Is The Church Obsessed with Sex?

No, though sometimes yes.

A substantial batch of paperwork has been released by the CofE in advance of February's General Synod meeting. Apart from some proposals to end so-called 'paupers funerals', most of them have been ignored by the main media outlets. It is only on the comparatively rare occasions when the CofE mention sex that the media beast wakes up and howls at the moon. .

So, inevitably, one document has generated more electronic newsprint than all the rest put together. And you can guess what it's about.  It's a so-called 'Pastoral Statement' about civil partnerships. I say so-called, because the general opinion is that it's not very pastoral, and because it's actually more of a clarification of the status of civil partnerships vis a vis marriage. Civil partnerships are now almost legally indistinguishable from marriage, so the statement addresses how far church teaching on marriage applies to civil partnerships. It's quite clear from the introduction to the document that this is its purpose.

What has caused most of the upset, as far as I can see, is that the document restates the traditional teaching of the church on marriage, in pretty much the same terms as it stated it 15 years ago. So whilst CofE leaders are talking about 'radical inclusion' and the church as a whole is following a 'listening process', the document strikes a different tone to all of that. It's not hard to see how that creates a dissonance, it looks to those who want the church to change its teaching that all this chat about inclusion and listening is just smoke and mirrors, and that nothing has changed, or will change.

There's plenty about this going on elsewhere - see Ian Pauls comments section for example - but for what it's worth....

1. The media is obsessed with sex, not the church. Westboro Baptist Church has a membership of 50, and yet is the subject of countless articles, documentaries, TV programmes, chat show discussions etc. Why? Because of their attitude to sex and how they express it. Don't give them the oxygen of publicity. My two churches have a combined membership 3x the size of Westboro, we have no placards, and we're still waiting for that call from Louis Theroux.

2. This is what happens when a body trying to communicate with its own members ends up speaking to everyone.

Christian discipleship includes a form of discipline (the clue's in the noun), just like commitment to any other path, be it losing weight, learning a skill or doing a paid job. What applies to Christians doesn't apply to people who aren't Christians. I don't follow the rules or practices of Weight Watchers, or the Labour Party, but members of both have certain rules and values they're supposed to abide by.  I shouldn't be scandalised if Weight Watches raises its weight loss target by 50%, or cancels the membership of people who don't turn up to meetings - I'm not a member of the group, it's nothing to do with me. It may be wise for me to act a bit more like a member of Weight Watchers (no comment), but that's as far as it goes. It may be wise for people to act a bit more like some of the things the church commends (forgiveness, generosity etc.) but that's as far as it goes. The rules, teaching and values of a group apply in full to group members only. But the rules, teaching and values of the CofE seem to be everyone's property. The signatories to the letter of protest at the Bishops statement go way beyond church members.

3. As someone who didn't have sex before I got married - and have never regretted that - I'm not sure how I would feel if my church declared that that was all a mistake, and I needn't have bothered with all that restraint nonsense. It was challenging, difficult,, and went against the flow of the culture I was raised in - raise that by a factor of 10 for the present day. I'm glad I did it, and would encourage others to do the same, even though most of the couples I do weddings for already have kids, and nearly all of them are living together. I pray God would bless them and give them fantastic marriages, and am delighted for all of them that they've found love in each other. Yet it would still be a massive kick in the guts if the CofE decided that (somehow) sex and marriage didn't belong together, and decoupled the ultimate act of commitment and the ultimate act of loving vulnerability. There are those of us for whom the CofE's 'definition of marriage' is how we have faithfully tried to live out our following of Jesus, it isn't something we need to apologise for.

4. Just as the 'settled results of modern scholarship' look like laughable guff a couple of generations later, we have not reached a settled shared morality on sexuality as a society. Far from it. Would you look at our rates of porn use (especially among children) sexual violence, relationship breakup, gender confusion (the Tavistock centre is now being sued for its gender transition practices by someone who experienced them as a child), the high pitched tone of all debates around gender sex and ethics, rising incidence of STDs, etc and think: 'they've really got all this sussed, if any society has got a mature and well considered take on sexuality its the UK in 2020'? That doesn't mean coming to no conclusions at all, but it does mean we need to hold our conclusions in a proper spirit of liberalism, rather than absolute conviction that we are right, and everyone else is wicked.

What to Boycott - Cut Out and Keep List for Celebrities

Brunei is late to the party, Saudi Arabia has had the death penalty for homosexuality, along with conversion from Islam to any other religion (Brunei just did that too but nobody noticed because it's not about sex), for as long as anyone can remember. Brunei has simply caught up with what a raft of hardline Islamic regimes have been doing for years.

I obviously don't need to point out the irony of Elton John using Twitter to promote a boycott of hotels owned by Brunei, when Twitter itself is part-owned by Saudi money.

So just to help Elton, George Clooney, and the couple of dozen other people who can afford to boycott the Dorchester hotel chain, here are some of the institutions supported by Saudi money in the UK, just to help you avoid them:

universities
Oxford University
Cambridge University
Durham University
Newcastle University
Exeter University
School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS)
Edinburgh University
Dundee University
Bristol University
University College London
London School of Economics

Media and PR
The Independent
The Evening Standard
Vice
Freuds
Snapchat
Deezer
Virgin
Twitter
Snapcat
and several others

Industry and Commerce
BAE systems
Jersey Financial Services
HSBC
Uber
General Motors
Standard Chartered
The Savoy

It's also worth checking the money trail behind whichever Premier League football club you support. The UAE also has the death penalty for homosexuality, and 'apostasy' (conversion from Islam). Arsenal play at the Emirates stadium. Nobody has mentioned that. Strange.

If you thought Brexit was a mess.....

A British journalist is being interviewed by the police for 'misgendering' the child of a high profile transgender activist (update: the case also involves tweets labelling the treatment given to the child - not presently offered legally in the UK - as 'mutilation' and 'child abuse.'). The activist, Susie Green, runs Mermaids, a charity which supports young people who think they may be experiencing gender dysphoria, and also runs national campaigns and advocacy programmes. Mermaids recently received a £500k grant from the National Lottery which is now under review. Meanwhile the Tavistock Centre, the one specialist youth gender clinic in the UK, was subject to a critical report earlier this year, and questions have been raised about the quality of care for young people who are prescribed puberty blockers.

This is a deeply personal and potentially very distressing area. Research suggests that a significant percentage - possibly a majority - of teenagers who consider themselves to be born in the wrong body, no longer hold that view in adulthood. That still leaves a significant percentage for whom it is a settled reality that persists into adult life. At what stage is medical intervention wise, or justified? If adulthood may not fully kick in until you're 30, how long should people wait, or be made to wait? (Susie Green flew her child out to Thailand at age 16 for medical procedures not available in the UK, and for which Thailand has since raised the minimum age to 18). Are the other issues experienced by children with gender dysphoria related to it, or are they exacerbated by the isolation, bullying etc. which can go with being 'different'?

Unfortunately, like Brexit, this debate has taken on all the appearances of two pit bull terriers fighting over a rabbit. With a rapid rise in the number of referrals for childhood/adolescent gender dysphoria, and increased public profile (and debate - see the current issue in athletics over what categories trans athletes can compete in, or what prayers vicars are allowed to say with people who have transitioned), this is something which needs careful, evidence-based, serious discussion, not flame wars on social media and the police being called in on people who disagree with you.

Fewer of us are in, or grew up in, stable family relationships than previous generations. There is a higher level of sexual confusion, mental distress, and risky sexual behaviour than we have seen for generations. It's no longer possible to advocate a 'normal' or 'ideal' vision of sexuality, relationships and human thriving without being labelled as psychologically unbalanced (or 'phobic' to use the shorthand). Everything goes, and tolerance is the prime virtue. At one level, the flux gives us a chance to discuss previously taboo areas, at another the level of confusion makes it highly possible that we will botch things. Where mental, physical and spiritual wellbeing are at stake, we  - and especially those wrestling with questions about their gender identity - are not served by hysteria, prejudice and trench warfare, on either side of the discussion.

update: major piece in the Times about the Tavistock clinic (paywalled)

Warning Signs

Some pretty stark findings from a Girl Guides survey on how young girls see themselves, confirming what the Childrens Society reported a couple of months ago:

Among the 559 seven- to 10-year-olds who took part in the survey:

• 36% said they were made to feel the most important thing about them was their looks
• 38% felt they were not pretty enough
• 35% agreed women were judged more on their appearance than their abilities
• 23% felt they needed to be perfect

And these feelings were far more prevalent among the more than 1,000 11- to 21-year-olds who took part:

• 80% felt their looks were the most important thing about them
• 66% felt they were not pretty enough
• 93% agreed women were judged more on appearance than ability
• 47% believed their looks held them back most of the time
• 61% felt the need to be perfect

This follows on from last weeks news that 26% of women aged 16-24 are reporting symptoms of mental illness. Not so long ago, that was the lifetime figure - how many of us over our lifetime might suffer from depression, anxiety or other mental illness. 

This is a major crisis. Philip Hammond was highlighting 'productivity' yesterday, and wanted the Conservative conference to believe that by investing in a few key parts of the economy, we'd get it sorted. Perhaps the problem is something much more fundamental, and the solution something much more radical. No matter how well educated we are, or how fast our broadband speed, we are a nation in the grip of a mental health epidemic. It affects our relationships, parenting, rates of substance abuse, and workplace productivity, along with a whole host of other things. 

Time to Change is a commendable campaign to end mental health stigma, but don't lets pretend that once we've done that, all will be well. On the same day as the Guides survey came out, the Royal College of Surgeons issued patient guidelines for people wanting to have cosmetic surgery. This is a symptom of the same disease - women who learn to hate their appearance when children will be the customers of the cosmetic industry when they're older. 

The Bishop of Gloucesters campaign on body image among girls is timely, but there is a whole industry that needs taking out here. After Justin Welby prophetically spoke and acted on payday loan companies, the Welby Effect has been quite dramatic. It will take something bigger to undermine the structure of an image industry which involves surgeons, dentists, magazines, music, film, TV, Kim Kardashian, social media, selfie sticks, the cosmetics firms, advertising, and the devil - who doesn't wear Prada, but wants women to believe that their lives are incomplete without a brand name.

In an image-dominated society, the cultural flow is towards appearance and presentation. How do we bring into the cultural mainstream the idea that beauty is a quality of character, rather than an advertisers dog whistle? "Stop judging by mere appearances and make a right judgement" (John 7:24). We are so far gone it's almost impossible to imagine what UK society would look like if we took these words of Jesus seriously

We are also incredibly conflicted about this - the Paralympics (remember them?) does a great job for promoting a positive image of people with disabilities, but at the same time we enshrine in law a procedure which will lead to the abortions of more disabled children. A sense of value is based on externals - what people can do, contribute, look like, produce, or achieve (anyone for Grammar Schools?) - is spiritually and emotionally toxic. I'm not sure if a post-Christian society is actually able to come up with anything better than this, the signs are that any cultural sense of intrinsic worth as people uniquely loved and made in God's image is decaying fast. 'Because I'm worth it' is a marketing slogan, not a philosophical truth - the irony is that the slogan undermines self-worth at the moment it's delivered. 

Final thought: feminism needs to be reclaimed from capitalism. It has been colonised and trivialised. Imagine if you can the early Suffragettes sitting at the NFL final, watching Beyonce and her army of half-dressed minions waving their bottoms at the crowd, then turning to each other and saying "ladies, our work is complete." No, me neither. 

From the Girl Guides report: From as young as seven, girls feel the impact of daily sexist images of women and girls in the media, online and around them. Girls tell us that sexist objectification of women in the media makes them feel disempowered and that gender stereotypes make them feel that their gender will hold them back in life. They tell us they have to confront intense and unobtainable appearance pressures to be perfect and many say they feel they’re not good enough. 

Chrissie Hynde nails it

"would you say young women should take more responsibility?"

"well I think everyone should, men should too. I don't think sexual assault is a gender issue as such, it's very much, it's all around us now. It's provoked by this pornography culture, it's provoked by pop stars who call themselves feminists but they're actually... maybe they're feminists on behalf of prostitutes, but they're not feminists on behalf of music if they're selling their music by bumping and grinding and wearing their underwear on videos. That's a kind of feminism - you're a sex worker, that's what you are...that's provocative in a way that's nothing to do with music. Captain Beefheart wasn't making videos like that, and I would say that those women are responsible for a great deal of damage."

from an interview on Radio 4. 

In the sexualisation of young people, Hynde is right, pop culture has a lot to answer for. Madonna, Britney, Jessie J, Nicky Minaj, yes we're looking at you. Though to be honest we'd rather not have to.

“A study of 458 young adolescents showed that while girls were less accepting of sexual harassment than boys, exposure to music videos reduced their resistance…For both boys and girls, frequent TV viewing and exposure to pornographic material led to greater acceptance of sexual harassment.” (source)

We could do with a new set of names for a start. 'Glamour' model? Porn 'star'? What's glamourous about parading yourself as a piece of meat for men to drool over? 

Not Doing What Comes Naturally

YouGov has surveyed attitudes on polygamy, to see if there is a direction of travel for further 'liberalisation' in the definition of marriage. (I put 'liberalisation' in quotation marks because the word has a positive suggestion of freedom. It's like using the word 'decay' to describe change, it's not a neutral term).

39% of Brits think humans are not monogamous by nature, but at the same time only 18% think that polygamy is morally acceptable. Even though only 42% (!) think we're naturally monogamous, nearly 3/4 think that monogamous relationships can be successful if people work at it hard enough.

So for some of us at least, we don't think the law around marriage, sexuality and relationships should be based on what comes naturally to us. I'd have liked to see a follow up question to those who thought having multiple partners was natural but immoral: why? Or to the 47% who believe that, even if everyone involved gives their consent, having multiple relationships at the same time is wrong. Why?

YouGov, from what I can see, hasn't started tracking these results over time, so there's no way of telling if attitudes are changing, and by how much. Much of our education and culture around sex is based on informed consent: if you want to do it, and they want to do it, then what's the problem. There's also a presumption of freedom: do what you want to do, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone.

There's a sizeable chunk of Brits (I'm one) which doesn't believe that 'natural' is a reliable guide to 'moral' or 'legal'. If it was, we wouldn't need so many laws: but many of us find it 'natural' to hit people, cheat, speed, steal, fiddle taxes, lie, be greedy etc. Deferred gratification is one of the key skills learned early in life, to learn to say 'no' to what we want RIGHT NOW. Self control, in other words. The idea of self control when it comes to sex has become counter-cultural in the space of 3 generations. We've also been very nervous about promoting monogamy and its benefits (look at the recent fight around the token recognition of marriage in the tax system) because that's seen as stigmatising lone parents or being nanny state about people's sexual choices.

We may one day arrive at the right balance of nature and choice on one hand, and morality and self-control on the other. But leaving it all to the individual to make their own mistakes and find their own way is cruel. We're surrounded by the wreckage. There is an accumulated wisdom about marriage and relationships from many generations, and from Christian teaching, but we've been too nervous in talking about it because we don't want to be seen as lecturing people about sex and their own personal choices.

Christian teaching about sin is clear: doing what comes naturally isn't the same as doing what is good. Judging by the survey results, a lot of people get that, but talking about 'sin' will get us nowhere in a post-Christian society. How do we talk about God's gift of sex in a way that holds on to the wisdom, but still gets heard?

50 Shades of Whitewash

"Your desire will be for your man and he will rule over you" (Gen 3:16)

These words summarise the brokenness in sexuality and male-female relations that follows the arrival of sin in the world. They aren't something to be celebrated, or repackaged as arousing and fun, or sold at the cinema or the bookstall for profit, they are to be mourned. 

Love is fully love when it lays down its life for the other person. That's why marriage is not a contract, signing up to do x in return for y, but a covenant, a solemn, mutual, unconditional lifelong promise. Call me old fashioned, but it's the only context where lovemaking makes sense. To give your body without giving your heart, mind, soul and strength is to fracture our sexuality from the rest of us.  

This is what Feminism looks like

After centuries of struggle, lives lost, reputations put on the line, battle after battle for womens rights and equality, female empowerment has reached its natural peak today. Hearing primary school aged children singing a song they picked up in the school playground 'Oh my gosh, look at her butt'

Emmeline Pankhurst, Anthea Dworkin, Sojourner Truth, Germaine Greer, Millicent Fawcett, are you watching Simone de Beauvoir? Your girls took one hell of a beating.

Sadly it was from themselves.

Maybe I'm just an over-protective parent, but my daughter isn't going to find any decent role models in a pop culture dominated by women singing about their bottoms, waving them around, or both. And my son isn't going to learn anything about how to respect and value women as equals. Is it just me?

Justin Welby's speech on same-sex marriage in the Lords

....It is clearly essential that stable and faithful same sex relationships should, where those involved want it, be recognised and supported with as much dignity and the same legal effect as marriage. Although the majority of Bishops who voted during the whole passage of the Civil Partnerships Act through your Lordships' House were in favour of civil partnerships a few years ago, it is also absolutely true that the church has often not served the LGBT communities in the way it should. I must express my sadness and sorrow for that considerable failure. There have been notable exceptions, such as my predecessor Archbishop Ramsey who vigorously supported decriminalisation in the 1960s. 

It is also necessary to express, as has been done already, total rejection of homophobic language, which is wrong – and more than that, sickening. 

However, I and many of my colleagues remain with considerable hesitations about this Bill. My predecessor Lord Williams of Oystermouth showed clearly last summer, in evidence during the consultation period, that it has within it a series of category errors. It confuses marriage and weddings. It assumes that the rightful desire for equality – to which I’ve referred supportively – must mean uniformity, failing to understand that two things may be equal but different. And as a result it does not do what it sets out to do, my Lords. Schedule 4 distinguishes clearly between same gender and opposite gender marriage, thus not achieving true equality. 

The result is confusion. Marriage is abolished, redefined and recreated, being different and unequal for different categories. The new marriage of the Bill is an awkward shape with same gender and different gender categories scrunched into it, neither fitting well. The concept of marriage as a normative place for procreation is lost. The idea of marriage as covenant is diminished. The family in its normal sense, predating the state and as our base community of society – as we’ve already heard – is weakened. These points will be expanded on by others in the debate, I’m sure, including those from these benches.

For these and many other reasons, those of us in the churches and faith groups who are extremely hesitant about the Bill in many cases hold that view because we think that traditional marriage is a corner stone of society, and rather than adding a new and valued institution alongside it for same gender relationships, which I would personally strongly support to strengthen us all, this Bill weakens what exists and replaces it with a less good option that is neither equal nor effective. This is not a faith issue, although we are grateful for the attention that government and the other place have paid to issues of religious freedom – deeply grateful. But it is not, at heart, a faith issue; it is about the general social good. And so with much regret but entire conviction, I cannot support the Bill as it stands.

full text here. Worth reading.

I've been struggling to put into words my own thoughts on the matter, not least because of trying to second-guess the reactions of other people. But this says a lot of what I would want to say, and says it better than I could. 

Life of Pi Theology

(spoilers). There's a profound truth in the ending of Martels 'Life of Pi', which the film thankfully keeps. Most of the book is devoted to the story of Pi's survival at sea in a boat with only a tiger for company, after his boat with a cargo of circus animals sank. There are various fantastical elements to the story, and when Pi finally reaches safety, his story isn't believed, so he tells another one. This is altogether more brutal and grim. The final chapter is an interview with insurance agents, trying to get to the bottom of what happened.

Pi "So tell me, since it makes no factual difference to you, and you can't prove the question either way, which story do you prefer? Which is the better story, the story with animals of the story without animals?"
Mr Okamoto "That's an interesting question"
Mr Chiba "The story with animals"
Mr Okamoto "Yes, the story with animals is the better story"
Pi "Thank you. And so it goes with God."

All very postmodern: if it doesn't make any factual difference, lets just believe the story that makes us feel better. Truth is based in the reader/hearer, not the author/facts.

I'm in the middle of prepping some teaching material on mission, which involves going back to the Bible narrative and re-telling the story from the mission point of view. I don't think that's doing violence to the plot or direction of scripture, though inevitably it emphasises certain parts, and passes over others. As someone who's fired by mission, am I being truthful, or just telling 'the better story', the one which I can personally connect with, at the expense of accuracy?

On a different topic, Steve Chalke put a large quantity of cats and pigeons in close proximity a few days ago with a piece explaining why he now thinks committed gay relationships are ok, and that the church should affirm them. There are some interesting statements in there - e.g. that 'inclusion' is at the heart of Jesus message (yes and no, and probably not what we mean by 'inclusion'), and you can read this either as a well-reasoned piece explaining his conclusions (if you agree with him) or a warping of the scripture account to affirm homosexuality (if you don't). This might be a 'better story' - it makes the church less offensive to gay people, and there has been a lot of support for Chalke from within the church - but is it true? And how much does that actually matter?

Chalke argues that we've revised our interpretation of scripture over things like slavery and the role of women, generally against the tide of what scripture says, so why not over this? His motivation is explicitly pastoral:


Why am I so passionate about this issue? Because people’s lives are at stake. Numerous studies show that suicide rates among gay people, especially the young, are comparatively high. Church leaders sometimes use this data to argue that homosexuality is unhealthy when tragically it’s anti-gay stigma, propped up by Church attitudes, which all too often drives these statistics.

I believe that when we treat homosexual people as pariahs and push them outside our communities and churches, when we blame them for what they are, when we deny them our blessing on their commitment to lifelong, faithful relationships, we make them doubt whether they are children of God, made in his image.

So, I face a hard choice; a choice between the current dominant view of what scripture tells us about this issue, and the one I honestly think it points us to.

Here's the struggle: we want both the 'better story', and the true story, and if the two appear to be in conflict then which one do we tweak? The companion piece to Chalkes in Christianity magazine, taking the opposing view, reviews the same Bible texts and comes to very different conclusions. Greg Downes argues that his is the 'better story', one reached by holding fast to Bible teaching:

There are many Christians who struggle with same-sex attraction who have embraced another path – the countercultural and costly teaching of the Bible, and perhaps for obvious reasons, choose, by and large, to remain anonymous. They too have a story to tell, and often it is one of discovering that applying the teaching of scripture to their lives has become Good News to them. This is not to say it has been without pain and sacrifice, but in the midst of this, they have come to discover a redemptive gift. We need to salute these brothers and sisters as the courageous overcomers they are, and examples to all of us of sacrificial obedience.

Pilate asked: 'what is truth'? The truth is that Jesus, and God's dealings with us, are both the true story and the better story. In postmodern culture we are more likely to opt for the better story and sit light to truth. 'So it goes with God'? No, God is not the God of our own imagination, he is the Truth, but he is also the Way and the Life. God's truth is freeing and life-giving. But if we decide in advance what we think will be freeing and life-giving, then that's our story, not His.

Body Beautiful

Another chunk from Willard & Simpson which struck me, talking about what it means to offer our bodies as living sacrifices to God, and to honour God with our bodies

"...this means that we do not use our body to dominate or control others. This means different things to different people. For example, we do not present our body in ways that elicit sexual thoughts, feelings and actions from others. We do not try to be 'sexy'. We can be naturally attractive without that.

another example has to do with intimidation by means of our body. There are many aspects of this, from subtle hints to brute force. the most common forms of it are social: 'power dressing', sarcasm, and knowing looks and remarks. Having given up our body to God, we do not use it in these ways.

A final example is overwork... it is said that work is the new 'drug of choice'." (Revolution of Character p141)

The danger of taking just one section is that it doesn't say everything that the authors want to say, and can look a bit negative. However I was challenged by it: what is natural smartness and looking decent as a mark fo respect (rather than turning up looking like the contents of a skip), and what is manipulation? 'Sexy' clothing is almost the default setting for those who can get away with it - is that the idolised 'freedom of expression', or is there a wisdom in not dressing as an object of desire - after all, we are far more than that?

and you might think this is all a bit nit-picky and that some people should just chillax. But I'm guessing that when Jesus said 'seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness', he meant us to be rigorous about it. After all, if this is the most important thing, and we're only to do it half-heartedly, then what does that say about the rest of our discipleship? The atheletes training for the Olympics pay attention to every part of their lives to make sure they succeed: sleep, diet, exercise, rest, learning, equipment, practice etc. So if we want to 'succeed' as disciples....

Is It Wrong to Change Gender?

I missed this at the time, but a few months ago Channel 4 ran a series of short pieces about transgender people, from a religious viewpoint. You can see all 7 (very short) videos here: one is by a vicar, and they don't all agree.

This is something I'm trying to think through at the moment, and found Peter Oulds thoughts very helpful. He writes:

I have to be totally open and honest with you (and my other readers) at this point and admit that I am currently engaged in a rethink on this issue of transgenderism. When we lost our second son to a chromosomal disorder (in his case Trisomy 18 – Edwards Syndrome), I spent quite a bit of time exploring issues around chromosomal disfunction and other gender issues. I’m still in the middle of that exploration, but at the moment my position can be summarised as follows:

•If we lived in a perfect, Edenic, un-fallen world then issues of Transgenderism wouldn’t occur. That is to say, I am convinced that transgenderism is a result of the Fall.

•However, if transgenderism is simply one variant expression of the brokeness of all humanity, we cannot (as you rightly point out) make its experience in and of itself as disbar to ministry of any kind. We are in a sense driven back to the behaviour / orientation distinction in the issue of homosexuality.

•My current issue therefore is what “behaviour” in the life of those who have transgender issues is sinful and what isn’t. For homosexuality I think we have clear Scriptural guidelines on sexual expression. For those with transgender issues we do not.

•My key current concern is whether in assuming that the displayed sex of a person (i.e. that which they appear to be biologically) is the “correct” sex, are we actually missing the truth of the situation for some people? For example, I assume Susannah that if you are a male to female transexual, your sex chromosomes are XY. A traditional conservative approach would be to argue that since you present as biologically male that is your true gender and any attempt to deny it is to embrace fallenness rather than to reject it.

•However, might it actually be the case that your true gender is female and that the development of your sex chromosomes as XY is actually a result of the Fall (in the same way that my son having a third 18th chromosome was fallen, not “good”). If this is the case then helping you transit from male to female is actually a “good” thing rather than a “bad” or sinful thing.

•At the same time, I am aware of a number of cases where those who have presented with very clear sex/gender self-divergences have, through bringing areas of emotional and relational brokeness to God in prayer and allowing him to heal them, have seen their self-perceived gender realign with their biological sex.


I’m not decided yet on this issue, but I am in a position where I am not prepared to condemn those who have transited sex to their self-understood gender. Certainly, I cannot see the experience of transgenderism itself as a disbar to employment in a church, though I can understand why some churches would be hesitant to employ someone who has actually transited.

This whole issue is particularly hard when other people are involved, and (as the last of the 7 videos shows) it can have a devastating effect on family members. There has to be a limit on how far other people pay the price for individuals being 'true to themselves'. At the same time, it's not good enough to say that, because the whole issue makes us feel uncomfortable, there's no discussion to be had.
 
Channel 4 are currently showing a series 'My Transsexual Summer', which follows 7 people going through the process of changing gender. As someone who wouldn't want to be seen on TV making a cup of coffee, I admire the courage of people who let the cameras in on such a life-changing and intimate issue. I was worried that this would be a Channel 4 freak show (they do have a track record), but it isn't: these are real people, and its an uncomfortable education listening to their stories and experiences.
 
So, what would Jesus do? Are we made male and female, end of story? Does fallenness mess that up? Does the removal of the dividing wall between male and female have anything to do with this? Is it a symptom of an over-sexed and individualised society, or a hidden struggle that's always been there? Is it wrong to change gender, or does that depend on who else is affected?
 
Sorry to land this one on you on a Monday morning....

Irish Evangelical Alliance and Civil Partnerships

I normally avoid this sort of thing because, unlike certain sections of the Anglican communion, I'm not thinking about sex every 7 seconds. More female leaders, that's what we need.... sorry, I'll avoid that tangent for now. But this seemed worthy of note: the Irish Evangelical Alliance has recently issued a document on its response to civil partnership legislation in Ireland. Things are different over there, but I was struck by this summary on Zoomtard:

We endorse the Civil Union legislation as it stands because as evangelical Christians we recognise that we have no automatic rights to have our Biblical beliefs enacted in law. In a pluralistic society, tolerance is a two-way street. We can not demand and protect our right to religious expression and simultaneously oppose the rights of others to form significant relationships.

In a follow up post, Kevin writes
do not mistake that the EAI’s support of civil legislation and the associated extension of rights to these couples as some kind of woolly-headed rejection of Christian orthodoxy. It is not a complex idea to hold that we can wholeheartedly believe what we believe and not expect others to agree and simultaneously want to fight for the rights of people who do not agree with us.

In a way this is an easier position to come to for Irish evangelicals, because they're not a big group, and probably don't wield a massive amount of influence. At the same time, should your theology be determined by how much power and influence you have...? I guess if you have some influence and weight in society you need a theology and set of principles for how you use it.

this document is not a caving in to contemporary pressure. It is a deep theological reflection on how to live as a group of Christians in a land where plenty of people disagree with us.

"how to live as a group of Christians in a land where plenty of people disagree with us." Sounds like a pretty good place to start. You may not agree with their conclusions, but recognising that, in a pluralist society, maybe we can't just draw a straight line from the Bible to the statute book and say 'here I stand, I can do no other'. We can do other - see yesterdays post on John the Baptist for a start.

Saturday Roundup

Adam Rutherford at the Guardian is taking the Alpha course, and blogging every Friday about his experiences. He's just survived the first session: "Mostly when I think about religion it's the foolish edicts of preposterous old men in dresses. But sitting down with people who choose to spend a sunny Tuesday evening discussing the meaning of life with strangers seems to be a much more interesting insight into what makes people of faith tick. We shall see." (Ht Andy Dowland)

Dave Walker reports on the Surefish Church Website awards, top blog was Sophia Network, which resources women in youth work and ministry, with Unfinished Christian and Church Mouse both highly commended. Manchester Diocese also picked up an award, which sounds about right. One of their parishes, complete with cartoon vicar on the homepage, picked up the best church website award.

General Synod is underway in York, but without a live broadcast on Anglican TV, unlike FCA (wonder why?) For news follow Thinking Anglicans, or Alastair Cuttings General Synod Blog, or on Twitter using the #synod tag. Tim Chesterton notes that the Canadian General Synod is doing a Cheshire Cat impression .

A couple of significant votes in the Lords: an amendment tabled by Lord Falconer to permit assisted suicide was voted down, whilst a clause which permitted cricitism of homosexual behaviour was retained in the Coroners and Justice Bill. The clause draws a distinction between criticism of homsexual practice and incitement to hatred.

Eddie Arthur notes a study which finds that 75% of us have a Bible but less than 10% know very much about it. (I imagine the same stats would apply to DIY manuals!)

Steve Tilley takes evening prayer out of the building.

Pisteuomen (sounds better in Greek) takes issue with street preachers.

Finally the SWALEC Stadium in Cardiff is no longer the 'unfriendly gulag' it was in March. Though the cricket was disappointing (for an England fan), the stewards and staff made us feel very welcome, the Park and Ride was very well organised, and the steeply racked seating behind short straight boundaries meant you really felt close to the action.

Thanks to the Barmy Army for keeping us entertained yesterday, and no thanks to the umpires who robbed us of 30m+ of play, firstly by announcing a restart with 30 mins notice (the groundstaff were ready after 15), and then taking the players off for no obvious reason and then not telling anyone what was going on. With tickets at £85 a throw, I expected the officials to treat the crowd with a bit more respect, even if some of them were dressed as Smurfs.

If your wife is reading Galatians, then invest in a good mattress

A story of a very interesting 40th birthday present. I must admit, it's not the first thing that usually comes to mind on reading Galatians 5. Given how many aches and pains I have after playing a gentle game of cricket 2 days ago, I'd probably be a physical wreck by now had I found myself in that blessed situation.

365 nights of beer and curry would be a treat, but possibly with the same physical results....

Ht RevArun

Teenagers who watch more sex, have more sex

....and other no brainers. But there's nothing wrong with a bit of evidence, and here it is.

An excerpt:
"Our findings suggest that television may play a significant role in the high rates of teenage pregnancy in the US." According to Dr Chandra, hers is the first study to show such a direct link.

The researchers interviewed 2,000 adolescents aged 12 to 17 three times between 2001 and 2004. Teens who watched larger amounts of sexually charged TV shows were twice as likely to experience a pregnancy in the subsequent three years, compared with those with lower levels of exposure.

The study also noticed increased levels of sexual content on TV. "The message to parents is to talk to their kids about sex long before they become teenagers" and monitor their viewing habits. There is also a message to the TV channels, though nobody seems to be saying what that is for fear of being labelled as the next Mary Whitehouse.

'A Generation Under Stress': who'd be a teenager?

A new study on mental health among teenage girls came out a couple of days ago, and is summarised in this piece from the Guardian. Here's a snippet:

According to the report, A Generation Under Stress?, two in five felt worse about themselves after looking at pictures of models, pop stars and actresses in magazines. Some teens also felt under pressure from such publications to be thin, take drugs and even have plastic surgery. Many were self-conscious about their appearance and weight, with a number citing the pressure of the "size zero" culture. The girls questioned described being put under sexual pressure from boys at school or feeling obliged to wear clothes that made them look older.

Pressures to own material goods such as iPods, mobile phones and expensive clothes are also having a negative impact on the lives of many young girls, according to the report. The perceived need to own expensive gadgets left one in five girls feeling angry or sad. "To an extent teenagers have always felt isolated but new pressures, such as the need to buy expensive gadgets and school exams, are making the situation worse," said Murray. Exams made 74 % of the girls questions feel worried, and 19% felt negatively about themselves.

You can download the full report here, and there are summary articles with comment at Shrink Rap, BBC, the Telegraph and there's a page on the Girlguiding website (who commissioned the report) with a couple of related reports published recently.

'Mamma Mia!'s Modern Morals

Went to see the Mamma Mia film the other night, the polar opposite of the last movie we saw (There Will Be Blood), and had fun evening out. It's the kind of film where you have to decide 90 seconds in (when the first character breaks into song), whether you're going to jump in and enjoy it, or find the whole thing completely cheesy.

It's a PG, which was pretty marginal, and I was struck by a note in the credits. During the film, one character is seen wielding a cigar, and so the credits had a disclaimer that any smoking in the film wasn't supposed to encourage people, and was very bad for you etc. etc.

We're all pretty used to the tobacco warnings now - the one in my local says something about a slow lingering death - but what struck me was the lack of warnings about anything else. One character looks vaguely alcoholic, another is a serial divorcee and sexual predator, and broken families seem to be the order of the day. The whole plot hinges around a girl who doesn't know who her father is, and invites the 3 potential candidates to her wedding. Her hope is to find out which one of the 3 men her mother slept with 20 years ago (in the space of a month) hit the jackpot.

Call me old fashioned, but most of this stuff is worse for your health than smoking, yet we never see health warnings advising us not to sleep around, encouraging us to have stable relationships before having children, etc. We seem to be straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel - or perhaps smoking a Camel - and kidding ourselves that we really are concerned about people's wellbeing because we're tough on smokers. Except that the cigar coincided with a gorgeous blue sea, sunshine, yachts and a Greek island, and the smoking disclaimer was tucked away at the end of the credits. So we're not that concerned, really.

It was a fun film, and lots of people will enjoy it. But it's significant that we don't bat an eyelid at a movie which has everything but a happily married couple, and treats this as normal. Even the couple who are supposed to get married think better of it and head off for the sunset together to explore the world. It seems bizarre to be basing any kind of serious social comment on a film like this, but it's a prime example of how we have normalised family breakdown. Sure it takes away the stigma of being a lone parent, but it's actually pretty desperate. Some fatherless kids can escape with a song or a dance, others suffer for it.

The London Service

In case anyone's visiting here without catching up on the 'gay wedding' story via Dave Walker or Thinking Anglicans, the Archbishops have issued this statement:

Joint statement by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Archbishop of York regarding St Bartholomew-the-Great

“We have heard the reports of the recent service in St Bartholomew the Great with very great concern. We cannot comment on the specific circumstances because they are the subject of an investigation launched by the Bishop of London.

On the general issue, however, the various reference points for the Church of England’s approach to human sexuality (1987 Synod motion, 1991 Bishops’ Statement- Issues in Human Sexuality- , Lambeth motion 1:10, House of Bishops’ 2005 statement on civil partnerships) are well known and remain current.

Those clergy who disagree with the Church’s teaching are at liberty to seek to persuade others within the Church of the reasons why they believe, in the light of Scripture, tradition and reason that it should be changed. But they are not at liberty simply to disregard it.”

Judging by the liturgy, it was clearly a wedding in all but name. However, the person who conducted it has the freehold of St. Bartholemews, and so can't be sacked or suspended for flouting church rules (not that the church has 'rules' on this - as the statement above shows, there are 'reference points'.) Within the CofE structure, it's a matter for the Bishop of London, the Archbishops can't wade in and take over, but the statement is pretty clear on what they think about it.

Contrary to reports in the press, the Church of England is not in meltdown, but there are a lot of very confused people. Those who look to the church to uphold traditional morality and the teaching of the Bible are asking why the priest in question hasn't been sacked (answer: he can't be), and the church is trying to deal with it properly rather than follow the knee-jerking legions of commenters. Amidst all the cries to 'do something', there will be a measured investigation, which will base its conclusions on facts rather than feelings. The church is counter-cultural in how it deals with these things, and rightly so. If you're not sure what happens when the crowd dictates penal policy, read the passion narratives or watch last Saturdays Doctor Who.

The CofE is facing the impossible task of holding together a liberal and conservative wing who are both pulling hard in opposite directions, and demanding a clear choice of roads, rather than finding a way of remaining one church in unity.

All clergy swear to use only the forms of service recognised by church law. The Rector of St. Bartholemews has broken this vow, but so have I, and many of my colleagues (not, I hasten to add, in blessing civil partnerships, but I doubt the communion service at our parish weekend this Sunday will tick every canonical box). However in the current context, he's done much more than that. Bishop Alan comments:

I suspect this particular service, will generate far more heat than light. The theological confusion inherent in taking off a 1662 Prayer Book wedding, lock stock and two smoking barrels, may actually make it harder to define the significance of covenanted friendships before and within the whole Christian community.

Post-Freudian anthropology, whilst most triumphant in the West, is incomprehensible to the vast majority of people in this world. Many post-Colonials note that it flowers in the least relational, most depressed, screwed up and confused societies. They just don’t buy it. More work needs to be done about this aspect of the concept before it can go global.

I don't really want to add to the bubbling pot on this issue, but I'm with the Archbishops both theologically and practically. Provocative actions - including the planned gathering in Jerusalem, which I'm glad to see is focusing on poverty, AIDS and mission as well as Anglican politics - don't help us to love one another, and in the end the reason the church exists is the mission of God, and we are in serious danger of taking our eye off the ball.

Update: The Bishop of London has made public a letter to all his clergy about the case. He's clearly not impressed by Martin Dudley's actions. Meanwhile Dave Walker is looking for evidence of meltdown in the Church of England