Aaron Edwards was infamously dismissed by Cliff College for a tweet claiming that homosexuality was invading the church. Now, there is much to discuss there in terms of whether Edwards’ language was an example of robust plain speaking or clumsy and unhelpful. There is also the issue of free speech, especially for academics.
However, in the noise if Edwards’ employment case, we never got to grips with whether his statement, clumsy or not, was accurate.
Much depends of course on what Edwards had in mind when talking about the church. Did he mean his employers, the Methodist Church or the Living in love and faith discussions in the church of England. However, it seems that a significant part of Edwards’ attack has been directed at Evangelical Christianity. In particular, in his most recent articles, Edwards has directed his ire at Living Out. He writes:
“Nowhere is the evangelical attraction to same-sex attraction more prominent than with Living Out, the organisation Allberry co-founded in 2013, offering resources for “same-sex attracted Christians”. It has been the darling of evangelical leaders in recent years who sought to offer “a more pastorally sensitive” approach to the issue. Behind this approach was the mirage that the greatest sin of evangelical churches has been its apparently froth-mouthed judgemental homophobia, brutally castigating these innocent victims of same-sex attraction and forcing them into a life of secrecy, repression, or self-loathing. In mainstream evangelicalism, I simply don’t believe such approaches were ever the norm, especially not within the last three decades, when the cultural push for Pride has been at its most ardent.
Either way, what happened with reverse approaches like those of Living Out is that, in seeking to gather SSA Christians into a kind of community, even if they may avoid the language of “my sexuality is my identity”, they make it difficult for any such Christians to stop identifying as gay, as if their homosexual desires were not themselves a “problem” at all, as if they may even have been a fundamental part of their personality.
The rhetoric within such ministries was never clear enough to be indicting because the focus was always “Gospel-centred” and evangelical, rooted in the greater desire to be obedient to Christ. But in seeking to build that ongoing bridge to SSA, it became clear that it served to “sanctify” aspects of gay culture and identity too, as if—as with Allberry’s focus on who you sleep with—God apparently has no opinion on homosexuality as long as you avoid sodomy.
Is this true. Have some people infiltrated the Evangelical church with the aim of in effect softening up our position on homosexuality? Do the founders of Living Out really not care about “homosexuality as long as you avoid sodomy.” Well, let’s leave aside for the moment that “sodomy” only applies to men participating in sexual acts and is only one example of physical sexual activity. I presume that Edwards has chosen the term not for accuracy but for its rhetorical impact. Is it true that Living Out and Sam Allberry were arguing that so long as you don’t participate in genital sexual activity that your homosexuality is okay?
Well it’s worth noting that Living Out subscribe to the Evangelical Alliance statement of faith and their affirmations on sexuality. These include the following statement:
“We affirm that marriage is an institution created by God in which one man and one woman enter into an exclusive relationship for life, and is the only form of partnership approved by God for sexual relations. Holding these theological and ethical views on biblical grounds is in itself neither harmful nor homophobic. Rather, they are views to be held and expressed with Christ-like love and grace, since they reflect the teaching of Jesus Himself.[1]
It is clear from this statement that the particular issue is not merely about what forms of sexual activity are permissible but that marriage is the relationship that defines and controls the nature of sexual relationships and that this is a relationship between one man and one woman. This is the institution that God has ordained and therefore not something that can be amended or mimicked by human alternatives.
And what about the suggestion that Living Out believe that desires are not a problem, that they are attempting to normalise same-sex attraction, that they are creating a community of people who, whether or not the language is avoided identify primarily as gay or as gay Christians? It’s worth noting on this, first of all, that creating online resources does not mean that there is an attempt to create a community. Rather, these are resources intended for individuals and for churches to support those individuals being part of the church community.
Secondly, again, here are Living Out in their own words answering the question: “Will I ever live at ease with myself and my sexuality?”
“One of the freeing things that we learn when we come to Christ is that we’re not defined by our sexuality. Who we are attracted to isn’t everything about us, or even the most important thing about us. When we accept the new life that Jesus offers, we also get a new identity. We become children of God. We are chosen, accepted, dearly loved, made alive, delighted in. We are forgiven for the things we’ve done wrong in the past and the things that we continue to do wrong. God’s love is able to reach and heal our deepest wounds.
We may continue to experience same-sex attraction, but we don’t need to hang our heads in shame and despondency. All Christians continue to struggle with temptation, but the Holy Spirit is willing and able to help us stand up to it. God’s Spirit is now living inside of us and is powerfully able to help us live for Christ in the midst of all the competing feelings we have, and all the difficult situations we find ourselves in.
Notice, first that Living Out are explicitly clear that “we’re not defined by our sexuality.” [2]They prioritise our identity as God’s children, chosen (elect) by Him. The language there sums up what it means to be justified, made right with God. Indeed, in answer to the question about whether the Christian sexual ethic is harmful, Andrew Bunt writes:
“The Christian sexual ethic says that the only context in which I can have sex is if I marry someone of the opposite sex. This is not something I’m interested in doing, so I expect to live the rest of my life without having sex. But can a life without sex be a good life?
I think it can. The vast majority of us experience sexual desire, but that doesn’t mean we have sexual needs. There is no sense in which humans need sex to survive. We don’t need it for our physical or mental health1 – personally I’ve never heard of anyone going to the doctor and being diagnosed as having too little sex – and we don’t need it to be a true adult – despite what films and TV shows would suggest.
Jesus knew he didn’t need sex to survive or to be a real adult, despite the expectations of his culture.
For Christians, the proof that we can live without sex is Jesus. Jesus is the most perfect example of what it means to be human. In the incarnation, he became a human like us and so he too would have experienced sexual desires. But Jesus knew he didn’t need sex to survive or to be a real adult, despite the expectations of his culture. The fact that the Christian sexual ethic means some of us won’t get to have sex isn’t a problem; we don’t need it.[3]
Secondly, they further identify hope and freedom from shame not by soft peddling on the nature of sin and temptation but on the presence and power of the Holy Spirit.
The question then is whether or not Edwards understands and represents Living Out correctly. A second example which highlights this challenge is when Edwards refers to an article posted a while back on the Living Out website.
I remember someone sending me one of Living Out’s blog articles a couple of years ago, which shocked me. It was called “What Can We Learn from the UK’s First Gay Male Dating Show?” (No, I’m not joking!)
Well, first of all, the very concept of the article is a problem. Is a TV show called I Kissed a Boy really something you should be watching and promoting to evangelical Christians struggling with SSA? But aside from the concept, the content of the article itself was even worse. The aesthetic of lip-sticked lips in the background and the playful tone with which the article introduces the show—“ten men coupled up and looking for love”—is inappropriate enough. Can you imagine trying to explain that to any conservative Christian from a hundred years ago? They would think we’d gone mad. And we have![4]
Let’s run through that comment. First of all, is it not the case that we can learn something from things that are happening in the secular world. After all, Edwards himself frequently asks us to learn from the likes of Tommy Robinson despite what Edwards refers to as his salty language. Is the tone playful or is it simply referencing the promotional language of the show in question?[5] And is the author promoting the show to same sex attracted evangelicals? Here’s what the article says:
“It won’t necessarily be helpful viewing for everyone, but if nothing else I Kissed A Boy is a window into gay life and culture, and could well increase your empathy and understanding for LGBT people who are so dearly loved by God. It’s a reminder of the things we all long for – love, security, authenticity – and how these desires are only truly met in Jesus.”
Note, the warning that the show may not be helpful for all. Note too that the article is clearly aimed at heterosexual Christians who want to better understand LGBT people as they seek to reach them with the Gospel. In the light of that, it is perhaps worth looking at what the article says, something that Edwards fails to report on.
“In some ways, watching the series proved a painful reminder of the sort of life I’m missing out on. In other ways, it provided a beautiful reminder that nothing compares to life with Jesus.
I’ve found that the way to be my truest and most authentic self is not to build my life around my sexuality, but to build it on following Jesus.
As I watched the show, part of me saw the genuine love between these men and wondered, ‘How could that be wrong?’. We all need love and intimacy, and there’s beauty in seeing people enjoy that. There was a lot about them and their lives that I understood and wanted to be a part of.
But I was also reminded of my own failed attempts to find what I need in gay relationships. When I’ve strayed from God’s good ways, it’s always ended in a big mess. I’ve found that the way to be my truest and most authentic self is not to build my life around my sexuality, but to build it on following Jesus. Those relationships might provide some temporary satisfaction, but Jesus really is ‘the way and the truth and the life’ (John 14:6). He’s the one with the words of eternal life (John 6:68), the only one who can fully satisfy my desires and give me life to the full now and in eternity. Following him means making decisions about my relationships that are sometimes painful, but I know it’s worth it.
Ultimately, human relationships are messy. I Kissed A Boy proves that – there are plenty of dramas and misunderstandings along the way: people failing to communicate their feelings, feeling rejected by or hurting other people, holding grudges and taking sides. No single relationship can give us what we truly need, other than a relationship with the God who made us.
In some ways, that’s what struck me most about the series: this is a diverse group of individuals who are all made, known and loved by God like anyone else, looking to love and be loved like anyone else. Some of them have been hurt by the Church, as is sadly to be expected, but all of them are invited to enjoy a deeply intimate and life-giving relationship with God. Pursuing that relationship, rather than trying to find the perfect man or woman, is ultimately what’s best for all of us.[6]
What do we then learn, not just from the show, but perhaps even more importantly from the way that a same-sex attracted Christian engages with it. First, we see recognition of the deep seated pull of desire and how it creates temptation. The author finds themselves longing for something that the fear they are missing out on. They are tempted to believe lies, that the forbidden thing cannot be wrong, that they are being denied something good, that they cannot live without it. Secondly, notice how they counter temptation. They remind themselves of the empty promises of sin. They remind themselves of the Gospel and the goodness of God.
So, before we go any further, it is worth observing that there are general lessons here for all of us. How do we face temptation. Each day, everyone of us is confronted with the lies that our disordered desires throw out to us. We can either say no to them and yes to Christ or the alternative.
Secondly, the author encourages us to see the participants in the show through God’s eyes. This is not to downplay sin but rather to encourage us to see people, in God’s image who need a saviour.
Now, at the heart of Edwards’ position are two things. First, that both homosexual acts and homosexual orientation are sin. This is rooted in one approach to the idea of concupiscence. Secondly, that there is something about homosexuality that makes it more egregious than other sin. I appreciate that whilst I disagree with that argument, that it is one that others have made and so there is a case to answer. We would do better to have that conversation. However, we should ensure in such a debate that we accurately reflect the position of others, especially those we disagree with. It may be that some Christians disagree strongly with the approach that Living Out takes. However, their approach, not as some kind of tactic but genuinely is to seek to be obedient to Christ. So, let’s engage with what Scripture actually says.
[1] Relationships-Matter-Affirmations.pdf
[2] Will I Ever Feel at Ease With Myself and My Sexuality? | Explore questions | Living Out
[3] Isn’t the Christian Sexual Ethic Harmful and Repressive? | Articles | Living Out
[4] The Evangelical Attraction to Same-Sex Attraction (part 2)
[5] The full quote in question actually says “I Kissed A Boy is the UK’s first gay male dating show. In a similar style to Love Island, it sees ten men coupled up and looking for love over eight episodes.1 the language of “coupled up and looking for love” is not intended to be playful or to justify, it simply describes the format of the show and compares it to “Love Island” another show which I presume Edwards would have an issue with. I certainly would not be encouraging Love Island to young heterosexual singles -or anyone. Does this mean that there might not be a case for learning lessons. What does that show tell us about this world’s understanding of relationships and intimacy. Is there no place for sympathy and a sympathetic understanding of the young people who participate?
[6] What Can We Learn from the UK’s First Gay Male Dating Show? | Blog | Living Out
Faithroots 