In the Synoptics Jesus clears the temple in the last week of his life; in John it seems to happen right at the start of Jesus’ ministry.
Tuesday 6 February 2024
How many times did Jesus clear the temple? Once
Friday 19 January 2024
How many people were at the last supper? Almost certainly more than thirteen.
The assumption is there were thirteen there – Jesus and his twelve disciples. Then twelve after Judas goes into the ‘night’.
Friday 29 December 2023
Over twelve hours of the extended versions of the Lord of The Rings Trilogy. Is there a most moving moment?
I’ve never done it before, sat on a sofa and watched three major films – in a row. We had two pizza breaks, and over twelve hours in front of a huge TV screen with a superb sound system.
Thursday 9 November 2023
A Summary Of Edmund Burke's 'Reflections on the French Revolution'
After reading Burke’s wonderfully robust ‘Reflections on the French Revolution’ I looked on the internet for a summary. I couldn’t fine one, so I wrote my own. Some writing is too good to just leave vaguely in one’s memory.
[1] Price (1723 – 1791) was a
well-connected philosopher, a Fellow of the Royal Society and a Unitarian
minister. He became famous for his support for the American Revolution. Burke
also supported the colonists. On November 4th 1789 Price preached a
sermon urging support for the French Revolution, which he thought was a child
of England’s Glorious Revolution. Burke’s ‘Reflections’ was partially a reply
to this sermon.
[2] On October 5th,
1789 a vast mob led by market women stormed Versailles, demanding that the king
and queen live in Paris. Some guards were murdered. Their heads were carried on
pikes in the 60,000 strong procession that returned to Paris, with the King and
Queen on the 6th.
Saturday 28 October 2023
Jesse Norman's biography of Edmund Burke is superb; but there is a regrettable omission. Nothing about his Christian faith.
Jesse Norman’s biography of Edmund Burke is superb in many ways. While the writing is not as colourful or robust as Burke’s (that would be asking too much), still there is a wonderful flow to the prose. In the first half of the book the journey is enjoyable and fascinating as we are taken through Burke’s life. The second half is perhaps even more important as Norman drills into what Burke’s political thinking, even philosophy, amounts to, and how relevant his stance is today.
It is possible that Burke was wholly opaque regarding the importance of his faith. But we are not told this. And given that Norman has read so much about Burke, he would be in an excellent position to give us some insight on the relationship of the Christian faith to Burke’s massive contribution to political thinking. Alas, it’s not in this book.
Friday 6 October 2023
A review of Edmund Burke’s ‘Reflections on the LGBT Revolution’
Edmund Burke is recognised as one of Britain’s senior statesmen. He has made formidable contributions to Britain’s policy in Ireland, America, India, and France, as well as to the ongoing discussion regarding parliamentary government. The stance of his most recent intervention regarding the Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) revolution has surprised some, but it is entirely consistent with Edmund Burke’s keen awareness of man’s fallibility. Below is a summary of his book, ‘Reflections on the LGBT Revolution’.
Edmund Burke is in no doubt about the importance of his subject. Early in his book he writes that the LGBT Revolution is 'the most astonishing that has hitherto happened in the world’, however he has ‘grave doubts’ as to its benefits.
'Ready to cut up the infant’
Burke was right about the French Revolution.
He is probably right about the LGBT Revolution.
Saturday 12 August 2023
Correspondence between Rev Paul Kennington and Tom Hawksley regarding Christian marriage.
In early February this year thirty six UK Anglican bishops at the General Synod voted in favour of apologising to the LGBTIQ+[1] community, and preparing prayers of blessing for anyone in a ‘stable and committed’ relationship.
Dear Rev. Kennington,
An
Ordinary Anglican
5. What does the Bible actually say?
When Jesus
quotes Genesis 2 (Mark 10,Matthew 19) he is commenting on divorce
and addressing a primarily heterosexual audience. He is not saying that
Genesis 2 is in any way a compulsory universal law for all people -
after all Jesus did not leave his father and mother and cleave to a wife
..... There are alternative lifestyles to Mark 10 and Matthew 19.
An ordinary
Anglican
Warm
greetings and I hope this finds you well.
Note that Malakoi in 1 Corinthians 6 is
misleadingly translated 'passive gay partner' by many commentors, but when the
word appears in the mouth of Jesus Matthew 11, and Luke 7 it means a
(rich) man who lives in luxurious surroundings!
I am replying out of courtesy - I am sorry that I do not have the time to give you the full answer that you deserve or desire.
Thank you for your courtesy, it is greatly appreciated
I take this seriously – but I doubt we will change each other’s minds – I am just hoping that you come to see that accusations of not taking the Bible serious are slander..
We come from a very different starting point . I suspect you believe that the Bible is clear that marriage is the union of one man and one woman for life. I come from the starting point that the Bible declares something very different and more challenging to the status quo of society. Let me give brief pointers.
I am struggling to see how the Bible is challenging this status quo. There is not a comma that supports the idea that marriage is the union of two men or two women, unlike the way the Bible challenges the status quo of racism or sexism and other systems that demean people.
The challenge to the status quo of the New Testament, and particularly of Jesus, is the challenge to the current believe that the family is the bedrock of society. Jesus challenges that directly by 1. Not getting married himself – a failure to obey one of the rabbinical commands. 2. Challenging blood ties by claiming that those who do the will of the Father are his brother and sister and mother not those who are blood relatives. 3. Telling us that the Gospel will set father against son, mother against daughter, etc. 4. Telling us that marriage does not continue into heaven but that we are like the angels – ie marriage is for this life only. 5. Creating a new family which is those who are his disciples. St Paul expands on this in his theology. Sadly the Christian Church has elevated family life to be a tenet of faith in direct contradiction to Jesus’s plain teaching and example.
1. Is it possible that 2000 years Christianity have been reading the Bible incorrectly? Yes it is - Christianity has a very bad track record on anti-semiticism, racism, slavery, women's rights and much more.
Yes, it is true that the Bible has been used wrongly by churches to support anti-Semitism, racism, slavery, and keeping women in the kitchen making tea.
2. Is it possible that the Global majority are wrong and that the Western Minority is right? Yes it is - the Bible has a long-standing tradition of the prophetic minority and all advancements in justice have been led by a minority against a majority.
It is certainly true that the minority can be right and the majority wrong, but not always. For the church there must be strong Scriptural support for a radical departure from normal practice. There is such support in the Bible for the ministry of women; there is none for the abolition of traditional marriage.
Some would disagree with you and argue that there is scant scripture support for women’s ministry and even direct prohibition – see 1 Corinthians 14:34, 1 Timothy 2:12, but as in all things we have to hear what the Spirit is telling us because the Bible is not a dead page with an interpretation set once and for all in the past, it is a living and active word. There are also clear bible texts to maintain slavery and apartheid as the Dutch Reformed Church attempted to do.
AND
…. We all accept that heterosexual marriage is the ‘norm’ in as much as
that is how the vast majority of people will live their lives … it is normal
that the Bible should affirm that … the question is whether or not the very
small minority who are born with a different sexual psychology are allowed to
find any kind of mutual fulfilment with a partner or whether it must be denied
them. I do not believe the Bible speaks on this matter at all, so we must
judge from other texts.
3. Is it possible that the Gospel can bring division in the church - well yes - Jesus told us that it would divide father, son, daughter, mother-in-law. And history teaches us that divisions in the church happen in the name of the truth.
Yes, the preaching the Gospel and holy living should divide. John Wesley caused massive division which brought great blessing to both the UK and beyond in terms of people repenting and living wholesome lives, and in service to the poor. I cannot see what blessing your divisiveness is bringing except a terrible undermining of traditional marriage, the bedrock of society, and I have yet to see any hospital or orphanage or drug rehabilitation centre sponsored by LGBT Christianity.
The divisiveness is coming from those who in a cruel, callous and unkind way are preventing people with a psychologically homosexual gender from having any freedom of sexual expression whatsoever. It is a wicked and cruel judgement. Traditional nuclear family life was condemned by Jesus – the bedrock of Society is our common humanity, and our Christian Community.
And
you should do some research on the remarkable stories around AIDS where the
LGBTQI communities sacrificially cared for each other, founded hospitals when
much of the heterosexual world, including Christians condemned and failed to
visit the sick – a Gospel imperative.
4. Is it possible that the pastoral care that the church has been giving people has been misguided and that people have made sacrifices which they need not have made? Yes is it. You may not believe in remarriage after divorce - but that is surely the most obvious case - many many people remained in violent, unhappy and abusive marriages because the Church told and still tells them that they must not divorce.
Here you are rejecting Christ’s command that man should not pull asunder what God has joined together. When reading this my mind went to Mark 7 where Jesus talks about the tradition of men rejecting the commandments of God.
A Christian man or woman who is in an abusive relationship can separate, but not divorce, unless, as Jesus instructed, they have been betrayed by their spouse. That betrayal is wider than just the physical act of adultery.
First of all - I would say compare your KJV with your modern translation . Modern translations have cruelly swapped ‘put away’ (apoluo) and ‘divorce’ iphstemi. Jesus is not condemning those who divorce but those who put away their wives without giving them a divorce – a very common practice in Judaism at the time and still a practice in Islam and Orthodox Judaism. The man ‘puts away’ but doesn’t divorce his wife – he keeps the dowry – he can get married again but the wife is cast off with no money and no possibility of remarriage.
5. What does the Bible actually say?
a) In Genesis 1, God makes human beings male and female in the same way that God made night and day
‘in the same way’. This is a strong assertion. How do you know that God made the day and night in the same way as God made mankind? In fact we know it was not ‘in the same way’ because God mane man in his own image. Hence this creation was of a different order for there is nothing about God making the sky of the sea ‘in his own image’.
Purely talking from the text. The image of God is male and female, so I presume God is both male and female. The text reads ‘male and female’ – Hebrew conjunction waw, not male or female Hebrew conjustion aleph – waw - the text says what it means – we are – each one of us - made both male and female in the image of God who is one and is male and female.
- - God did not make them male or female, binary, any more than daylight suddenly turns into night. Just as there is dawn and dusk, so human beings are all on a spectrum of being more or less masculine and feminine.
The evidence points away from these assertions you are making. Genesis 1:27 says, ‘Male and female he created them, that is binary, and then immediately God tells them to multiply, underlining the two sexes.
I reiterate that ‘male and female’ means something different from ‘male or female’ - unless you think the text got the conjunction wrong.
Regarding day and night, we are talking about a very small amount of time when it is not clear whether it is daylight or not. It is nearly always either day or night. There is no spectrum here. Likewise, apart from the tiny minority who are born with both male and female parts, there is no physical gender spectrum among human beings.
I totally disagree. First even if there is only a small amount of time which is more day than night, equally day and night, or more night and day – the fact is that there is a fuzzy boundary not a clear cut ‘either or’ boundary – and if you say there is then you are simply not looking at the real world. . The same is true of people – some people (male and female) are more masculine looking and some people (male and female) are more feminine looking … yes the vast majority are cis-gendered ( the right sexuality in the right genital body) but even if only 0.5% of the population are not that minority they still deserves justice - even if the percentage is only 0.1% etc. Remember Lot’s argument with God.
We all accept that a small minority of people are born physically with confused gender - people who are hermaphrodite or intersex - what has happened in modern times is that we now accept that people are not just physical people but we are also very complex psychological and genetic people and some people are born with different gendered psychology.
This is neither historically nor theologically accurate. Historically previous generations have been well aware of psychology, including men who behave in ways more associated with women, and vice versa. Theologically Christianity is robustly physical and, against Greek thinking, has always insisted on the utter reality of the body – as it is. For you to divide the psychological person from their physical body is to place yourself outside the Biblical view of man and soteriology. For the latter hinges on the physical death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Again I totally disagree – it is only relatively recently that we have begun to understand psychology – and even more recently that we have begun to understand how gender and sexuality fit into that. We are complicated people and for you to claim that the psychological person cannot be at variance with the physical body goes against all medical understanding – which is of course your right, along with believing in 7 day creation and the flat earth – if you so choose. However …… claiming that your view is the only valid view is arrogant.
As
for psychology being at variance with the body I would suggest you read Romans
7 when St Paul talks quite a lot about it.
b) in Genesis 2 the human creature (Adam - Hebrew for human being not male man) is divided into man and woman because the human being was not happy with animals as partners. The thing about the woman is not that she is different and complementary, but that she is the same - bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh. To suggest that a man needs a women to become a whole being is heresy, as it would imply that Jesus is not a whole human being and did not redeem women as well as men.
It has never been Christian doctrine that a man or woman has to marry to become ‘a whole being’. Immediately after the creation of mankind as a man and a woman in 1:26 God commands them to multiply; and immediately after the ‘bone of my bone’ poem, we are told they became ‘one flesh’ referring to the sexual act. Of course we can have companionship with those of the same gender, but marriage and children has always been about a man and a woman having sex, in the Bible and throughout history.
‘It has never been Christian doctrine’ – is not a biblical argument. It is blatantly obvious that the normal and natural way to have children is via heterosexual sex – no one is advocating cloning here ... and obviously same sex couples just cannot have heterosexual sex. It is not what is being asked for.
c) Leviticus 18 and 20 - the English translation is misleading. The text is literally 'And a man who lays a male the layings of a woman' The Jewish Scholars first debated what this actually means way back in the 4th Century, and they had great difficulty defining what 'layings of a woman' might actually mean. Modern Rabbis still debate what the Hebrew means - but the consensus is that it is describing a particular sex act rather than all sex acts. see Dorff paper.indd (washington.edu) That some sex acts are prohibited for heterosexuals does not preclude heterosexuals from all marriage - that some sex acts are prohibited for homosexuals does not preclude them from all marriage either.
I would be wary of resting anything on one or two OT texts. We are to see the Bible through the paradigm of the New Testament.
Indeed : Galatians 3:28
d) I am not dealing with Sodom and Gomorrah as scholars are pretty well all agreed that this is about gang rape.
Fair enough.
e) The new Testament has few relevant texts. The greek 'porneia' is regularly condemned but never defined. It has been translated as 'fornication' in the past - but fornication had a precise definition in law - not all sexual acts are fornication.
When Jesus quotes Genesis 2 (Mark 10,Matthew 19) he is commenting on divorce and addressing a primarily heterosexual audience. He is not saying that Genesis 2 is in any way a compulsory universal law for all people - after all Jesus did not leave his father and mother and cleave to a wife ..... there are alternative lifestyles to Mark 10 and Matthew 19.
Agreed, there are alternative life-styles, which Jesus refers to with his reference to those who make themselves eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of God. There is though no hint of a suggestion that sexual pleasure outside the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman is ever permissible.
I think you need to start defining ‘sexual pleasure’ much more precisely - when a heterosexual couple of teenagers hold hands in a cinema is that ‘sexual pleasure’
If
the deed is OK for unmarried heterosexuals it is OK for same sex couples.
The question is ‘where do you draw the line’?
f) 1 Corinthians 6 and 1 Timothy 1:10 This is the first time we find the word 'arsenokoites' in any writings - it looks as if St Paul made it up. Unfortunately that means that we do not know precisely what it means. The translation 'homosexual' in many modern translations is very misleading - it is much more likely that the term means rapist, or sexually promiscuous predator. It is possible that it is related to Leviticus 18 and 20 - or it is possible that it is related to Judges 21:11 which is a much closer Hebrew parallel where it means women who are not virgins who should be slain by the sword.
Note that Malakoi in 1 Corinthians 6 is misleadingly translated 'passive
gay partner' by many commentators, but when the word appears in the mouth of
Jesus Matthew 11, and Luke 7 it means a (rich) man who lives in luxurious
surroundings!
I appreciate that words can be mistranslated; however it does seem odd that so many translators have got this wrong. The issue at stake here though is whether sexual enjoyment outside the covenant of marriage is permissible or not. Given the strong words Jesus has about lust, and given that there was no gay marriage in Jewish society at the time, it is impossible to think that two men or two women masturbating together without any commitment to each other and without any prospect of children would have been deemed acceptable in His eyes. Whether the actual word for homosexuality is used in these passages is secondary.
It is cruel of you to deny the fact that many homosexual couples have a great deal of commitment to one another and it is cruel of you to suggest that heterosexual couples who have no prospect of children would not be acceptable to Jesus.
This
looks like pure prejudice to me. We are not talking about sex maniacs,
preditors or people who engage in casual sex. We are talking about people
who genuinely love one another, have committed their whole lives to one
another, and who are genuinely sexually attracted to one another…..
g) Romans 1:26 etc is a little more complicated. The text reads not that women gave up natural sex for unnatural sex, but they exchanged natural use for 'alongside' use. (The Greek word 'para' means along side as in paramedic, the Greek for against is 'kata' and it does not appear here) - it suggests that women engaged in an alternative sex act but doesn't necessarily imply that they did so with other women.
As for the next verse - all we know is that men did similar condemned sex acts which are 'shameful' - 'aschemosune' in Greek - unfortunately St Paul does not tell us what those acts are ... but he does tell us somewhat cryptically that they receive the reward (consequences? ) of their acts 'in themselves'. It is a long way to presume that St Paul is thinking of a married gay couple who have voluntarily limited their sex life within certain boundaries. Personally I think St Paul is talking of violent and sado-masochistic fetishes which were prevalent in some pagan cultures of the time, and which we condemn for both heterosexuals and homosexuals alike whether they are married or not!
As I have said above, the heart of the matter is what constitutes a Christian marriage. Your problem is that wherever we turn in the Bible, and two thousand years of church history, the same emphasis is found: sexual intimacy is for the covenant of a marriage between a man and a woman (or in the OT, women), and children are to be hoped for.
You have not defined sexual intimacy. In Jewish Law, and in English law for that matter it is penetration – Instead of telling gay people that they can have nothing – it would be so much better if you worked out what they can have … can they share a house? Can they cuddle? Can they hold hands? Can they kiss ….. draw your line, and then enforce that on the heterosexual world before you persecute gay people..
I don't expect any of the above to convince you - but I do hope that you will respect that I have indeed thought about this a great deal, studied the Bible in its original languages and I have come to a very different conclusion to the one you arrived at.
Thank you very much for your insights. My original email to you was entitled, ‘The wisdom from above is open to reason’. Jettison reason and we are all at sea. As explained your arguments above do not stand up to reason. If you can show that what I have written in response to your arguments is unreasonable I will certainly acknowledge that.
I certainly respect the hours of study you have given to the Scriptures, but as a priest you have a duty to ensure that the fruit of your study makes reasonable sense to an ordinary Anglican like me. So I hope very much that you will take the time to respond to what I have written here; and also to deal with the points raised in my essay, ‘Exceedingly Problematic’.
I think you are the one jettisoning objective reason in an attempt to prop up a view of gender and sexuality which is not defensible in the Bible and which is most certainly not defended by modern science.
I am afraid that I believe that those who oppose equality for homosexuals are opposing the Gospel, misusing Scripture and denying the Holy Spirit ... which I know is a serious charge .... But I shall l pray for you, as I hope you will pray for me also.
I very much appreciate your commitment to your cause. Your robust determination to undermine traditional Christian marriage and launch the Anglican church into uncharted territory in the name of equality is much more refreshing than the half-hearted limping compromise that the General Synod has voted for.
My prayer is for the church to have a Hezekiah like revival where repentance from all sin (including sexual sin) is preached, the power of Christ’s blood to cleanse us from all impurity is proclaimed, and that the church is filled with Christians whose lives, full of salt and light, threaten our ‘crooked and perverse’ generation. I will certainly pray for you Paul that you commit to this revival of holy living in accordance with the Scriptures.
Can I agree with you here and I long for this too, and this is what I preach … love God with all your heart and all your mind and all your strength and all your soul, and love your neighbour as yourself. Not a bad Gospel!
I
pray that you, Tom, may turn from persecution of an abused minority who live
under the death penalty in some countries, and welcome the Good News that the
Gospel brings.
As ever,
Tom
And sincerely,
Paul
Warm greetings and I hope this finds you well (section deleted) That was grim persecution.
It would be wonderful to hear from you again Paul, especially as to whether you agree with me as to where the heart of our disagreement is.
I also think it is possible for a couple to say the
wedding vows themselves and be joined by God, even if no church or state
recognises it - God will not be dictated to by church or state !
In the end we never actually know whom God has joined together or
not.
26 Then God said, “Let
us make the adam (humankind) in our image, in
our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the
birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all
the creatures that move along the ground.”
27 So God created the
adam (humankind) in his own image,
in the image of God he created
them;
male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them and
said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the
earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea
Chapter 2
15 The Lord God took the
adam (humankind) and put him in the Garden of Eden to work
it and take care of it. 16 And
the Lord God commanded the adam (humankind) ,
“You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but
you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when
you eat from it you will certainly die.”
18 The Lord God said, “It is not
good for the adam (humankind) to be alone. I will make a
helper suitable for him.”
19 Now the Lord God had formed
out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the
sky. He brought them to the adam (humankind) to see
what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living
creature, that was its name. 20 So the
adam (humankind) gave names to all the livestock, the birds in
the sky and all the wild animals.
But for the adam (humankind) [f] no suitable
helper was found. 21 So the Lord God
caused the adam (humankind) to fall into a deep
sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the adam
(humankind) ribs[g] and then closed
up the place with flesh. 22 Then
the Lord God made a woman (ishah) from the rib[h] he had taken
out of the adam (humankind) , and he brought her
to the adam (humankind) .
23 the adam (humankind) said,
“This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman,’ (ishah)
for she was taken out of man.”
(ish)
24 That is why a man (ish)
leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, (ishah
- his woman) and they become one flesh.
25 the adam (humankind) and his wife
were both naked, and they felt no shame.
10 Reply from Tom Hawksley to Rev Paul
Kennington 26th July, 2023
Warm greetings and I hope this finds you well.
Forgive my radio silence. I have been on two longish trips (section deleted) It was sobering to listen to what this family has suffered. I mention this because you will appreciate that people like (name deleted) would find it difficult to understand why some Christians are speaking in a way which will make ministry in countries lik (names deleted) even more difficult.
Of course, if this was an issue like the divinity of Christ, then that is what must be preached. However if the issue does not command the support of the majority of the church, surely those who want to see a strong church in countrieslike (names deleted) would focus on what has brought growth in the past - fasting, prayer, sexual purity, hostility to the world, commitment to the Scriptures and bold preaching of Christ crucified.
During my second trip I was privileged to join with (word deleted) team ministering to twenty-one men (words deleted). Our theme was, ‘A beloved son, not a condemned slave’. We gave almost an entire day to looking at what sexual purity looks like and in the evening, we encouraged them to confess all these types of sins and receive forgiveness. I personally heard some of these confessions. The lists are not short. After this meeting there was a shift in the spiritual atmosphere. Things deepened. I mention this to help you understand how important it is in these sorts of situations to be clear about what sexual sin is. If we had even introduced for a second the idea that some sex outside traditional marriage is not sinful we might have well packed our bags and gone home.
Let me now address some of your thoughts in your last letter.
I would see all of our odd sexual feelings and wayward thoughts as being a part and parcel of the fall. It would be hard to know whether it was a disability like being deaf as choice is involved with homosexuality. There is none if you are born deaf. However, given that marriage in Genesis is connected to procreation, then the kindest approach would be to pray for someone with these feelings to be healed. But, as we all know, that might or might not happen. Then, as with Paul's thorn in the flesh, we must accept that God's grace is sufficient. Your insistence that people must have sex to be fulfilled puts a question mark over what Paul teaches.
The Gay Christian Movement was founded in 1976, that is forty-eight years ago. The fact that in nearly fifty years there does not seem to be a single LGBT Christian organisation in the UK engaged with preaching the Gospel and serving the poor brings to mind Jesus' comment about knowing a tree by its fruit. Plenty of division, but no ministry to the poor and lost. It would seem that Christians with difficult sexual feelings are primarily concerned about fulfilling their own desires. It's all about themselves. Christianity is all about others.
Wonderful if you could give some clarification regarding what you are saying about Jesus and the family. Do you strongly disagree with me when I say that 'Jesus is not against the family per se', are you therefore saying that Jesus was in fact against the family? If so that is simplistic. Jesus put God first, and there were tensions with his family. But his mother was near the cross, his brother led the church in Jerusalem, and there is a lovely phrase in Mark 3 – ‘then he went home’.
I don't think the issue of women's ministry needs to distract our correspondence. I think we are both on the same page here.
If we stay with Genesis sexual fulfilment has two pillars. There is ‘one flesh’, that is intercourse. The other is ‘multiply’, which is having children. Two people masturbating together is not there. I agree that God is all for pleasure, there will be plenty in the next life. However there has to be authority for Christians to enjoy legitimate pleasure. You call me cruel, but with millions of other Christians, I cannot see any Biblical authority for two people masturbating together with no possibility of procreation. Shift things to drinking. It's clear Christians can drink, but we can't get drunk. Is it cruel to say that to a Christian who likes to drink a lot? I don't think so.
You are correct that Jesus’ view on homosexuality is not in the New Testament, but from Paul we get a feel of what the usual Jewish view was. You can find I believe the same disparaging view of homosexual in the writings of Philo and Josephus. You might want to bat back that Jesus was a radical and wanted to move things on from Philo and others. But if he had wanted to do that he would have said so, and surely this would have got into the Gospels. Instead we have, as you say, total silence. A fair conclusion is this. It is likely that Jesus shared the view of his Jewish contemporaries, but even if he chose to remain silent while wanting to support homosexuality, it is impossible for the church to change its teachings when there is silence.
I chuckled when I read about your belief in private marriage. We have had a situation like this, a man telling a woman that they were married in the eyes of God. It was pretty clear he wanted the sex and not the responsibilities that come with marriage. They never did properly marry. She suffered, and he married someone else. Your view is very Western and individualistic, the ultimate DIY version of marriage. It’s a long way from what we have in the Bible and church history and the vast majority of human history. Here marriage is first public commitment followed by private consummation. That is the approach of a gentleman. And so we certainly know what God has joined together. It seems to me that rather than holding out marriage as a shining light to a perverted and twisted generation soaked in promiscuity, you are twisting marriage to suit the perverted generation.
Your statement that you think gay couples have been married in the eyes of God for centuries is, I am afraid, pure speculation. This is your opinion, but that is not enough for the church. There must be the authority of Scripture and church traditions. If we were to follow your thinking it means we can start moving the ancient boundaries whenever we want.
To jump from my asking you not to accuse me of persecuting you because we are having a calm correspondence to suggesting that my approach can be likened to what kept apartheid and Nazism afloat seems rather dramatic. And of course wrong. Neither of these were upheld by reason. They were upheld by violence, which brooked no opposition. And it was reason allied to morality which brought both systems crashing down. The same can be said for slavery in the USA. However you are correct to emphasize the importance of fruits. If you sincerely believe this then may I suggest that you abandon your support for LGBTism and return to the ancient boundaries. For, as said, the fruits of LGBTism both in the church and the wider society has been absolutely miserable. In the church it has spread grim division, and in the wider society we have teenagers being abused by an anti-Christian ideology which tells them they might have been born with the wrong body. Research shows that the UK was a happier society in the 1950s, despite the suffering of the war years. Then the old morality was undermined, and promiscuity followed by LGBTism has spread. Now we are a miserable and rude society. That’s the fruit of what you support.
I will skip your next para about sexual purity as I have dealt with this idea that you don’t have to have a public commitment to be married above.
On the excesses of the LGBT world, as Christians we have to let the world go its own way even though we know that a little leaven can cause havoc. That is what has happened because of the state giving into LGBTism. Our concern is the church. Here we have to root out even the ‘little leaven’. If you read about the Welsh Revival you will see that Roberts was extremely sensitive about anything that was sinful. Or Bakht Singh in India. He once visited a family for dinner and there was a poster of a scantily dressed film star on the wall. Singh said either the poster came down, or he was leaving. By allying yourself to the LGBT cause – not its excesses – you have no authority to deal with the little leaven in the church.
Regarding your belief on the silence of the Bible about homosexuality, that would strengthen my argument that the church should not make radical changes when there is silence.
I enjoyed what you wrote about repentance. I have nothing to add. I also respect what you write about us all having to give an account of our lives before God. And I very much appreciate your emphasis on how God is full of compassion and wants us to have life.
Going back to what I was involved in last week. It was when people brought to the light their sins, especially those of a sexual nature, that their understanding of God’s compassion deepened. There is no grace, unless first we own up to the truth of who we are and what we have done.
As we do not agree on what the truth is regarding sexual sin, and bar a miracle we probably never will, so our view of grace will be different.
Thankfully we don’t have to judge each other, and again I would like to say a huge thank you to you for engaging with my arguments.
As ever,
Tom
39But if it is from
God, you will not be able to stop them. You may even find yourselves fighting
against God.”
13 Reply from Tom Hawksley to Paul Kennington
26th August, 2023
Dear Paul,
Warm greetings again and I hope this finds you well.
Thank you very much for your last email replying to mine.
Here are my responses to the points you made. I am afraid you are entirely wrong on several points. This is not a matter of prejudice, but reason and evidence.
1. Fluid sexuality is not a scientific fact.
You assert that fluid sexuality is a fact, that our sexuality is not a choice, that it comes on a spectrum. However it is not a scientific fact and you are entirely wrong to make this assertion.
Just google the question – are people born homosexuals and one of the first links is to an article from ‘Scientific American’ which looks at a study of half a million people. The headline conclusion is that there is no gene or set of genes that mean someone will be born with homosexual tendencies. The second link from ‘Planned Parenthood’ takes your view, but wisely refuses to say, as you do, that this is scientific fact. It says it is ‘likely’ it’s to do with biological factors before birth. Neither of us have the time to trawl through all the websites but to be fair to those who research in this matter you have to conclude, like Wikipedia, that this is still a matter for research.
LGBT Christianity and the poor – no telephone numbers.
I am sure that you and others have served the poor. My point is that after nearly fifty years there is not a single Christian LGBT organisation with an address and telephone number that serves the poor. However there are thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of Christian organisations which support traditional marriage – and serve the poor. They are an organisational reality. Jesus’ words, ‘You will know them by their fruits’ must be difficult for LGBT Christianity. After fifty years all we see is a divided church, endless court cases, and for some people a lot of hurt.
Marriage and family life are only for this life
As you believe this, then if must follow that the church must do all it can to support the family.
Man is always violent, honesty makes no difference
You are right that grim things happened in the 1950s. Sadly, my reading of history tells me that human beings are always violent, especially heterosexual men, regardless of how ‘honest’ they are. The answer is not to preach honesty, as you suggest, but to preach Christ’s salvation, the power of the Holy Spirit – and to uphold the ancient boundaries. Your views are undermining those boundaries.
Whoever lives in love, lives in God – that means controlling your urges
Your ‘Whoever lives in love, lives in God’ needs to have boundaries. The Old Testament is full of warnings though about sex outside marriage. The rape of Dinah, Judah and Tamar, Potiphar’s wife and Joseph, Samson, the gang rape of the Levite’s concubine, David and Bathsheba, Amnon and Tamar, Absalom and his father’s concubines. The message is obvious, and severely underlined by Jesus and Paul in the New Testament. Love means controlling your sexual urges. Your ‘Whoever lives in love, lives in God’ could be a creed for an orgy unless you draw up strict boundaries as to where sexual intimacy belongs. In our correspondence you have watered down these boundaries, even at one point saying that a man can sleep with a man or a woman and call this marriage. This is neither honourable or loving.
No such thing as traditional marriage. Not true.
You are very wrong to say there is no such thing as traditional marriage. In Western civilisation for at least the last thousand years marriage has been understood to be between one man and one woman. In the Middle East and Africa there is some polygamy, however Pew Research has shown that only about 2% of the world’s population has this arrangement (see, https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/12/07/polygamy-is-rare-around-the-world-and-mostly-confined-to-a-few-regions/) So your assertion that there is no such thing as ‘traditional marriage’ does not stand up to scrutiny. There certainly is traditional marriage. The vast majority of people all over the world know exactly what is meant by marriage. It is a man and a woman who have made promises to be faithful to each other till death separates them.
We are not free to preach whatever we believe
You are very welcome to proclaim your beliefs – but not as a Christian priest in a Christian church, because your beliefs neither have the support of Scripture or the church. Moreover your beliefs are causing terrible division in the church. You are bringing to the UK the grim divisiveness that has torn apart the Episcopal Church in the USA.
When making a decision R.T. Kendall suggests we use the acronym PEACE. P is for Providence, E for Enemy, A for authority, C for Confidence and E for Ease. He then suggests that we should only move forward if all five of these conditions are met. Your desire to bring homosexual marriage into the church gets a tick for the P. With the bishops vote this is ‘providential’. But it gets an X for all the others. What does the enemy want? Division. That is what this decision is bringing. We should do the opposite, bring unity. There is no Scriptural of ecclesiastical authority for this decision. It is weakening the confidence of the church, especially the mission of the church in Asia and Africa. You are breaking our bats before we get anywhere near the crease. As for ease of heart, it is bringing anguish.
If LGBT Christianity is from God, nobody will be able to stop its growth.
It’s
already been stopped.
You have already been stopped by the churches in Africa and Asia. You are only supported by some parts of declining denominations in the West. And if a John Wesley or an Evan Roberts or a Charles Finney were to emerge in the next few years where hundreds of thousands were converted to Christ, your stance will be robustly rejected, and then forgotten, rather like most people, thankfully, have forgotten about Positive Christianity.
As ever,
Tom
. Reply from Paul Kennington to Tom Hawksley, 27th August 2023
This was not a conventional letter.
Paul pasted an article from Wikipedia entitled ‘Environment and Sexual Orientation’. He highlighted this: ‘Scientists do not know the exact cause of sexual orientation, but they theorize that it is the result of a complex interplay of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences. They do not view sexual orientation as a choice.’
He also posted information about Mark Russell, a supporter of LGBTism, who has served as the leader of the Church Army.
And a definition of family under the heading, ‘Nothing about heterosexual nuclear family here’.
And the famous verses from 1 Corinthians 13 with this caption
Good definition of love here - for both of us - not your 'it allows rape and orgies definition
And finally a Wikipedia entry about polygamy which argued that polygamy was common and which also speculated that polyandry was around in pre-history.
15. Reply from Tom Hawksley to Paul Kennington 28th August, 2023
Dear Paul,
Enjoyed your robust answer
Best,
Tom
Well as you have learned I’m actually convinced of my liberal stance!
I’ll share a personal story with you. Over 20 years ago, having run several Alpha courses in my Church. I felt troubled by Leviticus 18 and 20 and homosexuality. With a sad heart, ready to be convicted by Scripture, I opened my Hebrew Bible - I was lucky enough to have learned Hebrew at Oxford - I read the two verses, I then read them again - I became angry because the Hebrew clearly does not say what my RSV said - the translators had, at the very least added the word ‘as’. (A man who lies with a man (as) with a woman) the word ‘as’ is simply not there in the Hebrew.
I then went to see what the ancient Rabbi’s said and they agreed with me that the text is not at all clear. They wrote much about this in the 4th century and the 11th century and have many very graphic descriptions of what men may do with other men.
I remain angry that Christian teachers do not share the Rabbi’s fine criticism of the text and even angrier that translators are able to pass off their personal paraphrase as the Word of God.
My study made me convinced that God actually and intentionally prevented the writers of Scripture from condemning Homosexuality - so that in Leviticus and even in St Paul the writers never actually manage to write a clear condemnation even if they wanted to - God is Good - and I accept the text as the Word of God, not the presumed/ guessed at mind or opinions of St Paul /. He may have had all sorts of odd views, but what matters is the inspired text on the page - the text and nothing else, certainly not the mind of Calvin or Luther!!!
And yes I am sad that all Jewish boys can read their Scriptures in Hebrew and all muslim boys can read their scriptures in arabic but 90% of Christian clergy cannot read their scriptures in the language God chose for them.
I think if we all started taking note of the little footnote on so many pages ‘Hebrew obscure’ we might all think more carefully before we write our sermons
Thought for today ……
Paul
20 Reply from Tom Hawksley to Paul Kennington, 26th August 2023
Dear Paul,
Warm greetings and thank you for your robust email about Leviticus.
As we both agreed early on it is unwise to anchor Christian doctrine or practice on one verse in the Old Testament, so I am not sure whether the missing 'as' in the Hebrew is that important.
What I have found interesting in our discussion is that while the Bible and the church's view on homosexuality, what has emerged is that this is not the central issue. The central issue is the doctrine of man, and that leads to what is Christian marriage.
Regarding the demise of the US Episcopalian Church, yes of course, there are many reasons why church attendance is falling in the West, but whenever a denomination departs from orthodoxy and embraces LGBTism there is decline. See here:
https://evangelicalfocus.com/features/12757/inclusive-protestant-churches-are-sinking
Just on the grounds of maintaining unity and working for the growth of the church, common sense says you should abandon your support for LGBTism and return to orthodoxy.
I will now reply more fully to the earlier email you sent to me, the last one that is up on the blog.
As ever,
2. Then in Genesis 2, when this hermaphrodite saw
all the animals with a partner the human being felt lonely so God put this
He/She to sleep and performed a splitting operation whereby the female
part separated from the male.
Tom
We have
been working on Genesis 2, in the main.
Genesis 1 does not have anything about the story of the creation of Eve.
Gen 1.27 covers that whole story in two phrases
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
First God only created Adam (not man remember) - then God created 'them'
As to whether or not Adam was hermaphrodite is an impossible question.
If you
think Gen 1:27 - 28 is an abreviation of Gen 2:, then the whole question of
sexual reproduction was not raised until after the Fall. ie we do not
decay or die before the fall. Indeed Eve was created as a friend and helpmate,
not as a sexual reproducer.
So I suppose I would say that Adam's sexuality before the Fall is akin to God's, (Father, Son and Holy Spirit - one God) - and I don't know what that is.
P
23. Reply from Tom Hawksley to Paul Kennington, 30th August 2023
Warm greetings and many thanks for your swift reply.
So, initially one physical being, which is both male and female, then two.
I think you still have a problem with Genesis 1:27 because it says 'them' indicating that there is a man and a woman, not one being who is both male and female.
Enjoy your day. And since you are in Essex, I hope you get time to go further up the A12 to visit Suffolk, my home country, and especially the Snape Maltings and Aldeburgh.
As ever,
Love Snape - were friends
P
[1]: L = Lesbian G = gay (men
with men) B = Bi, people are attracted sexually to both men and women T =
trans, men who prefer to act as women, women who prefer to act as men. I =
intersex, people who are born with physical features that are both male and
female Q = Queer. It is rather ill defined, but seems to a letter to protest
against seeing sexuality as binary. The plus sign is there to cover anything
that does not fit into these letters. For a full list of what the plus sign
covers see here: https://www.thepinknews.com/2017/11/27/the-ultimate-lgbt-glossary-all-your-questions-answered/?_gl=1*1w5i6ar*_ga*Mzc1ODc5MjY3LjE2OTE3MDI4Njc.*_ga_BX9CRJ4BBP*MTY5MTcwMjg2Ni4xLjAuMTY5MTcwMjg3MS41Ny4wLjA.#page/1
The writer of Genesis was more concise.
[2] Reverend Kennington trained as a priest in Durham. He has served in parishes in Greater London, and from 2010 - 1016 he was Dean of Montreal Cathedral. Paul was married and
is the father of three children and a grand-father. He and his wife have
divorced and for the last ten years or more Rev Kennington has been living with his civil partner, Jonathan.