An article in The Guardian caused a lot of online activity recently, mainly with misunderstanding of what was actually being said. However, I want to discuss something else first.
Just before Christmas, my twitter timeline was getting full of people reacting strongly to a show "15 Stone Babies" on Channel 4. So when I saw it was repeated, I thought it might prove intriguing to watch.
Disturbing is more like it. It dealt with a few people who are "Adult Babies" - they are adults, but they enjoy being treated like babies - dressed up, wearing nappies, being changed, sleeping in a cot, playing baby games.I should point out that, despite the reference to the article above, these people are not pedophiles, they are not sexually attracted to children or babies, and, for many, there is nothing sexual in their behaviour. There is absolutely no suggestion that these people are doing anything illegal or morally wrong.
The problem is that, in the program, many of them did appear to be seeking to evade the adult world, at least temporarily.While I accept that these people do not feel like they have a problem, I think they could do with some emotional counselling, because they are, on appearance, emotionally misplaced. I don't have a problem with what they do, I just think that, on presentation, it appears to be something they might need to get help for.
The Guardian article was arguing - gently - for something that John Bell talked about at Greenbelt in 2011. It was arguing that pedophilia is a sexual orientation, and should be treated as such. This has a number of important implications.
Firstly, and most critically, if it is a sexual orientation, then it cannot be changed. No more than homosexuality can be changed, and there have been enough attempts to do this, none of which have been successful. A persons sexual orientation would appear to be something that they are stuck with for life, although this does not mean that people have to live their life in accordance with their orientation.
Secondly, accepting that pedophilia is a sexual orientation, not a perverse and sick intention on the part of the perpetrator, means that there is a possibility of accepting these feelings and admitting to them. The problem is that someone who has these feelings cannot at the moment get any help, and is liable to simply be rejected and spurned. Until they commit a crime there is no help available, and then the only treatment was jail. Surely it would be far better if people could admit to this and get some help. If people who felt these urges could get help, then maybe less children would be abused and damaged - and if this is not the aim, then what is?
Thirdly, if it is accepted as an orientation, and people could admit to it, then those about them who care for them could assist in helping them to avoid difficult situations - not unlike an alcoholic, who can be helped by their friends to avoid places where they are tempted to drink. The current demonisation of pedophiles means that they don't admit to their feelings, and so are not helped to avoid problematic situations.
Just to make this clear, if we accept pedophilia as a sexual orientation - more, if we accept pedophiles as people who have a sexual orientation that is difficult - then we can work with them to avoid putting them in charge of young people (how many of those working with young people are pedophiles who have never offended or been caught? We have no idea), and we can help them in situations that they find themselves. Treating them as human means that we respect then as people, and seek to help them develop and grow an humans.
I should clarify a couple of points here. I am NOT suggesting that accepting pedophilia is a sexual orientation means that we accept it as reasonable and normal. It is not, and sexual abuse of young children is not "acceptable" in any sense at all. That is part of the point - accepting it is about providing support, help and control. It is not about deeming it acceptable.
Secondly, I am not arguing for Pedophile Rights, for a slow progress towards permitting it, making it normal, looking at pedophile marriage. This is not the aim not the goal. The goal is that someone who has these sexual feelings for young children could admit it to someone in confidence, and could then get help and assistance in dealing with it. It is about treating pedophiles as human.
Because Jesus was all about taking the demonised, taking the outcasts, taking the rejected people and treating them as human beings. And by treating them as human beings, he changed them,and made them less of a threat. That is worth working towards.
Showing posts with label homosexuality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label homosexuality. Show all posts
Monday, 14 January 2013
Tuesday, 30 October 2012
Sandy is punishment for gays
I have seen this from a few people, the argument that hurricane Sandy is a punishment on the US for allowing homosexuality. This is not uncommon - pretty much every natural disaster is taken as being punishment for some perceived sin of the nation. I would just dismiss this as certain fanatical Americans doing there thing, but it seems like it is worth a comment.
Firstly, there is the question of whether God punishes people in this sort of way. The answer, oddly, is yes, there is some significant evidence for natural events being seen as divine punishment, and - significantly - this being done to entire populations. Jericho and Sodom and Gomorrah being the ones that come to mind. Whether it is "natural events seen as divine judgement" or "God punishing a group of people" is a moot point, as they are equivalent. All of the writing we have is post-event interpretation, so it is how the events were seen afterwards.
The real problem I have with this approach is that, in the biblical writing, the punishment or devastation was clearly on a specific and small group of people - yes it was sometimes a "nation", but a nation of hundreds of thousands, not millions, meaning that the impact would him all of them. Hurricane Sandy seems to be affecting a small group of Americans - some 60M is 10% of the population - and they are fairly random. Surely, if God wanted to make a point about homosexuality, hitting Brighton in the UK would be a more obvious target. Or maybe California. The "choice" of location seems to be rather random, and so the "interpretation" of the punishment relies on other individuals, who will, of course, make it about their particular bug-bear.
The other problem I have is that, if God wanted to make a point to America through this storm, surely it is about their financial arrogance (something that most of the West is guilty of, so I am not singling out the US). The real issue is that I can see the West does stand deserving the judgement of God - we have abused, exploited and killed across the world, and so often done this in the name of God. I have no question that we deserve punishment, although not for the trivial matters that some people claim. I also do not think that the East Coast of the US is an obvious target - the financial collapse is probably more of a punishment or judgement.
If we want to see Sandy as a punishment, maybe it is for out damage to the climate. We don't need to invoke God punishing anyone, as the hurricane might well be partly enhanced by the climate damage we have done. Of course, those claiming Sandy is Gods punishment seem not to want to explain it as punishment for financial arrogance and/or climate change, because that would impact on their lifestyles and beliefs. And Gods judgement would not be on them, surely?
For now, however, my main response to Sandy is prayer for all of those affected, those who have lost homes, family, lives (in the Carribean already - it is not just about the US), and those who will.
-does god punish like this?
-punishing random group of people - why not Brighton
-punishment for financial arrogance
Firstly, there is the question of whether God punishes people in this sort of way. The answer, oddly, is yes, there is some significant evidence for natural events being seen as divine punishment, and - significantly - this being done to entire populations. Jericho and Sodom and Gomorrah being the ones that come to mind. Whether it is "natural events seen as divine judgement" or "God punishing a group of people" is a moot point, as they are equivalent. All of the writing we have is post-event interpretation, so it is how the events were seen afterwards.
The real problem I have with this approach is that, in the biblical writing, the punishment or devastation was clearly on a specific and small group of people - yes it was sometimes a "nation", but a nation of hundreds of thousands, not millions, meaning that the impact would him all of them. Hurricane Sandy seems to be affecting a small group of Americans - some 60M is 10% of the population - and they are fairly random. Surely, if God wanted to make a point about homosexuality, hitting Brighton in the UK would be a more obvious target. Or maybe California. The "choice" of location seems to be rather random, and so the "interpretation" of the punishment relies on other individuals, who will, of course, make it about their particular bug-bear.
The other problem I have is that, if God wanted to make a point to America through this storm, surely it is about their financial arrogance (something that most of the West is guilty of, so I am not singling out the US). The real issue is that I can see the West does stand deserving the judgement of God - we have abused, exploited and killed across the world, and so often done this in the name of God. I have no question that we deserve punishment, although not for the trivial matters that some people claim. I also do not think that the East Coast of the US is an obvious target - the financial collapse is probably more of a punishment or judgement.
If we want to see Sandy as a punishment, maybe it is for out damage to the climate. We don't need to invoke God punishing anyone, as the hurricane might well be partly enhanced by the climate damage we have done. Of course, those claiming Sandy is Gods punishment seem not to want to explain it as punishment for financial arrogance and/or climate change, because that would impact on their lifestyles and beliefs. And Gods judgement would not be on them, surely?
For now, however, my main response to Sandy is prayer for all of those affected, those who have lost homes, family, lives (in the Carribean already - it is not just about the US), and those who will.
-does god punish like this?
-punishing random group of people - why not Brighton
-punishment for financial arrogance
Thursday, 14 June 2012
One of the worst threats in the last 500 years
This week, senior Church of England clergy issued a press release which was reported as saying that Gay Marriage is one of the worst threats in the last 500 years. And it has caused no small stir across the internet. I want to try to address some of the questions raised.
1. Some people have said that those who criticise it should read the entire report first, and comment on that as a whole. Have I read it all? No, and I don't intend to. Because most people will not. It may be a carefully worded, theologically nuanced document. But 99% of people will not read that, they are interested in the summary version, which is as per the headlines (I presume, as I have not heard anyone say it is a poor summary). the truth is that people do not need carefully thought out theology, they need simple answers to basic questions.
It is naive in the extreme to assume that the headline summary is not going to be the main way that people receive this report. The CofE does, in parts, seem to have this sort of naivety, but there is no excuse for this from the senior clergy. The society we live in today does not do long and detailed reports, it does summaries and soundbites. You may not like this, you may think that it cheapens communication, or it panders to personalities - all of which are, to an extent true. But to behave as if it is not the case is beyond naive - it is stupid.
2. There have been some comments that those who oppose single sex marriage are homophobic. Actually, I don't think that they all are. Yes, some are, but the majority are not. I may disagree with them, but I respect that they have their opinions. Debate and discussion is healthy, and it is good to have. The problem with the report is that is is presented as the position of the whole church - something that is definitively not the case. In fact, there are a whole lot of different positions in the church. It is possible that the majority are actually reasonably tolerant of gay marriage.
3. It is wrong. In fact, gay marriage is not the most serious matter facing the church today, never mind for the last 500 years. At the very least, I would think that economic crisis, the situation in Syria, and the increasing irrelevance of the church to society today. That is three for starters. Never mind anything else in the last 500 years.
The truth is that sexuality is not the most important issue for the church. I have tried to not blog about this too much, because it is nothing like as important as some people make it out. Defining the in and the out - the acceptable and the unacceptable - based on ones position of homosexuality is ridiculous. There are people on both sides that are wrong, and on both sides that are right. And, to be honest, God loves all of them. And it is my job to do the same.
1. Some people have said that those who criticise it should read the entire report first, and comment on that as a whole. Have I read it all? No, and I don't intend to. Because most people will not. It may be a carefully worded, theologically nuanced document. But 99% of people will not read that, they are interested in the summary version, which is as per the headlines (I presume, as I have not heard anyone say it is a poor summary). the truth is that people do not need carefully thought out theology, they need simple answers to basic questions.
It is naive in the extreme to assume that the headline summary is not going to be the main way that people receive this report. The CofE does, in parts, seem to have this sort of naivety, but there is no excuse for this from the senior clergy. The society we live in today does not do long and detailed reports, it does summaries and soundbites. You may not like this, you may think that it cheapens communication, or it panders to personalities - all of which are, to an extent true. But to behave as if it is not the case is beyond naive - it is stupid.
2. There have been some comments that those who oppose single sex marriage are homophobic. Actually, I don't think that they all are. Yes, some are, but the majority are not. I may disagree with them, but I respect that they have their opinions. Debate and discussion is healthy, and it is good to have. The problem with the report is that is is presented as the position of the whole church - something that is definitively not the case. In fact, there are a whole lot of different positions in the church. It is possible that the majority are actually reasonably tolerant of gay marriage.
3. It is wrong. In fact, gay marriage is not the most serious matter facing the church today, never mind for the last 500 years. At the very least, I would think that economic crisis, the situation in Syria, and the increasing irrelevance of the church to society today. That is three for starters. Never mind anything else in the last 500 years.
The truth is that sexuality is not the most important issue for the church. I have tried to not blog about this too much, because it is nothing like as important as some people make it out. Defining the in and the out - the acceptable and the unacceptable - based on ones position of homosexuality is ridiculous. There are people on both sides that are wrong, and on both sides that are right. And, to be honest, God loves all of them. And it is my job to do the same.
Saturday, 10 March 2012
Undermining Marriage....
There has been a lot of talk of late about allowing gay couples to get marriage, would undermine marriage.It made me think that the starting point has to be a definition of marriage.
Well the truth is that marriage has been, for most of our history, a civil agreement between two parties. At its most basic, this is two people who make a mutual agreement to be married. No religious ceremony, no witnesses, nothing. At other times, it was a civil agreement, made to some authorities, rarely a religious event. One of the more famous ones is the "jumping the broomstick" ceremony used across Europe - a ceremony in front of the community. All of these were simple commitments by two people in the community.
It is relatively recently - 250 years or so - that the idea of marriage as a religious ceremony came in. There is probably nothing that redefined marriage more than the religious involvement in the ceremony. Alongside this, civil ceremonies meant that all marriages became formal, civil or religious ceremonies. Now it seems that the biggest redefinition of marriage is this insistence of a ceremony, requirement for doing something formal. Not that I have a problem with this, but it did redefine marriage.
Now gay couples have, throughout history, had personal agreements to stay together. For much of the history in the west, this is the essence of marriage. Gay couples have been married for centuries, should they wish to be, and it is only the formalisation of marriage that has disallowed this.
One thing that has changed in the last 2 centuries is the status of women. Up to a century ago, women were treated as possessions of their husbands - and their fathers before that. If you want events that have changed the definition of marriage recently, then the rights of women to own property and be their own legal entities must be the biggest redefinition ever. Related to this, the establishment of a married couple as a separate entity, and the legal benefits of a married couple changed the institution of marriage fundamentally. This has fundamentally and critically changed the nature of marriage in our society.
And of late, there has been a tendency for couples not to marry at all, or not until they have saved up for a big do. Marriage today seems to be far more about a big celebration than anything else. This has also redefined marriage - for far more people, it is a celebration of a partnership that is already happening and is already committed to - the civil agreement has been made previously, and the wedding ceremony itself is about a big event, a family occasion.
So redefining marriage? Redefining it from what? And why not, as we have redefined it repeatedly throughout our history. Allowing gay couples to marry will permit them to make their personal commitment to each other into a public statement, and enable them to benefit from the legal entitlements. All of which seems perfectly reasonable to me.
Well the truth is that marriage has been, for most of our history, a civil agreement between two parties. At its most basic, this is two people who make a mutual agreement to be married. No religious ceremony, no witnesses, nothing. At other times, it was a civil agreement, made to some authorities, rarely a religious event. One of the more famous ones is the "jumping the broomstick" ceremony used across Europe - a ceremony in front of the community. All of these were simple commitments by two people in the community.
It is relatively recently - 250 years or so - that the idea of marriage as a religious ceremony came in. There is probably nothing that redefined marriage more than the religious involvement in the ceremony. Alongside this, civil ceremonies meant that all marriages became formal, civil or religious ceremonies. Now it seems that the biggest redefinition of marriage is this insistence of a ceremony, requirement for doing something formal. Not that I have a problem with this, but it did redefine marriage.
Now gay couples have, throughout history, had personal agreements to stay together. For much of the history in the west, this is the essence of marriage. Gay couples have been married for centuries, should they wish to be, and it is only the formalisation of marriage that has disallowed this.
One thing that has changed in the last 2 centuries is the status of women. Up to a century ago, women were treated as possessions of their husbands - and their fathers before that. If you want events that have changed the definition of marriage recently, then the rights of women to own property and be their own legal entities must be the biggest redefinition ever. Related to this, the establishment of a married couple as a separate entity, and the legal benefits of a married couple changed the institution of marriage fundamentally. This has fundamentally and critically changed the nature of marriage in our society.
And of late, there has been a tendency for couples not to marry at all, or not until they have saved up for a big do. Marriage today seems to be far more about a big celebration than anything else. This has also redefined marriage - for far more people, it is a celebration of a partnership that is already happening and is already committed to - the civil agreement has been made previously, and the wedding ceremony itself is about a big event, a family occasion.
So redefining marriage? Redefining it from what? And why not, as we have redefined it repeatedly throughout our history. Allowing gay couples to marry will permit them to make their personal commitment to each other into a public statement, and enable them to benefit from the legal entitlements. All of which seems perfectly reasonable to me.
Sunday, 26 February 2012
Homosexuality
Something I have said I need to do for a while, is address whether homosexuality is biblically acceptable. There are many who say it is not, and others who say it is, and others who say that those passages are no longer culturally relevant and should be ignored. So I want to see if there is an interpretation of the bible that is acceptable of homosexuality, on a par, say, with having women teaching in church - something that is also clearly disallowed in 1 Cor 14, and yet arguments are made that the clear message of this should not be taken as the real meaning - something I agree with, BTW.
What is very interesting is that, if you search for "homosexual" in the NIV, it only turns up 1 reference. Yes one solitary reference. That is 1 Tim, and we will return to that later. In fact, more research into the Greek root finds a second reference, 1 Cor 6:9, in a similar list - 2 references. And it is a basic rule of biblical translation that the fewer occasions a word appears in context, the less reliable it is to translate. A word that appears twice in the biblical texts, and both times in lists, the translation into what we term homosexuality - as a sexual inclination - we have to be very cautious of.
The starting point is Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 where it ways "Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman". Now the context of this is a whole lot of restrictions on sexual behaviour, including not having sexual relationship during a womans period, as well as not with close relationships. But you don't see the church up in arms about these. Actually, a number of these restrictions are covered by incest, a problem that the church seems to be less up in arms about than homosexuality.
The terms of this passage can also be interpreted as a challenge to bi-sexual behaviour - sexual relationships with male and female together. But more so, in the context of the preceding verse about Molech, the command is about not being sexually promiscuous, not sleeping with anyone and anything, not giving into the demands of sex-worship. And, let me be clear, it is one command amongst a whole range that we tend to ignore - the strict Levitical legal structure is not one which we tend to be bound by these days.
OK, so what of the New Testament - because there are no other references directly in the Old. In Romans 1:26 we have this passage from Paul "In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men", referring to Sodom and Gomorrah. So surely this is a condemnation of homosexuality? Surely Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for this? Well the problem with Sodom and Gomorrah was that they were promiscuous, abusive, given over to a worship of sex of all sorts. In the passage from Genesis, they want to have sex with Lots visitors. Actually, this is about a desire to rape and abuse guests - this is not about sexual inclination, it is about abuse and power. It is about people "inflamed with lust". The expression of this was that they wanted sex with everyone, not just their partners.
And sexual abuse - the use of sex as power, the context of rape as being a power act, not a sex act - is wrong. Completely, and utterly. The worship of sex that occurred in Sodom was wrong and an offense to God. And is something that we see a whole lot of in our society today. But this is not about inclination, it is about sex as power, sex as marketing tool. It is something that we are as vulnerable to even if we are not homosexually inclined. It is about sexual lust and sex as power - something that everyone is vulnerable to.
Finally, let us return to 1 Tim 1:10. "the law is made for ... the sexually immorality, those practicing homosexuality..." the context here is again about immorality, abuse and not sexual orientation. There is a possibility that homosexuality in this context is as much about a lifestyle than an orientation - that homosexuals were generally very promiscuous sexually, and it is this that is being condemned.A similar context is provided in 1 Cor. That would fit in with the context of the passage. To assume that because the term "homosexual" is used in our English translation means that it is the same as we understand it is something I tackled in a previous post, and we cannot make that leap. We need to understand context.
So the condemnation of homosexuality in the biblical texts appears to be all in the context of debauchery, promiscuity, sexual freedom and abuse. In the cultural context, homosexuality was a part of a lifestyle that included sexually promiscuous behaviour. The - rather scant - condemnation of homosexual behaviour seems to be always in this context, which would suggest to me that what is really under condemnation is promiscuous, abusive and debauched behaviour.
I am not convinced, that there is here a strong enough argument for rejection of a committed, monogamous, loving, homosexual relationship. At the very least, there would seem to be a whole lot more critical issues to address ahead of this - sexual abuse and promiscuity is a far more significant issue to challenge. And the small number of references suggests to me that this is not a critical matter. Most definitely not an issue that churches should divide on, or make as an important touchstone. Yes there are passages of significance, but it seems that stable relationships are what God wants. I have no doubt that others will disagree.
What is very interesting is that, if you search for "homosexual" in the NIV, it only turns up 1 reference. Yes one solitary reference. That is 1 Tim, and we will return to that later. In fact, more research into the Greek root finds a second reference, 1 Cor 6:9, in a similar list - 2 references. And it is a basic rule of biblical translation that the fewer occasions a word appears in context, the less reliable it is to translate. A word that appears twice in the biblical texts, and both times in lists, the translation into what we term homosexuality - as a sexual inclination - we have to be very cautious of.
The starting point is Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 where it ways "Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman". Now the context of this is a whole lot of restrictions on sexual behaviour, including not having sexual relationship during a womans period, as well as not with close relationships. But you don't see the church up in arms about these. Actually, a number of these restrictions are covered by incest, a problem that the church seems to be less up in arms about than homosexuality.
The terms of this passage can also be interpreted as a challenge to bi-sexual behaviour - sexual relationships with male and female together. But more so, in the context of the preceding verse about Molech, the command is about not being sexually promiscuous, not sleeping with anyone and anything, not giving into the demands of sex-worship. And, let me be clear, it is one command amongst a whole range that we tend to ignore - the strict Levitical legal structure is not one which we tend to be bound by these days.
OK, so what of the New Testament - because there are no other references directly in the Old. In Romans 1:26 we have this passage from Paul "In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men", referring to Sodom and Gomorrah. So surely this is a condemnation of homosexuality? Surely Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for this? Well the problem with Sodom and Gomorrah was that they were promiscuous, abusive, given over to a worship of sex of all sorts. In the passage from Genesis, they want to have sex with Lots visitors. Actually, this is about a desire to rape and abuse guests - this is not about sexual inclination, it is about abuse and power. It is about people "inflamed with lust". The expression of this was that they wanted sex with everyone, not just their partners.
And sexual abuse - the use of sex as power, the context of rape as being a power act, not a sex act - is wrong. Completely, and utterly. The worship of sex that occurred in Sodom was wrong and an offense to God. And is something that we see a whole lot of in our society today. But this is not about inclination, it is about sex as power, sex as marketing tool. It is something that we are as vulnerable to even if we are not homosexually inclined. It is about sexual lust and sex as power - something that everyone is vulnerable to.
Finally, let us return to 1 Tim 1:10. "the law is made for ... the sexually immorality, those practicing homosexuality..." the context here is again about immorality, abuse and not sexual orientation. There is a possibility that homosexuality in this context is as much about a lifestyle than an orientation - that homosexuals were generally very promiscuous sexually, and it is this that is being condemned.A similar context is provided in 1 Cor. That would fit in with the context of the passage. To assume that because the term "homosexual" is used in our English translation means that it is the same as we understand it is something I tackled in a previous post, and we cannot make that leap. We need to understand context.
So the condemnation of homosexuality in the biblical texts appears to be all in the context of debauchery, promiscuity, sexual freedom and abuse. In the cultural context, homosexuality was a part of a lifestyle that included sexually promiscuous behaviour. The - rather scant - condemnation of homosexual behaviour seems to be always in this context, which would suggest to me that what is really under condemnation is promiscuous, abusive and debauched behaviour.
I am not convinced, that there is here a strong enough argument for rejection of a committed, monogamous, loving, homosexual relationship. At the very least, there would seem to be a whole lot more critical issues to address ahead of this - sexual abuse and promiscuity is a far more significant issue to challenge. And the small number of references suggests to me that this is not a critical matter. Most definitely not an issue that churches should divide on, or make as an important touchstone. Yes there are passages of significance, but it seems that stable relationships are what God wants. I have no doubt that others will disagree.
Friday, 20 January 2012
Why we are losing people
91% of unchurched young people think that Christianity is anti-gay. Young adults are overwhelmingly in favour of marriage equality. According to Becky Garrison - Ancient Future Disciples. No wonder we are unable to reach them.
Now these figures are from the US, but it is probably not dissimilar in the UK - or at least the implications. For all of the reasons for and against homosexuality, if we - the church - insist on making it an issue, then we may win the argument, but we will lose a generation.
The truth is that I would rather win people than be right. I would rather people engaged with God and met him, and let him be the judge. He does it better than me.
Now these figures are from the US, but it is probably not dissimilar in the UK - or at least the implications. For all of the reasons for and against homosexuality, if we - the church - insist on making it an issue, then we may win the argument, but we will lose a generation.
The truth is that I would rather win people than be right. I would rather people engaged with God and met him, and let him be the judge. He does it better than me.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)