the rest of humanity - allowing this expression to 'catch on' to those around us.  This will, clearly, have a bearing on all our 'moral' behaviour, including - but not only limited to - sexual praxis (I'm glad you like the word!).

If it is the stance of the church (whether anglican or whatever) that God's design for human sexuality is Man-Woman-lifelong-monogamous, then this is the model which needs to be ultimately affirmed and encouraged.  However, in our brokenness, we all fall short of the perfect model (Christ) and so this expression will always be one of tension and humility, with failings and shortfalls and - aove all - brokered by God's Grace!  But we still need to be clear about the design to which God intended us (both in the sphere of sexuality and otherwise!).

My concern re: the current conception of 'life-long-loving-monogamous homosexuality' is that it is articulated not as:

'The place we find ourselves due to our ontological (and acquired) brokenness yet, receiving the Grace of God and his support'

But instead:

'An equal part of the original design for human sexuality'

And it is this which concerns me, since it is more than a plea for equality and compassion and understanding and inclusiveness (all of which I say 'amen' to!) but instead is an attempt to re-define the ontological basis of human brokenness (wrt sexuality) - a process which changes (subtly) the model being expressed to the world.

However, even whilst we're debating the subtle theological issues at stake, I am fully aware that the churches expression of 'loving acceptance' is also at jeopardy - something which is no less serious an issue.

Thus we must keep the balance between:

a) Being convinced of the need for 'ontological clarity'

And

b) The need for 'gracious humility'

When it comes to communicating our vocation to increasingly express God's original design to the world!

Richard

Hi Richard

At the bottom of your post you talk about the difficulty of promoting a loving faithful monogomous same-sex relationship as a possible way of allowing sexual discipline for people of homosexual praxis (good word by the way)

The difficulty being, you say, that because the general western culture is of frivolous promiscuity (I guess you mean particularly for homosexual culture?) that this might be confusing for people?

If I misunderstood, sorry, but if that is what you were saying, then isn't this the same problem that the Church has in establishing marriage (heterosexual) in our culture today?  Thus it is no defence for not, if we think it Scriptural, offering the same discipline to people of homosexual praxis in a world of indiscipline in the whole sexual arena.

When I say 'if we think it Scriptural', this is not a throw-away comment for me, it is central.  But, I don't mean that we might think same-sex union akin to marriage from Scripture, although I realise some may think this, but that from Scripture we might be able to see a way of offering a discipline in an area that we recognise has fallen short of where we would like that person to 'be' in the present time, but that God has not chosen to work with them in this area yet in whatever way He would choose.  Does this make sense, my head is full of snot (nice) so I'm a bit foggy :-)

love Jody

Hi Jody et al,

I agree with your point that the 'goal' of humanity is not in our sexual orientation (or praxis) but in our being remade in the image of God-in-Christ, a re-definition that will exceed current sexual identity/needs.  In some way I think those who are 'called' to celibacy (and I do believe it HAS to be a vocation/call) are perhaps closer to understanding what this re-definition may be like, but as one who is married I am also aware of the image of God that is present within my relationship with my wife - and so I guess it's a case of both/and and of God working in varying ways in varying people for varying ends!

Re: Human sexual 'praxis' or 'orientation', I do come back to trying to distinguish the theological thinking from the pastoral aspects - not because I think these can (or should) be actually separated in our present experience, but because it helps me to hold a balanced perspective between what we are now (and will, in some way, always be in this age) and what God has designed us to be in the coming age.

So, theologically, I am convinced that God has created human sexuality as a sacrament of his Grace and that through it - if used 'correctly' - there can be great transformation, however if it is 'abused' (like all the sacraments c.f. the Corinthian church re: communion) then the result will be the deformation of the human person.  This means that I must take a wise approach to stewardship of this sacrament - the outworking of which must always begin in my own life.

Now looking at my own life I am all to fully aware of brokenness and failures to act wisely - a fact which I bring before the Lord seeking wholeness and transformation.  Because I am a creature 'between the ages', however, there will be an aspect of this which is always frustrating and in 'tension'.  I really don't see the goal of sexuality in this life to be fulfillment - perhaps we get fleeting glimpses - but point is that we are all on the 'path of salvation' and none of us (living) have yet been 'perfected'.

This is the pastoral 'reality' and one which needs to be approached in all humility and self-awareness.

I think the 'crunch point' is that some brothers and sisters in Christ would say that 'proper use' of human sexuality (note that I left the term 'correctly' above undefined!) included life-long faithful 'monogamous' homo-sexuality, which is made evident due to the personal and Spiritual transformation that God had effected through such relationships.

Perhaps many would also include personal and Spiritual transformation which had been effected through a subsequent relationship after a loveless and dry previous marriage which ended in divorce?

What are we to say about this things?  That such experiences provide a means of defining what the 'ideal' of God's design should be?  What about the place of the Grace of God in all this - as he is often dealing with us lovingly in spite of our weaknesses, and all because he is aware of the factors at work in our lives (genetically, socially, developmentally, emotionally etc...).

I think there is a place for stating clearly that the 'design' of God for human sexuality is man-woman-lifelong-monogamous at a theological level but then letting all the pain and brokenness and 'exceptions' and general pastoral realities and especially the Grace of God flow from that point - which should keep us humble for our '3 score and ten'!!

However, from my point it is not my position to dictate what or how someone should be but only what and how God has planned us to be and then allow the Lord to do whatever he sees fit (and ideally starting with a few home truths directed at me!).

At a 'practical level' we do need to be aware that the 'model' of loving Christian homosexuality which may be being put forward is completely at odds with the general 'western sexual culture' (which promotes frivolous sexual relationships) and that perhaps an official endorsement by the Church of the former (no matter how loving and 'inclusive' it would feel) would risk being confused with the latter which would weaken the distinctive witness of the New Creation within the world?

Richard