Theo Hobson The Spectator The C of E needs to talk about sex
Helen King sharedconversations Milestone Day or Groundhog Day?
Nic Tall ViaMedia.News Cooking with Love and Faith
Hatty Calbus Surviving Church The Revitalise Trust and Safeguarding
Anon ViaMedia.News Persona non grata: an Unwelcoming Encounter at All Souls, Langham Place
Hobson’s argument is wholly without merit.
Responsible Christian leaders teach young (and not so young) people to abstain from sexual activity outside marriage.
It is simply wrong to assert that the Church of England is relaxed about sex outside of marriage.
You are arguing for a legalistic approach; Hobson is presenting the pragmatic reality on the ground.
As for Anon’s report: I thought the law was that, as a national, established church, all CoE houses of worship are open to all, within space and security limits?
When women were ordained priests for the first time, known opponents were allowed to attend and even protest during the service. At my own ordination we were drilled on what to do if that occurred. It certainly added another level of tension to the service, but it illustrates the point that churches are open to all who want to attend.
You entirely fail to understand what I am saying.
People wreck themselves and others by engaging in sex outside marriage – as properly defined.
Responsible leaders tell people the truth and encourage them not to bring harm on themselves and others.
In my pastoral experience people often ‘wreck themselves and others’ – not terminology I would use – by engaging in non-consensual, coercive and manipulative sex inside as well as outside of marriage. Indeed the fact of marriage sometimes gives an excuse for such sex to be demanded as right. I don’t think I’m degrading marriage (or even suggesting that marriage isn’t the proper place for sexual activity) by suggesting that consent, mutuality, trust and respect are rather more important to the creative or destructive potential of sex than marriage ‘as properly defined’ (whatever that means, given that its definition across… Read more »
That is so painfully true, and let’s factor in all the domestic and marital abuse women have been subjected to over countless centuries and up to today. So I really agree that there’s an issue of proportionality when trying to understand what Jesus would have been most concerned about: qualities like tenderness, commitment, care, sacrifice, fidelity, and a covenant based on love, trust, devotion. My own view: marriage is indeed a beautiful concept, a framework, a platform for people who love and care for one another. So beautiful that it seems brainless not to extend the same framework to gay… Read more »
Thank you Rob for elucidating these awkward facts. The doctrine of Male Headship, or ‘Complementarianism’ (i.e. submission of women to their husbands & male clergy) is one which encourages domination and submission. It spiritually abuses women into ‘obediently’ thinking it’s God’s will that they must willingly submit and do what their husband wants. Incidentally, if these men don’t get the obedience they tell themselves they are owed, bad things can happen. I’ve seen it play out in a previous conservative evangelical parish, where the young male youth worker, who turned out to be beating up his young wife, admitted that… Read more »
“People wreck themselves and others by engaging in sex outside marriage – as properly defined.”
Are we speaking of physical harm, psychological harm, spiritual harm? If the last, I don’t think it’s anyone else’s business, even a priest.
“as properly defined”
I find the idea farcical that God is more concerned whether a “marriage” meets some human definition more important than whether it is loving and happy. That’s so contrary to what Jesus taught that it cannot be true.
Well, I agree. It’s prioritising the law over the spiritual imperatives of loving, flourishing, devoting, giving to each other.
I obviously did not say marriage must meet some human definition.
That is the exact opposite of what I am saying
Indeed, I have known a church (not CofE) where the minister and elders did impose exactly the rule that Mr Hobson says he made up. Oddly, they didn’t get that many requests for marriage services.
And, yes, I thought the same as Pat regarding access to a church service. Is the ‘let out clause’ the fact that the gathering was by prior booking and, therefore, a form of private meeting? But if that was so, should it not have been held in a church hall or civic hall, rather than in a consecrated building?
What sexual activity are they to refrain from? In the USA, some Christians argue this includes hugs and kisses. What exactly do you think your responsible Christian leaders should teach?
I hear tales that some of the mega churches in the States have drawn up quite detailed lists of what is and what is not allowed before marriage. If such tales are to be believed, there appears to have been a great deal of creative thought given as to what ‘counts’ as sex and what does not.
Peter. This is a place for discussion. There is little point in just turning up here on every thread and just telling people they are wrong because you disagree with them. A UK survey in 2018 found that 82% Church of England or Roman Catholics, and 66% ‘other’ Christians consider pre-marital sex ‘not wrong at all’ (Living in Love and Faith CHP 2020. Chapter 5. pp80-81). For your interest I explored this in an article.
https://www.inclusiveevangelicals.com/post/talking-pastoral-sense-about-sex-before-marriage-bible-and-church. ‘Responsible church leaders’ know all this very well actually.
David, please be reasonable.
I am saying sex outside marriage is a really bad idea.
That should not invite your criticism.
David is free to argue a case against you, that’s what Thinking Anglicans is for. I can’t see that he has been at all unreasonable; of course you are equally free to argue a reasoned case against him. I’m a bit old-fashioned on this myself, but I know I couldn’t make a logical case for it.
What, by the way, do you make of Old Testament sexual morality? Is that a model for us?
I’m very happy to argue a case with David. He lapsed, uncharacteristically, into Ad Hominem.
That was the unreasonable aspect of his comment.
On your second point, Revelation is the whole Counsel of God. Old and New Testament.
The Old Testament seems to approve multiple wives and concubines for men, and Abraham marries his own half sister. Do you think this is a model for Christian morality?
Janet, please.
It is perfectly obvious I do not regard that as a model of christian morality.
It’s not perfectly obvious.
Based on your greater understanding of the moral teaching of the Bible and your modern conscience you are making value choices about what of the Bible should, and should not, apply. Nothing wrong with that apart from the fact that you are rejecting the value choices other Christians make claiming they are not orthodox. It’s a totally inconsistent position.
There are many things in the Old Testament which are not as God intended. Jesus dealt directly with this when speaking of Moses’ tolerance of divorce.
Peter, sex outside marriage was the only possible place to have sex for most of my life as a gay man. You are entitled to have your own ideas about what God’s rule say abut marriage. I decided long ago that they were stupid. Sex outside marriage for many gay men has been a good idea for centuries.
It is one thing to know what our societal norms have become Its entirely another thing to say that this is the very best that there is for us. There are probably now the largest number of single parents in our society than ever before with children struggling as a result. I will continue to encourage those in my family and those I know to view commitment to one another through marriage before entering into the unique binding relationship Jesus describes in Mark 10 as the very best that God would want for us. I certainly would not have wanted… Read more »
Stepping aside from the discussion itself, that last sentence of your post is heart-warming and lovely to hear.
Why does that matter David?
If the thinking of the world, and even many who profess Christian faith deviates from the good teaching of God received in the gospel then we should still uphold what God has revealed to us surely.
Otherwise what difference does our Christian faith make, and what gospel do we have to offer to the world if I could receive the same advice from an atheist friend at the pub?
The atheist friend at the pub would be unlikely to give the same primacy to love that the gospel does – unconditional love, inclusive love, committed love, sacrificial love. That’s what we have to offer to the world – God’s love and our love – that is what ought to be the yardstick for Christian orthodoxy – and it doesn’t seem to me to be coming over very clearly from the Alliance/CEEC wing of the church at the moment.
I agree Gareth. Jesus calls us to be salt and light in our world which will mean we will often run against the prevailing cultural wind. We are called to be distinctive and faithful to what we understand even if society at large doesn’t agree otherwise we just blur meaninglessly into the background.
Gareth, I’m happy to say that the Christian faith has made all the difference in the world to my life.
I’m also happy to say that I have deviated from your idea about what God has surely revealed to us all my adolescent and adult life because I do not believe in a God like that.
And I can often find the advice of atheist friends in the pub better, and more Christian, than the advice being offered by some of the conservative evangelicals who post here.
Hi Colin, thank you for your comment. I’m happy in believing that a faithful, kind, committed and covenant keeping God calls us to be faithful, kind, committed and covenant keeping people. That makes me appreciate God more and not less. His faithfulness in Christ and His death and resurrection also demonstrates this covenant keeping steadfast love to us. I’m aware that God gives us all wisdom by His common grace even if we don’t acknowledge Him, but if our theology leads us to the exact same conclusion on pretty much every matter to those who don’t know Him one has… Read more »
There has been a steady decline in church weddings over recent years. If we stipulated that such ceremonies are open only to virgins there’d be no church weddings at all.
I did a wedding just before I retired and the bridal procession was preceded by a little cherub carrying a sign which read “Look out Daddy, Mummy is coming”. I had not been apprised of this novelty beforehand but I couldn’t have done anything about it anyway if I had wanted to. The congregation thought it was cute and collectively sighed ‘Awww’ their faces wreathed in smiles. I’d be interested in hearing your thoughts Fr, but in my experience most weddings were unabashed celebrations of sexuality and fecundity. The young men were showing off their gym toned bodies and the… Read more »
Your characterisation of my position is preposterous
I remember having to delay a wedding after meeting the tattooed bride at the door, on her father’s arm. whilst he had to return home having forgotten his false teeth. I have occasionally had to shout the vows over the noise of the couple’s children who ran amok around the church. Clearly, some church weddings have nothing to do with religion. It would be less hypocritical if the sexually active couple had opted for the register office or hotel. Similarly, baptisms where the children’s parents are unmarried have little to do religion. I remember an occasion when, after having vowed… Read more »
Lovely.
Thank you, Fr Dean, for giving me a good Sunday afternoon laugh! I, too, have experienced weddings of the sort you describe, and have sometimes found myself not knowing which way to look as so much flesh is on display!
I have never suggested the restriction you describe.
The local Registrar once ‘phoned me to ask if I’d made a mistake in the marriage register when I listed a couple as living at different addresses. Cohabiting couples may be refraining from hanky panky, I didn’t care to enquire, but I very much doubt it; not least as their offspring were often the bridesmaids or page boys.
Hopefully Channel 4 will be bearding Lord Chartres about his position on safeguarding in the not too distant future.
The piece about the All Souls shutout made me smile –
“Hello, what’s your name?”
“Anonymous”
“Ah, I don’t see your name on the list, sorry”
David Runcorn, to his credit, is clear as to his open mindedness on the subject of sex outside marriage (see link in David’s comment above to his article on the subject). I therefore assume David is sympathetic to Hobson’s analysis. Whilst I respect David’s honesty and clarity, I deplore his apparent theology. It is a travesty of Christian ethics to assert that sex outside marriage is not just permissible but a potentially good idea. (For the avoidance of doubt, David quotes these ideas in his article – he may wish to distance himself from them). No generation or society under… Read more »
Peter. It’s clear that you consider that the Bible bans sex outside marriage, and presumably you consider that that is not just some arbitrary rule created to challenge us, but it is because sex outside marriage is not good for us. Is it therefore your observation in life that couples who abstain from sex before marriage are happier, or more fulfilled, or end up with a deeper relationship, or are more likely to stay together, than couples who have engaged in sex before marriage?
I do not comment on this site on the basis of my personal observations – though my general observation and experience is entirely consistent with Revelation
Peter, The RCs are very lucky; they have only one infallible Pope in Rome, whereas the Conservative Evangelicals have infallible ministers and parishioners in every parish! It makes preaching the Gospel a bit awkward! Gerry.
Of course we’re not infallible, but the possibility of erring does not excuse us from following the dictates of our conscience informed by Scripture, reason and tradition.
Actually yes, Penn State Uni study 2003 one of many to show couples who cohabit before marriage are twice as likely to get divorced. Yes, I know, correlation rather than causation, but many statistical studies show similar. On a non-theological level, my observation with many friends is that the contemporary trend works like this: 1) first date/meeting goes well; 2) either first date or quickly thereafter sleep together; 3) within weeks/months no point keeping two flats/paying double rent, so move in together; 4) relationship gradually develops; 5) possibly before or after children, things in a rut, what next, let’s try… Read more »
Totally agree that THIS is the sort of question to which the church can speak (the need for commitment, sacrificial love, demotion of ego, etc) but the current obsession with the genders of those involved (ie straight or gay) is a complete distraction.
Also worth noting what psychologists refer to as the Cohabitation Effect (see Psychology Today magazine et al), the confusing (to modern eyes) phenomenon whereby cohabiting couples on average experience poorer financial, health, mental wellbeing, happiness etc outcomes than BOTH single people and married couples.
Thank you for two constructive replies. I feel an extended trip to Google coming on.
Sex, like any other moral reality, is virtuous when it is patient, kind, self-giving, loving, forgiving, etc… ideally, these virtues are best displayed in a committed relationship (and they should), but this need not mean that all these are absent before vows are taken. It’s not a case of before marriage: bad, after: good. Also, and this is something both liberals and conservatives tend to forget: sex and marriage are created, impermanent things that are to be left behind for the sake of G-d’s kingdom. They will have to, they’re pleasures we’ll all have to leave behind, gay and straight,… Read more »
“Pleasures we’ll all have to leave behind… Christians should do so as soon as they are able to…”
I don’t understand really… I’m 71. I hope I’m married and fully alive (including sexuality) until my dying day.
Of course, we should all also prepare our souls for the huge adventure of death and resurrection.
It depends on whether you take certain comments of Paul’s, mostly I think in Corinthians literally or not. Its also possibly a reflection of an idea, in some Victorian evangelical circles, that young Christians should have no interest in anything ‘outside of Christ’ (ie football – I know of a church which actually prohibited football, and promptly lost all its young men). And, indeed, as recently as fifty years ago I, and the three other young men in our village church, were subjected to pressure to ‘give up marriage and serve the Lord’, in quite unsettling terms. Thankfully at 71,… Read more »
It’s not just Paul, these are the words of or Lord himself: no marriage in heaven. Absolutely all the Fathers of the Church lauded virginity and abstinence over marriage.
This said, the episode you witnessed sounds horrid, John.
This is a topic that I wonder about. You are right that from Paul onwards all the Fathers of the church applauded virginity and abstinence over marriage. But what about Jesus himself? What did he teach? It seems to me from the gospel evidence that while Jesus lauded celibacy for the small number of people who had that true vocation, then the full enjoyment of marriage was appropriate for the majority. This was the current Jewish understanding where sex was God given and to be enjoyed. I would argue that the over-emphasis on celibacy might have been a later intrusion… Read more »
I think we only have to look at the wedding in Cana-in-Galilee. Alright, Jesus may have been trying to save the host from embarrassment, but I believe it’s likely that Jesus regarded a wedding as celebratory, such that he enabled the party to go with a swing. Sexual devotion is a blessing – a blessing from God and a conduit of grace – an aliveness, a joy, part of the glory of being alive. And of course, it also points ahead to the great wedding in heaven. We are made in our God’s image, and so it’s likely that this… Read more »
Thanks Susannah, a wonderful response. For me, the key to understanding this is the idea of two vocations, mendicant AND householder. One vocation moves into poverty, celibacy and a spiritual life, the other vocation embraces marriage, work, children etc. Importantly, BOTH are equally valid ways of serving God and they work symbiotically together. The mendicant could not live if the householder did not grow food to put in his begging bowl. Great wealth, for a householder, can be perfectly fine, it’s how one uses that wealth for society’s good that matters. Similarly sex for the householder is a great gift… Read more »
I think I’d agree about Hellenism, Simon. There’s also the fact that, by the close of the canon, the church was beginning to encounter organised, large scale persecution, making celibacy a sensible approach.
I can never forget Paul’s comment that a single man can please the Lord – a married man his wife. Is there a detectable dose of sour grapes lurking within there?
I once crossed words with a ‘vicar’ who told me that in heaven I would have to have sex, drink alcohol and perform all the other ‘ physical pleasures’ I’d supposedly missed in life until I was sated with enjoyment. My response was that I’d heard of that before – in a place called hell, where there was NO pleasure. As you rightly say, we won’t have anything remotely like human bodies in the hereafter – we’ll be spirits (although C S Lewis had an interesting take on it in ‘The Four Loves’). You also have that odd advice of… Read more »
PPS It wasn’t just one episode – it was pretty frequent! And yes, it left issues which I still find hard to deal with fifty years on. Indeed, I envy Susannah, who seems far better at accepting and enjoying her body than I am! We aren’t all made the same way.
Your last sentence is very, very true John. I was only speaking for myself. And I like and respect you for who you are, based on everything I have read which you’ve posted here.
Prof Diarmaid Maculloch points out that church weddings are a twelfth century idea, with church leaders wanting to have nothing to do with marriages prior to that. You say “No generation or society under the influence of the Gospel has ever held such a pernicious and damaging view of sexual behaviour.” I think this article shows you are completely wrong. https://modernchurch.org.uk/prof-diarmaid-macculloch-living-in-love-and-faith
Weddings and marriage are not the same
How do you have a marriage without a wedding?
A civil marriage.
If you want to call five people in a room signing a piece of paper a wedding – be my guest
Thank you. Most people refer to getting married as their “wedding day”. You are splitting hairs and sound exceedingly snobbish. Why is a civil marriage inferior?
Honestly, why is it necessary for you to be so rude ?
On your particular smear, I have said not one single word about inferiority.
Your referenced an article which makes the (obviously correct) point that wedding practice has changed over the years.
I made the simple (and also obviously correct) point that weddings and marriage are not the same.
The article you quoted makes no case at all for marriage being elastic. It is about wedding practice.
Then why do conservative evangelicals insist in order to be “married” one must go through a wedding ceremony? Are not a couple who have committed themselves to each other married with or without a ceremony?
A civil marriage is a marriage. There is no requirement for a wedding ceremony
As noted by FrDavid, the common term for the meeting to have a civil marriage is “wedding”. As for the lack of “ceremony,” while it may be different in the UK, on this side of the pond, the government official (clerk, justice of the peace, whatever) who presides usually has some prescribed words to say, generally ending in a phrase along the lines of ‘by the power vested in me by [the state of…the city of…], I now pronounce you husband and wife….”
That sounds like a “wedding ceremony” to me.
In the US, marriage is a matter of state law. So there will be some variations in the requirements from state to state. In California, where I live, a ceremony is required. Obtaining a marriage license is not sufficient. Someone, either religious or secular, must conduct some kind of ceremony though the contents of the ceremony are not in any way prescribed. The person conducting the ceremony must then report to the appropriate government officials the date and time of the ceremony and the person who conducted it. While I am not equally familiar with other states’ laws, I suspect… Read more »
A ceremony is required in the UK also, after which a license is issued. Peter is talking nonsense in making a division between the marriage and the wedding. They are both the same.
A marriage is a life long union between one man and one woman and is an institution gifted to us by God. It does not belong to us.
A wedding is a particular Rite used at certain times in certain ways to solemnise a marriage.
They really are not the same thing !
They ARE the same thing. A couple can’t contract a marriage without a wedding rite. Otherwise they are co-habiting.
Historically, there were a number of legally recognised ways to contract a marriage (i.e. commit to an exclusive, life-long sexual relationship). One of them was to have sexual intercourse. The pastoral manuals of the mediaeval church often have significant writing about the various legitimate ways to contract a marriage (with a liturgical ceremony being only one of the valid ways to do so – and even then with the marriage only becoming fully binding once intercourse had taken place). It was only in 1754 that it became legally required to have a church rite (a ‘wedding’) in order to be… Read more »
The requirement in Pennsylvania is similar.
Thanks! Great article, as one would expect from Maculloch. The section below is terrific. Tellingly perhaps, even the French has ” tout en pluerant abondamment” with a note that the Hebrew is ‘obscure’. lol. lol. “No-one can get round the plain fact of its description of the two of them kissing and weeping – but if that is not difficult enough for some readers, then comes a weird final phrase in the verse. The King James Bible, always inclined with gritty Jacobean scholarship to call a Hebrew spade a spade, renders it accurately but alarmingly as ‘until David exceeded’. Chasing that translation… Read more »
Thanks for posting this Rod, Whenever I make the argument that David and Jonathan might have been more than just good friends the typical dismissive response is that I am making it up, or that it is wishful thinking, or that I have no evidence, or that I am projecting my own stuff into the text. But when one has Diarmaid MacCulloch, (DD, FBA, FRHistS, FSA, Emeritus Professor of the History of the Church at the University of Oxford) making exactly the same point I think one has to ask if there is some substance behind such arguments. His discussion… Read more »
I always appreciate MacCulloch’s work. Top drawer. His analysis here focuses on the text qua text, the history of translation, and its reading by the church. He does not address directly the question of the actual historicity of that which is narrated in Samuel. One needs to take the the Davidic hero narrative with a grain of historical salt. So the fact that this particular story was included at all makes it all the more compelling. The story teller appears to have a deliberativeness and comfort level in including it.
Agreed about the historicity question with David. Did this actually happen, or is it like King Arthur and the Round Table, a totally created narrative, but told about a person that may actually have existed in history. The social values in the story reflecting, anachronistically, the values at the time of composition, possibly many centuries after the time when the story was set.
My money is on the second. But that still gives us interesting insights into Jewish social values at a certain time in Jewish history.
Why is this story here?
I daren’t show these chats to my wife, for whom David is the ideal, wholly manly super hero! (Never mind terrorist, blackmailer, protection racketeer, rebel, multiple adulterer, murderer and general all round fallible man after God’s own heart……)
Not everybody seems that willing to accept that the Hebrew scriptures are not accurately rendered into English. I stand no hope of ever reading Hebrew or Greek – so what excuse does a minister (who I assume has better knowlege) have?
(Please do not take this one too seriously….)
It’s both/and not either/or John. In those days David, like Achilles, Hercules and Gilgamesh could have same-sex lovers and still be a “manly” super-hero.
And all of them fallible men beloved of the Gods.
“No generation or society under the influence of the Gospel has ever held such a pernicious and damaging view of sexual behaviour.” Well the history of Christian marriage is complicated. For about 700 years there was no marriage service – Christians just cohabited like everyone else. After that there are complex sets of ceremonies in the west at least. So there were lots of Christians having sex outside of having a marriage ceremony as we now define it. Do you perhaps want to say Christians should teach that sex should be within the context of a committed relationship? (Even that… Read more »
I have made no reference to Rites, Charles.
A wedding is a sign of a spiritual reality – marriage. It is the reality that matters.
Obviously, previous generations did not conduct Weddings as we do
That makes no difference to my point.
That doesn’t make any sense. If a co-habiting couple haven’t undergone a rite that is ‘the reality’ .But you think it’s sinful if they haven’t had a rite {called a wedding}. Please explain the difference.
Marriage is both a public and a private reality.
Weddings are not essential to a marriage. It is not that complicated
That’s called “co-habitation”. I thought you said it was sinful.
No its not !
Marriage is a publically contracted union. Five people in a room can contract a marriage.
“Five people in a room can contract a marriage.” All to each other? (Forgive the sarcasm.)
In most jurisdictions, one of them had better be licensed to perform marriages or the “contract” is invalid.
I was taught (in the CofE) that the vows et al are the *solemnisation* of marriage, and do not necessarily coincide with its beginning. It follows, therefore, that sex prior to solemnisation is not necessarily sinful, but sex without commitment, sex without love, almost inevitably is. We can see this in the damage and insecurities that come with casual sex. I don’t really see an issue with cohabiting couples with children not having yet solemnised their relationship if the requisite love and commitment are there.
I’m delighted to see someone actually addressing the ‘problem’ of varying conceptions of marriage and sex across time and culture. Even Ian Paul- certainly a conservative on the question of sex in general- admits there is no direct teaching in scripture about premarital sex ‘because it was culturally assumed’. It’s worth asking what else was culturally assumed that informed this particular assumption; the defining of women as property, for example. It’s not long ago that a woman who was known to have had sex before marriage was considered ‘used goods’. Were men referred to in this way? I can’t imagine… Read more »
Evan, I do not know the detail of Ian Paul’s view on sex outside marriage. I am pretty sure he would dispute your characterisation of his position. In regard to what the Bible says – the notion there is “ no direct teaching on pre marital sex” is tendentious in the extreme. The discussion around sex and marriage has jumped on from the (false) claim that the bible has no difficulty with marriage between people of the same sex, to the assertion that the bible is unclear on the proposition that sex outside marriage is wrong. Marriage has ceased to… Read more »
I think you should read his article. He says there is no explicit teaching on *premarital* sex, not sex outside of (meaning after) marriage. The scriptures are very clear on the latter.
Ian Paul himself would be surprised by your attempt to elevate his (short) piece so some kind of definite statement on the matter.
He is a respected figure, but I am not interested in a protracted discussion as to what Ian Paul has or has not said or thinks.
What matters is the bible and everybody can read that.
The reason I recommended Dr Paul’s piece is that it’s a perfect example of how people of varying theological perspectives (yes, even the ‘orthodox’!) can read the bible and come to varying conclusions about ‘what is says’. In fact ‘what is says’ depends on a great many things.
It’s no good just repeating ‘the Bible says’ ad nauseam if there’s no agreement on what it is, what authority is has (and why), and what its purpose is. Those questions require engagement, which it would seem, sadly, is not forthcoming.
Peter. You have on more than one occasion commended the tone with which I seek to respond with you and others. I am grateful. As a rule of engagement I try very hard to only engage with the best of people arguments. May I encourage you to do the same? When you assert ‘Marriage has ceased to be a meaningful category … People are making it up as they go along. Please have the honesty to admit it.’ you are showing no sign at all of having sought an informed understanding of carefully considered views you those you disagree with.… Read more »
Given what happened after the last, rather over employed use of that phrase, perhaps we should let ‘oven ready’ have a rest?
Fascinating interview on Radio 4’s Sunday programme this morning with Seth Pinnock. I’d never heard of him either! He’s a leading black Pentecostal choir leader with a huge following. He’s just announced that he’s same-sex attracted and he was describing his experience since going public last week and how he now understands his sexuality in the context of a church which is ethically very conservative. Two things really stood out to me: one was that he said he had received huge support from Generation Z/millennials, but a lot of unpleasant responses from other church members. Is there a generational divide… Read more »
“Is there a generational divide here?” By and large, yes: to younger people same-sex relationships and alternative understandings of sexuality simply aren’t a “thing”. IMO what do concern them are prejudice and exclusion.
There is something of a generational divide, yes, though my 100 year old Methodist great aunt can’t understand all the fuss and firmly asserts “love is love”.
I also know people who are 70+ for whom this is not an issue or who don’t agree with SSM but are willing to accept different views within one church. And conversely some under 40 who do think it’s a deal breaker.Perhaps the situation in the black Pentecostal churches is different and more clearly generational.
I have also noticed the way quite a lot of much older people seem to take a proportionate view of debates about sex… along the lines of ‘life is too short to be stressing about that, just be happy’. As you grow older, and your time left on earth runs short, I think (well I have found) that you start to value the happiness of today, and have to prioritise with what time you’ve got left. As for the young, I had the privilege of being a (trans) nurse in a large secondary school of 1200 teens. The first day… Read more »
Thank you, yet again, Susannah, for your very valuable wisdom. That’s not flannel – I mean it, and respect the voice of experience. There is a possibility that one of my grandsons may be gay – he’s certainly emotionally disturbed, so your comments are of genuine help to me. (I’ll save them.) We cannot go on, sledgehammering living people and their lives into some form of dogmatic, doctrinal straight jacket. Where did God’s gift of freedom of choice go? And we cannot carry on alienating the people who Christ died for, the people who need his salvation because of our… Read more »
There are many young people who are LGBTQ+-affirming, but by and large they don’t go to church. Churches that are traditionalist actually give young people a gospel compelling enough to get them to attend church.
One thing to be clear about is that my reference in my speech to “Oven Ready” was not part of some coordinated comms as Nic suggests. I and I think many of those who spoke against the proposals in the LLF debate were truly speaking from their own hearts. It was not from my observation part of some “co-ordinated comms work from conservatives literally speaking from the same centrally preprepared text”. The opposition to LLF doesn’t only come from conservative evangelicals but a broad church in the same way that those in favour of LLF are not all liberal Catholics… Read more »
Hullo, Simon.
I can’t speak for Nic, but my comment on the ‘oven ready’ phrase was simply to do with the term itself, not your employing it.
We heard rather too much of it, in a very different context a few years ago and, personally speaking, the turkey turned out to be rather less than ‘half baked’……
When anyone goes on about perils of sex before marriage & so on, I immediately recall all those American Televangelist scandals: Jim Bakker (sex, hush money & fraud); Jimmy Swaggart (prostitutes & pornography); Pat Robertson (child born out of wedlock), etc. Similarly those who loudly condemn gays all too often prove to have something to hide (such as Cardinal O’Brien in Scotland). As regards co-habitation, as a boy living in the Jamaican outback in the 1950s I recall the very colourful wedding of an elderly couple, which was attended & celebrated by their numerous children, grand-children & g-g-children. The happy… Read more »
Didn’t the late Senator McCarthy and J Edgar Hoover – staunch right wing moralists both – turn out to have something lurking in their closets?