Sternfield Thoughts: 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.

Millions of Anglican Christians across the world were appalled. I was one of them and I wrote to the bishops with a paper explaining why their apology and proposal was problematic. None of them engaged with the arguments I put forward. This was frustrating. I then noticed that the new dean for Chelmsford was going to be Reverend Paul Kennington[2], an outspoken supporter of – in his own words – ‘expanding traditional marriage to include same-sex couples’.

Would Rev Paul Kennington engage with my arguments?

The answer was, ‘Yes’. And I would like to say how grateful I am that at least one senior member of the clergy has been willing to give time to this ordinary Anglican. Moreover I have found Paul’s argument’s fascinating, and his passion to expand traditional marriage challenging.

If this subject is of concern to you I think you will find our correspondence interesting. It is published with Paul’s permission, and I have only edited out parts which might threaten the Christians I serve as some of them live in regions deeply hostile to Christianity.

Here is our correspondence.

1. Letter from Tom Hawksley to Rev Paul Kennington, 25h May, 2023

Dear Rev. Kennington,

Warm greetings and I hope this finds you well.

I am an ordinary Anglican. I became a Christian with Operation Mobilisation in 1977, and grew in my faith at St Aldates' Oxford under Michael Green. I then worked at Simon House[3] in Oxford, which I expect you remember, and in 1982 I went out to Pakistan and was involved in missionary work in Karachi. Here the Anglican Church under Bishop Rudwin had a good presence. For the last nearly thirty years I have worked (word deleted), serving the church (section deleted)

I write this to let you know that - like many others - I believe with all my heart that the Gospel of Christ is the best news there is for any human being, anywhere. To contaminate this Gospel is grievous. Hence I am bewildered by the apology of the last General Synod to people who fall under the plus of the LGBTIQ label (Pink News has an exotic list of what this plus sign includes), and the compromise it is proposing.

I see that you are committed to gaining acceptance in the church for sexual intimacy outside normal traditional marriage, and so write in the hope that you will be able to offer some reasoned responses to the points raised in the attached paper. Given that you must have been engaged with these sorts of questions for many years, especially as this has affected your life at a very personal level, I trust this will take very little of your time.

I hope that you will be generous enough to give that time to consider the points that I raise.

Yours truly,

Tom Hawksley

An Ordinary Anglican

The attached paper can be seen here - https://sternfieldthoughts.blogspot.com/2023/05/the-bishops-wanting-to-bless-sexual.html

2. Reply from Rev Paul Kennington to Tom Hawksley 25^th May, 2023

Dear Tom,

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.

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.

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-Semitism, racism, slavery, women's rights and much more.

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.

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.

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.

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 - - 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. 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.

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 woman 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.

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.

d) I am not dealing with Sodom and Gomorrah as scholars are pretty well all agreed that this is about gang rape.

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.

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 promiscous preditor. 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!

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!

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. 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.

yours in Christ

Paul

3. Reply from Tom Hawksley to Rev Paul Kennington 26^th May, 2023

Dear Paul,

Warm greetings and thank you so much for your swift and reasoned reply.

I have written to all the thirty six bishops who voted for prayers of blessing for sexual intimacy outside traditional marriage, and my own vicar. The answers from Canterbury and York did not address any of the issues I raised; the Bishop of Oxford said the church had to deal with the pain of homosexual couples, with no explanation as to how Christian theology can have a proper anchor if dealing with human pain is its basis; the Bishop of Chelmsford said that within Anglicanism there was space for different opinions; the Bishop of Bristol said respectful conversation was important; and the vicar of my local church said Christianity is about love and truth, but did not deal with my arguments.

The other bishops have not replied.

So thank you for being the first ordained person to robustly bat back with solid reasons against the points I have raised. And thank you especially for your last paragraph that signals you are in favour of an honest war rather than a sickly peace.

I will carefully consider your points, and I hope you will have time to read my responses, which will be succinct.

Yours truly,

Tom Hawksley

An ordinary Anglican

4. Further reply from Tom Hawksley to Rev. Paul Kennington 12^th June, 2023

Dear Paul,

Warm greetings and I hope this finds you well.

In the attached I have responded to the points you raised in your reply to me.

I hope very much you are able to respond.

As ever,

Tom

The attachment is pasted below. My comments on Paul’s points in his last letter are in italics.

Dear Tom

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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’.

- - 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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 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.

As ever,

Tom

5. Reply from Rev Paul Kennington to Tom Hawksley 13^th June, 2023

Dear Tom

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..

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

I reiterate that ‘male and female’ means something different from ‘male or female’ - unless you think the text got the conjunction wrong.

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.

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’ – 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.

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.

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.

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…..

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 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.

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

6. Reply from Tom Hawksley to Rev Paul Kennington 23^rd June, 2023

Dear Paul,

Warm greetings and I hope this finds you well (section deleted) That was grim persecution.

May I begin by drawing back to see where we agree, and then suggest what the main disagreement is.

We both agree that the Bible must be taken seriously, and, furthermore, I think we both agree that the Old Testament must be seen through the prism of the New.

We also agree that the Holy Spirit speaks today, but never contra to the above..

We also agree that Jesus was radical, and, as you highlighted in your last email, this is especially true when it comes to the family. Following Him takes precedence.

Despite this agreement we have a disagreement on how God began the human story.

You believe that God has created mankind as 'human beings' who 'are all on a spectrum of being more or less masculine and feminine', so reflecting God's image who is both male and female. You then believe that some people are created by God with a 'homosexual psychological gender'.

I believe that God has created us male and female and, as separate entities, and this reflects God's image. I do not believe God has deliberately created anyone with a 'homosexual psychological gender'. Indeed the idea that God gives somone one type of body, but another type of 'psychological gender' casts a shadow over God as a good creator. I believe that something appalling happened at the fall and so, at present, the world is not as it was meant to be. This very much includes sexuality.

So we part company because our beliefs about the original design are different. Your creator is not the same as my creator. Since you believe God has deliberately created all these different types of sexual identities this means the church must accept these different sexual practices. To contradict this is 'cruel and wicked' (your words). I believe God's original design, set out in Genesis 2 and underlined by Christ in Matthew 19, is that sexual intimacy is for marriage between one man and one woman, and as Christians, renewed by the Holy Spirit, our lives should point to God's original design. Hence my belief that the church should fiercely defend the sanctity of marriage for Chrisitans; the world will, as always, go its own way.

Because you believe God has created split people you say I am 'cruel' because of my views. And I think that you are dangerously accommodating something in the church which God has never sanctioned. I have no doubt that many - especially children - will suffer because of this teaching.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I think this is the heart of our disagreement.

I would like now to answer the points you made in your last email.

No LGBT Christian hospitals

Yes, I am sure many people outside the traditional view of sexual morality helped those suffering from AIDS. That is to be applauded. However my point was that I have not heard of any LGBT Christian organisations (not LGBT organisations) who are serving the poor, the sick, and the suffering The list of Christian organisations with traditional views who are would run into the hundreds of thousands.

Jesus and the family

All your points are important and correct. However Jesus' teaching is for his followers to understand that the family must not be elevated above devotion to Him. This does not mean He is against marriage and the family per se.

Women's ministry

The Reformers said that we must not let what is clear in the Bible be controlled by what is opaque. Paul's teaching about women is surely sometimes verging on the opaque. What is clear is that women - even in Paul's churches - had ministry, and, most important of all, man and woman were equal when originally commissined by God in Genesis before the fall.

Mutual fulfillment

Untold millions are enriched by same sex friendships. This is to be unreservedly celebrated. I don't understand why you insist that these friendships should be allowed to become sexual and imitate marriage.

Jesus' sexual morality

I apologise for conveying the idea that a traditional couple without children would not be acceptable to Jesus. I absolutely do not believe this. However we do know what Jesus - as a Jew - thought about the sexual morality practised in Greek culture, hence my assertion that it is hard to see how He would have approved of any sexual intimacy outside traditional marriage.

Divorce

Thank you for pointing out the distinction between 'putting away' and 'divorce'. I can see how one should be wary of asserting Jesus' hostility to divorce per se on Matthew 5:31 - 32. However in the overall context of Matthew 5 we have the 'You have heard...but I say unto you' structure, so Jesus has to be saying something beyond the law. By insisting that these verses mean that Jesus wanted the woman to be be given the proper papers, fails to go beyond the law. Jesus is simply asking for the Mosaic law to be adhered to, unlike the other sections. And then there is Matthew 19:6. Here the word divorce is not used. Instead the emphasis that sexual union means becoming 'one flesh', and this is an act of God. So this is followed by the famous, 'What God has joined together let not man separate'. This is divine hostility to divorce. And that is reinforced in v. 8. And, as we agreed to look at the OT through the prism of the NT, in this prism Malachi 2:13 - 16 lights up. Hence, no slander here, I am afraid I think you are rejecting Christ's teaching when you think the church should be flexible about divorce. Divorce is an utter tragedy. It is death-like. The church must preach life.

Definitions

I would define sexual intimacy as being any activity that begins a journey that creates arousal that is likely to end in orgasm. This is completely different to showing physical affection. I think most of us know the difference. As a married man, if I begin to taste a slither of sexual enjoyment from any other source other than my wife, it is my duty, with the help of the Holy Spirit, to immediately put out that fire. We are to 'flee sexual immorality'. On the subject of definitions, how would you define Christian sexual morality? What is a sexual sin?

Being open to reason is not persecuting anyone

I am sad that you twice accuse me of persecuting 'gay' people. If you think that expressing these views amounts to persecuting anyone, then it is difficult for our conversation to be 'open to reason'. I think you are wrong, that's all. I am not persecuting you or any other person who supports your way of thinking. I dislike referring to people as 'gay' or 'straight' as I don't believe it is Christian to define people in such terms. We are much more.

Sexual purity for every Christian

All sexual pleasure outside marriage is sinful for all Christians. Full stop. So the church should insist on sexual purity for everyone whatever attractions they have. It is not just the duty of a minister to welcome people; as we know from both Paul and John, they must also be willing to ask people to leave. I expect you have read about John Wesley and the discipline he insisted on in his small groups. Methodism grew. Churches that have supported sexual intimacy outside marriage have declined.

Objective reason

The only Scripture you have for your assertion that God wants men to have sexual intimacy with men, women with women, is Genesis 1. Otherwise you are batting away the verses that condemn this behaviour. To build a new Christian anthropology on a particular interpretation of one verse is surely unwise. Moreover many people, Christian and non Christian, do not buy into the view that we are created with sexual fluidity, not least because of the science. And the outcomes. It was this ideology that saw a UK government send a male rapist to a female prison. Most ideologies can find academic papers to support their view, but objective reason looking at Adam Graham's case is bewildered and ashamed that common sense was initially ignored for the sake of an LGBTIQ plus dogma.

The Gospel

A part of me loves the Gospel you proclaim, but when Jesus preached, his first word was 'Repent'. As the rich ruler discovered, we only find out how genuine our love for God is when we have to give something up. What sexual sins do you ask your congregants to give up?

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.

Thank you for being the only member of the clergy, apart from our own local vicar, ready to engage with me regarding these matters.

As ever,

Tom

7. Reply from Rev Paul Kennington to Tom Hawksley 23^rd June, 2023

Dear Tom

Thank you for your reply. I will reply again.

The question I think to face though is whether this is a difference worth splitting the Church over. Many Christians believe the creeds but differ on other parts of Christian faith. I would say that the Trinity as expressed in the creeds is the red line not our different understandings of human sexuality.

I will respond more fully

Paul

8. Reply from Rev Paul Kennington to Tom Hawksley 25^th June, 2023

Dear Tom

I think we will probably end up going round and round in circles, and can probably go on for ever. and I pray almost every day for Christians who face persecution for their faith. They are courageous people and true witnesses to the power of God. .

To answer your points:

1. The Hebrew word 'Adam' does not mean 'male' it means 'human being' - that is just a linguistic fact. In Genesis 2 God 'splits' Adam (the human being) into 'man and woman' Hebrew Ish and Ishah - God names the Ish -Adam - which means human being, and God names the Ishah Hayyah - which means life.

Each human being , male or female, is made in the full image of God - who is Trinity. so each human being, male or female is body, mind, spirit (or creator, reasoner, and spiritual) - curiously that means that women are made in the image of 'Father, Son and Holy Spirit' We have to work that one out.

Whether or not God the good creator would create people with a homosexual orientation or whether it is a result of the fall is one I concede we can differ upon. It may be that homosexual orientation is a disability - and God the good creator certainly allows many people to be born with a great many disabilities - in body, mind or spirit - Modern psychology does not accept this reading - but if you were to see homosexuality as a disability rather than a chosen sin, then that might give you a way for compassion - you would not prevent a deaf person from learning sign language, or a paralysed person from using a wheelchair, or even a short-sighted person from having glasses - we constantly make adaptations so that people can live as full a life as possible with what they are born with.

No LGBT Christian hospitals

You have to remember that homosexuality was illegal in many countries until very recently and gay men and women have been forced to hide their sexualities. I think that there is very good evidence that Henri Dunant the founder of the Red Cross was gay, and there is evidence that Florence Nightingale might have been a lesbian.

Jesus and the family

I strongly disagree with you here - all human beings have an innate love of their family - the Gentiles do as much - Jesus teaches us that the real family is those who do the will of his Father in Heaven. There is no marriage in heaven, and I think marriage is a social order for this life only. I also note that although the NT seems to advocate for monogamy, the God of the OT seems pretty unconcerned about polygamy and concubinage - Jacob is the prime example. So actually I don't think God gets very het up about marriage - unlike abuse, injustice, violence, betrayal etc.

Women's ministry

I think you are special pleading here because you want to accept women's ministry - if you are being faithful to the Bible a woman cannot have authority over a man ..... (I actually deal with that text differently - it all hangs on epitrepo rather than epitetraptai ... but I'll let you sort that out for yourself.

Mutual fulfillment

Sexual intimacy is a gift from God for mutual support and indeed for pleasure - it is something to be rejoiced in as a physical expression of love, which is the very nature of God. Heterosexuals are allowed this - to deny it to homosexual is, as I have said, cruel and I believe contrary to the will of God - but I understand that you have to believe that homosexuality is not a choice but a reality. To suggest that a homosexual man should find a wife and 'make do' - as some people suggest - is failing to understand what sexual fulfilment really is , and I would say that it is abusive of the wife.

Jesus' sexual morality

I think Jesus would (and did) condemn adultery, promiscuity and a whole range of Greek / Roman / Pagan sexual practices - what his pastoral verdict would be on faithful, stable, monogamous gay couples is I think far more than just opaque - I think it's just not there. What Jesus would allow for eunuchs who are eunuchs by birth - and how those who can should receive it - would have been a challenging text for 1st Century Judaism - it looks compassionate to me as if Jesus recognises that some people are sexually different. And I don't think it's enough to say that eunuch means the same as abstaining from sex - I don't think Jesus considered himself to be a eunuch.

Divorce

'What God has joined together let not man separate'. is a great and clever line which Jesus uses to confound the pharisees who are trying to trick him into giving either a too permissive or a too restrictive answer.. (very similar to the paying tribute to Caesar dialogue) It is those whom God has joined together who must not be put asunder, not those who the Church has joined or who the state has joined. We all know that it is possible to go through the marriage rite and still not be married in the eyes of God - that is obvious for incest for example, The RC church has a whole list of things which can invalidate a marriage ... I agree with them on this one.

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.

Definitions

Over the years different people, states, governments have defined sexual intimacy in different ways - I think that a kiss is sexual intimacy and is OK for an unmarried boy and girl friend, but I think that heterosexual penetration should be reserved to marriage. As for sexual sin I think I would measure it by whether it is abusive, exploitative, violent rather than self-giving, loving and in the context of a permanent, stable, monogamous commitment - marriage (which as I said above I believe God accepts between two loving people making the vows even if the church or state does not) So of course, I believe gay people have been married in the sight of God for centuries!

Being open to reason is not persecuting anyone

I would be very careful about this line of argument. Every wicked regime has used reason to defend wickedness - the apartheid regime in South Africa, Slavery, and of course the evil Nazi regime - they all have so called reason for their atrocities and they all used the Bible. We are not told to judge people by their reason, but by their fruits - love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control - when I see these I see what is right. - the fruits of the spirit trump reason.

Sexual purity for every Christian

All sexual pleasure outside marriage is sinful for all Christians. - yes ... but .... in South Africa black people were not allowed to marry white people. I believe as I said above, that if they made their vows together with sincerity then God would consider them truly married whatever the state might say. I believe that a gay couple who make those vows together are indeed married in the sight of God, whatever the state or church might say - God will not be confounded by our human laws..

Objective reason

What you assert of me is not true - and don't 'thin end of the wedge' me either. Just because I believe that a faitfhul, loving committed monogamous gay couple should be allowed to marry does not in any sense mean either 1. that I think gay people will ever be anything other than a small minority - it is obvious that heterosexuality is the norm for the vast majority of people - society is safe in just allowing a few percent to find happiness! or 2. that I agree with all the excesses of the LGBTQI world - any more than I agree with all the excesses of the heterosexual world.

As for the Bible - I believe that there is nothing in the Bible which either commends or condemns homosexuality - and although heterosexual married couples are described, there is nothing to suggest that it is the only way either. This to me is an amazing work of the Holy Spirit - even with my dodgy Hebrew I could have written Leviticus 18 and 20 to give a clear condemnation of homosexuality in all cases - In my opinion the Holy Spirit prevented the writers from writing what they might have wanted to say, and made them write what God wanted them to say. - that is why the text is more important than any guess work about what the prophets or St Paul for example might have meant - - Praise God!

The Gospel

I agree 100% with 'repent - metanoite . (but don't forget to add the believing the Good News bit) . it means turning our whole lives around and turning towards God and a new way of living. I preach that people should give up greed and selfishness, pride, arrogance and material worldliness, that they should give up self-aggrandizement and accept a humble path of service and sacrifice .. - and of course much more.

On sexual sins (and actually I think that God will be much much more concerned with the fact that 25% of the world's population live on less than $3 a day and that we fight wars, kill and hate each other, and watch each other starve) - I condemn adultery, rape, domestic voilence, abuse, anything sexual which has not full consent, especially when there is a power differential, sexual practices which demean people's dignity, - I therefore condemn vigorously forced marriages, the age of consent of women at 14 - or as in Pakistan and Iran no age of consent at all!!! - the oppression of women by not letting them let their hair go free and have equal rights with men - in fact I would hope that these are the sexual sins you are really speaking out against

I reply to you Tom, not because I just like a good argument, but because I believe that this is a Gospel issue every bit as much as the abolition of slavery and granting women equal rights - We will one day both stand before the judgement seat and face God on this issue and that is a tremendous thought - we will both do it by grace and through faith in Christ Jesus, not through our deeds or actions or even words. For that I am grateful - but I do believe that we will have to account for our deeds and actions and words - and from where I stand I want to be on the side of the people who grant compassion and love (judge not, lest you be judged) rather than on the side of those who deny compassion and love. I would like you to embrace the Good News of a truly amazing God who is more compassionate than we are, more loving than we are, and more than either you or I ever can, wants all people to have life and to have it abundantly. (perisson - even more abundantly than we can imagine)

May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, so that by the power of the Holy Spirit you may abound in hope.

Paul

9. A little post-script from Rev Paul Kennington to Tom Hawksley 25^th June, 2023

You might not realise that in Genesis 1 and 2 when ever you read 'God created man' the Hebrew is God created the Adam - there is no word for male 'man' until we have 'ish' in Genesis 2: 23 - every other time our English bibles write 'man' it is an incorrect translation of ha adam and it should read God created the human being .See below

Genesis Chapter 1

²⁶Then 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.”

²⁷So God created the adam (humankind)  in his own image,
    in the image of God he created them;
    male and female he created them.

²⁸God 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

¹⁵The Lord God took the adam (humankind) and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. ¹⁶And the Lord God commanded the adam (humankind) , “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; ¹⁷but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

¹⁸The Lord God said, “It is not good for the adam (humankind) to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”

¹⁹Now 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. ²⁰So 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. ²¹So 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. ²²Then 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) .

²³the 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)

²⁴That is why a man (ish) leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, (ishah - his woman) and they become one flesh.

²⁵the adam (humankind) and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.

10 Reply from Tom Hawksley to Rev Paul Kennington 26^th July, 2023

Dear Paul,

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.

I am pondering on posting our correspondence on my blog. Please say if you would prefer for that not to happen. My initial email was given the title that the wisdom from above is open to reason, so I don't think there is any harm in your ideas being available to others.

As ever,

Tom

11. Reply from Rev Paul Kennington to Tom Hawksley, 26^th July, 2023

Dear Tom,

I will reply some time in the future / life is a bit hectic at the moment.

Should you choose to publish our correspondence all I ask is that you publish it in full and do not edit it and of course put my name on it - and send me a link.

Paul

12. Reply from Rev Paul Kennington to Tom Hawksley, 10^th August, 2023

Dear Tom

I fear we are going round and round and clearly reading reality differently.

I, and the scientific medical profession, do not believe that our sexuality is a choice, we believe it is a given on a spectrum.

I and many others see evidence of faithful LGBTQI Christians working selflessly for the good of the poor. Bishop Tom Butler once said on BBC radio 4 that the gay clergy often served in parishes where straight clergy would not take their families. I believe this has often been the case.

I believe that family life is as marriage is, in the words of Jesus, for this life only and that in the Kingdom of God there is no marriage and only the human family

I believe that the current society where people are more honest about their sexuality is preferable to the hidden domestic violence, racism, and abuse of the 1950s. I note that most sexual abuse is against girls by heterosexual men. LGBTQI are not a threat to society. - most (violent) criminals are overwhelmingly heterosexual men

I believe that although the Bible says little about homosexuality it says a great deal about love. Whoever lives in love, lives in God

I believe that I am not advocating sex outside marriage but I am advocating for a wider understanding of marriage. The church has done this before by widening the list of those allowed to be married, including allowing marriage after divorce. There is no such thing as ‘traditional marriage’ - it changes from culture to culture and always has.

Finally, it is truly wicked that people are persecuted and martyred for their faith. But it is axiomatic that the godly quest for justice and truth can never be used as an excuse for the wickedness of men - even if wicked men claim that it is. Even though the Taliban were to murder Christians because of our belief in the equality of women, for example, we should condemn the violence but maintain our belief.

So the real question is not which of us ‘wins’ the argument, but are you willing to allow my arguments enough credibility to accept that I should be allowed to proclaim them and live by them - and leave God to judge between us in the next life. If the Church allowed the marriage of same-sex couple you would be still free to hold your views and not to accept that. If the Church does not allow same-sex marriage, then I am not free but am obliged to follow your line of argumentation as the only way, compelling me to act against my conscience.

Acts 5:39

39But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop them. You may even find yourselves fighting against God.”

With all good wishes, and an assurance of my prayers

Paul

13 Reply from Tom Hawksley to Paul Kennington 26^th 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, 27^th 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 28^th August, 2023

Dear Paul,

Warm greetings and I hope you have had a good bank holiday week-end.

Thank you for your reply to my email.

The cause of sexual orientation.

Can we not both agree that at present the jury is out on the cause of sexual orientation? The opening line of the Wikipedia article you sent me said it was a matter of research. However you might well be right that lots of scientists do not think it is a matter of choice. We don't know. What as Christians we do know is that we are born with a severely flawed nature and the norm for most people is to have all sorts of weird sexual desires. Most of them are selfish. That is why I dislike the phrase 'sexual orientation' as it gives the impression that we are born with certain likes that we have the right to fulfill. Christianity says we are born as fallen creatures with a sin orientation which has surely messed up our sexual orientation. Thank goodness for Romans 8:13 where we can experience the Holy Spirit putting to death the deeds of the flesh.

LGBT and the poor

I have never said that Christians who support the LGBT cause have not also served the poor. I am sure you and Mark Russell and many others have done so. But there is no LGBT organisation that serves the poor.The one you mentioned was an organisation that helps people who embrace LGBTism. Nearly the entire mission effort of the church today, the people who have risked their lives preaching Christ in Afghanistan, the people who serve in hospitals and orphanages and drug rehabilitation centres in Africa and Asia, all of them are working with organisations that reject sexual intimacy outside traditional marriage. As Jesus said, 'You will know them by their fruits'. The fruit of LGBT Christianity is division, court cases, and Christians giving all their energy to talk about a tiny minority instead of preaching the Gospel to the lost and serving the poor. Strong leadership would have shut down this discussion years ago and told people like you who want to advocate for sexual intimacy outside marriage to leave the Anglican Church and go and start their own churches. Sadly there has been weak leadership and the ancient boundaries have not been robustly defended, and unless the grim decision back in February by the General Synod is reversed, we now face an inevitable split in the Anglican Church in the UK.

Love

What can be added to 1 Corinthians 13? If we follow this then we will not want to hurt another or exploit them sexually. So surely this would suggest that sexual intimacy should happen after a public marriage and the initiation of a covenant. That is traditional marriage.

Polygamy - Pew Research is pretty good.

Your piece about polygamy was thin. I consider Pew Research to be of the highest standard and their findings showed that polygamy today was not widespread, so disagreeing with the piece in Wikipedia. Also that piece was speculating about the women having many partners. It wasn't very solid. But it did say that life long monogamous relationships have been around for a thousand years, so even with this piece you are entirely wrong to assert there is no such thing as traditional marriage. There is - and it is well worth supporting.

Have a great week.

As ever,

Tom

16. Letter from Tom Hawksley to Paul Kennington 25^th August, 2023

This was a link to an article in the Church Times about the decline of membership in the Episcopal Church in the USA which has embraced LGBTism.

https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2023/25-august/news/world/us-episcopal-church-heads-for-crisis-in-number-of-ordinands?utm_campaign=Church%20Times%20RSS%20Daily%20bulletin%202.0%20%28ads%20in%20header%20and%20footer%29&utm_source=emailCampaign&utm_content=&utm_medium=email

17. Reply from Paul Kennington to Tom Hawksley, 26^th August 2023

Hi Tom

I really don’t think you can put the decline of the more institutional /hierarchical / sacramental churches in the West over those Pentecostalist churches which proclaim personal salvation /faith /direct relationship with Jesus as the only essential solely at the feet of LGBTQ equality !!

This is a general individualism across society which hated experts and believes everyone has a valid opinion on everything. It is also part of a massive right wing swing across the world which is pretty xenophobic and sees difficult issues as black or white rather than complicated and nuanced.

It’s all pretty ugly. All I can say is that if God is an immigrant hating, capitalist, illiberal, southern baptist (possibly misogynistic and possibly bigoted) Trump voting republican - ( Westboro Baptist) or even an Erdowan voting Turk, then heaven’s not the place for me .

I want to believe God is generous, open, endlessly rejoicing in creation, sacrificially loving. Etc

Best wishes

Paul

18. Reply from Tom Hawksley to Paul Kennington, 26^th August 2023

Hi Paul,

Enjoyed your robust answer

Best,

Tom

19. Reply from Paul Kennington to Tom Hawksley, 26^th August 2023

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, 26^th 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,

Tom

21. Letter to Paul Kennington from Tom Hawksley 29^th August, 2023

Dear Paul,

Warm greetings and I hope this finds you well.

I am just going through your emails, and so have re-visited your arguments about Genesis 1:26 - 27. Please correct me if I am wrong, but this is what I have understood.

1.. God created a human being in his own image which was both male and female. This creature therefore was a hermaphrodite.

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.

If this is what you believe I can't see how it fits into the passage. Because in Gen 1:27 we read 'them'. So we clearly have a man and a woman, two separate entities. This is underlined in 1:28 when God tells them to multiply.

I think I might have misunderstood what you have said.

Surely the traditional reading of these verses makes much more sense. God created mankind (1:26), and mankind was made up of two genders (binary), male and female, and so 'them'. The man and woman are told to multiply. Then in Genesis 2 the camera comes in a little closer to tells us about the creation of man, and alongside procreation we are told that marriage is about companionship, of being different but complementary.

No need for a long reply, but great if you can confirm that I have understood you correctly.

As ever,

Tom

22. Reply from Paul Kennington to Tom Hawksley 30^th August, 2023

come on Tom - There are two creation stories - Genesis 1 (written much much later) and Genesis 2 which is far far older.

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.

23. Reply from Tom Hawksley to Paul Kennington, 30^th August 2023

Dear Paul,

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,

24 Reply from Paul Kennington to Tom Hawksley 30^th August 2023

Not nearly as much as a problem as you have if you think that men and women are only 50% each in the image if God

Love Snape - were friends

[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.

[3] Simon House was a hostel for homeless people operated by the Oxford Cyrenians

Sternfield Thoughts

Popular Posts

Saturday, 12 August 2023

Correspondence between Rev Paul Kennington and Tom Hawksley regarding Christian marriage.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Followers

Search Blog

Labels