This is an article from

Theology Wales:
the Church and Homosexuality

 

 

Full contents:

Guest Editor's Introduction
- Rev Jenny Wigley

Presidential Address
- Archbishop Barry Morgan

Same-sex relationships
- Bishop Richard Harries

The freeing of Anglican identities - Rev Dr Lorraine Cavanagh

Facing up to our differences
- Rev Jean Mayland

Same-sex unions
- Rev Dr Will Strange

Homosexuality - the biblical evidence
- Rev Prof DP Davies

Engaging with the scriptures
- Canon Robert Paterson

A view from the pews
- Tim Heywood

 

SAME-SEX RELATIONSHIPS - the unresolved questions

Rt Rev Richard Harries, Bishop of Oxford

Richard Harries has been Bishop of Oxford since 1987. Before that he was Dean of King's College, London. He has been a parish priest and a lecturer in Christian Doctrine and Ethics. He is a Fellow of King's College, London and an Honorary Doctor of Divinity of the University of London.

The status of same-sex relationships is the most divisive issue now facing the Church of England, indeed the whole Anglican Communion and many other churches as well. It is therefore vital that we engage in the discussion with what has been termed "Interpretative charity" (1). This means first, assuming that the views with which you disagree are not only sincerely held but are put forward by a rational person who holds them for good reasons. Secondly, stating those views to yourself in the most rationally persuasive way. In a debate between Christians I assume of course that what is rationally persuasive will be biblically based. It is usually easy to destroy weak arguments that are put forward.

Interpretative charity involves taking the strongest argument and, if necessary, stating in even more persuasive terms than the person with whom you disagree. To love one another in disagreements of this kind involves, at the least, this kind of interpretative charity, putting the best possible construction on the other person's arguments, reformulating them in such a way as to see their full force.

Another point that needs to be made at the outset is that those of us who call ourselves Christians find our human identity first and foremost in Christ. Our sexuality is important, very important, for it is part of our God given nature. But the question whether we are heterosexual or homosexual by orientation is subordinate to the fact that we belong together at the profoundest level of our being, within the body of Christ and we find our common identity in him.

The point is made in the St Andrew's statement, a document drawn up by thoughtful Evangelicals and quoted in the 1998 Lambeth - Conference section report on human sexuality. This says "There can be no description of human reality, in general or in particular, outside the reality of Christ. We must be on guard, therefore, against constructing any other ground for our identities than the redeemed humanity given us in him"(2).

Elizabeth Stuart, who has written in favour of sexual intimacy for gay and lesbian people makes the same point when she says "Baptism incorporates us into a community that deconstructs all other identities and regards them as non-essential"(3).

This is a discussion in which attentive listening is crucial.Those of us who are heterosexual need to listen to gay and lesbian people who are willing to share something of their experience with us. It is not easy to make ourselves that vulnerable to one another.This will include listening to those who believe that loving sexual intimacy is open to them. It will also include listening to those who believe that the bible allows sexual intimacy only in the context of life long heterosexual marriage and that they must therefore try to live a life of chastity. It will involve listening to parents whose children have come out as gay and lesbian. A philosopher once said that "All ethics is a training in sympathy"(4). Certainly any ethical reflection worth the name can only be based on a real and sympathetic understanding of the experience that is being debated.

• Find ways to listen to the variety of voices on gay and lesbian experience - if this is not possible face to face, read some of the collections of interviews and testimonies referred to in the introduction to this journal.

Listening is not unproblematic.We all have a tendency to listen to or read books by those who reinforce our own point of view. At the 1998 Lambeth Conference two fringe meetings on this subject were organised.At one of them gay and lesbian people who believe that lifelong chastity was the only option open to them shared their experience. At the other gay and lesbian people who did not limit themselves to that option spoke. Despite the huge furore over this subject at Lambeth only one or two people found it in them to attend both meetings.

Listening is not unambiguous. For people can be quite sincere in how they interpret and speak about their experience but that interpretation or construction can be shaped in ways that they may not be fully aware of by the prevailing culture.This point will be returned to when I consider what is termed constructivist views of human sexuality.

The position of the House of Bishops of the Church of England is set out in Issues in Human Sexuality .The House is not about to change its mind on this issue. Nevertheless, all of us need to get beyond the present highly polarised debate, with its unhelpful stereotypes. Whatever our views and whether or not they are changed or adjusted as a result of this discussion, I believe that serious engagement with this dilemma can take us all deeper into the mind of Christ. And that, as I understand it, is what all of us, Bishops, clergy and lay people want: to enter more deeply into the mind of Christ for his church on this pressing issue.

The first unresolved question concerns the causality of our sexual orientation, whether it is heterosexual or homosexual. But this in turn raises the wider and in some ways more important question about the implications of our answer to that on our ethical judgments.

During the 1990s claims were made by some American scientists to have found a genetic basis for homosexuality. No so called "gay gene" was discovered but it was claimed that studies of twins identified a marker on the X chromosome where genes important in the formation of our sexuality may be located. Recent research however has raised major doubts about those findings(5). In any case, if there is a genetic basis for our sexuality, it is likely to be polygenic and complex involving other biological factors as well.At the moment there are no assured, generally accepted findings. Unfortunately the ethical implications of any scientific findings have not always been properly thought through.There has been a drive in some quarters to find a genetic or more widely, biological basis, for homosexuality on the assumption that society would then have to accept gay people without question. This does not necessarily follow in practice, as we have seen over questions of race.The colour of our skin is certainly genetic in origin but this knowledge has not resulted in the dissipation of racial prejudice. Nor does it follow in logic. For some have suggested - for example the last Chief Rabbi Lord Jakobovits - that if a "Gay gene" were identified then genetic engineering techniques could be used to eliminate this strain from the human gene pool. Theological and ethical reflection needs to be informed by scientific findings but it cannot be decided by them.

Another approach to the question of causality, the so called development hypothesis, assumes that people become gay or lesbian because of shortcomings in relationships with parents in the process of growing up(6). For example, it has been argued that gayness in men is derived from having a distant father and a close relationship with a mother. But such an argument can be turned on its head. It has been suggested for example that where such a situation occurs it is likely to be because the father has been unduly influenced by macho understanding of masculinity and is unable to relate satisfactorily to the more gentle qualities in his growing son and that that son would inevitable draw closer to his mother.This development hypothesis has been important for organisations that claim that homosexuality is a condition that can be healed. For if something has gone awry in the process of growing up then it might be that through appropriate therapy a person can be re-orientated.

Challenging both these interpretations is the view that human sexuality is a purely social construct(7). In other words, there is nothing given about our orientation. It is totally shaped and conditioned by the culture in which we are set. Clearly there is some truth in this, in that how same-sex relationships have been understood and evaluated does vary both from society to society and from age to age. It is a view that can appeal to those take a traditional, Christian understanding of this issue. For it would indicate that the church has a sound basis for taking up a contrary stance to the culture of our day, in some quarters of which at least being gay or lesbian is accepted without question.

On the question of causality then we have to acknowledge that there is no agreement, no generally accepted finding from either science or sociology. In any case, the answer to the question about causality cannot be determinative for theological and ethical reflection, any answer will bear on the subject and needs to be taken into account but it cannot determine it.

• How familiar are you with the theories of the causes of homosexuality?
• Are you persuaded by any of those outlined Bp Richard? How does it fit into traditional Christian teaching about creation and free will? What difference would it make to our attitudes if one or other of these theories were to be adopted?

My own view, and this is of course a personal judgement, is that though there is some truth in the social constructivist understanding of sexuality, there really are people who are predominantly attracted to members of their own sex in every age and every culture, even though the form and acceptability of the expression of this will vary. For it seems clear from autobiographies of gay people that from an early age there are people who, whatever society thinks of the matter, are conscious of being strongly attracted, not just sexually but as a whole person, to members of their own sex(8). The origin of this I suspect is likely to lie in the interaction of the genetic and developmental, the biological and psychological. But whatever explanation there is a percentage of the population, however small, who are predominantly attracted to members of their own sex and whose orientation is, in the vast majority of cases, irreversible. The actual percentage has been a matter of dispute from Kinsey's ten percent to studies which suggest that only about two percent of males or less are predominantly homosexual. Such gay and lesbian people do not choose their orientation, nor does our culture totally condition them to be that way.That's the way they are, and if I am a gay or lesbian Christian person, that is the nature with which I come before the God who in Christ cherishes me. It is significant that recent official pronouncements by the Roman Catholic church, whilst taking a traditional line on all forms of sexual expression, refers to homosexual persons, thereby implying that there are people who are of their very nature homosexual(9).

A consideration of lesbianism will further complicate this issue. For some lesbians their sexuality is a political statement, a rejection of male dominance.This often goes with an emphasis on it being a personal choice, not something given either by biology or psychology. If this were so, then the Christian perspective would be quite clear. We are called to choose either chaste singleness or marriage. But whilst the political protest of lesbianism is very understandable, as is the desire to make this a responsible personal choice, not something determined, I suspect - though again this is only a personal judgement - that there is a percentage of women who are primarily attracted to other women; though studies reveal this to be smaller than the number of men who are homosexual by orientation.

The question of scripture must be crucial for all of us, for as the preface to the declaration of assent puts it "The Church of England professes the faith uniquely revealed in the holy scriptures and set forth in the Catholic creeds". Together we seek the mind of Christ so together we must look to the scriptures to guide us.This cannot be separated from another question however, that of hermeneutics: the assumptions, presuppositions and principles which guide us in the interpretation and application of scripture.

All are now agreed that the notorious story of the destruction of Sodom is not relevant to this debate.The sins that were punished were the violation of hospitality and gang rape. Several passages in the book of Leviticus need looking at.These chapters condemn many things that today we take for granted, and order the death penalty, sometimes by stoning, for a number of offences in a way which we can only regard as cruel, morally repugnant and totally contrary to the mind of Christ(10).

Romans 1: 18-32 however remains for all of us a crucial text. In this passage St Paul says that because the pagan world has failed to recognise God in his creation they have turned to idolatry and this in turn has led to many immoral practices, including same-sex relationships. In can be asked about this passage whether what St Paul condemns is identical to the committed same-sex relationships which are suggested as a role model for today. Furthermore, as what St Paul condemns is, in his view, a direct result of turning away from God, it can also be asked whether those whose faith in God is sincere but who uphold the validity of same sex relationships are open to a similar condemnation.

For some, these questions can be faced in a way which leaves this text as decisive for our discussion. For others, however, it needs to be set against the example and teaching of Jesus in his outreach to the marginalised of his time and his willingness to keep close to human need rather than the strict letter of the law. The way the early church admitted gentiles also, it is argued, offers a precedent for us today.

The first Christians, who were Jewish, saw the Holy Spirit clearly at work in gentiles and as a result came to the conclusion that they could be baptised as Christians without first having to be circumcised and without keeping the Jewish law.The clear teaching of the Old Testament about ritual purity and food laws, for example, was set aside. On the basis of mutual friendship within the Christian community today it has been argued that we might be able to see the Holy Spirit at work in loving same sex relationships and as a consequence gay and lesbian people in such relationships should be warmly welcomed and fully affirmed. In those days being a woman, a slave or a gentile carried overtures of moral defilement.

But as St Paul wrote There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus (Galatians 3:28). In the same way, if we can see the Holy Spirit at work in loving gay relationships then this should override any moral stigma that traditionally attaches to such relationships and we should add to St Paul's statement that in Christ Jesus There is neither heterosexual nor homosexual.

Those who conclude from a study of scripture that gay and lesbian people must refrain from sexual intimacy offer two alternatives.The first suggests that with appropriate prayer and counselling a person can - over time and painfully - change their sexual orientation, at least enough to get married. This used to be the position of organisations like The True Freedom Trust, The Courage Trust and Living Waters. However, it now appears that their main stress is on a person coming to terms with their sexuality and, through prayer, living a chaste life(12). Obviously the position that a person can change their sexual orientation depends either on a developmental or a constructionist understanding of the causality of our sexual orientation. For those who believe that the basis is primarily genetic, there can be no question of a change.These organisations have in the past aroused the anger of many gay people but they can offer a valuable pastoral ministry, particularly to young gay or lesbian people in strictly traditional congregations.

The other alternative is life-long celibacy.The single state, in which a person consecrates all their bodily desires and longings to God so that, through a celibate life, they can offer a profound spiritual friendship to a wide range of people, is a highly esteemed Christian vocation. And we should salute those Christians, heterosexual or homosexual, in the past and the present, who have served the church so wonderfully in this way. But it is a personal vocation and it is difficult to see how a whole class of persons, simply through their sexual orientation, are by that fact called to it. As Rowan Williams has put it "Anyone who knows the complexities of the true celibate vocation would be the last to have any sympathy with the extraordinary idea that sexual orientation is an automatic pointer to a celibate life: almost as if celibacy before God is less costly, even less risky, to the homosexual than the heterosexual"(13).

The other question is that of the meaning of bodily desire. It has been suggested that one of the reasons why this debate arouses such emotion is because it brings to the fore the issue of bodily longing. When considering marriage this can be side stepped by a focus on procreation. This is not possible in same-sex relationships. So what is the purpose of bodily desire, theologically considered? Rowan Williams, has argued that in the desire for one another and our desire that they should desire us, so that an essential part of our desire for them is that we should feel desired, we make ourselves vulnerable: hence it is so easy for sex to be tragic or comic. But this mutuality in desiring reflects the love of the Trinity.

The whole story of creation, incarnation and our incorporation into the fellowship of Christ's body tells us that God desires us, as if we were God, as if we were that unconditional response to God's giving that God's self makes in the life of the Trinity. The life has as its rationale - if not invariably its practical reality - the task of teaching us this: so ordering our relations that human beings may see themselves as desired, as the occasion of joy.

Two things, he suggests, follow from this. The first is the need for time for two people to achieve a genuine mutual recognition and not simply be passive instruments to each other. The other is that sexual relationships fall away from their proper purpose when there is no making vulnerable.

Building on these insights by Rowan Williams it has been argued that Christians should never lose sight of our overall goal, which is to be taken into the wedding feast of the Lamb, the divine banquet and that this is primarily about relationships and their quality, about love and holiness, rather than procreation(14). Whatever the implications of this for same-sex relationships and whatever qualifications or further discussion might be necessary before such categories can be applied to same sex relationships, there are clearly important insights here which can enrich and illuminate the whole discussion, putting it, quite properly, in a wider theological context.

Whatever differing views there are about sexual intimacy all Christians are agreed in wanting to oppose homophobia.The seriousness of this should not be underestimated. One survey found that over a period of five years 34% of men and 24% of the women surveyed had experienced violence. The percentages for those under 18 was even higher. One in two people under 18 had experience of violence, 61% recorded harassment and 90% verbal abuse(15). This is entirely unacceptable and Christians will want to do all they can to oppose it. But here we run into a two edged problem.

Such people are not willing to believe that the church is sincere in its protestations about opposing homophobia until it is able to affirm same-sex relationships.The other side of this problem is that those who take a traditional stance very much object to being regarded as homophobic when they take a position that they judge is rooted in clear Christian principle. Many gay and lesbian people feel that the Church, because of its traditional attitude, has the effect of reinforcing homophobia, whatever its stated intentions.

• How do you respond to the statistics on homophobic violence?
• What should the Church be doing to overcome homophobia?

There is no easy resolution of this tension. Nevertheless both Issues in Human Sexuality and the 1998 Lambeth Conference Resolution strongly affirmed the place of gay and lesbian people in the life of the Church.

Issues in Human Sexuality said:

The church in its pastoral mission ought to help and encourage all its members, as they pursue their pilgrimage from the starting points given in their own personalities and circumstances, and as they grow by grace within their own particular potential. It is, therefore, only right that there should be an open and welcoming place in the Christian community both for those homophiles who follow the way of abstinence, giving themselves to friendship for many rather than to intimacy with one, and also for those who are conscientiously convinced that a faithful, sexually active relationship with one other person, aimed at helping both partners to grow in discipleship, is a way of life God wills for them (5.23).

The Lambeth Resolution said that the Bishops

Recognise that there are among us persons who experience themselves as having a homosexual orientation. Many of these are members of the Church and are seeking the pastoral care, moral direction of the Church and God's transforming power for the living of their lives and the ordering of relationships. We commit ourselves to listen to the experi ence of homosexual persons and we wish to assure them they are loved by God and that all baptised, believing and faithful persons, regardless of sexual orientation, are full members of the body of Christ". (Resolution 1, 10 (c))

The above passage from Issues in Human Sexuality has given rise to some misunderstanding. Earlier the Bishops' statement had said

There is, therefore, in Scripture an evolving convergence on the ideal of a lifelong, monogamous, heterosexual union as the setting intended by God for the proper development of men and women as sexual beings. (2.29)

But what the Bishops' statement takes into account is the traditional Christian, particularly Anglican, respect for conscience. If after prayer and reflection a person makes a conscientious judgment before God that a particular course of action or way of life is right, is compatible with or even demanded by Christ, then that judgment is to be respected whatever the formal teaching of the Church. So, referring to gay and lesbian people who enter into committed sexual relationships the Bishops' statement says that whilst insisting that whilst conscience always needs to be informed

Christian tradition also contains an emphasis on respect for free conscientious judgment where the individuals have seriously weighed the issues involved.The homophile is only one in a range of such cases.While unable, therefore, to commend the way of life just described as in itself as faithful a reflection of God's purpose in creation as the heterophile, we do not reject those who sincerely believe it is God's call for them.We stand alongside them in the fellowship of the Church, all alike dependent on the undeserved grace of God (5.6).

That said, there will be a difference of emphasis in this welcoming between those who warmly accept people in same-sex relationships regarding such relationships as valid and those who, whilst welcoming them fully into the fellowship of the Church, believe that their conscience needs to be re-educated and that their relationships need to be re-ordered.

• Is Bishop Richard right to speak of a difference only of "emphasis"?

Issues in Human Sexuality makes it clear that this liberty, as they call it, applies only to lay people not to clergy.The full paragraph reads

We have, therefore, to say that in our considered judgment clergy cannot claim the liberty to enter into sexually active homophile relationships. Because of the distinctive nature of their calling, status and consecration, to allow such a claim on their part would be seen as placing that way of life in all respects on a par with heterosexual marriage as a reflection of God's purpose in creation (5.17).

This paragraph has been criticised as advocating a double standard, one for clergy and one for lay people. This is not quite right.The standard set out in the Bishops' teaching document is faithful, life-long, heterosexual union, i.e. marriage. There is one standard, not two.Although this bears upon clergy and lay people in different ways this is by no means unique. For example whilst most mainstream churches have allowed lay people to take up arms in defence of their country when the cause is just, this liberty has not been accorded to chaplains. Chaplains have been forbidden to carry weapons so that in however small a way they can bear witness to God's peaceable kingdom in which there is no violence of any kind.

The problem with this teaching, even with its limited concession to lay people, is that it offers no role models to gay and lesbian young people, except that of life-long abstinence. The thoughtful American writer Andrew Sullivan has said that one of the great points of anguish for someone growing up gay or lesbian is that they have nothing to aim for(16).

The point is also made particularly powerfully by Jeffery John in relation to the clergy.

Heterosexual young people have the ideal of a committed life-long relationship, gay and lesbian young people have no socially sanctioned ideal in which their longing to love and be loved can take human form.

Acknowledging that there is much promiscuity in the gay community he argues that clergy ought to be able to offer an alternative to this in relationships that are permanent, faithful and stable (17).

The Evangelical Church in Germany (EKD) with which the Church of England is linked through the Meissen Agreement, offers a compromise ceremony. The blessing is not to be during an ordinary worship service, it is not to be on the homosexual partnership as a lifestyle but on the people who live in an ethical responsible way in a same-sex relationship. The late John Boswell in his pioneering work on the history of homosexuality and attitudes to it argued that at one time the Church had a special relationship for the blessing of same-sex unions. There was certainly a special ceremony described "as a prayer for" "or office of' adelphopoiesin but other scholars have not been convinced that Boswell's translation of this as "same-sex union" is accurate (18).

Within the gay community there is a debate about whether such permanent partnerships should be seen in covenantal terms, based upon Ephesians 5 or as a particularly intimate kind of friendship involving sexual expression. But even if both these models are rejected, all Christians are agreed that Scripture affirms tender, intimate friendships of a nonsexual kind and that it is sad today that as these seem so little valued in their own right.

• How would you respond if the Church refused to bless your relationship with the person you love? (experiences of divorced couples seeking a church wedding may help here).

Another aspect of this debate concerns what is natural and unnatural and this overlaps with a more technical discussion about natural law, or what we can know of God's purpose in creation. It is however important at the outset to try to distinguish between any emotional reaction we might have and considered ethical reflection. I may find certain ways of going on extremely distasteful or embarrassing. But this so-called "ugh" factor (19) is not in itself a sure guide to ethical evaluation. Again, although the bodies of men and women are clearly designed to come together in a sexual union that produces offspring, this cannot of itself be regarded as settling the matter. First, there are many ways in which heterosexual couples make love that do not involve full sexual union or which do not produce offspring. Secondly, what is natural according to God's purposes cannot be discerned simply by observing what happens in nature. What is natural, from a Christian point of view, is nature as it is grounded in and reordered in the light of Christ's resurrection. What this is must be discerned by reflecting on God's purpose in nature as revealed in the scriptures, not simply by watching natural processes. It is nature as restored in Christ that is normative.

What is the practice of the majority may be the norm but need not be normative.We might say that brown hair is normal but ginger hair is not only perfectly acceptable but is part of the variety and richness of human physicality.

This brings us to the heart of the matter as far as many gay and lesbian people are concerned. They discover that they are attracted to other members of their own sex, not just sexually but with a profound longing for a committed relationship. Are they able to accept and affirm what they cannot help but feel is profoundly bound up with their whole being - a nature which they did not choose but which they find they are - or are they to flee from themselves in fear and self-loathing?. Official Roman Catholic teaching, whilst taking a strictly traditional line about homosexual practice, has been very affirming of homosexual persons. At the same time it has described the homosexual orientation as "disordered". Is it possible to regard oneself as deeply loved and cherished by God if one believes that the nature he has given one, a nature which expresses one's deepest feelings, is "disordered"?

The New Testament gives us the assurance that in Christ we are profoundly accepted and that liberation comes through accepting God's acceptance of us. It is a very genuine, testing and painful question about how far, if at all, this is possible whilst rejecting one's deepest longings (20).

The cultural context in which this debate is taking place needs to be noted. Not only are there openly gay MPs but their partners have been accorded spouses' rights in the House of Commons.The "pink pound" is an increasingly important economic factor making for gay acceptability.The Guardian newspaper has traditionally been liberal on gay issues and The Independent has been strongly pro-gay. Now The Times, for example in its obituaries, will refer quite straightforwardly to the partners of gay people in the final paragraph where the wives or husbands of married people are mentioned. Legislation continues to change. A lesbian employed by a railway company was accorded the financial rights of her partner equivalent to a spouse.At the end of 1997 the European Commission on Human Rights decided in favour of Euan Sutherland that the UK's higher age of consent for homosexuals breached two articles of the European Convention. A recent court case allowed a surviving partner of the same sex to inherit the lease of a flat. In France there has been the introduction of PACS, as a result of which same-sex couples can have a status in law for financial and other benefits.

All this poses a major question about the relationship of the Christian Church to the wider culture in which it is set. In the past the Church of England has been very much part of the wider culture a "church type" as opposed to a "sect type". It would be possible in the future for the Church deliberately to take up a contra-culture stance, distancing itself from wider society on this issue. On the other hand it could quite consciously decide to relate to the gay phenomenon in a more positive way and adopt what the late Michael Vasey (21) termed a "missiological pragmatism".

The Church today is confronted by a genuine dilemma - the presence in the Church of those who are openly gay or lesbian some of whom ask for the same liberty as heterosexual people, namely to be able to enter into life long loving relationships with members of their own sex in a good conscience. For some it appears inevitable that the church will eventually rethink and repent, as it has in the past in its attitudes to slavery and women. For others, this is a different kind of issue and not one on which the church should conform to the prevailing cultural norm.

It has become such a crucial issue in the church because it raises in stark form the question of scripture and how we are to interpret it. It therefore touches on our whole understanding of revealed truth. So it is good that all of us will be drawn back to the very basis of our faith in Jesus Christ and how the church is to follow him faithfully in the circumstances of our own time.

 

1 Stephen Fowl, Engaging Scripture , Blackwell, 1998, p86 ff

2 The Way Forward? ed Timothy Bradshaw, Hodder and Stoughton, 1997, p5 ff.This book continues the work of the St Andrew's Group and contains a number of helpful essays in a spirit of "courteous listening to many voices, and exercising respect as well as honesty."

3 A statement verbally at a seminar chaired by the Archbishop of Canterbury

4 Keith Ward, in a private conversation

5 A summary of the evidence is provided by John Bancroft, "Homosexual Orientation, The Search for a Biological Basis" in British Journal of Psychiatry (1994), 164, 437-440. A fuller and more popular account is given by Chandler Burr, A Separate Creation, How Biology Makes us Gay (Bantam 1996). Stanton Jones and Mark Yarhouse "Science and the Ecclesiastical Homosexuality Debate" in Christian Scholars Review (December 1997) takes a critical look at all the scientific studies. The research that cast doubt on previous alleged findings was reported in The Guardian on 25th April 1999. A selection of books on research in this area was reviewed in The Times Literary Supplement on 8th May 1998 by Ruth Hubbard

6 A psychotherapist who has been influential in this field is Elizabeth Moberly, Homosexuality:A New Christian Ethic , James Clarke, 1993

7 Michael Foucault, The History of Sexuality (three vols), trans. R Hurley, Allen Lane, 1979-88

8 Andrew Sullivan, Virtually Normal, Picador, 1995, p6 ff

9 The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith produced Letter on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons in 1986. Cardinal Hume issued a statement based on this in 1993 and then another one in 1995 "A Note on the Teaching of the Catholic Church Concerning Homosexual People". Whilst repeating the traditional teaching of the Church in unequivocal fashion it strongly asserts the value of homosexual people in the life of the Church and underlines the importance of friendship and human love between people, whether of the same sex or a different sex. He also strongly defends the human rights of homosexual people and condemns "violence of speech or action against homosexual people". Individual Roman Catholic Theologians such as Kevin Kelly, New Directions in Sexual Ethics (Geoffrey Chapman, 1998) are more open to the possibility of affirming stable gay relationships.

10 The text usually taken to condemn sexual relations with members of the same sex are Genesis 19:4-11; Leviticus 18: 22; 20, 13; and Romans 1: 26-27. A traditional interpretation of these texts is taken in Striving for a Gender Identity, ed. Christal Vonholvt, German Institute for Youth and Society, Reichelsheim, 1996 and in God, Family and Sexuality, ed David W Torrance,The Handsel Press, 1997. A similar view is taken by the Evangelical Alliance in Faith, Hope and Homosexuality, 1998, whilst adding that the Church must repent of its homophobia. A different view is taken in Homosexuality, the Bible and the Fundamentalist Tradition by David Bruce Taylor, LGCM, 1999

11 This is the view taken, for example, by Stephen Fowl in Engaging Scripture and by Eugene Rogers, Sexuality and the Christian Body , Blackwell, 1999

12 Jeffrey Satinover, Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth , Baker Books, 1996 believes that homosexual behaviour is changeable and Mario Bergner Setting Love in Order, Monarch, 1995 sets out the case based on his own experience. Tony Green, Brenda Harrison, Jerry Innes, Not For Turning: An Enquiry into the Ex-gay Movement argued the opposite case from the experience of people who have not been helped by organisations that claim to heal homosexuals.

13 Rowan Williams,"The Body's Grace", now reprinted in Ourselves, Our Souls and Bodies: Sexuality and the Household of God , ed. Charles Hefling, Cowley Publications, Boston, 1996. The original lecture is available from LGCM, Oxford House, Derbyshire Street, London, E2 6HG

14 This is the theme of Eugene Rogers in Sexuality and the Christian Body

15 Angela Mason,Anya Palmer, Queer Bashing , Stonewall, 1996

16 Virtually Normal, Prologue

17 Jeffrey John, Permanent, Faithful, Stable (Affirming Catholicism 1993, St Mary-le-Bow, Cheapside, London, EC2V 6AU)

18 John Boswell, The Marriage of Likeness, Same Sex Unions in Pre-modern Europe, Harper Collins, 1995

19 Michael Ruse, Homosexuality, A Philosophical Enquiry, Blackwell, 1998 p201

20 Stanley Grenz, Welcoming But Not Affirming, Westminster John Knox, 1998. Welcoming is better than not welcoming but what is the effect of not affirming upon a homosexual persons feeling of worth particularly as it affects their deepest longings to love and be loved?

21 Michael Vasey, Strangers and Friends, Hodder and Stoughton, 1995