I read this poignant interview with Vaughan Roberts, who has been the widely respected Rector of Oxford’s most conservative evangelical church, St. Ebbe’s since 1991, and felt saddened.
Roberts discloses his continuing personal battle with same sex attraction, though refuses to identify himself as homosexual…
To quote, “if we have turned to Christ, we are new creations, redeemed from slavery to sin through our union with Christ in his death and raised with him by the Spirit to a new life of holiness, while we wait for a glorious future in his presence when he returns. These awesome realities define me.”
He has remained celibate and single. “Evangelicals say that clergy should uphold the Bible’s teaching that sex is only for heterosexual marriage in their teaching and lifestyle, both of which I do.”
And Vaughan reports that he remains “faithful to the Bible’s teaching that the only right context for sexual intercourse is in a marriage between a man and a woman.”
* * *
Roberts, as far as I can tell from my own reading of the Bible, is quite correct in his statement in this interview, “The Bible presents only two alternatives: heterosexual marriage or celibacy.”
But… but… but… Are we worshipping Christ or the Bible?
What is the Bible? I believe it is divinely inspired. I believe it is trustworthy and true. I believe it is wise. I believe it is beautiful. I believe we can know God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit through its words. I believe reading and obeying it can lead us to the heights of the joy, wisdom and holiness which it’s possible to reach this side of eternity.
But I believe other things too. I believe—well, know—the Bible is a historical document. It is both a product of its times, and has eternal wisdom just as Jesus was both a first century Jew who celebrated the Passover; worshipped at the synagogue, and a radiant, transcendent person with wisdom and blessing for all men of all times.
As our understanding of the Bible evolves, we continually decide which statements were for all time, and which were written to the men and women of their time. We no longer believe slaves should submit to their masters; instead we work for their freedom. We—well, many of us—no longer believe women should remain silent in church. Instead, ashamed that the church should lag behind the world in justice, fairness and equality, we work for the ordination of women as bishops.
And as our understanding of psychosexuality evolves, we no longer believe that people choose their sexual attractions. For socio-biological reasons not fully understood, some are attracted to their own gender, and completely unattracted by the other. Changing this innate orientation is increasingly understood to be difficult, near-impossible, and psychologically dangerous. The 30,000 member British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy recently announced that it was unethical to try to.
As Vaughan Roberts sums it up in this interview, “A small proportion of people, including Christians, find that they remain exclusively attracted to the same sex as they grow into mature adulthood. God has the power to change their orientation, but he hasn’t promised to and that has not been my experience. Research suggests that complete change from exclusively homosexual desires to exclusively heterosexual ones is very rare.”
* * *
Is same-sex marriage a sin? Will it cut married gay people off from the grace, mercy and fellowship of God?
David was known as a man after God’s own heart. He had multiple wives, multiple concubines, lust driving him to adultery and murder. Yet he plumbed the depths of an intimate relationship with God so thoroughly that just reading his Psalms is a prayer.
Many (most?) of the heroes of the faith in the Bible fell short of the glory of God sexually—think of Abraham with his wives and concubines, or Jacob or Solomon.
But that did not cut them off from an intimate relationship with God–from seeing God in the flesh as Abraham did in his theophany in Gen:18, or Jacob’s vision of heaven and earth connected with angels ascending and descending between them, or Solomon’s dream-theophany in which God promises him wealth, honour, long life, and wisdom in the bargain.
* * *
I’ve lived in Oxford, England, for ten years now, and I think its best churches, with the best worship and preaching, are its evangelical ones. I have never met or heard of an openly gay person in them, and—I may be wrong—doubt they would be welcome except as potential “conversion”-fodder.
And that is a shame. We cannot make Christ a heterosexual preserve. He came for all men.
And equally, I believe we should not, cannot make marriage a heterosexual preserve.
Marriage, when it works, is a uniquely wonderful relationship, a mixture of all C.S. Lewis’s Four Loves—of Storge or affection, Philia, or friendship, Agape or unselfish love and Eros, sexual or erotic love.
I am, and always have been, heterosexual, and believe I always will be–but to be honest, if I were single, and if I were to feel this powerful draw to another woman, a mixture of storge, philia, agape and eros, I strongly doubt it would be sin to live with her. I doubt Christ would frown on it.
If people harassed my conscience with the seven verses in the Bible which, as Vaughan Roberts says, disapprove of homosexuality, I would cast myself on the mercy of Christ and in Martin Luther’s phrase, Sin Boldly. God does not save those who are only imaginary sinners. Be a sinner, sin boldly, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world. We will commit sins while we are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides. [Letter 99.13, To Philipp Melanchthon, 1 August 1521.]
* * *
Promiscuity is sin; it is idolatry, among other things—seeking pleasure or escape in things other than God, and in a way which is harmful both to yourself and your partner.
But can a loving committed same-sex relationship be sin? As you see, I was repeatedly pressed on this point in the comments section when I wrote about the Chick-fil-A controversy, and appealed to Christians to define themselves by what they were for, not what they were against.
But perhaps, sin is not mathematical. Our human courts recognize this when they hand out different punishments for the same crime—a lighter sentence to the abused spouse who stabs the persecutor in madness and self-defence than to the spouse who cold-bloodedly poisons her spouse for the insurance money and legacy. An abusive, dysfunctional family background is taken into account in sentencing.
So too, there is no impermeable algorithm for sin; a Divine Judge who sees our hearts and our weaknesses decides. And “just and true are all his ways.” And when we are in his hands, we are in good hands, for he was known as “the friend of sinners.” He noticed, approvingly, the prostitutes and tax collectors storming into the Kingdom ahead of the righteous ones (Matt 21:31).
He will look at the people involved, not the letter of the law just as our best human judges too. He will not be bound by the letter of the Bible, he will look at our circumstances and our hearts.
If I were gay, I would not choose a lifetime of solitude and grimacing and bearing it, because of those seven verses which condemn homosexuality. I would trust the mercy and goodness and understanding of the Jesus revealed in the gospels who made me exactly as I was, formed and fashioned me in my mother’s womb.
* * *
Would a homosexual who made a decision to live, in a monogramous, committed and sexual relationship, be welcome in an evangelical church just as he was?
Not in any evangelical church I have worshipped in. And some of these churches have had splendid worship and inspiring preaching.
Perhaps this is the greatest injustice we evangelicals have done to the homosexual community—we have denied them full participation in the Christian community.
But Christ is Lord of all. He is too great a treasure to be for heterosexuals only. The very thought would appall him, he who of all men was the most inclusive, who was always seeking the least, the last, the lost, the outcast, the sinner….
* * *
Oh, the immense relief with which Luther realized that the Catholicism he had been taught was limited. With what relief he turned to Christ!
Read my new memoir: Rosaries, Reading, Secrets: A Catholic Childhood in India (US) or UK.
Connect on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/anitamathiaswriter/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/anita.mathias/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/AnitaMathias1
My book of essays: Wandering Between Two Worlds (US) or UK
More from my site
Busyness is not just FROM the Devil, it IS the Devil (Carl Gustav Jung)
Habakkuk: An Old Testament Prophet Moves from Questions and Anger to Peace
Psalm 6. Both sinners and the righteous bounce back after prayer. Day 11, Jan 11
Life is short & we have never too much time for gladdening the hearts of those we love
Money and Happiness
Suem, I know many people who choose to not have sex, because they're not married and they believe that's the place for sex. Some live that out for a lifetime. It's a sincere desire to live out holy scripture.
Wow, wonderfully stated, Suem…that deserves mention at my morning prayer group this morning!!
I agree with you completely here, Anita. I can't take it seriously when heterosexuals say that gay people must choose life long celibacy while they happily go home to their own “right kind” of love and sex. I've never met anyone who, out of solidarity with gay people, would commit to a life of celibacy.
I call on all of those who are opposed to gay relationships who have commented in this post to commit themselves now to a life of sexual abstinence from this moment as a mark of solidarity and compassion for gay christians.
As Lindsay so rightly points out above, I am indeed a sinner. Totally.
My point though, is that the scriptures make a clear distinction between a person who falls in sin, repents, and seeks to live out that repentance – and the person who simply continues living in their sin without repentance.
The passage you quote in Galatians 5 Lindsay, which lists sins of which we are all guilty, says in verse 21 that if we continue in those sins we will not inherit the Kingdom of God. The context for that passage of scripture, is that as we surrender to the Holy Spirit, we will not live out the lusts of the flesh. (v16,17) It's not saying “here's a bunch of sins of which were are guiltily, but never mind, God loves us anyway.”
The best way I can personally articulate the argument that people are born homosexual, is to say Yes! In the same way, I was born and grew up with lots of heterosexual lust! I wanted to have sex with any female that moved! That's what the bible calls the 'old nature' or the flesh. But when we come to Christ we crucify the flesh. I can't just protest that I was born this way or worse 'God made me this way.' There are many heterosexual Christian men who have the same struggle against the flesh – but they crucify it and choose either marriage, or if they can't find a wife, they choose celibacy. Is that fair? No. But they choose to obey Gods word in order to inherit an eternal treasure. Thats a really tough choice to make and my heart goes out to the young man struggling with homosexual eroticism in the same way it goes out to the young man struggling with heterosexual eroticism.
If homosexuality is a choice, why do people choose to be someone who is picked on, beat up, abused, driven to suicide, driven to therapy because of persecution complexes, ridiculed and belittled by people who wrongly and over-righteously think it's a choice, driven away from God's church by same people, fired from jobs, passed over for promotions, etc. Why would someone CHOOSE to be treated that way? Because they cannot change who God made them to be and they cannot choose their orientation.
And God IS big enough for everyone and all creation and doesn't need us to protect him from anyone even if we disagree with them. He calls us to welcome and love all people.
Rebecca, somehow I've never heard that distinction (being called “sin”) between the trajectories of women and slaves on the one hand and homosexuals on the other — it's good and helpful food for thought.
I'm not entirely sure that the passages against homosexuality are against homosexuality in toto — the kind of monogamous loving commitment we see with some gay people today seems to have not existed in biblical times, so it's hard to know whether it's violent, dominating, humiliating homosexual acts that are proscribed, or all homosexual acts. Arguments from silence (“The Bible says nothing about loving homosexual monogamy”) are inconclusive, but at the very least it would be good if folks could agree that it's not absolutely obvious and clear what the Bible says about gay marriage.
I can see the case for Christian gay marriage and for Christian gay celibacy. I can't see the case for same sex attraction being a choice. And I agree with you that there should be a civil union or secular marriage option at the least, with the same civil rights as for heterosexual marriages.
Anita,
It breaks my heart to read this post and see you stand so contrary to the Word of God. Homosexuality is not a disease one is born with; it is a choice just like every other sin. Throughout life, we are all tempted with sins of various nature from lying to murder. All are wrong. All are choices. All are sins, no more, no less. And none of them will be excused. Yes, Christ died for all sins, but we must accept that payment in order for it to be applied to our lives. After that, we should not “sin boldly” as you put it, but we should fight against sin, striving not to allow it to gain a foothold in our lives. Paul said it best in Romans 6:15, “What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.” God's love and grace do not give us an excuse to sin. As for you distinction in following Jesus not the Bible, they are one and the same. John 1:1 tells us, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” The Bible is either true or it isn't. It is either our guidelines to living a spiritual life or it's not. It can't be both, to pick and choose which verses you wish to apply and which you choose to ignore. Yes, we as Christians need to reach out to homosexuals just as we reach out to the drunkards and prostitutes, but you don't reach the lost by condoning their sin. You reach them by exposing their sin and showing them that Jesus paid for that sin and that they no longer have to be held captive by it. God is loving, gracious and merciful, but above all, He is holy. He will forgive our sin, but that doesn't mean He excuses it. I pray He will open your eyes and the eyes of others to this truth.
Anita I love your boldness and more than anything your love and compassion for people. It's such a tough subject … I think the bottom line is we can't rate sin… sin is sin… you sin I sin Steve P sins… Galatians 5:19-20 lists sexual immorality alongside jealousy, anger selfish ambition and division. The point is sin is sin… that's it… we are forgive Praise Jesus… annnd we are called to love without exception as He did… I think He is big enough to handle homosexuality… what he wants for us no matter what sin struggle with is to grow in him and propel his kingdom… thank you for this eye opening post…
Whoa, thanks everyone for your thoughtful comments, both those who agreed with me, and those who did not.
As you can imagine, it's going to take me time to think about and meditate on your comments point by point, but I am certainly going to do so.
I will also write a follow-up post to this.
Thank you for reading and responding!
Anita,
You do regularly seem to imply in your writing that “the bible says so-and-so, but I don't agree with it, therefore I must be right.”
I applaud your love for people. I applaud your wide view of God's grace and mercy. I agree that evangelical churches should love and accept all people (including homosexuals).
But somewhere along the line we have to stop and take passages like I CORINTHIANS 6:9-11 really seriously and think about them soberly.
The bible teaches (in places like 1 Corinthians 6) that I need to examine my life and leave my life of sin, in order to inherit the kingdom of heaven. And of the sins listed there, one of them is homosexuality.
But you seem to suggest that I just carry on sinning – in fact sin even more boldly – because God's love overrides everything. (Even His own Word?)
With great respect, your view of God's love seems to be like that of the parent who just let's their child eat whatever they want, because they “love” them. But that isn't love.
Love cares enough to say “this isn't good for you.”
Jesus says to the women caught in adultery “neither do I condemn you, now go and leave your life of sin.”
He doesn't say “I don't condemn you, now go and carry on committing adultery – because it feels good – and you shouldn't be alone – you were born with desires for affairs – and and my grace covers it all anyway – just do it boldly.”
Homosexual sin isn't worse than heterosexual sin. We all need grace and forgiveness as we walk out our repentance.
Respectfully,
Steve.
On this subject, this by Sean Doherty, is excellent. http://klice.co.uk/uploads/Email%20News/KLICE%20Comment%20September%2012.html
women and slaves through the Bible have a different trajectory then homosexuals. in the Old Testament women and slaves had no voice but in the New Testament Jesus was with women and was served by women. he told women to share the Good News. slaves in the New Testament are not like slaves we think of. they had rights and it was not a forever assignment. so from the Old Testament to the New Testament you see Jesus begin to set these people free… free from the sins of others that had held them captive or in a lower position.
I agree with most of your points, however, you can't lump homosexuals into the same category because homosexuality is a sin in both the Old and New Testament. being a woman is not a sin. being a slave is not a sin. and Paul speaks firmly against homosexuality in the Corinthian culture, a culture which was very welcoming to homosexuals, so it's not like homosexuality is something that has only recently been accepted by the culture.
with that said, I do believe homosexuals should be given the same thing civil rights, including a marriage that is recognized by the government.
regarding celibacy, Paul teaches that some people have the gift of celibacy… this is also taught in Corinthians. and for those who don't have the gift of celibacy, they should marry. I suppose the issue with this is that it's a broken world and that includes the lustful desires of heterosexuals and homosexuals.
I love your compassion for gay people, and echo your sadness that so few are found in our churches.
However, I have a few questions.
Firstly, is it not arrogant to state so definitely that it is always 'dangerous' for gay people to change their orientation? I personally know quite a few people who were gay in their orientation, and resolved to be single – and then met a woman to whom they felt sexually attracted, and they married, and have (as far as I can tell) a great sex life. While I would never advocate forcing someone to go on a 'convert your gayness program' I think it is hugely disrespectful to these people's story to be so definitely saying that people can never change their oritentation. It is not usual, but that is not to say it is dangerous. That is emotive and fairly unsubstantiated language. I also object to the fact that some people see a slightly more effeminate man and pronounce 'he's gay – you can definitely tell.' Being gay is about sexual attraction. Just because someone is very effeminate does not mean they are gay and obviously in denial, just as you can be very masculine and be a gay man or very girly and a lesbian. I dislike this (dare I say it?) judgemental approach on what is 'good' for people or not.
You seem to say that the best thing for Vaughan would be for him to be in a monogamous same-sex relationship. Why are you so convinced this would be the best thing? Is that the case for everyone? Is that not a form of idolatry, to say that marriage is the most important factor in life? What does that say about the value of single people in life?
And on the Bible – yes, we don't follow the Bible, we follow Jesus. But you only have to take a cursory glance at Jesus' words to see how deeply he revered the Bible and upheld the teachings on sexual morality. Following the Bible and following Jeus are not opposing things.
Furthermore, where do you get the idea from that monogamous, loving, permanent relationships are what God wants for us? If not from the Bible then where? And if from the Bible, then why not take seriously its prohibition on same-sex sexual relationships?
I know I'm riding you hard here, and that what I say is deeply unpopular. I readily acknoweldge that the church has often failed gay people, and I would not hesitate to say that it is an easy calling. I am very blessed to be married. Having said that, I would only ever have married someone who would follow God's call on my life, and if being married would have pulled me further apart from God or (for example) wasn't a Christian then I wouldn't have married him. I don't say this lightly. I think it is a hard call to be celibate. Some people don't have a 'choice' about it, I would very much like for the church to start valuing those who have been courageous enough to choose this, as people who love their Lord more highly than anything else and want to serve Him above all. Vaughan is to be respected for this, not pitied. He is worth considerably more than your pity.
AMEN!!!
You might appreciate Rachel Held Evan's “Ask a Gay Christian” post: http://rachelheldevans.com/ask-a-gay-christian-response
A seeker recently asked me if God considered her sin (shoplifting) as bad, or on the same scale as the massacres in Bosnia.
I replied that “sin” is turning your back on God, and walking away from him. Dulling one's pain in chocolate, or alcohol or promiscuity are all equally idolatry. Does this action draw me closer to God, or alienate me from him? Perhaps sin lies in the alienation.
The 10 Commandments are a good working definition of sin, I think.
a bold post, and there is much to be commended. I'm concerned that you don't define how you might recognise a definition or example of sin?
thanks for writing.