Anglican Mainstream

My family has supported a little girl through Tearfund for a decade or so and I have flown Tearfund’s flag and donated to it in various ways over the years. No more, however. I redirected our sponsorship from Tearfund to another Christian group which, I am told, will be able to continue to support our child in South America.  I am grateful to Tearfund for facilitating my request. I would have hated to abandon our sponsored child, but as Tearfund now presents itself, I have lost heart to support it. I had no desire to go down this path but felt I had no choice, because of both the Desmond Tutu [right, photo from Tearfund's site] and Cliff Richard affairs but also because of what they represent more broadly. And Tearfund does not appear to understand. 

What exactly is my problem?  Okay, so Desmond Tutu is one of the most vocal gay rights activists on the globe today!  He did not speak about homosexuality at Tearfund’s event, but concentrated upon encouraging the church to fight poverty.  Having just spent a week or so in Uganda, where some horrific instances of poverty came very close to home, I could not agree more.   

However, there is far more at stake here than simple issues of joining hands to fight poverty.  If Tutu were, say, a leading figure in cutting-edge responses to poverty but also a rabid racist (or publicly affirmative of some other immoral activity or belief system), would Tearfund have made the same judgment call?  Would it have agreed to set the racism issue to one side and concentrate upon common ground, i.e. concern for the poor? I think not, and rightly so, because it would have known that it was tacitly condoning - or at least accepting – completely unacceptable, nonChristian views. I think the same holds true here.   

If Tutu’s moral views were not known around the globe, perhaps this would have made for a different outcome for me. But given the ‘facts on the ground’, to ask him to speak speaks volumes in itself. Moreover, Tearfund did not distance itself from his moral views. In a letter to me, I was informed that

‘Whilst there may be issues where we respectfully hold different views, we are united in our passion to see poverty and injustice tackled and for the local church to play a greater role in that effort …

Tearfund recognises that sexuality is a complex and divisive issue for the Church. It is largely a theological issue with widely different perspectives held within the Church and beyond it.’

So, instead of reaffirming traditional evangelical views on sexuality, morality, marriage and the family when it could have done so, I now discover that Tearfund essentially ducks and says ‘Pass’. How in the world sexuality can be seen as a largely ‘theological’ issue is beyond me, especially given the ubiquitous feminization of poverty, aided and abetted in no small part through men abandoning their wives or ‘partners’ and children to set up home with a younger, cuter model.  Worried about poverty? Me too. How about including the implosion of the family and the burdens that place on women, in particular, who are literally left holding the baby and holding down a job or two as well? And how sexuality and poverty are not intimate bedfellows in relation to the various vectors which spread AIDS (for the most part) is another conundrum I have yet to fathom.

I was also informed that

‘Tearfund is a relief and development agency. We do not define people in terms of their sexuality; we work with and value all people as made in God’s image, regardless of sexual orientation. We work with people according to their need. This is relief and development born not out of social judgement or discrimination, but out of God’s love and grace.’ 

Tearfund openly affirms one of the Bible’s primary concerns, that of God’s heart for the poor — which, by the way, is also a ‘theological’ issue, is it not? — while at the same time it is rapidly distancing itself from one of the Bible’s other concerns, God’s creation of human sexuality, marriage and the family. Not that emphasis upon the latter would come into play very often, but it should be in the moral framework of the organization. To drop it now, especially given the latest challenges from the sexual alternatives within and without the church, is profoundly worrying in an overtly evangelical organization.

I had quite some time getting one of Tearfund’s employees to understand that I was not saying that Tearfund should refuse to help those in need, regardless of what so-called sexual orientation they claimed to have. And for the record, there are various ones beginning to come out now, beginning with bisexuals, moving on to polyamourists, zoophiles, pedophiles etc. If we are wearing our ‘listening’ hats, they all insist theirs are as legitimate a sexual orientation as are those of gays and lesbians. I imagine Tearfund knows very little about such matters, but I could be wrong. However, that is not the point. The point is that as an organization,Tearfund needs to own and operate from its evangelical heritage. But now,it seems to be only doing so when it suits, when it is politically correct, perhaps when it is financially expedient to do so!

Finally, could anyone imagine Tearfund having this stance, say, 20 years ago?   Could anyone have imagined Cliff Richard, iconic figure within certain evangelical spheres (including Tearfund), accepting gay marriage and dismissing biblical authority in one stroke?  "I think the Church must come round and see people as they are now. Gone are the days when we assumed loving relationships would be solely between men and women’ (from his September book launch interview).  

One hardly knows where to start. Cliff is confusing what is with what ought to be — and that never makes for good morals, or good anything else (think:  The Fall).  And over the centuries there have been various sexual alternatives in existence, no doubt of it.  So, for Cliff to imagine that people are now somehow discovering a new-found sexual liberation and enlightenment is ridiculous.  They have just come out of the closet, that is all.  Over the centuries and against the challenge of various sexual alternatives, the Bible has maintained a clear, strong, beautiful standard – exclusive (i.e. sex with only one) heterosexual matrimony or celibacy – and that is what Cliff is wishing to abolish to the detriment of women, men and children.  See David Blankenhorn’s – he happens to be a liberal Democrat - book, The Future of Marriage (2007) for detailed analsys of why such is the case.  

Moreover, I appreciate Cliff’s valuing of love and commitment, but alas in gayworld, ‘commitment’ actually means different things. So even to be told, ’This is my partner; we are committed to each other’ (his words) does not automatically entail sexual exclusivity.  I would not have mentioned this but I keep hearing ‘commitment’ language used by well-meaning folk, mostly heterosexuals (I guess) who assume that ‘committed’ lesbian and gay couples are sexually exclusive.  As the sites and literature demonstrate, such is obviously not the case.  But few are admitting as much in public. 

And what is most worrying to me is that inasmuch as gay figures and culture are often the post-modern trendsetters in the West, this ’mode’  of doing relationships and commitment is spreading into heterosexual relationships and marriage.  Channel 4’s relatively recent ‘How Gay Sex Changed the World’ insists that such is the case (and is pleased to demonstrate how to a sceptical audience).  Interesting corroboration for this view is found in radical sociologist Anthony Giddens’ work, The Transformation of Intimacy (1992) where he argues that gays and lesbians have led the way to a brave new world of ‘pure relationships’ and ‘plastic sexuality’ and have shown the rest of us how to do it.   We have taken much on board – especially the gradual eclipse of marriage in favour of the ‘relationship’ - as the most recent British Social Attitudes Survey (2008) indicates.       

Of course Sir Cliff has invested huge amounts of money and time in a plethora of worthy causes – and may God bless him for that! -  but he has lost the plot here.  What else will need to be jettisoned from orthodox Christian faith by evangelicals in the future, I wonder?  And will the rest of us actually do anything — or will we just go with the flow?

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.