The church is too slow

It took 20 years for the Church of England to agree to ordain women, from the point where it was first raised. That is quite extraordinary, in modern society. At the start of this time, the ordination would have been a radical and groundbreaking step, identifying the church as a leader in equality politics.

By the time it actually happened, it was playing a game of catch-up, trying not to be one of the last bastions of male privilege. While it was great for those who could then be ordained, it indicated far bigger problems in the church.


It then took another 20 years to propose making women bishops, which is ridiculous. If anything, it highlighted the gender inequality even more, because it quite simply denied certain top positions to them, irrespective of their qualification for the role. The fact that the first vote rejected the idea was quite unbelievable. 40 years after it had been established that there was no theological reason to deny women positions within the clergy, some within the church had still not got the message.

The whole farce has, without question, lost the church many people who are tired at the slow pace of change.

I should make it clear that, while the Church of England is very much the focus of this, most other churches show the same type of slowness in dealing with other issues, or even this one. There are churches who will not let women into leadership still (not just the Roman Catholics, who have a far bigger mountain to climb).


And today, the church is still struggling with homosexuality. Having congratulated itself on allowing women to be bishops, as if this is a radical move, it then turns on alternative sexualities and rejects them, flying totally in the face of the rest of society.

I don't mean that the church should be mirroring society. I don't think this is the biggest danger at the moment. Rather, the church should be leading society in terms of acceptance. They should not be accepting gays because society is - they should have been accepting of gays way before society did, and seeking to encourage them into stable, long-term relationships, rather than promiscuity, which was, at one time, rather more common (before AIDS made this far too risky). The church should be ahead of the curve, rather than objecting to conforming after the fact.


And this worries me because the church is liable to spend many years tearing itself apart over homosexuality (and then many more years over bisexuality, asexuality and all sort of other alternative sexualities) before finally being forced to catch up, having lost many more people. To be clear, the church still seems to consider sexuality in a binary sense (Homosexuality vs Heterosexuality), and hasn't really started to understand the breadth of sexuality that people express.

In this time, it should be accepting people irrespective of their sexuality, and looking at issues of gender fluidity. This will become accepted within our society in the next few years, way before the church has even acknowledged that it is a question that needs consideration. People should - of course - be accepted irrespective of their gender definition, but more than this, the church should be helping people acknowledge and understand their gender in far more fluid terms than a simple binary.

I am sure that there will be those who say "We never had gender fluidity when I was young. It's just a fad." I disagree. In fact, it has always been around and an issue, but you may not have met it for two reasons:

1. So many who could not resolve their gender in a way that society would accept either hid it or took their own lives. Both of these involve a life lived in pain and denial.

2. People who have gender questions would probably not come to you or to the church, knowing that they would be condemned.


The church is too slow. By the time it comes to ask important questions, most people have moved on. By the time it comes to answer them, they are seen as a dinosaur. While this is bad for the church, I am more concerned at the many people who are condemned, hurt, rejected and damaged while this process goes on. It is not acceptable.

Vicky Beeching

This week, @VickyBeeching came out as gay, which was a surprise, but, if I am honest, my main reaction was to yawn.

That is not to dismiss the courage it took, or the significance of this for Vicky. It is simply because I have no interest in her sexuality. It doesn't bother me, it doesn't interest me, her sexuality does not impact on me in the slightest. There are only two situations where a persons sexuality is of concern to me:

1. If I or my children are dating them. Given that I am married and expecting to stay that way, and my children are old enough to make their own decisions, that does not seem a likely situation.

2. If I am offering counseling or similar, and your sexuality is an issue for you.

Outside of these, it is not something I need to be concerned about. Lets be clear, nobody comes out as being heterosexual. Or liking anal sex, or being tied to the bed. You sexual attractions, likes and dislikes are your business.

The point is that what Vicky says, does, talks about is exactly the same now as last week. She is intelligent, confident and capable. I am not a great fan of her songs, but that is a musical difference. I am a fan of her speaking out for oppressed women and exploring faith and technology.

To anyone who decides not to use her songs anymore - an I have absolutely no doubt there will be many groups who will make that decisions - remember that she was a lesbian when she wrote those songs, that you enjoyed in past weeks. Those songs that you said helped you to engage with God - she was a lesbian when she wrote them, and when you sang them. Vicky has not changed.

I am sick of this obsession with sexuality in some parts of the church. Vicky is not the only one. I applaud her courage in coming out, but I despair at the fact that it takes courage. Vicky - in truth, nobody who matters cares about your sexuality. You are still the same wonderful person you always were.

Equal Marriage

Last Saturday, equal marriage became a reality in the UK. Many of us were celebrating, but @VickyBeeching - as a high profile supporter of equal marriage - received some very unpleasant responses, being told that she was a heretic, a fool, wrong, anti-Christian. Many of the responses were quite unpleasant.

What particularly disturbed me was the comments - repeated by a few people - that "the bible is clearly against homosexuality".

The argument and discussion that I have seen and have almost had is as follows:

"The bible is clearly against homosexuality"
"No it isn't."
"Sorry, but you clearly read a different bible to me."
"Actually, I read the same bible, but I have spent a lot of time studying it - I have a degree in theology - and explored the material in great depth. My carefully considered opinion is that the bible is not against homosexuality."
"Ah well, just because you have a degree, doesn't make you closer to Christ."
"I never said it did. It does help me understand what the biblical material is really saying. It gives me a better understanding of the original material"
"But the clear reading of the bible is that homosexuality is wrong"
"Your clear reading. Mine is different. Why is yours better than mine?"
"I rely on Jesus to give me insight, not academics"
"I rely on both, not dismissing either"

Let me be clear, I do respect the bible, I do believe that it is divinely authoritative and I do read it with humility and wanting to learn from it. But I also bring my academic head, my life-experience head, my caring for people head. I accept that others will come to different conclusions from me. That is fine, as long as they are prepared to be open and discuss their position.

However, so many of those responding to Vicky were clearly not interested in listening. They had views, and nothing would change those views, because anyone arguing something different, by the nature of them disagreeing, is clearly coming from a place not worth listening to.

That is, in honesty, unacceptable. It is unacceptable in academic circles, of course, but it is also unacceptable for anyone seeking the truth, genuinely wanting to grow and find truth wherever it it. Evangelical Christianity is about searching for truth - predicated on a belief in the incarnated presence of the divinity, revealed through the words of the bible. To reduce this to a slavish devotion to your interpretation of one version of the bible seems to be far more arrogant, far more dangerous than an open exploration and search for truth.

And really, is God that small?

World Vision

It is rare that I get angry about stuff that happens. But then, it is rare that my social network is as flabbergasted at events that have taken place over the last few days.

Two days ago, World Vision US announced that they were changing their policy to start employing people in same sex marriages. This was a bold move, and one that was welcomed by many as a real sign that some of the big, international evangelical para-church organisations might be changing to reflect the wider view and perspective of the evangelical church. It was brave, but it was an important move.

Not unsurprisingly, there was outrage from the more conservative parts of the church, who were withdrawing their support and money from the organisation. Of course, the people this was actually hurting were the children who were losing their money and support. Of course, this also attracted new supporters, but it appeared that the overall situation was that the charity was losing money.

Today, they announced that they were reversing this decision, declaring that it was a mistake.

I am almost speechless.

I am not angry at World Vision. I fully understand their decision - at the end of the day, they want to support the children who depend on them, and they have made a decision that will enable them to continue doing this to the best of their ability. They are in a difficult position, relying on voluntary donations and so having to listen to what their supporters are saying.

The people I am angry at - furious, spitting teeth angry - is the conservative Christians and groups who are prepared to put their mistaken principles and use them to cause suffering to children, innocents, the sort of people who Jesus told us to support and look after.

Even if you were to consider homosexuality a sin, this is screwed up to a degree that makes my head spin. Let me be clear - these people are causing pain and anguish to children because of a disagreement with the sexuality of those working for the organisation providing this support. What is more, this was done by the simple action of taking their money away. Not a discussion, and expression of a disagreement, engaging with them to see what was going on - it was simply "we are not going to support these children any more, because we disagree with you".

The Naked Pastor draw a very poignant and telling cartoon on this when the news was first announced. I presume that these people who are so indignant that they have to withdraw their money are now going to check that their local shops do not employ gays. And that their employers have a strict no-gay policy. And their golf club and local restaurant are definitively anti-gay.

Oh yes, and the places these buy their supplies from must also be as acceptable. It wouldn't do to accidentally support some people that they have a moral disagreement with.

I presume that they have no problem with divorcees, adulterers, gossips, and all of the other people that the bible criticises or condemns (according to a simplistic, literalist reading).

That is the stupidity of this position - not only is it unsupportable from a biblical position, it is taken totally out of proportion. If you read the Bible, there is a lot of discussion in the prophets (especially) about those who look after themselves, and neglect the poor, the suffering, the orphans, the widows the sort of people that World Vision supports. And Jesus tells a well known parable about the sheep and the goats. The division - between the acceptable and the unacceptable - is not whether you accept gays, it is about whether you feed the hungry, visit the imprisoned, clothe the naked. It is about whether you actually look after those who need help and support, irrespective of their sexuality.

So to those who have withdrawn their money and support from World Vision over this, I hope that you are ashamed of yourselves. I am ashamed of you. I believe that God is weeping over you. You have used your economic power to demonstrate that your stupid morality is far more important to you that any real Christian faith.

Stephanie

On my twitter feed on Friday, @RichardOsman posted that all sorts of people had been posting nasty comments about a Pointless contestant called Stephanie.

I was watching Pointless at the time, and saw Stephanie, who was, it appeared, a trans-gender person. She had, apparently (I didn't see any of the tweets) been slagged off a little on twitter. Richard was, quite rightly, appalled by this, as was I when I realised that this had been an issue.

Now I must make an admission here. When I saw Stephanie, it was clear that she was a trans-gender person. What is more, that made me slightly uncomfortable, for a moment. It took a moment for me to adjust. But that is my issue, not hers. I have not spent much time in the company of people whose sexual definition differs from the traditional. But that does not mean I felt anger or aggression to her.

The idea that people would be unpleasant to Stephanie is quite shocking. She was being who she is, and this is supposed to be a civilized 2014, where we accept that peoples defined sexuality and choices are not something that we condemn, something that we poke fun at. We are supposed to know that sexuality is not something that we "chose", but something that is part of us, and that our physical expression of may not reflect our selves. It is supposed to be a time when we accept that peoples definitions of who they are is not a simple binary choice.

I am not even going to comment on the complexities that the church has with these issues - a church that cannot yet cope with women, never mind homosexuals, transsexuals are not even within the current understanding. So there is no real help there.

The bible - and Christianity - is about loving people, caring for people, whether you agree with them or not. It is about being with people, and helping them to grow and be themselves, as children of God. So that is where I try to be, and what I try to do. There are people who I find this easier with and people I find this harder with - largely based on early interactions, and probably whether they can laugh at themselves or not.

So I think it is worth making a point here: Stephanie was showing incredible bravery in appearing. It is sad that this is considered brave in 2014, but it is. She is being who she is, and that takes a lot of courage (not because she is trans-gender, but because being the person you are usually takes a lot of courage). And it is about time we accepted people as they are, because otherwise we are encouraging a lie. And if you cannot accept someone else's gender choices, then I am not prepared to accept your stupid, intolerant attitude.

Stephanie is now on Twitter, so if you want to follow her, she is at @stephaniecutey.

The house of bishops statment on same sex unions

The house of bishops has issued a "pastoral statement" on same sex marriage being reported on the BBC more simply. The reaction to this on my twitter feed has been painful to read, and my personal reaction is angry and saddened.

I did think the church had learned its lesson from the debacle of women bishops, but it seems not. When women were first ordained, some 20 years ago, it was broadly speaking bringing the church closer to up to date - they should have done this a decade or more before, and it would have been radical, dramatic, and made a point, as it was, it merely indicated that he church was trying to keep up to date.

The fact that women could still not be bishops was a problem that, ideally, should have been resolved within a few years, but has taken 20 years beyond to get close. When it is finally passed this year, it will not be a success, a mark of the church coming up to date. Some will celebrate, but I will not be one, not because I don't think women should be bishops, but because all this does is resolve a ridiculous anomaly in the church. It is important to fix this, but there should only be sadness that this has taken so long, that so much bile and hatred has been shown through this process.

And just as this is starting to come to a conclusion, the house of bishops puts out this statement. I have posted on homosexuality before, trying to look at it from a biblical perspective, and I am not going into that again. The statement, which does not permit clergy to be joined in a same sex union, or to ordain anyone currently in a same sex marriage, is a huge step backwards for the church.

Firstly, why do I care what a church which I am no longer part of says? The reason is that, like it or not, the church is seen to reflect English Christianity. It is seen as representing what Christianity means to respectable, normal people. What this has come to say is that Christianity is misogynistic and homophobic, which it isn't.

One of the core parts of the statements is the reassertion that marriage is between one woman and one man. While I accept that this has been the traditional teaching of the church, I struggle to find out why. Many of the significant figures in the bible, those who we are told to look up to, had multiple wives. People like Abraham and David, not to mention Solomon. And in the New Testament, while we don't get so much detail about the domestic arrangements of the main characters, we do have one significant statement, often used in support of this: Tim 1:6 "An elder must be the husband of but one wife". The clear implication of this is that there were those in the congregation who had multiple wives, and that they were considered acceptable, possibly eldership material - otherwise why would Paul need to put this in his letter?

I am not suggesting that we should be starting a campaign for polygamous relationships. All I am trying to say is that the idea of "one man, one woman" is not a biblical concept. Once we escape from that idea, should we not be prepared to consider same sex relationships as acceptable? Let me be clear, we are taking about two people who are prepared to commit themselves to marriage, with an intention of a long-term relationship, as much as different-sex couples.

As Rachael Mann discusses in her blog, she may, at some point, have to choose between a loving, committed relationship to another person, or a commitment to her calling as a Church of England vicar. Should it come to this, what is her option (or anyone else in the same situation)? I suppose, to not get married, to live together unwed. Is that really the message that the church wants to send?

At the end of the day, I suspect that this is bordering on illegal - if not already, it will be - to refuse a legal marriage to your employees. or to refuse to accept people based on their marital status. Then the church will find itself on the wrong side of a legal battle, which will make it look even more ridiculous.

Gut reactions

This post has caused a whole lot of responses in my timelines, mainly from people who seem to find a desire to gag at this whole idea. To summarise, the argument is that we should trust our gag reflex and the fact that we find gay sex "yukky" should be a clear indication to us that it is wrong, and that it is against Gods word.

I have to say, irrespective of your position on homosexuality, I think this is an appalling piece of writing and justification of a particular position. I want to explore why for me it is so poorly argued.

Firstly, the core argument that "this is yukky, so it must be sinful" is really poor theology. The reason is that "normal", heterosexual sex is pretty yukky. pre-teen kids are still, often, feeling that the opposite gender is "yukky", and, if you were to start discussing sexual activity with them, they tend to be "yukked-out". So surely this mean that all sex is sinful and against Gods laws? Ah no, of course, it is only certain peoples "yuk" reflexes that are divinely inspired - the conservatives, the traditionalists.

So secondly, the problem is that historically, all sorts of things have been considered "yukky". Women taking any place in society was once considered "yukky", so should we deny women the vote, the right to own property, the right to self-determination? At one time, the idea of coloured people being considered as equals would have been "yukky", so should we roll back the racial equality advances of the last 50+ years? Sadly, the answer from some of these people is yes, although they might not express it so. In fact, some of the conservatives would seem to want to roll back the whole of society by at least this amount.

That is a problem, because as a society, we have moved on - there is no "halcyon days" to hark back to, there is no point in our history where the imagined Christian society actually existed. Let me be clear about this - throughout our history, there have been people campaigning for various injustices, and there have been significant parts of society where what we consider today to be "Christian" were not observed.

Thirdly, and this is the core problem, our "yukky" responses, our gut reactions to ideas and events should not be a driver of our theology, because God does not inhabit our intestines. The thing is, a lot of the events of the book of Joshua especially - there are other examples, but the genocide and slaughter in Joshua is a prime example - make me feel "yuk". Should we therefore disregard these passages? The answer is no - we cannot disregard bible passages because they are difficult, and we cannot reject homosexual practices because we don't like them.

I can accept that the writer of this article does not like homosexual practice, does not feel that it is biblical, and finds homosexual activity "yukky". I have no problems with this, however much I may disagree with him. The problem is to argue that his gut reaction is an indicator of divine approval is wrong and misleading. That is bad theology.

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.

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.

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.

That is not This

Have you noticed how often people misuse words, because they have some appropriate context? Words like "Church", "Homosexuality", "Calling". And so often, these

Words are interesting things. It is very difficult to actually be precise with words, and some people take advantage of this. It is very easy to appear to be precise, while actually being very evasive. "Words are like a certain person, who can't say what they mean, don't mean what they say"- that is from the Tom Tom Clubs Wordy Wrappinghood. Very true - words are tricky things, which is why in academic circles it is so important to be clear and precise.

But there is more to it than that. A band may call themselves "punk", because that is edgy, cool and means they don't have to play particularly well. Of course, if their mindset is not punk, of they are actually wanting to make money and have a successful musical career from their work, then that is not very punk. Just calling something by a name does not mean it is the thing we call it.

The church is particularly bad at this. "Speaking in Tongues" is a prime example. Glossolalia as we hear it today has been given the same name that we see in Bible texts, and there is a whole lot of interpretive material around this to justify the comparison. But is it valid? Is what we experience today the same as what St Paul was talking about? We have no way of knowing. It may be, or it may be something completely different - not necessarily bad, just not the same as we call it.

There are other words we do the same sort of thing with - "Church" for example. We put the entire weight of the Bibles teaching on a local gathering, which it does not always bear. Let me clarify - "St Bogsmiths Fellowship" does not equal "The Church". Undoubtedly, there are members of the fellowship who are part of the worldwide church. Undoubtedly, some of the work of the fellowship is building the kingdom of God on earth. But to put the entire weight of "Church" on this group is wrong.

It is a danger especially of the more conservative or right-wing churches to identify themselves as "The Church". But this does not actually match the biblical understanding. There seems, in fact, to be two interpretations of the phrase "church" from the bible texts:

1. The entire collection of believers. This clearly includes those who are not part of any local church, and clearly does not include those who attend a local church but are not, in fact, believers. The Church, in this context just means all of those who God to be his. We have no say whatsoever in this.

2. Those who identify themselves as believers in a town or city, or area. The reason for dividing in this way was because the social society was divided in this way - each town was largely distinct, and people would associate themselves with a town. These days, this concept is still important, but not as critical, because communication is so much better, and it is quite possible to talk to people across the world.

Now this is not to dismiss the importance, for many people, of gathering together locally. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with doing this. But relating this definitively with "The Church" - especially in a negative way - is mistaken.

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.