Same-sex marriage and moral debate
In the C of E, and more than widely in the UK, the church discussion about the moral condition of same-sex unions tends to take identify in isolation from other moral issues. (Perhaps the 1 exception to that is the recent debate about women in leadership—but I argue hither that these two questions are quite distinct.)
Christian social scientist Mark Regnerus has explored exactly that question, and come up with some interesting conclusions. His particular interest is in the sociology of sexual behaviour and morality, so it is no surprise that his conclusions have often proved controversial, peculiarly his study of family life of same-sex couples with children in 2012. (He includes a total account of the controversy and his response on his website.)
His latest inquiry seeks to ask an important question:
What exactly exercise pro-same-sex activity-union Christians call back about sex activity and relationships in general?
I'chiliad not asking what perspectives on sexual beliefs peopleought to hold. Instead, I'm trying to notice what perspectives churchgoing Christians who disagree over same-sex marriage actually express.
To answer this, he made use of theRelationships in America survey, a information collection project that he oversaw which involved asking 15,738 Americans, ages 18-60, a series of questions about sexual morality and which took place in early 2014. The conclusions are summarised in the following table:
From this, Regnerus makes some interesting observations—though mayhap the most interesting thing is what he doesnon conclude from it. For 1, this says nothing nigh individual beliefs; it cannot be inferred from this what view a particular supporter of same-sexual practice marriage will have on other issues—and of form the majority of those approval of same-sex union do not approve of pornography, premarital cohabitation, and so on. For some other, approving of same-sex unions isnot almost the 'sparse end of the wedge' in terms of sexual morality. Approving of same-sex activity unions does non lead to change in other areas; instead, the issues are more integrally continued:
I'm non suggesting whatever "slippery slope" sort of argument hither, implying that a shift in one attitude will prompt lock-stride adjustments in others. In reality, our moral systems apropos sex and sexuality tend rather to resemble personalized "tool kits" reflecting distinctive visions of the purpose of sex activity and significant relationships (and their proper timing), the meaning of things like marriage and gender roles, and bones ideas most rights, appurtenances, and privacy.
In other words, changing attitudes to same-sex unions are not acrusade of changes in other moral outlooks—they are (if anything) a symptom of them. And in that location is a 'clear fissure' across the board between column ane and column 2, those who oppose and those who corroborate of same-sex activity wedlock. Regnerus goes on to note some other interesting points. First, whilst Christians who corroborate of same-sexual practice spousal relationship accept been influenced by the views of gay and lesbian Christians and non-Christians, their views are distinct from them—but the influence has pulled to match, virtually exactly, the population as a whole.
Churchgoing Christians who support aforementioned-sex union look very much like the country as a whole—the population boilerplate (visible in the third column). That answers my original question. What would a pro-SSM Christian sexual morality look like? The national average—the norm—that's what.
2d, he notes that both groups in the first 2 columns have a sense of feeling 'embattled', the second group in two directions—in relation to more 'conservative' Christians as well as in relation to the more 'liberal' earth nigh them. But the changes in attitudes accept less to practice with private decisions, and much more to exercise with 'reference groups' to which people relate. This means that at that place will continue to be change in all groups; equally attitudes in the population become more liberal, 'and it would be shrewd to presume that this will occur', attitudes of SSM-approving Christians will likely likewise go on to shift.
Given the rather massive split in attitudes about sexual and romantic relationships evidenced in the tabular array above, reference group theory—if employed hither—would propose that the current sectionalisation betwixt these groups of churchgoing Christians will remain far into the future.
Although the survey was conducted in the States, there is no reason to call back like principles practise not pertain here as well.
The other effect illustrating the nature of the debate was Vicky Beeching'due south recent proclamation that she is gay. Two things are in no doubt. The first is that Vicky has been through meaning trauma on this issue, and has been on the receiving finish of some hideous 'pastoral' treatment which should have no identify in the church building. It has conspicuously taken considerable courage (non to say careful planning) to brand the disclosures that she has. It has been heartening to see support of her statement from Christians of all hues, regardless of their view on this particular issue. Her disclosures tin only be a adept affair in terms of encouraging all Christians to be more than honest well-nigh their own struggles, and in calling the Church building to account over abusive pastoral exercise. The most moving reflection on this comes from my friend Wes Colina over on Spiritual Friendship:
It'due south easy for me now, as someone who writes and speaks publicly and often about these matters, to forget how difficult it was at first to talk with anyone almost my sexuality. Despite the fact that I had a loving, shut-knit family, an especially committed group of friends in loftier school, and an unusually sensitive, thoughtful youth pastor, it however took me until college to tell someone about my feelings. And even and so, I was deathly afraid of what my peers would think…
The commencement person I came out to listened to me for as long as I wanted to talk. I could barely form a coherent sentence. My face was red with embarrassment. It felt similar I had sawdust caking the within of my mouth. He waited for me to finish before he spoke. Perhaps because he was a professor, I felt that I needed to end my story with a question for him. But he apace waved that away and simply assured me that God loved me and that he wanted to run into again. And at that place was something healing in that—to know that, whatever questions remained, the God I had met in Jesus Christ would somehow provide the grace I needed to movement frontwards.
I hope Vicky Beeching experiences that same dear.
2d, her comments will have a significant impact on the debate within the church on this consequence. A number of people have commented to me that 'Vicky is my hero' (or words to that effect) 'and this is a number one upshot for me every bit a Christian.' She had already accepted the office of Ambassador for Accepting Evangelicals, a pressure group on this issue, and her interview—just before appearances at Greenbelt—make it articulate that she is now in campaigning way for modify in the Church'due south education.
But the nature of the announcement, and the shape of the statement, are problematic, and I think that they will make future discussion of the issue more difficult, every bit both sides entrench around it. Dean Roberts, in his blog, writes warmly both of Vicky and her ministry building, merely expresses frustration at the manner of communication:
I feel disappointed past the way in which she decided to share the news – I practice question Vicky'southward motives to an extent in that I have a problem with the fact that rather than on her personal blog (which attracts thousands of visitors a day), Vicky decided to meet someone and basically sell a story to the national printing. Clearly, she may feel that this would aid and inspire others, only for me personally, I'd accept benefitted from a stripped back, acoustic feel to the story in that information technology would be coming from her oral cavity, rather than through the filter of someone else. This, for me, creates other knock on problems.
These problems include the portrayal of prayer ministry building in the church, the dropping of names, and the wider arroyo to the issue:
For me, the commodity seems to be a facet of Vicky's quest to harmonise same sexual practice marriage with the Bible and with the tradition and reason of the Church building for the last 2,000 or and then years, but simply maxim "I'grand gay" isn't going to do justice to that quest, if it can be washed. And of grade, where I stand up is that I don't remember it tin can.
And there is a different side to the story—though one which volition never be given anything like the aforementioned coverage. Ed Shaw is pastor of Emmanuel Church in Bristol, and likewise came out last year. He shares some of Vicky's frustration with the style evangelicals accept responded to the issue—yet at that place is more than to exist said.
But Vicky's story is not the whole story. I've personally experienced so much genuine acceptance and beloved when I've shared my experience of same-sex allure with fellow evangelical Christians. Rather than looking down on me they've looked upward to me–wanting to benefit from my perspective…So we demand to hear Vicky's story, just and then mind to other aforementioned-sex attracted Christians who have a different story to tell. Our stories rarely make the national newspapers or TV news, just big numbers of us want to remain faithful to the pedagogy of the Bible. We do this, non merely because we believe that God's word is good, but also because, in the end, we believe it signposts the route to human flourishing–and to life itself.
What is going on in this debate and the manner it is being conducted? We cannot underestimate the touch on of social media on the give-and-take. Although social media has done a lot of proficient (including assuasive y'all to read this blog!) information technology too, as someone said to me recently, tends to blur the distinction between personal and public, personalise every event, promote the idea that morality rests on sincerity and empathy and assert that the expression and experience of pain trumps any argument of principle. Information technology can atomic number 82 to the deconstruction (and relativisation) of whatever higher or external say-so, center discussion on cocky-promotion and self-defence, and wrap all this up with the need to collect allies, affirmation and public acclaim. Or (in the words of another friend) 'feel is the new god'.
All this can lead to the closing down of discussion and common date. Because we all have 'experiences' and these experiences announced to be telling the states different things, then there can end up with very petty in terms of points of contact. If nosotros are non allowed to critically reflect, with respect and responsibleness, on the claims such experiences brand, the conversation quickly ends. In fact, experience can never exist absolute in itself—or at least, our account of feel cannot be absolute. Experience can never exist a 'given', something that 'just is', since when we talk of our experience we are locating events and feelings in our lives in an interpretative framework, through which we make sense of who nosotros are in the world. Our account of our experience, then, is equally much an interpretative construct as is our reading of Scripture. When the two do not appear to stand for, or when they offer conflicting interpretations of who we understand ourselves to be, we need to re-read both ourselves likewise as Scripture. It is not possible simply to dismiss or reinterpret Scripture or claim that it is irrelevant. As we try to read Scripture, we must as well exist committed to allowing Scripture to read the states. This is, in fact, the common experience of all Christians every bit they read—at that place are times when each of us is reluctant to see ourselves equally Scripture depicts us.
It is too much to hope that both public debate, and the 'facilitated conversations' might allow u.s.a. to do this?
If you have valued this post, would you considerdonating £1.20 a month to support my work?
If you enjoyed this, do share it on social media (Facebook or Twitter) using the buttons on the left. Follow me on Twitter @psephizo. Similar my page on Facebook.
Much of my work is done on a freelance basis. If you have valued this mail, you tin can make a single or repeat donation through PayPal:
Comments policy: Good comments that appoint with the content of the post, and share in respectful contend, can add existent value. Seek first to sympathise, then to be understood. Make the most charitable construal of the views of others and seek to learn from their perspectives. Don't view debate as a conflict to win; address the statement rather than tackling the person.
Source: https://www.psephizo.com/sexuality-2/same-sex-marriage-and-moral-debate/
Post a Comment for "Same-sex marriage and moral debate"