Christian Socialist Movement > Articles > Articles from CSM Members > Society and inequality > Confessions Of A Recovering Evangelical
   
 Articles in this group 
Trapped In A Sexual Society
Rosie writes about the problem of sexualisation of our young. More ...
No One Gets Left Behind - Benefits and Labour
Jeremy Dillon writes about benefits, equality and Labour. More ...
How Equal Are You?
Gwyn Bailey reflects on the Beatitudes and being 'all in it together'. More ...
Food poverty and tax justice
This is the text of a talk given by Greg Smith at the Christian Aid and Church Action on Poverty Tax Justice Bus event in Preston on October 14th 2012 More ...
Truly Ethical Banking
Why Is No One Talking About The Third Way?
We need to resist Cameron’s privatisation of marriage
Don't Be Fooled By Olympic Individualism
A Response To A Recovering Evangelical
Reflections on the Tawney Dialogue 2012 – Towards a common culture
Is the Big Society Descending into Farce?
Reflection on the Monarchy
CSM member writes about soup run ban
BIG SOCIETY - SMALL WORLD
Labour and the 'Big Society'
Challenging notions of a “Big Society”
From the Third Way to Lord Wei
Pay, Poverty, Inequality
The CSM in Green tights: The Robin Hood tax, and why we support it.
Citizenship is Fragile
From ConDemned relationship to a civil partnership?
I love the BBC
Justice, Rights and Human Wrongs (Part 1)
Why Does Thou steal….?
'My advice, as a Christian priest, is to shoplift.' Father Tim Jones' Sermon
Justlife Community Interest
People don't care how much you know until they know how much you care.
Clause 13: Protecting the Unheard
Increase Welfare Benefits
Something to be hopeful about
 
 
 

Confessions Of A Recovering Evangelical

The vast majority of opposition to the idea of equal marriage comes from the Church and the followers of the other non-Christian religions. Homosexuality is a sinful state, they believe, therefore gay relationships should not be endorsed or approved of by the state.

Tom-Harris-MPI should say at the outset that I consider myself a Christian. Not a very good one, I admit, but a Christian nonetheless. In a former life I was very evangelical and spent a lot of time studying the Bible and trying to “convert” my less enlightened, hellbound friends. These days I am what a parliamentary colleague rather wonderfully described as a “recovering evangelical”. I’ll settle for that.

I still have lots of friends who were better at staying the course than I was. At least three of them are full-time leaders of their respective churches, and many others remain far more regular attendees at worship than I. So when I hear members of the clergy or lay members of the Church decrying moves towards equal marriage, or when I receive letters from local church members in my constituency warning me of the dire consequences of this move, I kind of understand where they’re coming from. I don’t agree with them, dearie me, no. I’m forthright and unapologetic in my support for equal marriage, largely on the (some might say counter-intuitive) basis that I’m a strong believer in marriage and therefore want to encourage as many as possible to give it a go.

But as I say, I know where they’re coming from. And it’s all about the Bible. You see, there’s no getting away from the fact that there’s enough in there to justify the “God hates gays” rhetoric. And not just the Old Testament. When friends tell me that the Old Testament is all hellfire, damnation and wars, and the New Testament is all love and forgiveness, then I know they’ve never actually read either book. There’s some pretty shocking violent imagery and language used throughout the New Testament. And I’m afraid at least a smattering of it is directed at our gay friends.

There are those on our side of the debate who claim that since Jesus Himself never mentioned the issue – there’s no mention of homosexuality in any of the four gospels – then God approves of same-sex relationships. Sadly, this doesn’t hold any water if you’re a Christian; the Word is the Word. The Gospels have no more authority than any other books; it’s all divinely inspired. And that means that when St Paul writes that acts of love between two men are “shameful” (Romans 1: 26-27) or that gays (different translations use different terms) cannot inherit the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9-10), that matters just as much as Jesus’ silence on the subject.

So we have a fairly unambiguous divine exhortation to look askance at gay relationships. God, it turns out, had not mellowed much in the centuries since the writers of Leviticus described homosexuality as an “abomination”.

The problem is that many Christians – and the established Church itself – don’t want simply to accept an instruction on faith; they feel the need to justify it, to rationalise it, to reverse-engineer the logic. They understand that a secular society won’t just accept the “Because God says so” argument.

So, they start with the conclusion – gayness is bad – and look around for empirical evidence to justify that conclusion. Except, since the empirical evidence doesn’t exist, they make statements like “the gay lifestyle results in earlier deaths for men” and rely on dodgy anecdotes to back them up. In fact, like conspiracy theorists throughout history, they become convinced that the very absence of evidence is itself evidence of the truth of their case, because the only explanation for the absence of that evidence is not that it doesn’t exist, but that it is being covered up by a conspiracy of gays and their fellow travellers (er… I think that means me).

Like creationists, they start with the God-given conclusion, then manufacture the evidence (or lack of it) to justify that conclusion.

So, where does that leave Christians who feel strongly that a gay relationship is no less legitimate than any other?

Well, to be honest, it leaves us in a difficult position. The integrity of Scripture, its status as the divinely inspired Word of God, is a hugely important tenet of Christian philosophy.

There’s always denial: some Christians deny that the Bible says what it says, that it’s been misinterpreted through the centuries and its true meaning lost, its true meaning being that God wholeheartedly approves of gay relationships. And if that’s what you have to do to reconcile your faith with your political judgment, then go for it. Do what you have to do.

In fact I have more respect, in an odd way, for the third group, those Christians who simply accept what the Bible says, whose faith is so strong that the “Because God says so” argument actually is enough for them. They don’t try to reverse engineer their moralistic arguments; they simply say, “Well, I don’t know why you’ve made this rule, Lord, but you’re the boss and I’m sure you’ll explain it to me one day.” There’s a certain amount of intellectual honesty there that’s missing from the previous two groups.

But for me, it has simply meant I have to reject the Bible’s literal teaching on homosexuality. Leviticus was written for a nomadic people struggling to survive in a dangerous and hostile territory, a people for whom homosexuality was seen as a dangerous self-indulgence, since the most important task to aid survival was procreation. The New Testament was written by people who’d read Leviticus.

I see friends and loved ones of the same sex enjoying rich, long-term, fulfilling relationships and I cannot choose to judge them just because of what Paul wrote nearly 2000 years ago. Well, I could. But I won’t.

More importantly, as I have told correspondents who take a different view, it is not the job of politicians – even Christian politicians – to legislate for the saving of others’ souls. It is our job, in a secular society, to legislate for that society. We don’t live in a theocracy, thank God!

This debate, and opposition by other Christians to equal marriage, has presented me – and, I assume, other Christians in parliament – with a fascinating and valuable opportunity to revisit aspects of our faith which we might have been able to ignore until now. Others will reach different conclusions and will vote accordingly when the time comes. As for me, I simply cannot reconcile the teachings of Scripture with my firm belief that gay men and women should be able to enjoy married relationships. So I’m not going to try any more.

Some will say God won’t forgive me for that transgression. Others will say He will. I say He won’t need to.

 

For one response, see this article.


Tom Harris MP, 01/08/2012


Feedback:
Rob Carr01/08/2012 23:19
Really interesting perspective from Tom. What do readers think about it?
Tim Moore02/08/2012 20:14
I believe same-sex marriage can be compatible with scripture, so I don't share Tom Harris's position. I think his stance is a brave one which I respect: it's a position that hasn't featured much in the debate on equal marriage so far.

Tom Harris is showing he can maintain a position on scripture, while realising his public role is not to impose a certain interpretation of it on society.


John Joy (Guest)03/08/2012 10:08
I am immensely disappointed in this article. It appears he has bought the argument that the Bible and Christians are against homosexuality, without looking into it at all deeply. The Bible clearly is very much against sexual intercourse between two people of the same sex, just as it is against adultery. It does not look at questions of sexual orientation. God loves people of a homosexual orientation just as much as he loves heterosexuals, and Jesus died for them both. That does not mean he approves of sex between people of the same gender any more than he approves of adultery between heterosexuals. Now marriage is very much to do with sex, and the Bible no more condones marriage between two men (or two women) than it does between two people who are already married to someone else. Perhaps Tom Harris will think on this point.
Cornelius Harding (Guest)03/08/2012 11:51
I have to say the problem with this whole debate is that it is imposing a certain interpretation of the word marriage on society. If politicians honestly wanted society to decide what they believe the word marriage means they would either a) hold a referendum (which they wouldn't do because every single referendum on this has led to the populous of a state rejecting changing the marriage definition) or b) simply stop having the state use the term marriage. If this is about equality in the sense of letting gay people and straight people have the same privileges from the state then let the term marriage be dropped and simply have civil partnerships. No married person is going to believe they aren't married no longer simply because the certificate from the state says civil partnership. It is a simple way out of this situation but the church of england won't take it because it fundamentally signals a secular state and the need for disestablishment of the church, and those in parliament won't take it because they want they're liberal social view to dominate and be rubber stamped by the state (in a way they want a new but different 'theocracy').
emma green (Guest)03/08/2012 17:24
I too am a "recovering Evangelical"but for different reasons to Tom. We have now moved onto the fringe of the RC's- we are far to radical to ever be mainstream! anyway. i agree with Tom that the Bible is full of imagery and not always to be taken literally. If two people love each other and are committed to each other why does it matter what gender they are? if God loves eeveryone as we claim then He surely wants the same for gay people as for non gay people. It would seem to me a very cruel God who condemmed people who were born gay to a less than equal share of His kingdom would it not?

Dawn (Guest)03/08/2012 22:07
To John Joy
It worries me when people feel they know so clearly
what God wants or believes. If two people are in love, why would
God be against them being happy in their relationship and expressing their love for each other? If your answer is that it says this in the bible so
that is all there is, you condemn people to shame and unhappiness. If yours is a God you cannot ask the question why... that is a tragedy. All love is valid and a blessing.
Charles (Guest)06/08/2012 10:27
I remain Evangelical and so for myself and my own interpretation, were I homosexual (which categorically is not wrong) I may require myself to abstain but I’m a Liberal (not LD of course) and won’t force that choice on any other believer whose relationship with God is between them and God. Particularly as I hold that view without ever having it tested by having to wrestle with exclusive attraction to men.

I wholly agree with your point that it is wrong to legislate against homosexuals. In fact it is a great injustice that the State discriminates against people on their sexual orientation and I am a passionate proponent of the State-sanctioning of homosexual marriage. I can disagree with peace over many things with my fellow Christians (who of course don’t all share any one position) but this is an area where I sometimes feel embarrassed of the stands of my brothers and sisters. Discrimination against a subsection of citizens by a State and by civic society is wrong and I will stand up to it where I see it, which I do on this issue.

The problem that the CofE has is that it is Established. I have a problem that a parish church is required to marry non-members and non-Christians if they qualify by living in the parish and I would have the same issue with the CofE being required to marry homosexuals if the individual parish didn’t want to. However, this is not a reason not to a reason not to pursue marriage equality, rather it is another mark against Establishment.
Joe Russo (Guest)20/08/2012 11:59
Paul is always slightly problematic as he seems not to have ever fully shaken off his Pharisaical background. One of the alternative translations that Tom refers to fleetingly is that Paul is not condemning homosexuality per se but rather the practice of keeping young boys as sex slaves, which is obviously abominable. The German versions of the bible (Einheits) go for the term 'Lustknaben'. Anyway... interesting article. I think Tom is absolutely right in saying that there is a need to put the bible in its proper context and always ask whether the context has changed sufficiently in modern times.
fiona( Guest) (Guest)03/05/2013 10:38
If two people of any combination gender wise really love each other and that this culminates in evercloser physical intimacy- I cannot see that can be wrong in the sense that it is harmful for Adults or children growing up in this environment. Casual sex between people can be unsafe both physically and psychologically whatever your sexuality.The true issue is not the letter of the law but the spirit. Much of the above debate seems to have got tangled up in pharisee arguments about interpretation of "the law" and what is allowed or not. Love is the moral issue at stake here. Ican almost imagine jesus asking the crowd in response to their arguments , What do you think is the greater sin Sleeping next to a wife or husband that you do not love or someone of the same sex that you do.. We have to ask ourselves what are we trying to achieve by this law or what are we trying to protect. By the way I am hetrosexual and married.