The Church of England’s General Synod is meeting this week and – as many people have pointed out – many of the most noticeable agenda items seem to be concerned with sexuality and sex. As a trainee lay minister in that Church, one of the roles I’m supposed to carry out is being a bridge between the institutional life of the Church and other parts of our society and culture. So I wanted to briefly discuss an aspect of the Anglican controversies over sexuality which I encounter in my day-to-day life: how I think it affects many young people, and how it prevents them from hearing the Gospel.
In my day job I’m a university lecturer in English literature and drama. I spend a lot of my working life discussing poetry, plays and novels with young people, ranging from Shakespeare to Zadie Smith. This means I hear a lot about their view of the world, what they think is important, and how they see society. Because I mostly teach literature from earlier centuries, it also means that I frequently find myself explaining aspects of Christianity to them, to help them appreciate the works we’re analysing and the world they emerged from. As the majority of them are not Christians, this can be a very revealing process, during which I discover what they know – or what they assume – about our faith and our Church. They’re a reasonably diverse group of people, and of course there isn’t one single view that they all hold, but I do have a pretty strong sense of how a certain group of young people view Christianity.
One of the major points of view that I hear is that Christianity is immoral. They don’t use exactly that word: they’re more likely to describe things as “discriminatory”, “oppressive” or “unjust”, but that’s the general gist. There are moral principles of inclusion and justice which are central to their lives, which they see the Church as transgressing. They are used to looking at the media, or at politics, and criticising the misogyny or homophobia they see, and institutional Christianity is no exception. The same disdain for minority groups, the same discrimination.
I mention this because in public discussions of ethics, young people are often stereotyped as selfish and opportunistic, just wanting all the pleasure they can get out of life without taking any responsibility. I don’t think that’s true of my students, and it’s not what makes them suspicious of Christianity. When a lot of young people argue that the Church should be more inclusive of LGBT people, it’s not usually because they want to “get away” with anything, or because they don’t have moral standards. They’re not trying to drag down the general moral tone so their own transgressions can be allowed. It’s because they see the Church’s position as itself immoral, and they think that is a result of its oppressive beliefs.
Another major theme I hear in my university life is that Christianity is essentially about sex. When I discuss the concept of “sin”, as it appears in Milton or Austen, my students almost always assume that word is a synonym for “sex”. “Original sin” is somehow about sex, though they’re usually unclear on how (and to be fair to them, they could read a certain amount of medieval theology and still have that general idea). I have discussed Paradise Lost with students who are convinced that the Bible says Adam and Eve were thrown out of the Garden of Eden because they had sex with each other. This suggests two things to me, on reflection.
Firstly, a lot of young people seem to view Christianity as a rather mucky-minded business, full of people forever going on about sex and who’s having it with whom. Again, this goes against a common stereotype: that young people are continually thinking about sex, and the Church attempts to direct their thoughts towards higher things. In the general attitudes I can discern among my students, it is the other way around: many of them see churches as unhealthily sex-focused organizations.
Secondly, I worry that so long as they have this image of churches, the Christian vision of sin and redemption will not make much sense to them. If “sin” is another word for shagging, much of the spiritual world of Christian faith simply does not make sense. The vision it offers of the tragedy of human lostness and the hope of salvation becomes incoherent if some of its basic vocabulary is so distorted in the ears of the listeners. What can “Incarnation”, or “creation”, or “Trinity”, or “redemption” mean if Christianity is a system for stopping people having sex with each other?
On a more anecdotal level, I have met a number of young people over the last few years who are profoundly interested in Christianity. When it has come up in literary discussions or in historical seminars, they have found it intriguing and strangely inspiring. However, the perceived (and actual) homophobia of the Church is a continual issue for them. One student earnestly asked me if I knew what “your lot” were saying about gay people, when some leaflets were delivered to his hall of residence.
At other times, I have discussed the Bible and Christianity with liberal and progressive students whom I expected to veer away from the subject of sexuality and gender in Christianity. On the contrary, they weren’t going to avoid the topic in order to make anyone feel comfortable: for them it was a central question about the faith. Some of them were LGBT themselves, and some of them were not, but nonetheless took it as a first principle that a homophobic religion could not be an option for them.
An unfortunate knock-on effect of this situation is the way I sometimes find people regarding Christian groups which do affirm LGBT people. There is an air of “she’s Christian, but…” around this. A feeling that the people in question are Christian, but, you know not hardcore serious Christians. Christian but nice. Christian but don’t buy into all that stuff the Church says. Christian but modern. Christian but not too Christian. As long as inclusiveness of LGBT people is not a major part of our public message, I am afraid that this will continue, and that affirming Christianity will be seen as a sort of watered-down version.
For Christians like me, who are deeply attached to the Scriptures and the traditions of the Church, and who find their spiritual life in the liturgy and sacraments, this is a troubling distortion. Our commitment to inclusivity is not a compromise we have made between our faith and the situation we find ourselves in, it is a central part of what that faith can reveal to modern society. If the situation continues, I am concerned that many people will understandably see our inclusivity as proving that we are only sort of Christian, since “serious” Christians have to discriminate against LGBT people whether they like it or not.
To sum up, I am deeply concerned that our current situation is preventing thousands upon thousands of young people from hearing the Gospel. I have met some of them personally, and I am fairly sure that they represent large swathes of people in the same age group and situation. This issue is getting in the way of their interest in Christianity and their view of the faith. This is not a question of fitting our Christian witness to what people want to hear, but of taking seriously the message of reconciliation and repentance at the heart of the Gospel. The objections I come across from many young people to the Church of England are not selfish, self-indulgent or shallow, they are profoundly moral and based on a rather Biblical notion of justice.
Sending out signals is hugely important, I have learned. During my first years as a lecturer I did not have many students coming to me for pastoral advice, but that increased significantly as soon as I spoke publicly, in lectures or on my blog, on questions to do with gender justice and inclusivity. I quickly discovered that there were a number of people who needed to talk about these issues, and who were in distress about them. But I only found that out because I first made it clear that I cared about these issues, and made it clear that I was a safe person to discuss them with.
I think the same is true in this case: besides the faithful LGBT people already in our churches, there are surely many young LGBT people outside, wondering whether it is safe to pursue their interest by coming to a church. Many of them are probably used to watching intently for the signs that a place might be safe and supportive, or might be threatening and harmful. I believe they are watching us now, and I am eager to let them know who we are, and what our message really means.
quiteirregular 
There’s also the point that no one (particularly young people) will listen to any advice or wisdom the Church might have about love, sex, friendship and relationships when they’re certain (for good reason) that the Church’s teaching on sex is ‘don’t have any, particularly if you’re gay, oh and if you’re gay don’t fall in love either’.
(And perhaps particularly so when reports continue to come out of the ways the Church has been complicit in child abuse and the protection of child abusers.)
Absolutely. I liked this post a lot, thanks, Jem.
What struck me when I read the paragraph on attitudes to affirming Christians (as in “she’s Christian, but…”) was that, reading it through on my phone, I slightly misread it and ended up thinking about how LGBT people talk (including self! And for good reason) about plenty of ‘inclusive’ churches, priests, groups, people: “they’re ‘inclusive’, but…”, “they’re sort of okay with it, but…”, “they’re down as inclusive, but…”. Whether what comes after the but is “they don’t like to talk about it” or “they think Philip North was treated as badly as Jeffrey John was”, or “they won’t let gay people take x role” or “they don’t believe in same-sex marriage” or “basically they care more about what their superiors think” or “you know they’re not comfortable with it” or “they won’t let me bring my boyfriend for Christmas” depends on context, a kind of church literacy, age, and general bitterness level. I think I’ve probably heard at least as much of that as I have “they’re Christian, but not weird Christian” when “weird” means “homophobic”.
And I think that the (to my mind, always inadequate) rhetoric of “we need to have a radical new inclusion [based on literally no policy changes]” that came through last time sounds even more weird and watered-down to young people outside the church. Who – whatever their sexuality, but in common with most LGBT people – if they have any interest in the church at all, generally just want to hear “this is wrong; this needs to change; this is HOW it needs to change [i.e. full professional and marital equality and affirmation for LGBT Christians], anything less is inadequate”. My students, especially my LGBT students, are just baffled and repulsed by the church’s attitude, and I’d rather they were that than made miserable by it, you know?
Reblogged this on Love Wins and commented:
General Synod meets today and will be discussing the Blackburn Motion on offering a new naming service to affirm Transgender people in their new identity. In the meantime I thought this blog was worth sharing…I’m off to Open Table/ Inclusive Church at Synod tonight…I’ll let you know how it goes…
Well said, and well written! As a University chaplain I encounter the same opinions day after day from students. Our Uni, including the Chaplaincy, is proactive in supporting LGBT Students, whether Christian or not. But I spend most of my time reassuring students that ‘our lot’ aren’t a bunch of narrow-minded killjoy hypocrites. In the end it is only the build up of quality, authentic relationships that convinces anyone to explore faith. So sad.
This is such a good and thoughtful piece. I’ll keep coming back to it, I suspect.
Being a medievalist (with our mucky, sex-obsessed theology …), I relate to a lot of this. In my teaching, the thing I find most frustrating is the widespread assumption that Christianity is monolithic. A lot of my students assume that they know what the medieval Catholic Church (not monolithic either) taught and thought – and it’s almost always a rather vague patchwork of superstition and the sorts of views that come out of Westboro Baptist. I had one student who earnestly argued that the Church would have thought it was heretical to talk about the body and blood of Christ in literal terms, because these things are meant to be spiritual metaphors.
It can be funny, but it makes me feel at a loss to know how to address teaching theology.
Dear Jem, this is interesting but also rather puzzling. In my experience, talking both to young people but also ordinary members of congregations and even clergy, my experience is that the negative feelings that you highlight are based on a *complete* ignorance of actual church teaching.
As I sit here in the chamber of Synod, I think I also need to point out that the apparent relentless obsession with sex is almost entirely driven by those who are campaigning for a change in the Church’s teaching…who then complain about how much the Church is obsessed with sex.
While kids are often ignorant of church teaching, it requires lifelong celibacy for lesbian and gay people, and there’s no getting around that.
As shown by the runaway success of evangelical megachurches among the young, if the issue’s kept on the Q.T., many are happy to overlook it. So yes, if the church didn’t talk about it, I suspect that it wouldn’t be much of an issue: but that’s not gonna happen, and given the importance of equality, I’m glad.
Thank you so much. This article made me so sad. Lord have mercy on us if our own sense of belonging to the Lord causes us to say things and write things which stops the ‘little ones’ hearing the good news.
Well put. This is exactly how I feel about this issue, and why I find it so frustrating when people who I otherwise agree with on creeds, articles, and sacraments are so blind to these facts about the core of young peoples opposition to homophobic theology. I hope this changes soon.
That’s a really good piece: thanks very much for writing it.
Incidentally, while you touch on it with your reference to misogyny, I think part of the issue with the lack of LGBT inclusiveness is that it ALSO comes from a place of explicit complementarianism. The idea that Christianity doesn’t just mean anti-LGBT but specifically hostile to women is another layer of barriers.
This is an extract from the 2012 paper filed officially by the CofE opposing SSM:
“10. However, the uniqueness of marriage – and a further aspect of its virtuous nature – is that it embodies the underlying, objective, distinctiveness of men and women. This distinctiveness and complementarity are seen most explicitly in the biological union of man and woman which potentially brings to the relationship the fruitfulness of procreation. And, even where, for reasons of age, biology or simply choice, a marriage does not have issue, the distinctiveness of male and female is part of what gives marriage its unique social meaning.
11. Marriage has from the beginning of history been the way in which societies have worked out and handled issues of sexual difference. To remove from the definition of marriage this essential complementarity is to lose any social institution in which sexual difference is explicitly acknowledged.
12. To argue that this is of no social value is to assert that men and women are simply interchangeable individuals. It also undermines many of the arguments which support the deeper involvement of women in all social institutions on the grounds that a society cannot flourish without the specific and distinctive contributions of each gender.”
One imagines a scene somewhere in the policy department of Lambeth Palace when they thought up that one:
CHAIR OF THE COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE FOR DRAFTING THE PAPER: So, do we have any other objections we can raise to SSM?
*THAT* COMMITTEE MEMBER (with an air of someone laying down a Grand Slam hand, in spades): Bridegroom imagery! If we allow SSM, it rules out Bridegroom imagery!
[The Committee break out into wild whoops and blackslappings, while a veiled procession of the Women of Canterbury, in deep mourning, and lead by St Dorothy of Wimsey, enter stage left and upstage of the Committee. They cross the stage, weeping. The Committee does not notice their presence. They pass into the wings, stage right, and are forgotten.]
AJ, I am curious about this comment. In what sense does recognising that men and women are different amount to ‘hostility to women’? I don’t understand your logic here.
Well, in the sense that there’s a perception that “recognising that men and women are different” always seems to add up to the following binary:
Is this a high-status, forward-facing role allowing for considerable personal agency and the ability to enunciate strategy and see it carried out? Great; it is therefore something which is uniquely suited to men, according to Divine Plan(TM).
Is this a low-status, service role which requires one to carry out strategy, follow orders and put in a lot of unrecognised grut-work, including bearing the emotional labour burden of everyone stressed out from carrying the high-status, forward facing roles? Great; it is therefore something which is uniquely suited to women, according to Divine Plan(TM).
You will note the enormous emphasis the quoted paragraphs put on the ability to bear children, notwithstanding that since as long as I can think of the Church marriage service has a bit in tactful parentheses “(This part may be omitted where the bride is past child-bearing )” and since 2004 women who were AMAB may marry in church provided they come armed with the appropriate paperwork.
How/why do you put ‘TM’ after ‘Divine plan’? Do you not know that in the beginning God made them (us) male and female. And that therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and become one flesh with his wife. And what God has joined – that is – God the Almighty – our creator – who has given clear notice of what he intends for us (Sexually) – and what he very clearly abhors (= sin). Of course non-Christian students are confused – they don’t know God. We need to help them to find salvation, and sanctification – encouraging them (us all) to continue faithful and holy until the end of our lives. If this means celibacy – praise God he more than empowers and inspires – for love of him and his creation – to enable a life of love and spiritual productivity for all. We will not necessarily be judged for our inherent orientation (sinfulness – in the fallen condition) – but we will surely be judged for reacting against, and rejecting God’s holy calling (for ourselves, and as ministers, for others). What a man sows, so shall he reap. If he sows to the flesh, destruction will follow. To the spirit, eternal life. Halleluyah.
I put (TM) after divine plan to indicate my scepticism that it is, in fact, a Divine Plan. Or, to put it another way, if a casino routinely proclaims that everything that happens inside is wholly down to fate, or luck, or the laws of probability or whatever, and then for the best part of two millennia the casino’s roulette wheel consistently throws up black not red, then Occam’s razor suggests a rigged wheel, rather than that fate is working its purpose out, as year succeeds to year. In this case I’m not just suggesting that various church hierarchies are the casino, but the secular establishments they have shaped around them, especially in this country where no act of parliament gets passed for Royal assent except with the consent of the Lords spiritual and temporal.
I don’t understand the relevance of the rest of your comment to the point I was making, so I can’t really comment on it.
Also, by way of follow up, I’ve just got back from a wedding in a significantly more evangelical tradition than I’m used to, and confess to sharing a surprised glance at a friend sitting nearby when the bride promised to “submit” to her husband.
Thank you so much for your reflection and insight. This paves the way for a much needed dialogue within my evangelical/ charismatic community (apologies for using labels there – oops).
In our men’s group last week (all of us passionate about taking the good news of Jesus Christ to the world) we took time to ask the question: ‘what would it take to draw men back to our church community?’ I didn’t have the courage to say: ‘Retink our messaging on LGBT issues’ and instead opted for the safe response of ‘men’s football’ and ‘curry night evangelism’.
I fear that some guys have associated our faith with an ‘out of date’ social ideology. Embracing Christ means ( in their mind) signing up to a philosophy on gender and and sexuality that is as palatable and intellectually sound as the BNP manifesto.
Of course none of us, whichever side of the debate we are on, wants to get in the way of people encountering Jesus. But your article reminds me that I / we have done a poor job in our messaging and witness. Kyrie Eleison!
Andi, as a matter of interest, what do you think ‘our message on LGBT issues’ actually is?
Ian
Thanks for the question. In my response I have interpreted ‘our message’ as what is generally received / understood / interpreted by people outside the church. (I realise we can debate that definition but for the moment I am basing my comments on what is ‘heard’ or ‘understood’, as opposed to what is ‘said’).[Discuss 10 marks]
Two recent conversations as data points. (No statistical validity there then).
A friend of mine (UCCF Christian student leader at Nottingham) out witnessing to the student club scene last term engages in conversation with a guy outside a gay night club inviting him to church. The guy (intelligent, uni student) declines politely explaining that Christians ‘hate’ people like him, so he assumes he is not welcome at church. My friend spends the rest of the conversation trying to persuade him that is just not the case.
Data point #2 At IBM where I have been trying to get our Christian Group formally recognised and supported I have regular conversations with the LGBT community (who are really supportive of what I am trying to do). However, their personal experiences of church have been almost universally negative. They look at high profile cases of Jeffrey John and Vicky Beeching and assume that church is not going to be a safe place for them. For those that do engage with the church it is a tricky issue to work out if they will be welcomed in or thrown out. What really makes them roll their eyes is the assertion they hear from some Christians that you can change or be healed of your sexual orientation. ( I guess they have only ever heard this from Christians but again have zero data)
So that is the ‘message’ they hear. I think. You and I will weep that this represents a distortion of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, and so far removed removed from the loving embrace of our Heavenly Father who runs to meet them, but somehow that’s what ‘many’ (and I have no statistical back up for ‘many’) have picked up. And of course one could argue that the media (whether BBCNews or PinkNews or) don’t always portray our ‘message’ impartially, but whatever the cause this ‘message’ is what is played back to me ( more often than not) as the Church’s view on LGBT issues.
[Of course I realise that social media is a really naff way of having this type of conversation (when you are probably itching to say ‘yes but…’ to the ramblings of a theologically uneducated guy in the pew!) so I am happy to have a chat over coffee in Battersea (my church) or Waterloo ( my work) if that furthers the conversation.]
Blessings! Have a great Synod. Andi.Britt@uk.ibm.com
Well said Ian. I’m glad you are commenting.
As I said I over at Thinking Anglicans (which linked this thoughtful article), for most young people, affirming gay rights is rooted in fashion, not conviction. As shown by the casual and pervasive homophobia in schools, the second a position proves inconvenient, it’s cast aside like last season’s dress. Popularity’s what most care about, and they’ll sacrifice most anything on that altar.
There’s a tendency to idolize kids, rooted in the counter culture, that’s beguiling, but misguided. They’re not inherently better than the church hierarchy, most of whom get on just fine with LGBT people on a personal level. If affirmation was fashionable in church circles, most ministers would be as openly accepting as young people are. And if the situations were reversed, most kids would ditch their affirmation in a heartbeat.
If Christianity is so inclusive, then why don’t they all perform LGBT weddings? …Just spinning words to get the collection plate filled. By inclusive, you simply mean it’s OK to be a part that gives their 10% tithing to maintain your tax free buildings.
Because we can only affirm what God has ordained. We cannot affirm sin. Such would be ‘non-Christian’.
Here’s some given insight into the spiritual origin of sin (and its consequences):
=> Eph 2:2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
=> Eph 5:6 Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.
=> Col 3:6 For which things’ sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience:
Exactly my point. Look, I was raised in a Catholic Church and remained a member of the church until my 40s. Then, I decided that being gay conflicted with the christian doctrine of love. I have studied religion my whole life and have lived by high moral standards. To say that God ordains only what a few select biblical characters who have had God-inspired visions is beyond comprehension, especially since the earliest documentation found was written well over 200 years after the facts. We know nothing of these writers. We know nothing about the original words or interpreters of those words, yet you would rather treat a whole group of people unworthy of God’s blessing in spite of what is right in front of your nose, loving, caring LGBT relationships! That is why people find Christianity immoral. Why would anyone want to believe in such a God?
Based on your biblical quotes, I’d say you believe in a punishment/reward system of God. Sad, really…
Thanks for this thoughtful post! (Note; I’m coming at this as an academic interested in Christian sexual ethics, but not a Christian myself; so I’m more concerned with how the perceptions you outline here filter into gender studies and feminist theory, rather than whether young people are personally put off Christianity.)
I can absolutely see the “Christian but” approach in assumptions many academics and students in these fields make about Christian women, particularly when it comes to Christian women’s participation in women’s movement/s and/or feminism. This seems to be driven by the identification of Christianity with misogyny (also suggested above by commenter Aj Hall). In brief, Christianity and feminism are treated as if they were incompatible, despite the historical foundations of western feminism in Christian thought and Christian women’s social activism, and the existence of a large and diverse body of feminist theology.
I think your attention to the *moral* dimension of sexuality and gender debates is exactly the point. The way I think about it, “Christian” is a coherent and meaningful identity for some people and not others precisely because the dominant narrative of Christian identity in the UK is primarily about gender and sexual ethics. For example, the discussion of gay sex and abortion that Tim Farron cited in his recent resignation, and the various reactions to it, proceeded as if there was a single, obvious Christian point of view on feminism and queer sexualities (…there isn’t).
From my p.o.v., I see a lot of assumptions about a person’s character or behaviour made in the form of “she’s a feminist, but she’s a Christian” as well as a “she’s a Christian, but she’s a feminist”. In both cases, there’s a hard distinction implied between the ethics of, as you put it, “hardcore serious Christians” and feminists… despite the fact that, evidently, neither identity can be relied upon to tell us about the character or behaviour of the one claiming it. In this case, since the construction of an identity tends to involve exclusions, I would look to the ways feminist and LGBTQI politics/ethics are distinguished from Christian ethics by *both* non-Christian feminists and non-feminist Christians. And for a possible solution, the ways this distinction is refused by feminist theologians.
I completely take your point about western feminism coming (in significant measure, at least) out of Christian women’s social activism, but have you taken account for how often Christian social activism equates to nonconformist social activism? That is, the types of Christian traditions which acted as powerhouses for social activism tended to be minority traditions within their own locations and eras (see for example the Clapham Sect and anti-slavery) and when they became majority traditions the social activism fell away, and social conservatism came to the fore, often at the expense of some of the marginalised people who had been leading voices in the original struggles.
As a person outside the church looking in (from time to time) I don’t really see how inclusive Christians can make much headway. Bottom line is that for a significant amount of Christians, LGBT people are committing sin and those in society who uphold or support LGBT rights are therefore part of the ‘problem’. I don’t see that mindset changing anytime soon. So, yes it is all about sex and sexuality because that’s the basis upon which people are being judged and written off.
As a young-ish LGBT person who has an extremely negative view of the Church of England (despite attending a C of E school, getting confirmed and attending services for a while)… the biggest problem I have with the Church isn’t the pervasive homophobia, transphobia and misogyny, or even the child abuse scandals, it’s the *arrogrance*.
I see bishops in the House of Lords angrily (and somewhat dishonestly) lecturing people about same-sex marriage, with no apparent awareness that most reasonable people have doubts about whether a particular religious organization should be embedded in the national legislature in the first place. I see the church using archaic laws to demand that ordinary people fund their building repairs. I see people like George Carey whining about atheists celebrating Christmas as if this amounts to some terrible act of persecution. In response to the endless child abuse scandals I barely see contrition, let alone any discussion of whether the church’s involvement in education should be scaled back (and at least in my experience, their involvement in education is not helpful or welcome, even ignoring the child abuse issue).
The overall message I get is that the church aren’t interested in trying to attract my attention, they feel like they already deserve my blind obedience and are aggrieved that they aren’t getting it. If they want me to listen to them again, the first step is to get me to take them seriously, which would require them to recognze that they are not the centre of the universe and do not have all the answers. But I really can’t see that happening.
Pingback: Sex: The Church Vs. The World – The American Conservative |
What all parties to the conversation must remember is there are multiple versions of Christianity in today’s world. What one tradition says will invariably be contradicted by another. What one interpretation of scripture vehemently denounces, an alternative interpretation of that same scripture will endorse. Moreover, there is simply no way to determine which tradition or which interpretation represents “the Christian view” of the matter in question.
What history shows, however, is that today’s versions of Christianity will ultimately give way to tomorrow’s–as we have seen on various issues such as evolution, the role of women (in society and in the church), racial segregation, and same-sex marriage. On moral and ethical issues, the church rarely leads; instead, it typically follows, and then often only grudgingly.
Pingback: Sex: The Church Vs. The World – The American Conservative | Public News Update
Pingback: #MondayMotivation Link Roundup! – The Simple Pursuits
At this point, I would think that excessively restrictive policies with respect to sexuality are hardly the problem within the Church of England. What, indeed, is so terribly wrong with good old fashioned Victorian (or Roman) morality ? Do you really think this kind of silly claptrap will stand up in the midst of persecution ? What happens when Nietzsche rules, you have finally gone beyond good and evil, and you have no one but yourselves to blame ?
https://tanyatale.wordpress.com/2017/07/07/bridge-of-eternal-love/