Here I stand

July 2018.

Where I stand on LGBT issues.

We live at a time when LGBT issues are never far from the news headlines and social media is permeated with differing, violent, divisive and controversial views, the happy hunting ground of social media trolls.

My observation of the debate is that it has been and is simplistic. It is simplistic because it tries to reduce the debate to two extreme points of view without taking into account that the issues involved are much more complex than the sound byte slogans that substitute for helpful informed debate. Instead of extreme positions there is a vital need to recognise that many, perhaps most people stand between the extremes of the positions propagated and are not driven by uncompromising ideologies. Both extremes of the debate are equally simplistic although representing totally differing views.

My starting point is that being gay is a genetic issue. So, that means that a gay person isn’t evil or nasty any more or less than any one else, they are simply genetically different to about 95% of the population. (There are still many who will dispute this position). There is a lot of medical opinion which supports this but not an absolute consensus yet. I hold this position first because of my personal contact with gay people. All those I have had any meaningful contact with have been delightful people who have enriched my life and the life’s of others. What I have observed however is that they are identifiably different in a number of ways. Their tone of voice is often different as are certain mannerisms. This observation has been confirmed by a number of people whose judgement I respect. Secondly, scientific studies are identifying differences in two chromosomes (13 and 14) which relate to sexual orientation. Chromosome 13 is linked to the hypothalamus and it has been known for some time that the hypothalamus differs in size between gay and straight men. There is much work yet to be done in the scientific area but I am persuaded that the root of being gay is genetic.

How then, as a retired Baptist pastor holding to a high view of scripture do I reconcile certain scriptural injunctions (EG. Leviticus 20:13, Romans 1:26-32) to put gay men to death or ostracise them with the greater command to love everyone. What weight should I put on them? Again, I believe that what we see in scripture reflects a genetic feature of non gays too.

Now, personally I find homosexual practice absolutely revolting. The thought of gay sex makes me feel physically sick and even seeing such things as two men holding hands makes my flesh creep (that's not to say that I would treat gay people badly or have ever knowingly done so). I believe my reactions are actually genetic as much as the colour of my eyes. My understanding of my reactions is based on my understanding of evolution and specifically evolution by natural selection. What I believe natural selection does in each successive generation is to weed out most of those who are gay simply because they will not (mostly) reproduce by normal sexual relations and at the same time (for better and worse) natural selection creates a tribal mentality which ostracises anything which is different to the tribe. The Biblical injunctions simply reflect the wider reactions of society to being gay. Sadly this is reflected in the attitude historically of every civilisation and even today various nations still oppress gay people. I would suggest that chromosomes 13 and 14 are particularly vulnerable to mutation which accounts for why about 5% of every population still tends to be gay. The battle has been and is a battle of our genes and for that reason the battle will never end.

Coming from this position I find myself critical of two opposite ends of the debate.

I am critical of those who condemn being gay who assume it is something people choose to be. The condemnation seems to be particularly strong and unloving from some religious people (I hesitate to describe them as Christians) who seem full of hatred towards gay people. There is no humility. They seem to delight in taking a handful of scriptural injunctions with grim literalism and they can hide their prejudice (which I attribute to genetics) behind those injunctions.

We are commanded to do many things which resist instincts that come from our genes. Forgiveness is about resisting the impulse to take revenge and/or harbour a grudge. When we pray, “Forgive us our sins as we forgive others”, we are resisting our genes. How many of the beatitudes are about resisting values that are not naturally instinctive? “Blessed are the poor in spirit for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven”, promotes humility when we really prefer to be praised for being aggressive.

Those who condemn people for being gay are fundamentally inconsistent. Alan Turing was gay but made one of the great contributions to winning World War two, contributing to breaking the German secret codes. He was a war hero. Would those who condemn people for being gay object if their lives were saved by a gay surgeon? I could go on.

I am equally critical of those who pursue an aggressive gay agenda. The disservice this does is that it creates two mutually exclusive alternatives. You're either pro gay or anti gay and if you’re pro gay you’re a fine person and if you’re (perceived as) anti gay you’re evil incarnate. What has happened is that the internet has facilitated gay people to be able to link up with each other in ways that were either not possible previously or were very difficult. For many this has helped create a sort of community causing their confidence to grow in accepting and promoting their sexuality. This satisfies one of the genetic drivers, the need to belong to a tribe and reject non members of the tribe. For some, rejection is expressed by seeking to harm non tribal members, as instanced by such cases as Asher’s Bakery.

However the aggressive tactics do a major disservice to helping gays to integrate into society better. What these aggressive tactics are doing creates the situation where someone who is gay will struggle to find real deep acceptance amongst people groups because most people groups are able to be real with each other and this often results in some harmless poking fun at each other. The result of this for the gay person is that people are polite to them but not real. The aggressive gay agenda has destroyed the possibility of a gay person being at home in many people groups. Personally I don’t feel fully at home in any group until someone pokes a bit of harmless fun at me. The aggressive gay agenda has denied this to gay people generally.

Now, again coming from the conviction that being gay is a genetic matter I find myself, curiously perhaps, championing both sides of the debate.

I have used the word ‘debate’ deliberately. I am championing neither the bigots as illustrated by Westboro Baptist Church which parades with banners and slogans proclaiming that God hates fags or those whose posts on social media infer a hatred of gays; nor am I championing those who are gay who seem to delight in creating mayhem by asking people running legitimate businesses, such as Asher’s Bakery, to produce products promoting such things as gay marriage (which I’ll address in a bit). Neither extreme is constructive, helpful or deserving of any respect.

What I am championing is the great majority of both gays and non gays who in each instance probably constitute about 99.99% of the population, those who at heart are striving to find harmony between their understanding of the issues involved and their treatment of those who are either gay or non gay. (Possibly when I say 99.99% I may be out by a factor of 10 because 0.01% in a population of sixty six million suggests there are 660,000 holding extremist positions. A more realistic figure would be 66,000 which might still be a high estimate meaning that the more realistic figure might be 99.999%. Even 660 extremists or less can create mayhem).

The fundamental and simplistic error both gays and non gays seem to be falling into is to regard the two distinctions as being united in thought, word and deed and organised into identifiable 'communities'. Nothing could be further from the truth. Many have fallen into the trap of using internet terminology to describe the two distinctions.

Of course there are pockets of communities within both distinctions where people interact with people in face to face contact. Typically we hear about gay pubs and there are groups within (typically) some religious communities whose church affiliation tends to make them anti gay. However, my suspicion is that the great (silent) majority aren’t really interested in the sexual orientation of other people and are quite happy to get and live their lives and let others live their lives too. Within the silent majority there are many (I suspect) who don’t know where they stand on the issues and for them the jury is still out. I suspect that applies to both distinctions.

So, to championing those who are gay. If this is a genetic issue, non gays have no right and business to condemn those who are gay. There will be many, like myself, who have strong Christian convictions and will point out that the Bible even calls for the death penalty or at least the ostricisation of anyone who is gay. However, as someone who has a high view of scripture I have to ask how should we handle this? The starting point is that the scripture writers wrote within the understanding they had of the ancient world. Like us, the ancient world was genetically conditioned to think like that so that the scriptures simply reflect the thinking of the time attributing their understanding to being the will of God (or their various gods). Curiously we don’t object to a number of other passages which reflect the customs of the era. Typically we could look at Genesis chapter 24. This tells the story of how Abraham sent a servant to find a wife for his son, Isaac. The way it was done was essentially an arranged marriage and the father of Isaac’s future wife was fully prepared to sell his daughter to a complete stranger (although a distant relative). Currently, forced marriages in the UK are illegal yet they were seemingly acceptable when Abraham was in his heyday.

We need to take into account that Jesus never made any reference to sexual sin (to the woman caught in the act of adultery he actually defended her by asking anyone who was sinless to throw the first stone). The letters of Paul make limited (but strong) reference to the matters I’m discussing but Paul like all of us may have been driven by his genes. The message of the New Testament is to come to Jesus and have your sins forgiven. There is no precondition to repentance. Jesus welcomes all who come to Him with everlasting love.

It is imperative to recognise that gay people have been badly treated by both society and sometimes the church. Alan Turin whose contribution to the war effort in WW2 may have shortened the war by several years and potentially saved hundreds of thousands, even millions of lives was treated abominably by the establishment after the war which eventually resulted in him committing suicide. Others have been similarly mistreated.

It’s important to also recognise that gay people have not somehow ganged up together on the internet to form an army of gay clones poised to pounce on the slightest hint of criticism towards them. Amongst them are those who remain celibate, those who are opposed to gay marriage and those who with a sort of cry of relief rejoice in some emancipation of their sexuality expressed in such things as the gay pride marches.

So, likewise to championing those who are not gay. I would ask again that those who are gay recognise the genetic basis of the way that throughout history world wise there has been such a drive to persecute those who are gay. Both distinctions have developed because of our genes and the 95% with one genetic set are clearly going to be more powerful politically and socially than the other 5%. As I have previously suggested, our genes give us a tendency to be tribal and reject that which doesn’t fit into our tribal mores. This doesn’t just apply to rejecting those who are gay. Racism in all it’s ugly manifestations has the same genetic root.

Please recognise that we are in both a period of emancipation for gays, chiefly because of the internet, but that same emancipation can create a sort of reverse tribalism where non gays can be persecuted because the same genetic drive to tribalism is coming from many of those who are gay. The best way forward is with patience, courtesy and an acceptance that this will take time and probably never be 100% successful.

While I am asking for is that we all move forward with patience, courtesy and acceptance. It will demand Christian love and forgiveness wherever we stand on the issues.

There is for me, two areas where there is a red line. These are gay marriage and church leadership. In reading, note where the red line is actually drawn.

Medical students as part of their training will meet something called morbid anatomy. This doesn’t mean that there is a covert group of vampire fanciers amongst the medical profession, it simply means that some injuries and illnesses are graphically very gruesome and very unpleasant in the progress of the disease. The morbid anatomy of a disease will be in the thoughts of a doctor discussing a disease with a patient but the doctor will focus more on therapy and relief for the patient's sake.

When we consider male gay marriage we can’t avoid consideration of a sort of morbid anatomy of how a sexual relationship plays out. This has to be described graphically to understand where I’m coming from.

To an extent I’m making an informed guess at what actually happens in male sexual conduct. Two males in or on top of a bed must get to a point where one inserts his penis (hopefully and advisedly sheathed) into the rectum of his partner. This means that the penis must encounter the faeces (poo) of his partner. When the penis is withdrawn the faeces will adhere to his penis and get smeared on both his partner and the bed, or protective cover if used. The possibility of infection through this is very high and the hygiene involved must be very poor. The stench must be nauseating. The possibility of spreading disease and infection is very high. Quite simply, I find this utterly revolting.

Because of this I could never conduct a gay marriage or bless one. This is my red line.

Equally if I couldn't conduct or bless a male gay marriage I would be inconsistent if I did so for a lesbian marriage.

We already have civil partnerships, should there be something else established?

Of course the participants asking for gay marriage could pledge to remain celibate but in that case, why bother and instead go for a civil partnership which I could support given that it was celibate.

When we come to the issue of gay people being in church leadership the issue becomes less complicated. As a church leader I would be willing to accept a gay person into church leadership who pledged to be absolutely celibate. I would also require that they did not pursue a gay agenda. That is my red line here. Beyond that I have no problems.

One crucial factor is the use of language. The term, LGBT, is misleading. LGB is reasonably descriptive but 'T', referring to transgender lumps together something much more complex and idealogically driven than just LGB. The prevalence of real genuine clinical transgender is actually very small, just a fraction of a % but for some reason it's classed with LGB with the result that very subtly Children, yes children, are being encouraged to change their gender. This is utterly irresponsible because children pass through stages of exploring their sexuality inasmuch as they will sometimes play at being the opposite sex. This is for most a transitory phase which they grow out of. The Frankenstinian idiots who promote drug and surgical treatments for children who will grow out of the phase they are in deserve utter contempt in the strongest possible way. Let children be children and grow up naturally. If there is a real transgender issue it will show up well after childhood has passed.

Personally in my dealings with gay people I have found them pleasant to be with, often anxious about how people view them and not at all threatening. The same applies to non gays.

Ultimately, trying not to be judgemental (Matthew 7:1) the most important thing for everyone is their character and relationship with God.