Phill Sacre

Tag: homosexuality

  • Gay rights led to the trans madness

    Gay rights led to the trans madness

    The other day I was watching a Triggernometry interview with Arielle Scarcella – it was called “Trans ideology is the new homophobia”. One of the things I found fascinating about it was the way that a lesbian woman could be called transphobic, simply because she prefers a “real” woman to a transwoman.

    Everyone in the interview agreed that gay rights were a good thing – e.g. the fact that same-sex marriage is a good thing was taken as axiomatic. But there was also a general idea that things had gone ‘too far’, in particular the erasure of biological sex.

    What I want to do in this piece is argue that the problems we see today with transgender and the erasure of biological sex actually originate with the gay rights movement. In particular, I think the gay rights movement has a very uncomfortable decision to make over the coming months.

    Let me explain.

    What is real? Pt 1 – Homosexuality

    First things first, let’s think about what constitutes reality. (You may think that’s a silly question, but I like silly questions, and the point of this will become clear in a moment).

    A key tenet of the gay rights movement is that reality is defined by our inward desires, not our physical bodies. Scientists have not managed to find a ‘gay gene’, for example – and it’s not because they haven’t been looking! We are complex beings, and there are probably many things which contribute to our sexual preferences. This may explain why, according to some surveys, over half of LGB people identity as bisexual.

    The point is that our sexuality is not something which is binary (as in our biological sex); it is often complex, fluid, and depends on one’s own preferences. It may even change day-by-day. Many people experience their sexual attraction as something fixed (e.g. being attracted persistently only to members of the same sex); many people do not.

    Why is this significant? When it comes to homosexuality, the key thing is that one’s desires are primary. Your body, in essence, is simply a vehicle for fulfilling your own desires. It doesn’t matter that our bodies are designed for male-female sexual intimacy. That is irrelevant: all that matters is that one’s desire for sexual intimacy with a particular kind of person.

    So, inner desire wins out over biological function – you could say, inner desire is constitutive of reality.

    You may be able to see where we are going here.

    What is real? Pt 2 – Transgender

    One of the axioms of the transgender movement has become the quote “gender is between your ears and not between your legs”. This is a product of thinking whereby gender is a social construct: being biologically male or female has very little to do with being a gendered man or woman.

    Gender is now essentially how you decide that you want to be. In fact, given the proliferation of gender identities (according to one website there are 68 gender identities including “feminine-of-center”, “third gender”, and “two-spirit”), one could say that gender identity has turned into personal preference on steroids!

    But the key thing, once again, is that inner desire is constitutive of reality. One’s desire to be a man or woman (or two-spirit, or whatever it may be) overrides the biological fact of being male or female. Your body is simply a conduit to express whatever you feel inside.

    A conflict was inevitable

    A conflict was therefore inevitable between gay rights and trans rights. Fundamentally, they both argue that personal preference or desire should take priority over biological reality in some sense. The only difference between them is that gay rights stop with sexual preference, whereas transgender rights cross over into gender identity. But both of them take you away from biological reality. Unfortunately, the way they take you away from biology brings them into conflict: the only question was when, not if, they would conflict.

    Answering an objection

    One objection which could be raised at this point is that gay rights don’t actually deny the reality of biological sex. This is a point that Arielle Scarcella makes in the interview above – she basically said she wanted a woman, not a transwoman.

    I agree that gay rights activists are not denying biology in this respect: they do not deny the reality of biological sex. However, they are denying the reality of biological function at some level – the fact that male and female bodies are obviously designed for sexual intimacy together. Only a man and woman are capable of reproducing – that’s simply a basic biological fact.

    All transgender activists are doing is taking their argument one step further. The transgender activists of today would not have been able to get their foot in the door if it hadn’t started with gay rights.

    Is there a solution?

    Is there a way to square the circle? It looks like the LGBT movement is eating itself, and I can’t see it getting better anytime soon.

    I think gay rights activists would like to simply roll back the clock a few years to when we believed in both gay marriage and biological sex. But I believe this is chasing a unicorn: it was always going to be an unstable arrangement which wouldn’t last.

    In my opinion, the only way this is going to be resolved is by acknowledging biological reality – it’s the only solid thing which we have to go on. However, that will cut across both transgender and gay rights.

    As I said in a previous post, gay marriage ended up effectively denying the biological reality that only a man and a woman can conceive a child together. There is something unique about the relationship between a man and a woman which is written into the fabric of biology, and it is a truth which societies throughout history have acknowledged.

    Perhaps the solution is one which is going to be deeply unpopular and unpalatable to our society – to acknowledge that there is something fundamental about biological sex, and that this is applicable to relationships as well as gender.

    If you’d like to read a good book about the importance of our bodies from a Christian perspective, check out Love Thy Body by Nancy Pearcey.

  • Review: The Plausibility Problem

    I’ve just finished reading The Plausibility Problem by Ed Shaw. The book is subtitled “The Church and Same-Sex Attraction”, and I can understand why that might immediately put people off: surely, we don’t need yet another book on the church’s view of sex? And this is exactly the reason I wanted to write this brief review: in my view this is one of the most important books to have been written on the subject – it is not what you think it is!

    The real strength of the book for me is the fact that it doesn’t deal with traditional / revisionist Biblical arguments (although they are treated in two appendices), but rather seeks to outline how evangelical churches have made the church’s traditional teaching on sexuality implausible by a number of ‘missteps’ in the past few years. In other words, the problem which traditional Biblical churches face is not what they believe about sexuality – it’s how that teaching can be plausible in today’s society. Too often in today’s churches, the orthodox Biblical view of sexuality is seen as implausible because the church has lost focus on a number of other important teachings. These are what Ed Shaw labels ‘missteps’.

    These missteps are:

    1. Your identity is your sexuality;
    2. A family is Mum, Dad and 2.4 children;
    3. If you’re born gay, it can’t be wrong to be gay;
    4. If it makes you happy, it must be right!
    5. Sex is where true intimacy is found;
    6. Men and women are equal and interchangeable;
    7. Godliness is heterosexuality;
    8. Celibacy is bad for you;
    9. Suffering is to be avoided.

    In all these areas, Shaw demonstrates how evangelical churches have often bought into cultural assumptions or perhaps not taught the full Biblical picture in a certain area. For example, I found his chapter on being “born gay” helpful: he argues that evangelical churches who argue that being gay is simply a ‘lifestyle choice’ are detrimental to the cause – it is in fact irrelevant whether same-sex attraction is chosen or not, and arguing that it is chosen will do nothing but alienate those for whom it is not a choice (or is experienced that way).

    In my opinion, the area of sex and sexuality is shaping up to be the biggest area of contention between the church and the world and what Shaw outlines in this book is absolutely vital to enable people to make the move from the world to the church. It is no longer enough to simply teach what the Bible says about sex and sexuality – our church must regain its hold of teachings which have perhaps been under-emphasized in recent years.

    I heartily commend this book to anyone who has an interest in the church – especially to anyone involved in church leadership in any capacity (including things like PCCs and so on). It is sorely needed, a real word in season for the church of today.

  • Sexuality and Friendship: Good news after all?

    FriendshipI recently added a morning conference entitled Human Sexuality: Discerning a Biblical Vision, hosted by the Chelmsford Diocesan Evangelical Association. It was a good morning with three different speakers talking about various issues – theological, pastoral, and practical. One speaker was Lis Goddard, talking about the pastoral issues involved. Of the three sessions, I probably found hers the most practically helpful and thought-provoking.

    One of the complaints I often hear from the LGBT community when discussing this issue is that the church’s traditional position is nothing but ‘bad news’ for gay people. Why would you turn a gospel of good news into a gospel of bad news – forcing people who are attracted to those of the same sex to a life of celibacy? How could God ask anyone to do that, surely it’s impossible for anyone to actually manage?

    I’ve been thinking about this issue recently. What I’ve been beginning to see more clearly is that you can’t simply articulate the traditional, Biblical vision of sexuality without saying anything positive. Let me try and explain.

    (more…)

  • Sexuality: can’t Evangelicals just agree to disagree?

    If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. – Hebrews 10:26-27

    A few days ago, the Evangelical Alliance UK (EAUK) discontinued the membership of the Oasis Trust. The reason was, according to the press release, due to “a campaign to change the Church’s historic view on human sexuality” (a campaign fronted by Steve Chalke, whom I blogged about when this issue first came up and again recently). The reaction to this move has been huge and polarised: some people, such as myself, think the EAUK made a good move: in an acceptance of same-sex relationships, I believe Chalke has made a clear step away from a traditional evangelical understanding of the authority of Scripture. On the other hand, many have commented that it’s incredibly sad for the EAUK to be dividing on this issue when Christians who hold the same understanding of Scripture can legitimately disagree on this (see Gillan’s post over at the God and Politics blog for a good articulation of this view).

    The main criticism people are making of the EAUK is that they are being divisive around a secondary issue. It’s a bit like baptism: some evangelicals believe it’s OK to baptise infants, others think you can only baptise someone when they’re old enough to make their own confession of faith. Insisting upon conformity on this issue is to exclude a large number of evangelicals, and is spreading discord and division needlessly.

    Now I don’t want to talk about the EAUK’s response to the issue per se, but instead talk about the nature of sexuality as a ‘secondary issue’: personally I don’t think this is an issue that Christians can disagree over. This is partly because I think the Bible couldn’t be clearer on this issue, but also because I think we cannot just agree to disagree on matters of sin – particularly when it’s concerning something as serious as sexuality. (more…)

  • Biblical Ethics and Sexuality

    A couple of times lately I mentioned to people that I’d try to write something vaguely coherent about the Bible and sexuality – in particular about homosexual relationships. Were the Bible writers simply writing within their culture? Now that attitudes to sexuality are changing, can Christian attitudes change with it?

    I’ve been putting off writing this because, to be honest, it’s a massive topic and it’s one in which there’s plenty of scope for hurt and disagreement. In order to do full justice to all the Biblical verses on homosexuality you’d need to write a book (such as this one, which someone has kindly already written…) What I’m going to do in this post is try and do a very brief, bird’s-eye-view of the Bible’s view on sexuality without going into too much detail.

    Please note that I’m not trying to offer here a pastoral response to dealing with homosexuality or same-sex attraction. I’m not in any way condoning homophobic behaviour. This is simply examining the issue of what the Bible says about sexuality, not how to respond to it in a practical situation.

    First things first: creation. All Christians are ‘creationist’, in the sense that all Christians believe that God created the world. Genesis 1-2 tells the story.[1] In particular, if you read Genesis 2 you see that Adam (the name literally means ‘mankind’) is lonely and God creates a suitable ‘helper’ for him – a woman. (The translation ‘helper’ may be a bit inadequate, but let’s leave that aside for this post). It culminates in v24, where the narrator says “That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.”  (more…)

  • Some adverts are controversial. Get over it.

    Once again, it falls to me to leap into the quagmire of misinformation and correct it with my iron sword of reason and moderation. (Everyone should have a sword of reason and moderation. They’re all rage these days.)

    In case you hadn’t heard, a bus advert has been banned: a group called Core Issues Trust, together with Anglican Mainstream, tried to put an advert on some London buses. Before I say what the advert was, you might want to make sure you’re sitting comfortably and have plenty of air around, maybe a nice cup of tea, because it will shock and dismay you to the very core of your being. Well, maybe not that extreme.

    The advert was (are you sure you’re sitting down?): “Not gay! Ex-gay, post-gay and proud. Get over it.”

    Wow. Are you shocked and dismayed? Well, apparently good old Boris was – dismayed enough to ban the ads in the name of intolerance (one source quoted him as saying he was ‘intolerant of intolerance’, not sure how that works logically but there we go.)

    Anyway, now it’s looking like Core Issues Trust want to sue for the ads being pulled. And, unsurprisingly, many people have been making remarks (on Twitter, where else? I honestly don’t know what we did as a civilisation before outrage could be widely spread in 140 characters or less) about how it would be nice if Christians cared about issues that actually mattered, such as poverty, healing the sick – the usual stuff.

    There are just so many things wrong with all this, it’s staggering.

    (more…)