Tags
To read the media you’d think Christians shared its obsession with sex. The fact that it is one of the few things which catches the attention of those deficit disorder sufferers otherwise known as journalists (and if you find that offensive, stop reading now, there’s worse to come) leads them to impose their priorities on us and then accuse us of their obsession.
Christianity teaches we are all made in the image of God and that the body is the temple of the Hoy Spirit and that all human life is sacred; if folk grasp that then everything else becomes clear; if you add to it that we are a fallen race which likes its own sinful way, you’ve got the four edges of the jigsaw.
There is nothing in the Christian message which is in any way against the practice of making love, we simply insist you do that (and not ‘have sex’) with the person to whom you are married. There’s nothing too shocking to delicate sensibilities there. Yes, we all know that folk don’t always wait for marriage, just as we know they do other things which they ought not to – doesn’t make it right.
So, respect your future husband and wife, and when you’re married continue to do so. If you don’t want to get married, fine, and if you want to have promiscuous sex, well don’t try to claim it is somehow all right with Christ; it isn’t.
The same thing goes with this business which preoccupies journalists, homosexuality. It is quite simple. The Bible is against it. It may well be, as some folk claim, ‘natural’, well so is adultery, doesn’t make either of them right in the eyes of God. There’s no call to be nasty to homosexuals, they too are made in the image of God, and just because the sin towards which they incline is not the one towards which you incline, don’t throw stones; there but for the Grace of God, and all of that.
God made them man and woman, and that is what marriage has been for longer than anyone remembers. That’s it folks. The Government has the right to call black white if it gets a parliamentary majority, that’s its business; I, like every Christian who disagrees, have the right to say so without some idiot calling me a homophobe.
The Established Church in England appears to be ineffectual in promoting and defending Christian teaching, and it has had no influence on the Government except in so far as it won’t be forced to conduct gay marriages – though some of its vicars are going to do just that.
For whatever reason, as in Restoration England, this society is obsessed with sex. The Church is not. It simply teaches what Christianity has always taught. It is where it has always been. It is society which is wrong, and it doesn’t like to hear that. It is the job of Christians to tell it loud and clear – and to those Anglican and Catholic priests who connive at ‘gay masses’, what’s the point in your bishops if they let that happen?
Let us love one another, and when it comes to eros let us do it in a manner which respects the other – and ourselves
All Along the Watchtower 
Little left too add except, Bravo and something most of us believe and find it difficult to articulate, well done.
LikeLike
Thank you. I have tried to be as straightforward as possible.
LikeLike
It’s about all one can do with the subject.
LikeLike
The only slight quibble I have is with the word “natural” which you properly put in quotations. Those that argue from that standpoint and who are Christian might wonder how men and beasts might “be fruitful and multiply.” I know it is not PC to say that it is unnatural but then again I really don’t much care. When I see 2 male birds build a nest together, then I might consider that it is possible that these acts are natural. Good post Geoffrey, as we often let our libido get the best of our brains.
LikeLike
I have a former colleague who, obsessed with this topic, tells me that animals do indeed practice same sex, so to say. Either way, there’s a lot of stuff which comes ‘natural’ which is the result of the fact our nature is fallen.
LikeLike
I totally agree with your last sentence.
LikeLike
It is my answer to those who insist on banging on about the word natural – always shuts ’em up.
LikeLike
Naturally.
LikeLike
Indeed 🙂
LikeLike
Some Christians seem to be obsessed with other things, such as chess. The Spanish priest Ruy Lopez de Segura wrote a 150 page book on the subject and got an opening named after him. The trick with this opening is for white not to fall into the ‘Noah’s ark trap’ – and the very terminology suggests that this opening has been favoured by Christians who are so obsessed with chess that it never occurs to them to think about issues such as promiscuity and homosexuality.
I suspect that the Ruy Lopez is an opening favoured by Catholics.
LikeLike
With no variations, it is to be hoped.
LikeLike
Geoffrey – I heard once on a BBC TV programme (so it’s probably rubbish) that Ruy Lopez developed the defence when there was a theological dispute between the Spanish and the Italians. They resolved the theological dispute over the chess board.
It therefore occurred to me that the Church of Rome might have had a distinctly more ‘Lutheran’ angle today if Luther had had some decent chess players on his side (that was approximately 100 years before Lopez).
Apologies for appearing flippant (somehow I can’t take the sex thing seriously right now – Fridays are always hard with 6 hours teaching this semester) – the serious point here is that Luther *was not kicked out because of his Lecture on Romans* – that was acceptable to Rome – and I always thought that the Lecture on Romans contained his entire theological base – so I haven’t fully understood what in fact separates Luther from Rome.
LikeLike
That he wouldn’t take orders is, I think, the long and short of it. I sympathise with all teachers. I loved it, but I have to say I used to reach most Fridays pretty exhausted.
LikeLike
Jock – we have a priest who is convert from the Anglican Church that posits this concerning Luther. He says that if it wasn’t for the fact that Luther suffered from chronic constipation, and ExLax not yet being invented, the whole Reformation might not have taken place.
LikeLike
Yes – it seems to me that most theological scholars of the reformation believe that this aspect played a crucial role in Reformation Theology.
LikeLike
…. but we seem to be unable to keep to the topic of the blog (which is sex and not constipation)
LikeLike
Well it might well be that the state of one’s bowel movements might make one more or less interested in sex. There is that connection, Jock.
LikeLike
Thanks this was welcome. The viewpoint of the Church on the function of sex inside a marriage is unwelcome to the press. Why the destruction of the basic unit of which all of civilization depends on is so desired is beyond me. Maybe there is a devil who wishes our destruction after all. But it was felt long ago that Christians for all their failing made good citizens because of their internal governor. But that idea seems to have passed and Yeats is right, the second coming is on center stage. History is a history of cycles, where we are on the cycle looks dark and dangerous for women and children.
LikeLike
There’s much that I agree with you on here Geoffrey, and much that I disagree with. Let me outline the disagreeable elements that I find:-
(i) Homosexuality. Without wanting to get drawn into this topic too much, you seem to be writing as if you find objectionable not so much loving relationships between people homosexually inclined, but rather some form of physical behaviours presumed to take place between homosexuals. I refer to this quote from you: “The same thing goes with this business which preoccupies journalists, homosexuality. It is quite simple. The Bible is against it.”. My understanding is that the Bible has a few references against male homosexual physical acts, but says nothing about the general nature of homosexuals ‘making love’, as you lovingly put it (and I agree), rather than just some form of physical mechanistic description. Of course, there are reasons that I would like to object to those Biblical references being taken to apply to some form of blanket condemnation today, but perhaps that something to do elsewhere, and not here.
(ii) Government Power. I find it distasteful that the state is able to exercise it’s power to presume to regulate any spiritual matters. I object to government presuming to be able to regulate marriages of any nature, irrespective of the sexuality of those involved. Let me add, before the old chestnut comes along, that I am not in favour of marriages involving beasts nor where there is coercion or cruelty. We have an established church, but conformity has ended in spiritual matters. If government wants to allow non-conformity then let that be across the board, in the realms of marriage too.
(iii) Christian teaching and an allegedly ineffectual established church. It’s not clear to me that matters of sexual behaviour have ever been a part of core Christian teaching. Christianity focusses on Spirit, and the Holy Spirit has now revealed to us humans recently that previous understandings of the choices involved in being homosexually inclined were wrong. I mean that previous understandings such that all were inclined by God towards heterosexuality are wrong. Humans are often wrong. We learn, we move on. That the C of E is “ineffectual” in this area perhaps indicates that there is no firm view within the church one way or the other (due to internal conflict, no doubt). Furthermore that the C of E is, to some extent, seen to be permanently nailing it’s colours to the fence on controversial issues is a part of being the established church. A church can only be established if it is broad, and able to represent many views. Being English and an Anglican, and broad in my churchmanship myself, I am, not surprisingly, in favour of continued establishment. It also suits my conservative political disposition, which also feels drawn towards some form of state marker that this nation is a Christian country, whatever the reds try to do whenever they get into power.
(iv) “Gay masses” and bishops. What, pray, is a ‘gay mass’ as a class of church service ? I can only recall to mind the Soho masses that the church of Rome has now ceased. However, let me presume that what you are referring to are services that are designed to particularly attract homosexuals and to provide affirmation in some shape or form. That’s a presumption, you understand, as I’m not familiar with the Soho situation, and nor am I aware of anything of this nature within Anglicanism. However, were I aware of such services, I would find no particular problem with the offering of such a service of itself in a ‘big city situation’ (otherwise, by marking one particular group of humans out by a particular aspect of their being, it seems to be to be somewhat exclusive behaviour – but in a big city, there’s bound to be all sorts of other pastoral provision nearby for the rest of the people). The point being is that many people who are minorities in some way, by whatever labelling system employed by humans (in this case, a labelling of sexuality), can somehow feel less whole, particularly if, in this case, being homosexually inclined is stigmatised. I would think it odd in the extreme if such services were so indelicate to explicitly say something like “go and make love, for it’s all OK” – churches don’t do that. An Australian friend from Sydney told me once that Hillsong Church (a big megachurch outfit full of arm-waving and seemingly deplete of much in the way of theology) is packed with youngsters because the males see it as a great place to ‘pick up chicks’. That a ‘conservative’ church can live with church being used by some for dating purposes indicates that if a ‘gay mass’ is used for the same purpose, there’s little that a church can do. We’re all humans after all.
Thoughts ?
S.
LikeLike