Mass exodus?

It appears that there will soon be a mass exodus of Exodus International applications from iPhones - an application which Apple initially approved.

I've been reading about the whole application here: http://exodusinternational.org/

It appears that Exodus International is an organisation which promotes certain strands of Christian teaching and one of those areas regards conservative interpretations of Scripture on homosexuality. (I won't go into my take on these, as I've done it about 100 times already).

The picture being created is of a homophobic and hateful organisation promoting the 'curing' of people from their homosexuality through many means, one of which is an iPhone application. If this picture is correct, then Apple are correct in withdrawing it: irrespective of one's personal beliefs, it is entirely irresponsible to promote an application which could be damaging and hurtful to thousands of people on the basis of an element of their nature which they neither chose nor invented. Such an application would be as unacceptable as one attempting to cure people of their skin colour.

However, it seems that this isn't quite the case. The organisation quite clearly acknowledges that one cannot be 'cured' of one's sexual orientation and claims to approach the subject with compassion and consideration.

What the organisation attempts to do therefore is to encourage those with conservative Christian beliefs and homosexual orientations to seek to discipline themselves not to act on them.

Do I agree that what Exodus International encourages is correct? Absolutely not. Do I think that they are taking the right approach? Probably not. Do I think that their beliefs are agreeable on the whole? Not really.

But, despite their beliefs being highly conservative and some of their claims regarding homosexuality highly questionable, it is not entirely clear that their views are hateful and homophobic. For that reason, it does not strictly seem to be necessary that the application is

withdrawn.

And, unfortunately, the result of such an action is invariably the protests of conservative religious believers that the devil is at work, persecution of Christians is on the rise and most Western citizens are on their way to hell. Oops, no sooner had I said it....

Religious Conscience vs The Rights of the Child

The organisation Catholic Care has lost an appeal to be allowed to discriminate against homosexuals when it comes to finding adoptive parents for children.

Ever since the introduction of the anti-discrimination laws people have been aware of the potential issues of people's legal obligations coming into conflict with their religious consciences. And this is a key example.

There will be many Catholics, particularly those involved in this organisation, who will be saddened or angered by the idea that they cannot exclusively allow heterosexual couples to adopt. Their perspective is that the Bible's passages on homosexuality are sufficient to suggest that God does not approve of it. I have a few thoughts on this.

The first is that there are still many Catholics, and Christians of other denominations, who do not feel this way. They may feel that God's love and acceptance is unconditional, and that the ambiguity of most of the Biblical passages suggests that we cannot assert adamantly that God is anti-gay.

What is also important to note is that the Bible does not mention same-sex couples, and likewise has nothing to say on gay adoption. Admittedly, it would have been unheard of in the times of Paul or the authors of the books of the law, but the fact remains that it is not mentioned.

But it is a fact that opinion is divided on this issue, and one cannot expect everyone to agree on this. For those who do disagree, it is worth remembering that Jesus himself spoke of giving to Caesar what is Caesar's; in this instance, the law demands that organisations do not discriminate, and in this case this has, legally, to be observed.

What may be of comfort to those who struggle is that, irrespective of their views on homosexuality, children from broken homes and living in care have new opportunities to go to a home and be brought up by two people who love them, and love each other.

Furthermore, giving a child to a gay couple would not be suggested by any part of the Bible to be sinful, and it is difficult to conceive of God punishing someone for obeying the law of the land in this instance.

A 'thought'

Meet Wale Babatunde...senior pastor of the World Harvest Christian Centre.

This man delivered this evening's 4thought on Channel 4, which can be viewed here:

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/4thoughttv/4od#3107827

I was left disappointed by this thought. The man seemed to imply that homosexuals were equivalent to thieves. (Perfectly logical I suppose, the one takes people's possessions, destroys their trust in humankind and leaves them in despair; the other is attracted to and falls in love with people of their own gender).

But the main reason I was left so disappointed with this 4thought was that, ironically and unfortunately, there simply wasn't any thought involved in it. Pastor Babatunde made the hideously fallacious statement that:

"The issue...should not be a matter of personal interpretation; the most important think is to look at what the Bible says"

How compelling Pastor Babatunde...how easily one would be inclined to agree with you. After all, who are Christians to consider themselves above the Bible?

Except...looking at what the Bible says is a matter of personal interpretation. Of course it is. Everything one reads, to some extent, one interprets. And there are a plethora of interpretations of scriptural passages: literal, allegorical, historical, purely contextual, universal.

No prizes for guessing how Pastor Babatunde thinks scripture should always be interpreted.

He then goes on to quote 1 Corinthians 6:9, which in his translation says:

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites...

So, the uninformed listener may assume from this that the Apostle Paul said homosexuals cannot inherit the kingdom of God, and therefore homosexuality is wrong.

What a depressingly narrow interpretation.

The Apostle Paul, factually speaking, did not say that homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God. Why not? Because the word homosexual, a Greek and Latin hybrid, was first used in 1869. And, unless I am very much mistaken, St Paul was writing in the first, rather than the nineteenth, century of the Common Era.

So, what words did he use? The words, in Greek, were: malakoi and arsenokoitai.

The first, malakoi, is the plural of the adjective 'soft'. (In Greek, as in many other classical languages, adjectives could be used as nouns). So, the literal translation is 'soft ones'. It may seem that Paul is obviously talking about homosexuals, but this is by no means clear. In fact, the term had in the past been used to refer to some heterosexuals. Early church fathers had used the term against masturbation.

The rendering of the term as 'effeminate', as some translations suggest, is closer, but is still very much based on assumptions. There were in fact other terms that were used instead for effeminacy, such as androgune (from man and woman) and thelubrios.

The meaning of the second term is equally by no means clear. It is highly problematic, for the term was first found to be used by Paul, and was not frequently used after him. Some translations render the term to refer to child molesters. If this is the case, it shows that there are grave problems with generalising the term to refer to all who practise sodomy.

So, it seems, that 1 Corinthians 6:9 does not obviously condemn homosexuals at all.

I do not doubt that Mr Babatunde believes he is preaching a message which God wishes him to preach. But I do not for a second believe that he has that message correct. And it's this sort of careless talk that leads to all sorts of assumptions being made and thousands of people being outcast by the church and made to feel dirty, evil and in many cases suicidal.

And those were exactly the sorts of people whom Jesus reached, and reaches, out to in love.

Developments and Regressions

What a mixed day in the world of current affairs. As an unashamed liberal, I progressed through the newspaper and went from depressed, to even more depressed, to feeling a glimmer of hope. Three news stories which I care deeply about.

Harrowing

Firstly, most will have heard of Sakineh Mohammedi Ashtiani, a lady who has been accused of adultery and could, at any time, be stoned, and whose distraught son has pleaded with the Iranian government, and now the world, to stop this barbaric fate awaiting her. (The picture to the left is not here but depicts a woman about to be stoned in Iran in 1979). How tremendously awful it must be to be in the position of this woman. Not only is she awaiting death, but will be given little warning of when it will come, and she is in prison for a 'crime' which there is every chance she did not commit. I trust that the vast majority of readers would agree that no matter how strongly anyone might object to adultery, such treatment cannot be justified. Because this is far beyond the case of whether or not adultery is objectionable, due to a number of factors:

1. An act being morally wrong in someone's eyes does not constitute grounds for taking someone's life;
2. Despite a lack of evidence and pleas of herself and her son that she was innocent, she was found guilty;
3. She was given the horrendous punishment of 99 lashes and told the case was finished (however, she was then accused of murder, acquitted of murder but re-condemned for the suspected adultery)
4. It is not an acceptable attitude of any religious believer to follow archaic laws demanding criminals to be killed; it is not the place of humans to take other human beings' lives

Thankfully there is pressure from many external forces, including many Western governments and NGOs. I hope and pray that this makes the difference needed. If you want to help in some small way, please sign the petition:

http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/save-sakineh-mohammadi.html

I would not be so naive as to consider such a case a novelty or a rare occurrence. But the global attention this story is receiving could contribute even in a small way to sending a message that the world will not tolerate such abominable denial of human rights.

Thoroughly Disappointing

Another person who I would not choose to be at this time (or indeed at any time) is the Very Reverend Dr Jeffrey John, Dean of St. Albans. He is a man so committed to his calling to the priesthood and dedicated to the service of others that he is willing to abstain from engaging in any kind of sexual relations with the man whom he loves.

But this isn't good enough for the Church. He was supported seven years ago as the next Bishop of Reading, but was forced to withdraw by his old friend and our (once openly) liberal Archbishop of Canterbury, the Rt Revd Dr Rowan Williams. Despite what must have been a real knock to his confidence and incredibly disheartening, he continued to serve God and the church with dedication. However, seven years on it seems the Church of England has not moved on. He was shortlisted and favoured (even by David Cameron) as the new Bishop of the very liberal Southwark diocese (for which such an informed liberal as himself would have been perfect) but, after a row amongst Church of England Bishops, another candidate has been chosen. Conservative Evangelicals with their tiresome incessant claims that homosexuality will split the church have once again stomped their feet, thrown their dogcollars out of the pram and have won. Dr Williams has once again been forced to betray his roots and true beliefs and to succumb to the will of those who refuse to allow any interpretation of scripture that doesn't take it literally.

People can claim to their heart's content that a CELIBATE homosexual will split the church. But whether liberal or conservative, I know of no Christian who can use the Bible justifiably to support a prejudice against homosexual orientation. There is nothing in the Bible condemning love for the same sex. Fine, let the conservative evangelicals stick with their mindless insistence that Leviticus etc. prove that gay sex is wrong. But there is no justification whatsoever in the Bible for a belief that a celibate homosexual is doing anything immoral. And this therefore becomes a matter of personal prejudice. The reality is many of our vicars grew up in a society and time where homosexuals were ostracised and it was considered perfectly acceptable to insult and victimise them. And now, faced with this situation, they cannot handle people whom they have viewed as different and inferior since their childhood being allowed to serve in the same capacity as themselves. The issue here is far beyond whether two men should sleep together; it is a question of whether for the rest of time people who are different should be forbidden from serving in a capacity which they feel God has called them to because we refuse to accept them, all for the sake of 'preserving unity'.

Am I alone in thinking that schism in the church would be a more desirable situation than the continued suppression of liberal, progressive Christians?

A glimmer of hope

However, as many will have heard that the Supreme Court has ruled that gay asylum seekers will not be forced to deport, and that they will be permitted to receive asylum on the grounds that they are gay and at risk of persecution in their own countries. This has arisen after the case of a gay men from Cameroon and his partner from Iran currently living in Britain because of the horrendous treatment they faced in their own countries. Finally Britain is doing something right!

Allow me to make the objections before the average Daily Mail reader butts in here:

1. "I don't object to gay people [through gritted teeth] but this issue is a matter of the country being too full, not of homosexuality"
2. "The country will become full of people pretending to be gay to be granted asylum in the UK"
3. There is no proof that people are being persecuted in their own countries
4. People could just hide their homosexuality and should if they want to be free from persecution

Firstly, I would ask people to ignore the fact that this about homosexuality. Really. It was well put by Antonia Senior, a journalist for the Times, who made the analogy to the Second World War. Asking a gay person to hide their sexuality and sending them back off to Iran would have been like asking a Jew to hide their Judaism/Jewishness and shovelling them back off to Nazi Germany. People shudder at the thought of the latter, so why do they see the former as being a completely different matter?

Secondly, with the matter of people pretending to be gay...I would hope that most would not assume that the country is stupid enough to let anyone in who just waltzes up and says "I'm gay". Granted, there is no official test in place (can you really test it?), but couples will be subjected to scrutiny and a general picture will be built up of whether they are genuinely homosexuals who are in danger, or heterosexuals who are pretending to be gay to escape their country. Yes, I don't deny that one or two will inevitably slip through the net. But it will not be a case of every Tom, Dick and Harry pretending to be gay and being granted asylum. And the few slipping through the net does not bother me in the slightest. Here's why:

Let's talk about the case of a man who is being called T to protect his identity, one of the men involved in this case. In his own country, he was seen kissing a male partner. A mob attacked him. Later, as he left church, he was once again attacked, and those attackers threatened to kill him, being told that: "you people cannot be changed." Once these attackers stripped T of his clothes, they attempted to cut off his penis with a knife. But then, at last, police officers intervened. And what did those policemen do? They asked why T was being attacked. They were then told that it was because he was gay. Their response? Well, one officer asked: "How can you go with another man?!", punched him in the mouth, then kicked him until he was unconscious, leaving him with such injuries that he was left in hospital for two months.

If this ruling saves even 50 people who suffer so tremendously, I don't mind one bit if there are a few who slip through the net, or a few more immigrants.

And with regards to all three, I believe in a God who would object to the stoning, support Jeffrey John and this new law if He were a citizen of this earth.

Public Equality vs Personal Conscience

Ever since the implementation of the bill making it illegal to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, numerous debates have ensued. Inevitably the same questions have been banded around: what about the rights of the religious believer? Whose rights matter more? Do people's consciences not matter? And, on the other side of the discussion - how can we ever attain equality? How far is discrimination acceptable?

I have decided, albeit hesitantly, to at least explore this issue. My stimulus is the news that Shadow Home Secretary, Chris Grayling, stated that, in his view: "if it's a question of somebody who's doing a B&B in their own home, that individual should have the right to decide who does and who doesn't come into their own home".

When he puts it like that, it seems reasonable. However - the fact is, these people have chosen to operate a business in their home. As a corollary, their home, as the premises of the business, must surely be treated as the premises of any other business? Grayling himself claims that it would not be reasonable to allow a hotel to discriminate on who they allowed to stay in the 21st century. Why is a B&B different simply because it is run from the couple's home? If they know they are going to find it difficult to admit up to 10% of potential guests, is it really wise to set up such a business in the first place?

As Christ himself said: "‘Give therefore to the emperor the things that are the emperor’s" (Matt 20:21). In an age where equality is the goal, it cannot be acceptable for any business owner to pick and choose to whom they provide a service. Otherwise we must ask where the cut-off point is. Are Christian shopkeepers allowed to choose not to serve divorcees? (Incidentally, Jesus had a lot more to say about divorce than he did about homosexuality). Or perhaps atheist B&B owners who find Christian beliefs offensive should be allowed to ban them as guests? Maybe homophobic pub owners should be allowed to refrain from selling alcohol to homosexuals?

Some Christians interpret the Bible to mean that God doesn't like gay people. They therefore find homosexuals offensive. But our society, which aims for people of all races, religions, sexual orientations, political and religious views to be able to live in harmony with one another, finds such discrimination offensive.

For Christians who would struggle as the B&B owners to admit gay couples, or Muslims, or atheists, or anyone else whose beliefs/lifestyles offend them, perhaps they ought to consider that (1) setting up a business in an egalitarian society isn't the best idea; (2) If their convictions really are correct, will Jesus really condemn them for simply allowing them to stay in their B&B? They're not exactly joining in(!)

Church of Scotland moves forward

The Church of Scotland has made a mark in history by backing the Rev Scott Rennie, an openly homosexual minister. He is said to feel "humbled" by the Church's acceptance of him, in a vote of 326 to 267.

Reading this man's response in an article in the Daily Telegraph, I perceive a genuine, decent man who did as so many others have done, in hearing God's calling to the ministry, and most importantly, answering it.

Of course, this will doubtless breed outrage. But let us not assume that he who shouts loudest must necessarily be in the right. To me, if a man has a genuine faith in God and in the Lord Jesus Christ, and can honestly say he feels called by God to serve Him, then who is anyone to claim that he is wrong? How can anyone be so arrogant as to truly profess to know what God is doing in someone's heart and life?

Well, two ministers in the Church of Scotland are indeed doing that. In their statement, they claimed that the decision "brought great shame on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and his Church by publicly proclaiming as holy what God, the Bible, and orthodox Christianity all down the ages, and all over the world, unambiguously call sin."

Call me a heretic, offensive, and evil if you wish, but as a Christian I personally feel that such extreme homophobia ultimately brings more shame on the name of Christ and the Church. How many non-Christians do you know who have a very negative opinion of the Church when they show love and acceptance? Rather, attitudes of intolerance and prejudice are what bring the Church into disrepute, pouring upon us shame and embarrassment.

I will keep my ears open to hear the uproar created in the Church of Scotland - but this is a necessary process. If the same did not happen in the nineteenth century, perhaps slavery would still be deemed totally justifiable by the church and the world today.

A man divided

I read the front page of The Times on Thursday August 7th with great interest. It was entitled: "Archbishop believes gay sex is good as marriage". When I reached the end of the article, my first conclusion was that immediately even the Times was guilty of creating a false impression with its title. Dr Williams' views are not by any means simply that any gay sex is as good as marriage. And it is such inaccuracy that is largely responsible for the bitter exchange of views and a church which stands divided, potentially on the verge of schism.

The essence of the article itself was that, in letters written to a psychiatrist and evangelical Christian who had challenged him at the turn of the decade regarding his views on the issue of homosexuality, Williams suggested that he had 'definitely come to the conclusion' that the Bible did not denounce faithful relationships between two people who happened to be gay, but rather the engaging in homosexual activity of people who were actually heterosexual.

He gave other justifications, but this was the crux of his viewpoint. No doubt this view will anger and irritate thousands of Christians, but that is not what I wish to focus on here. I could write at length about my views on this topic, and would probably still not reach a definite conclusion.

But the point for me, here, lies in the article which is written in the same issue of the Times. This article talks about Williams as a man who is "publicly conservative, privately liberal". This very situation is one which disappoints and saddens me. Williams is a man who does not reach conclusions lightly, or ponder things superficially (in fact, he claims that the aforementioned view on homosexuality is one he reached after "20 years of study and prayer").

Williams, in fact, has degrees from both Oxford and Cambridge, and has lectured at both of these universities, as well as other colleges. So there is no doubt about the fact that, when dealing with our Archbishop of Canterbury, we are dealing with a man of great intelligence, which, it has to be said, is far superior to most of ours.

And yet as a Church we seem to think that our incessant recitation of the same verse from Leviticus (a book which, incidentally, also contains warnings against sea creatures and the skin of pigs), or the verses from the Bible which did not even contain the word "homosexual" until 1946, is of far superior status to Williams' 20 years of study and prayer.

I am inclined to view this man with great respect and admiration...both as a Christian and an academic. And at present I also view him with sympathy. Here stands a man who has put great dedication into seeking the truth of Almighty God and is now unable to express or act in accordance with that truth, because he is at the head of an organisation which, frankly, deems its own prejudices superior to enlightened research, prayer, tolerance, and the love of the Son of the God which should be at the heart of all it says and does.

Suffice to say, I do not envy Williams at present.