insideMAN

Thoughts on being a gay Christian man

by 10 Comments

I’m writing this as a Methodist minister who happens to be gay. In many ways I find myself one of the most unlikely gay rights activists ever.

—This is article #42 in our series of #100Voices4Men and boys 

Well, perhaps “Activist” is too strong a word – I’m certainly not one of the “Loud and Proud” brigade, but to me, this is an area of justice where I believe I can’t remain quiet.

I did not choose to be attracted to men rather than women. I accept that the jury is still out (if you’ll pardon the expression) as to what causes homosexuality, but in the same way as people do not choose the colour of their skin or hair, or which hand they write with, so orientation is not a choice. If you are heterosexual, has anyone asked you why you are attracted to the opposite sex, or why you chose to be straight?

I believe that on the whole, pastorally speaking, the church’s attitude to LGBT people has been a disaster. Of course there are exceptions to the rule, some wonderful exceptions, and I believe that there has been the beginnings of a significant change in recent years, but on the whole, it leaves a lot to be desired.

Bible’s ‘Clobber Texts’

Having said that, whilst the beliefs that people have are still as strong as ever, I believe that we getting somewhere – it seems to me that recently there has been a change in the tone of the debate, and perhaps people are starting to listen to each other?

Or perhaps it’s that aside from the usual “clobber texts” of the Bible (Sodom and Gomorrah, Leviticus 18:22, Romans 1 and others), people are starting to remember that Jesus said that the first and greatest commandment is to love the Lord your God, and the second is to love your neighbour as yourself (Matthew 22:37-40).

If all the law and prophets hang on these commandments of Jesus, can we please see more evidence of “Love your neighbour” in the tone of future debates?

 ‘No serious question is off the table’

So, should the church permit same-sex marriage? I believe that yes, it should. The Church of England and the Church in Wales are prevented by law from doing so, and so far, only the Quakers and Unitarians have “opted in” to allow this. I find it sad that given how quick people are to say that there is a broad spectrum of beliefs on this matter, the practice in all the mainline denominations only caters for one side of that spectrum.

Now do not get me wrong, I am not advocating “Anything goes”. The recent example of the gay Methodist minister Paul Flowers has shown what can happen when things get out of control, and the church does need to be a voice against the anything goes attitude of society, (that really was not a good time in which to be a gay Methodist minister) but to me, two people of the same sex who love each other, who also love God and want to express that love by wishing to be married in church is hardly anything goes.

Disagree with me if you like, all I ask is that you keep it civil. I’m always happy to discuss this in more depth. No serious question is off the table. If we disagree but can still have a sensible chat over a coffee or something stronger, I can live with that.

By Robin Fox

Photo: Guillaume Paumier

For more information visit Outcome, the LGBT branch of the Methodist Church

You can find all of the #100Voices4Men articles that will be published in the run up to International Men’s Day 2014 by clicking on this link—#100Voices4Men—and follow the discussion on twitter by searching for #100Voices4Men.

The views expressed in these articles are not the views of insideMAN editorial team. Whether you agree with the views expressed in this article or not we invite you to take take part in this important discussion, our only request is that you express yourself in a way that ensures everyone’s voice can be heard.

You can join the #100Voices4Men discussion by commenting below; by following us on Twitter @insideMANmag and Facebook or by emailing insideMANeditor@gmail.com. 

 

Also on insideMAN:
  • http://thepowerofrelationship.com Mark Davenport

    I am ignorant of the Paul Flowers business of which Robin spoke. What was this “anything goes” moment in the Methodist Church?

    • Inside MAN

      Mark from the oracle that is wikipedia:

      Reverend Paul Flowers BA (Hons) FRSA FRGS,[1] (born 5 June 1950)[2][3] is an English businessman and ordained Methodist minister, currently suspended indefinitely by the church. A former Labour councillor in Rochdale, he was formerly non-executive chairman of The Co-operative Bank.[4][5]

      In 2013, the activities of Flowers, who had occupied a variety of powerful political and business posts, and who had been appointed by Labour leader Ed Miliband to a senior post in 2010, were widely reported in the media. Flowers was filmed by an acquaintance in his car apparently agreeing to buy cocaine and methamphetamine, and appearing to count large sums of money while discussing his use of a range of other non-medicinal drugs.[6] He was subsequently taken to court and convicted of the offence.[7]

      Soon after the filming of the apparent purchase of non-medicinal drugs was released to the media, it was revealed that, while deputy head of Social Services at Rochdale Council, Flowers had known about the activities of paedophiles at a residential boys’ school,[8] but had neither informed parents nor taken measures to close the school,[8] was responsible for rejecting allegations of child sex abuse by the late Cyril Smith,[9] and that, in 2011, while working at Bradford Council, “Inappropriate but not illegal adult content was found on a council computer handed in by Councillor Flowers for servicing. This was put to him and he resigned immediately.”[10] Several newspapers reported allegations that he communicated with rent boys using his work email account while he was in charge of the Co-operative Bank, and was convicted of carrying out a sex act in a public toilet more than 30 years ago.[9][11] After the bank lost £700m in the first half of 2013, and a £1.5 billion hole in the bank’s finances was discovered by the new Chief Executive Euan Sutherland in May 2013, Flowers resigned in June 2013.[12][13]

      • http://thepowerofrelationship.com Mark Davenport

        Thanks to you, Glen, and to Wikipedia…and so much for “anything goes”!!

        • Inside MAN

          Anything went! Glen

  • http://www.europeanfathers.eu Peter Tromp

    Dear Robin,

    First of all thank you for your well-considered contribution on the issue of unequal treatment of gay men and ‘same-sex unions’. As a heterosexual men and father I am totally on your side where it concerns the need for equal treatment of gay men and gay partner unions compared with heterosexual marriage unions as well as the need for more evidence of “Love your neighbour” in the tone of future debates on this.

    ESSENTIAL DIFFERENCE IN NATURE BETWEEN SAME-SEX UNIONS AND HETEROSEXUAL MARRIAGES

    There is however one important exception that is to be made with regard to your plead to the Church of England and the Church in Wales to permit ‘same-sex marriage’.

    ‘Heterosexual marriages’ are not like ‘same-sex unions ‘ only started by two adults to care for each other’s needs and cherish each other, but – unlike same-sex unions – they are also generally and more importantly started by two biological parents to have children together and cherish them and care for their needs.

    This in my opinion constitutes an essential difference between ‘same-sex unions ‘ and ‘heterosexual marriages’. Where heterosexual marriages normally consist of two biological parents raising and caring for the children of both (and if not after a divorce/parental separation and/or remarriage/repartnering then guarded by the state/church with divorce, custody and access legislation following their dissolution), this can not be the case in ‘same-sex unions’ simply because the LGBT partners are incapable of having children biologically by themselves without involvement of a biological parent as a third party from outside their union necessarily not being included in the ‘same-sex union’.

    Children have the inalienable right to both (A) know their two biological parents and have free access to their families and roots in life and (B) be cared for and raised by and educated by both their biological parents. A child needs both biological parents. Mirror-wise to that both biological parents also have the inalienable right to family life with their children as well as the inalienable obligation to raise and educate their children and care for their needs.

    Giving ‘same-sex unions’ the same status and rights therefore as ‘heterosexual marriages’ with regard to the children that might become part of these households as being the children of only one of the partners in the ‘same sex union’ would directly jeopardize the protection of the inalienable rights and obligations of children and both their biological parents mentioned above.

    To sum my argument up:

    1. I do completely agree with your argument that ‘same-sex unions’ should be completely equal to ‘heterosexual marriages’ with respect to the protection of and support for the relationship between two adults in the ‘same-sex union’ cherishing each other and caring for each other.

    2. I do however not agree and have very strong reservations with the validity of your argument that ‘same-sex unions’ should be completely equal to ‘heterosexual marriages’ with respect to the raising and caring for children entering these households due to one of its partners as their biological parent as this would jeopardize the relations of these children with their other parent outside the ‘same-sex union’. Due to the completely different nature between ‘same-sex unions’ and ‘heterosexual marriages’ with respect to having children giving them the same or equal rights & obligations with respect to children would directly jeopardize the protection of the rights of children and the rights & obligations of both their biological parents.

    3. Alternately I however do again agree that the rights & obligations of individual LGBT biological parents, especially gay fathers, in their relationships with their children should be updated and better protected and as a father I am actually campaigning for that as well. This however should not be directly part and parcel by giving the same rights and obligations to ‘same-sex unions’ with their gay-partners as are now given to ‘heterosexual marriages’.

    Same-sex unions are fundamentally different the ‘heterosexual marriages’ with respect to children and therefore should be treated different in the sense of giving them different tailor made rights and obligations with respect to children entering their households. Special rights & obligations that fully take into account the rights of children and the rights and obligations of both biological parents.

    I am looking forward to hear your take on this difficult issue of the status of children in ‘same-sex unions’ making them necessarily different and thus unequal by nature and how this inequality by nature should be addressed in the acknowledgement of ‘same-sex unions’ being equal as relationships between two caring adults by the church and the state, Robin.

    Yours,

    Peter Tromp
    Secretary General of the Platform for European Fathers

    • http://thepowerofrelationship.com Mark Davenport

      Useful and obvious qualifications to simple legal “equality” as proposed by Robin, Peter.

      Yes, transcend the old restrictions but include the old responsibilities of biological parents and the prerogatives of their children!

  • Pingback: Suicidal 18-year-old labeled ‘a drama queen’ by a doctor before he killed himself | insideMAN()

  • http://JohnAllman.UK John Allman

    If the premise is accepted that the cause of homosexual behaviour is the newly-invented biological attribute of “sexual orientation”, which is tacitly assumed to be innate, immutable and irresistible, one has already rubbished almost everything that the writers of the bible had to say about the causes of homosexual behaviour and (arguably) more-or-less everything they had to say about the the rights or wrongs of homosexual behaviour too.

    Conceding the very existence of sexual orientation before any dialogue (a concession implicit in the very title of this blog piece), is akin to not noticing that the stage magician removed, by slight of hand, and absent any drama, the very object he is later tells his audience that he proposes to make vanish ever-so dramatically, by doing some sort of “trick”. Just as the object was removed before even the illusionist even started the “trick”, even whilst he was still explaining casually what the trick was going to be when it started, so the church should never have accepted, for the sake of argument, an assumption that the church has never taught or believed in the past, just because some clever dicks thought up a catchy name for it, “sexual orientation”.

    Homosexuality is documented in the Genesis account of Sodom, not as an activity in which this or that small percentage of the adult male population other than Lot indulged, because each possessed an individual orientation, which was “gay” in (say) 1% or 10% of the population, but as something 100% of the adult male population had become enticed into, presumably as a result of the corruption of that city’s entire culture.

    The gospel teaches that a saint and unregenerate sinner are ontologically different. They have different “God orientations”. The two classes of human have different natures, first nature and so-called “second nature”, and have consequent different echatological destinies. This is not a scientifically testable hypothesis, but it is perhaps *the* core teaching of apostolic Christianity.

    The “gay” movement, which is a division of a larger movement of which feminism is another division*, teaches that a different scientifically untestable ontological difference divides the population, into “gays” and “straights”, who have different “sexuality” destinies. It mimics or parodies the New Testament’s call to be “born again” of incorruptible semen as surely as sodomy mimics and parodies sexual intercourse.

    * see: http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/mallorymillett/marxist-feminisms-ruined-lives/

    The two equally scientifically untestable assertions are incompatible. Both are faiths. One must choose which faith one believes.

    The title of this blog post is sufficient to indicate that the writer cherishes the cognitive dissonance of trying to believe the two contradictory faiths simultaneously.

    • Inside MAN

      Hi John

      The Reverend Steve Chalke who is referenced in another article on insideMAN here:

      http://www.inside-man.co.uk/2014/09/30/what-did-the-gay-christian-man-say-to-the-straight-christian-man/

      Has this to say about Sodom:

      Most Christians are properly wary of using the story of God’s judgement on the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19) which is now widely understood to be about the indulgence, indifference to others and social injustice of their inhabitants, rather than a proof text against homosexuality.

      He also says this……..

      How has the whole Church found itself believing something about slavery which is so at odds with the Bible?

      William Wilberforce and friends were condemned by huge swathes of the Church as they fought for abolition. They were dismissed as liberal and unbiblical for their ‘deliberate abandonment of the authority of Scripture’. But, on the basis of a straightforward biblical exegesis of the Bible’s text, their critics were right.

      The Old Testament not only endorses slave keeping and trading, it sets out terms and conditions for its practice (eg. Leviticus 25:44-46). Although the New Testament proposes a more humane form of slave keeping, it fails to deliver a clear cut protest against it. Of course, Galatians 3:28 explains “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” However, this passage is no more a call for the abolition of slavery than it is of the sexes or of national identities and cultures.

      How then did Wilberforce and friends reach their conclusions? It was their view of the proper interpretation of scripture. They saw that the biblical writers did not take blind dictation from God, instead, their personalities, cultural and social understandings all played a part in the formation of their writing. So, rather than basing their approach on isolated proof texts, the abolitionists built their stance around the deeper resonance of the trajectory of scripture – the compass for which is Jesus who was radically inclusive of women and other social outcasts of his day, challenging social norms and perceived orthodoxy.

      The Bible does not always speak with one voice. For instance, the New Testament moves the issues of the treatment of slaves, women and homosexual people on from the Hebrew Scriptures: Though slave keeping is still endorsed in the New Testament, slave trading is condemned. Though women are still subordinate to men they benefit from greater freedom. Though permanent same-sex relationships are still not supported, there is no longer talk of capital punishment.

      For those interesting in reading more on how the Rev Chalke came to support gay marriage see the following two post entitled “A Matter Of Integrity”—the first is an abbridged version and the second a longer paper:

      http://www.oasisuk.org/inclusionresources/Articles/MOIabridged

      http://www.oasisuk.org/article.aspx?menuId=31887

      Regards

      Glen
      insideMAN

      • http://JohnAllman.UK John Allman

        @ Glen

        What Steve Chalke said when mentioning Sodom doesn’t refute what I said, when mentioning Sodom myself, in order to make a narrow point that I do not expect Steve Chalke to have discussed at all, and which you haven’t discussed. Actually, what you said Steve Chalke had said doesn’t even contradict the different lesson that I drew from the account of events in Sodom. It is entirely possible to agree with what I said, in the paragraph of my post that mentioned Sodom, and at the same time to agree with what you quoted Steve Chalke as having said when he mentioned Sodom himself, without any self-contradiction.

        You are welcome to ignore my actual points if you wish. I just wanted to point out politely that your “reply” wasn’t (in one sense) a reply at all, to anything I’d actually said.

        If I wanted to have an argument directly with Steve Chalke, about his agenda, and he were willing to publish a blog upon which one could post a comment for his personal attention, I would do so. I haven’t any wish instead to make one point here, and then to find a third party (even one as worthy as your good self, who owns the blog on which he has been kind enough to permit me to comment) pasting or referencing comments of Steve Chalke’s (or of any other expert) about an unrelated point made once-upon-a-time by that the third party’s favoured expert.

        We don’t need to agree to differ. In fact, we don’t even need to agree what it is that we might one day want to agree to differ about. I follow this blog. I think there is a lot on it worth reading. I am already beginning though to regret posting my two posts today, on matters “gay”. But thank you for allowing me to comment (today and otherwise). Thank you too for replying to me, in one sense of the word.