Greenbelt and the gayification of evangelicalism II
Why am I returning to this dreary topic, which has caused considerable furore on blogs in cyberworld and elsewhere? Well, Greenbelt (GB) has not repied to me — no luck by either phone or email — and I am left with my original concerns. I am not merely thinking of GB’s invitation to Gene Robinson, but their invitations to articulate, influential, focused advocates of the dominant LGBT agenda within the church — Paula Gooder, Robert Beckford, Giles Fraser (these three are public figures in Inclusive church) and post-evangelical Dave Tomlinson. GB has also invited two gay worship groups (information on Journey found on a hard-copy GB brochure) to lead in worship and is viewing the gay-affirmative film, Priest. And this compilation may be but a partial, incomplete one at that.
I believe this state of affairs is deeply problematic on at least three fronts. First, if those with this LGBT agenda are going to be handed the microphone, why is the other side not granted equal access, visibility and air time? The ex/post-gay voice with its own often-painful and complex narrative deserves as much a hearing as that of the gay one, and expert, authoritative orthodox responses to challenging post-orthodox theology and ethics deserve the same. The decks have been stacked and no one is as disadvantaged as the audience, which at least ought to hear both sides sans prejudice before making up its mind.
Secondly, in broader terms, the goal posts have radically shifted. Have you noticed? Over the millennia the Judaeo-Christian sexual ethic had insisted that sex remain within the context of mutually loving and giving, exclusive, until-death heterosexual marriage. It had done so for the benefit of women, men and children, for the welfare of individuals, families and society. Orthodox religious groups have held on to this — just. (Divorce is the one possible exception; here I simply say that in the Bible a. God hates divorce but allowed for it because of people’s ‘hardness of heart’; b. God himself divorced Israel for her unfaithfulness and c. Jesus and Paul allowed it under very proscribed circumstances). We need to protect the family, and that includes encouraging mothers and fathers to invest in each other and in their children, who as the most vulnerable members of society, long for the committed love of the two people who created them. That is one of the core values of marriage — and that is what is tacitly being undermined in the name of sexual liberation, authenticity, exploration and autonomy of which this LGBT agenda is a part.
Do Christian LGBT groups insist that their members keep all sexual relating within the perimeters of civil partnerships or gay ‘marriage’ (in countries where SSM is legal)? Do they insist that if one is not in such a relationship, then one must remain sexually chaste? Though there is something of a range of responses — see here, here, and here for instance — the dominant impression given by this LGBT agenda is not one of sexual restraint, is it? I have not come across any who maintain a ‘no gay sex until you are in a civil partnership’ view. Have you? And note, this is not the same as the far more widespread question of ‘Are gay partnerships just as committed and loving — and thus morally acceptable — as marriage?’ (to which the politically correct reply must be, ‘Of course!’)
As I have argued elsewhere, LGBT culture sets the trends and we all are profoundly influenced by them, whether we realise it or not. How that specifically ties in here is that the framework in which these LGBT groups present their ethics is one that merges LGBT personal/sexual identity with LGBT sexual ‘relationships’ and lifestyles. The former now automatically entails the latter. So, ‘I am gay’ essentially means that ‘I "do" gay’ — and ditto for those who are ’straight’. What happened to the ’no-sex-until-you-are-married-and-then-only-with your-spouse’? It is rapidly being put out to pasture or going the way of the classic car, fine for a few, but essentially and alarmingly irrelevant for most.
Finally, I believe that the LGBT agenda as articulated by such groups as
IC is claiming the principled high ground: all are wanted, all are valued, all are included. What could sound better? However, IC may have bitten off more than it can chew. Given that ’sexual orientations’ include their corresponding sexual lifestyles in today’s culture, does IC understand the full spectrum of what it is embracing and endorsing? There are various ‘orientations’ in existence which are still in their closets because the public is not ready to move beyond the comforting and respectable notion of the adult/human/binary. However, for such as openly bisexual Blue singer, Duncan James, and politician, Simon Hughes, ’two won’t do’ and both admit to having sexual relationships with women and men. This is not earth-shattering news, for many of us know individuals like these two. Further afield however are such ‘orientations’ as polyamory (plural loves), SMBD (sadomasochsim, bondage and domination), zoophilia (emotional bonding with mammals, basically) and paedophilia — and for the record, this last group claim it as their ’orientation’. Will individuals with these identities and corresponding lifestyles be encouraged to come out of their closets by a warm, welcoming and affirming IC?
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
