I enjoyed reading Vicky Beeching’s book ‘Undivided.’ It made me laugh; it made me cry. It was, in my view, raw, honest, and revealing. It shone a light into Vicky’s own soul and into the nature of some aspects of evangelical Christianity. The book, in many ways, stands as testimony to the battle that many Christians, LGBTI Christians in particular, face in coming to understand that they are beloved by God, and made in the very image of God.
I haven’t enjoyed reading some of the reviews by evangelical Christians of Vicky’s memoir. But, there again, perhaps I wouldn’t?
As I have reflected on Vicky’s book and the various conservative critiques I have read one thought has kept returning on a consistent basis, its my boomerang thought: Christianity has the potential to do one of two things, to make things a whole lot better or a whole lot worse. Christian practice is never, it seems to me, neutral. It either heals or harms, blesses or curses.
There is no doubt, in my view, that some of the responses to Vicky’s book, and indeed to her coming out, have been extremely hurtful, vitriolic even. This one in particular (from a blog written by the weeflea) reads as a curse:
“You loved the things and the fruit of Christianity but you didn’t love Christ.”
How anyone can read Undivided and regard Vicky’s journey through life as anything other than a sincere attempt to enter into the deepest of all loves is a mystery to me. The truly awful thing is that it doesn’t take a huge leap of imagination to hear a chorus of ‘amen (brother)’ to this most judgmental of statements; it doesn’t take a huge leap of imagination to hear statements of this sort being delivered from the pulpit or lectern by those seeking to condemn the likes of Vicky. It is a form of words carefully designed to frighten young Christians who may be starting to experience the first stirrings of desire. It is the sort of statement that can only ever curse and harm.
Of course not all Vicky’s reviewers have been so openly nasty and judgemental. Most of them have been keen to assure their readers that they appreciated aspects of Vicky’s craft. Peter Lynas, in his review written on behalf of the Evangelical Alliance, begins with the following so far so cozy remark: ‘The book is well written and a powerful memoir.’ Andrew Atherstone (writing on Psephizo) describes Vicky’s writing as ‘highly polished, with one clear line of argument prosecuted from beginning to end – more of an extended essay than a full memoir.’ He goes on to say ‘that it will sell briskly, written for the American market, with its references to ‘semesters’ at the University of Oxford and buying ‘cotton candy’ on Eastbourne pier.’
These opening gambits aren’t, of course, crude curses. They are something far more subtle: attempts to damn the author (Vicky) with faint praise and to seek to convey, to their readers, a sense of detachment and cool objectivity. Of course neither critic is detached or objective. None of us come to these issues disintermediated from prior experience, context or theopolitical allegiances. Vicky doesn’t, I don’t, and neither do her reviewers.
The fact that none of Vicky’s critics are detached, cool, and objective is revealed through their attempts to promote their own corner in the theopolitical battle for a one size must fit all doctrine of sexuality. Atherstone and Lynas both provide what looks like an alternative reading list. Both are keen to sign post (and advocate) the theology of Living Out. In fact they are so keen that they come close to suggesting that Vicky’s book is somehow unbalanced. Peter Lynas states that ‘she doesn’t explicitly mention Living Out, but seems to hint at their work in negative terms. Her view seems to be that Sean, Ed and Vaughan are entitled to their choices but, it’s a problem if they “teach that the only option for gay people is celibacy or opposite-sex marriage.” The book comes very close to silencing them and others like Dr Rosaria Butterfield, formerly a lesbian professor of queer theory who was radically converted to Christ.’
This quote provoked three thoughts: First, Undivided is Vicky’s testimony and memoir, so what moral duty does she have to put across an alternative theology? Secondly, Vicky’s story is in large part about her attempt to live beyond her sexuality, as a single and sexually abstinent Christian. ‘Living out’ for Vicky and a large number of LGBTI Christians has, and continues to be, a recipe for disaster. Living out is not the cure-all its apologists would like it to be. Thirdly, I just wonder whether, although Peter Lynas hasn’t commented on the nature of Vicky’s faith quite as starkly as the weeflea, whether that statement that Dr. (and I also can’t help wondering about the use of the title ) Rosaria Butterfield ‘was radically converted to Christ,’ in some way implies that Vicky hasn’t really been converted in any meaningful, or radical, sense?
Andrew Atherstone, I think, also calls into deep question the depth of Vicky’s faith. He writes as follows: ‘She concludes, with typical clarity, ‘God longs for us to simply be ourselves’. That is a remarkable motto, more akin to a pep-talk from a life coach, and shows the theological gulf between her current position and the gospel as she originally received it. Jesus does not say, ‘Be yourself’; he commands us to ‘Be born again.’
The implication must surely be that, in solidarity with other members of his theoploitical party, he too doesn’t believe that Vicky is properly Christian. The use of the motif ‘life coach’ is a subtle ploy designed to imply that Vicky, and anyone else who believes that members of the LGBTI community should be fully, liturgically, and sacramentally, affirmed by the church has simply capitulated to secular culture. The use of the motif suggests that Jesus has, for such ‘Christians,’ become a peripheral figure. Its a clever technique designed to support a crude critique.
As well as fearing for the state of Vicky’s own soul, her critics also fear for the health of the church (but there again don’t we all?) One of the arguments that conservative evangelical critics often make is that the Church of England isn’t really free to make doctrinal changes in isolation from other branches of the Christian faith. Peter Lynas, in particular, makes this argument, he writes: ‘Ultimately, Vicky has decided that rather than change her own views, she wants to change the church, and not just the church she grew up in. Her new position is at odds with the historic and global church, Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant.’
Am I alone in finding this a strange line of argument from someone writing for a group that would in most, perhaps even all, other ways regard themselves as heirs to the reformation? Of course Vicky wants to see change and reform. So, as a reformed-catholic, do I.
The freedom to argue for change, to hold doctrine up to the light of scrutiny, to believe and act differently, is one of the distinctive features of reformed Anglican ecclesiology. It is an aspect of out theology and ecclesiology that should be treated with consistency.
So, what of Vicky’s book: will it harm or heal, bless or curse? To an extent you pays your money and takes your choice, but I suspect that Undivided will prove to be a game changer (I also think her conservative critics fear this deep down). My own view is that in being so ‘out’ and open and, by laying her vulnerability bare Vicky’s book is, and will continue to be, a blessing.
It’s a real pity that Vicky has, in the meantime, had to face so much criticism; some of it vile. Let me finish by offering one verse from Scripture, it is of course Matthew 5, 11:
‘Blessed are you when people revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil falsely against you on my account.’
Vicky’s book will be a blessing, because, when all is said and done, Vicky has been, and will continue to be, a blessing.
Theore0 
Both a shrewd and a kind review of the book and the reviews
thank you!
Hi Andrew, as someone from a conservative evangelical background who has reviewed/responded to Vicky’s book I find the response to the responses intriguing. There’s a lot to pick up on but three things stand out 1. That it seems we are damned if we do, damned if we don’t in terms of responding genuinely when we say that we care about Vicky, that her book is well written and that she raises some massive challenges, concerns that a number of us share and have in our own way being trying to raise about evangelical culture. 2. That it feels like the legitimacy of responding publicly to a publicly published book and quite high profile media and social media campaign has been questioned. Indeed compared to the one or two critical reviews, there seems to have been quite a lot of social media commentary that when you look at it has been extremely harsh to those who have reviewed, their character and their motives have been challenged to the point where one person tried to smear David Robertson with connections to paedophilia -such an attack was deeply dangerous and could have exposed him and his family to physical attack from vigilantes as well as the emotional risk to his family. 3. The third thing that seems to be deligitimised is the point that there is another account of how to live under God’s love and grace, the one presented by Living Out and others. Of course we cannot and should not duck the point that there is a binary element to this, if Vicky is right and we are calling unclean what God calls clean then there is no place for our position but if God does call us to either marriage between one woman and one man or celibacy -and Living Out show that this is possible then that does challenge Vicky’s argument (both Vicky and those who disagree are in that sense offering a ‘one size fits all’ approach and we hope others to be persuaded.
These are genuine question points and I would love to hear your response. I must admit that I’m not sure that tweets and comments provide the best forum for thoughtful conversation so would welcome conversation with you via e-mail. Feel free to get in touch via https://faithroots.net/about/contact-us/ – warmly, Dave
I will get in touch, and thanks for your comments. I suppose that I would need to be very honest and say that I am highly cautious re Living Out. It may be possible that in some circumstances it might work, but I also know (personally and directly) of circumstances where it has been an absolute unmitigated disaster of the worst kind.
Thanks -I’ll await your email and we can talk more including re Living Out then 🙂
2A. I’m not defending people calling David Robertson a paedophile*, but do you not think that his smear of Vicky Beeching has similarly endangered her? He is supposed to be a church leader why then is he expecting others to treat him better than he treats them?
2B, Are you aware that some religious conservatives continually make public remarks attempting to accuse gay people of paedophilia – why do we never see any concern from the religious establishment about the impact of this on people’s lives (and I personally know people who have had significant negative impact as a result of this teaching)? Why are these people lauded rather than held to account?
3. In her book Vicky Beeching clearly states that she respects the choice of celibate gay people to remain celibate. Several of the reviews suggest her book is an attack on Living Out. She doesn’t mention them. There is a single paragraph about celibate gay Christians in which she says she respects that choice. I would say that there are still huge challenges in terms of church inclusion for gay people even if they are single and celibate.
2A. The question is where has David Robertson smeared VB in a way that would endanger her. He has disagreed with her robustly. Nb you can see on faithroots where I have also interacted with and challenged aspects of both reviews too. We need to be wary as well of what aboutery, the point is that the specific allegation could raise imminent danger. 2.B In fact that is a significant point of several of us inc Pete, Andrew and I have made about needing to listen and hear even when we disagree with the central premise. That’s the odd thing about how being condemned for disagreeing whilst saying there are things we need to take on board. Encouraging people to hate, attack, fear people is wrong. See also David Robertson on this. Insinuating that someone is a paedophile because they are gay is wrong too. 3. The point is that Living Out are not saying that some people can respond with celibacy and others can’t, they are saying that what God’s word says calls to a specific life response in regards to sexual orientation. It’s not about whether VB attacks them, the point remains that there are too alternative approaches being put forward that are mutually exclusive. Vicky is aware of that and it is a consistent argument to make. It’s not a case of “live and let live” but which view is right and obedient to God. Then from that a desire to call the whole church to live obediently to God.
Andrew, are you saying that a. Vicky’s book is *just * a personal memoir, and forms no part of a campaign to change the church’s teaching? And b. that the theology presented, such as it is, must be beyond criticism?
If not, then why do you have a problem with responses which address both those issues?
The book is a memoir / testimony (genre) which hopes to change the church’s stance. Don’t I say this directly in the piece, quoting directly from Peter Lynas? The problem I have with the responses is in the tone and content. Some of what the weeflea wrote I thought was just plain vile. The other reviews were more subtle, for sure, but the intent to cast doubt re the depth of Vicky’s faith was still there. In Andrew’s article it was right there at the beginning (see my first quote from his article). The use of the life-coach as a motif being was another obvious example. As I said it was a ‘clever technique designed to support a crude critique.’ Lots of people have reacted very badly to the EA review, many of them evangelicals……..
Hi Andrew, I’m breaking my resolution not to over engage in comment discussion again, still hoping for the in depth email convo. I think this is the problem. The book presents an argument for approach to sexuality but it is rooted in a theological position. There is a genuine issue at root hee about whether the Gospel means be yourself and to what extent coming to Christ means both he welcomes us as we are but also that we are radically changed to new people. So first of all, reviewer s can’t avoid asking what is the Gospel foundation and that whether or not we like it has implications. Ironically those types of concerns raised in the reviews are exactly the sort of critical concern about a lot of evangelical culture that is being challenged both from within and outside of evangelicalism. I also think we have reached a desperate state when a genuinely objective description of one person’s testimony is raised as a slight against others. Butterfield’s conversion was radical, she came from an out and out hostile position to all represented by Christian faith. That’s radical in a way that my testimony of coming to faith growing up in a Christian family isn’t. Of course , Christ’s ability to save me is as deep and real and radical in that I was a sinner, dead an enemy of Christ too. But I understand how the language is used and don’t see an issue that someone will describe the former gang member in our church as radically converted and not use the same language about me
I am going to e mail you. I promise, but have had a lot pressures for other reasons (daughter has just had a n op) and my post bag is overflowing. Of course the reviewers are entitled to review, but, as I said in the article, and so disagree with you, I don’t think the reviews were in any way ‘objective.
I’m an Evangelical and not an LGBTQ+ activist, but I have been appalled at the need of straight white men to post invectives online. Robertson’s was indeed vile and vindictive – period. Anyone who thinks otherwise reveals something of what is going on inside them on this issue. Peter Lynas article was much better, but again imputes motives about financial gains. What purpose does that serve, other than to diminish Vicky and polarise those reading? And it ensures many are pushed away from any consideration of the issue involved.
My friends, church members, pastoral colleagues that have been contacting me this past week, are distraught at the ongoing online behavior of straight men towards someone who they see as a vulnerable broken woman – and someone many of them knows personally. The responses online seem to care more about attacking the person than any issue. The real issue deserves something better than being buried in the vituperative disparagements of Vicky as a person.
Thanks Jason, I was with a couple of evangelical friends yesterday and they made exactly the same point and this was before they knew that I had written anything.
Well that feels a little bit like invective not just towards DR but to those who read his response differently. Maybe you know our hearts better. FWIW I think the issue is complicated. A lot of people would wrestle with the question of someone who comes across as vulnerable and broken and anything but free from shame … regardless of take on theology. The response shows that. There is a genuinely wrestling here because is that uncomfortable feeling patronising because someone is taking a public platform? Is (As I feel) it okay to say that actually we feel angry that a vulnerable, broken woman was exploited by our worship celeb culture and is being exploited again by an equally cynical publisher and news media? Nb for the record, I’ve written that I thought She’s use of an open letter badly misjudged this for all those sorts of reasons. I think he has grown used to using a method appropriate for combative debate with Richard Dawkins. I do think con evos suffer a lack of emotional intelligence at times (this is not a new comment from me) and I also think there is a bewilderment to how things come across in the social media/ emotive age. Also I have written to both EA and Vicky saying I would encourage private meeting
Dave, I am going on what these men said.
Robertson: “You love the stage. You love to perform. Now you are just doing the same thing for a different audience”, then this ” You offer a beauty which is ugly, a diversity which is uniformity, a freedom from shame which is an enslavement to sin, an ‘authenticity’ that is fake, a wholeness which is broken, a peace that is war.” That goes far beyond engaging with any issues and attacks the person.
Peter Lynas – who post was far more issues based: His sentence on Vicky’s finances now reads, after amending from feedback, “It is difficult to reconcile the apparent contradiction that the Christian music scene she describes left her with no money in the bank, with talk of giving up a glittering music career.” This is an update from something even more insinuating when first written.
What purpose do statements and claims like this have other than to attack personally?
I am a straight man, who will not accept straight white Christian leaders speaking this way about others, especially someone I know. The reviewers can ask about the issue but do not have to attack with personal insinuation and invective. My only issue is not with the discussion of substantive issues – but how those get lost by these kinds of posts. The issues are too important to bury them in argumentum ad hominem responses.
Jason, 1. You specifically said “anyone who thinks otherwise reveals something of what is going on inside them” that is a highly personal and judgemental attack claiming to read into the hearts of people you do not know and have not met. 2. As mentioned above I have disagreed with the style/ approach of DR I found the open letter unhelpful. 3. Read carefully his remarks though, he is specifically describing the message she offers as the opposite of what she believes it to be. He is not calling her ugly. This is I think part of the problem with how we read and distinguish things. 4. Again, look carefully at what Pete Lynas is saying. He is saying that there were a number of things he felt conflicted in the book, in context this includes descriptions of what the situation with Steve Chalke was. The specific point he makes is that there is an apparent conflict between VB saying that the Christian music industry treated her poorly in terms of welfare and pay and that it was a massive sacrifice giving it up. I think this is important because it goes to the heart of something crucial that Vicky is starting to put her finger on and expressing concerns many of us have. However, that apparent consistency needs to be resolved. As it happens I think that’s easily resolved and have written publicly to that effect as well as to Pete and Vicky. I can see how someone can both be dependent upon a career and gain something from the security, identity and personal connection from it to the point where it is hard to leave whilst still recognising that it hasn’t treated you well. So, I think that can be clarified but to pick up on an apparent inconsistency which needs clarifying does not make it a personal attack 5. It is worth asking who are all these white, straight males and why have we reached the stage where people cannot comment if they don’t fit an identity. We are talking about 3 or 4 reviews. Some of those reviewers have received quite a lot of personalised responses in return. Okay, will make this my last public response here. Please feel free to email me if you want to talk in more detail Dave
But Andrew, as Dave says, why are you deploying a hermeneutic of suspicion to Andrew’s review, when you are revolted by the same reading strategy in other reviews? Andrew is not making any comment about Vicky’s personal faith. He is commenting on how she presents what Christian faith means–that it is about ‘being yourself’—and highlighting the rather obvious point that this bears little relation to any recognised historic expression.
Doesn’t that matter? Or is he just not allowed to say it?
But, Ian as Jason has commented and also as numerous others have commented to me personally the review stands on its own words. It’s own tone and culture that gives the game away. I was with someone yesterday, for instance, someone occupying a ‘senior’ position, an evangelical and a new winder who before I had said a word remarked how upset and disturbed he was (and is) by the critiques. So although I am likely to be suspicious of anything Andrew writes on this subject (as some will be suspicious of anything I write) I would also say that the tone of his review have invited a widespread heremeneutic of suspicion.
Sorry, Andrew, you are projecting something onto this from your own response–you are deploying a reader-response approach where the text means what you feel it means. Andrew specifically requested the title ‘Why we should listen to Vicky Beeching’ since that is what he wants people to do–though also being aware that they don’t have to agree with her theological agenda because it is lacking.
We appear now to live in a world where it has become just about impossible to listen to anyone without imposing our own feelings on what they say. I think your response here is symptomatic of that and contributes to it.
So his words are neutral, uninviting, objective and dispassionate? I don’t but that one little bit. Of course his use of language and imagery begets a response. And, what of those who would agree with him as a result of their own experience, background and enculturation how can I / we be assured that they too aren’t projecting themselves into the text and falling prey to reader-response syndrome?
I think he has endeavoured to give an honest assessment, and has tried to avoid hyperbolic or emotional language.
I wonder if I can ask you this Andrew: suppose Atherstone had wanted to offer a sincere appeal for readers to listen to Vicky’s experience, but also wanted to offer a clear rejection of her theological agenda (since both are present in the book). How would his language need, in your view, to differ from what he actually wrote?
But Ian, Robertson did far more than asking that question and engage with the substance of Vicky’s story. He used language to attack her personally. It is bewildering to take Andrew to task for the use of his language but not do so with Robertson.
Robertson in his posts thinks it is wrong to ban conversion therapy (good grief does he support torture too?), and that celibacy is a “command” for those who don’t fit his understanding of biblical sexuality – no room for misunderstanding here of his claims. Then these quotes: “You love the stage. You love to perform. Now you are just doing the same thing for a different audience”, then this ” You offer a beauty which is ugly, a diversity which is uniformity, a freedom from shame which is an enslavement to sin, an ‘authenticity’ that is fake, a wholeness which is broken, a peace that is war.” That goes far beyond engaging with any issues and attacks the person. Why impute motives to Vicky like this? Who is going to respond well to being shouted at online for being enslaved to sin? If we put ourselves in the position of anyone struggling with LGBTQ+ issue and consider how are they going to read those sentences – probably as I am ugly, I should be ashamed, I am enslaved to sin.
This is pejorative, ad hominem, and something that springs from the wellspring of how Evangelicals all to often attack a person’s character instead of engaging with them relationally around issues. Roberston invective in the comments of his post are even more shocking.
Andrew reveals the authorial intent of Robertson, it is plain to see in his combative language and in his comments. We don’t need to impose and read our feelings onto Robertson’s post, the animus is clear to see with his language.
It’s going to be hard to have any civil and productive conversation if posts like Robertsons are held up as reasonable. Just look at the response – those convinced LGBTQ+ is something to be battled and fought against are delighted at his post, then those convinced that Evangelicalism is to be opposed at all costs on this issue find fodder for that response. The result is that those who are wrestling with this, in relationships with LGBTQ+ people, their own family, and friends are not afforded a radical middle for real listening and review and discernment.
There is a mode of Evangelical engagement/discourse that relies on claims for truth and brute force in order to dominate. Robertson perpetuates that. The jig is up and we really do know his motives from how he speaks. He is easy to read – no need to worry about overlaying a reader’s response to him. And as Andrew says, if a readers response hermeneutic is at play, all involved are up to it.
I am willing to my own emotional hinterland this. I am not objective, I have chosen one battle to fight and it is on the nature of discourse. Evangelicals can and should do better if they ever want anyone to hear them. I will stand up for any LGBTQ+ who gets an ad hominem shaming online by straight white Christian men. I will also stand up against any pro LGBTQ+ agenda that resorts to similar bullying and condescension.
Thanks Jason.
Sorry, I think you are getting confused. I am referring only to Andrew Atherstone’s review on my blog, not Robertson’s. They are quite different in tone.
Thanks, Jason, but I am not defending Robertson, who doesn’t speak for me. My questions relate to Andrew L’s criticism of Andrew Atherstone’s review on my blog.
Perhaps then you would like to publicly critique the weeflea (and Lynas) to model how the spectrum of that occupies ‘the middle ground’ might engage better?
As far as I am aware I have never suggested that either he or anyone else is ‘just not allowed to say it.’ Anyone who writes in the public space should be prepared to have their offering scrutinized: Vicky, Andrew, Peter, you, me…….
Dave Williams
What more could Vicky Beeching have done to “come to Christ”? Until she “came out” she was a modern evangelical, devoting her life to his mission, including giving up any hope of a partner or family.
This is the problem: SOCE don’t work so if the evangelical position is that the radical change of the gospel always results in gay people becoming straight then you are effectively barring all gay people from ever becoming Christians (including Living Out).
The huge question I think from this book that evangelicals need to ask is not “what’s wrong with her theology”, but “what did she do wrong?”. It seems to me that she followed evangelical theology to the letter for more than 20 years and it gave her several chronic health problems and nearly killed her. If her experiences of how evangelical theology impacts gay people are representative, doesn’t this say that evangelicals need to urgently consider how they treat gay people, especially impressionable teens?
Dave Williams
The issue with White Straight Males is not that this group should not be allowed to comment. Andrew is himself a WSM!
The issue is that this group is the most privileged in society and often struggles to understand or have compassion for the fact that people who do not have these characteristics do not have the same rights, privileges and levels of treatment by others as they do.
We can see this in the reviews. Beechings book dealt with how hard it was to grow up as a not straight person in a world (both secular and religious) where being not straight was unacceptable and where there was no one like her. She mentioned the additional challenges she had being and becoming a worship leader in churches because she was not a man – being removed from a prayer meeting, being stalked and being sexually assaulted by a priest.
The reviews, to me, all seem to skip blithely over these things as if they don’t matter, but they are a key part of her story. There’s a failure to register amongst *some* WSMs the inherent problems of not being a WSM in our world.
That’s no problem hope all is well with your daughter and the opportunity has gone okay. Nb for clarification I don’t think I’ve claimed that reviewers are objective and VB is subjective. Depends of course what you mean by this certainly I would not claim that I was impartial or disengaged emotionally. I’m not even sure we should be. Though at the same time, I don’t think that prevents an objective as in factual engagement with what is written.
Thanks Dave and I will get back to you. Promise!
I have just collected ‘the book’ from my local library and am looking forward to reading it. It was purchased for library stock on my suggestion. I may post my observations later.
Sqn Ldr Alan Birt
*****************************************************
I hope you ‘enjoy’ it. Thanks, Andrew
…and the middle ground for any real discussion and collaboration is disintegrating in real time.
Robertson takes the moral high ground with an initial incendiary post, and now plays the victim, as a rallying cry for all those convinced of the battle against LGBTQ+:
Then in real time watch the repugnant Christian trolling of Vicky Beeching, as the fire and ire on the other side of the debate escalate to confirm how judgemental and evil Christians are https://www.facebook.com/VickyBeeching/?ref=br_rs.
Something ugly, the toxic infection of the evangelical body is being squeezed, it’s pustulations cracking open. We really do need a better story and mode of discourse.
But Jason, your comments are less a criticism of the ‘evangelical body’ than of our toxic culture of social media communication. I am sure that the comments on Twitter etc that Vicky Beeching has received are vile…but that’s in large part because there are vile people around who say all sorts of vile things to all sorts of people. There is, in fact, no such thing as ‘the evangelical body’; in fact, as others have noted, many evangelicals have been repulsed by such trolling and insults. What connection with my own position do the comments of some deranged fundamentalist have? I have no control or influence over such people.
But you are right that the middle ground is being eaten up. I am actually friends on Facebook with a good number of gay Christians and those who would like to see change in the church, and there is some direct but well disciplined debate on my blog between people of different views.
But the middle ground intellectually is being eaten up by those who say ‘I was wounded by “traditional” teaching [though yet again my own views have little or no connection with the treatment Vicky recounts] and therefore the teaching of the C of E must change’.
As many of the comments here testify, there is no room given for those who want to listen carefully to the experience of gay people (including my numerous gay friends) but who do not follow the logic that it is belief in male-female marriage that must therefore change. And the *people* in the middle ground being squeezed out are those gay people who still believe in male-female marriage.
I find the comment that there is no space given for those who wish to live a life of abstinence or seek to live out in other ways quite remarkable. Vicky, as stated in the blog, has no moral mandate to do so in any case. And, it is undoubtedly the case that people have been wounded, and in many cases, wounded themselves through the way / fashion / tone in which traditional teaching has been expressed. This I know for certain. It is also the case that little remorse or sorrow is expressed for the real harm caused. This again I know to be true. Living out may work for some, but to present it, in the light of experience, as a Utopian theological solution, isn’t right. Many of my gay friends and relatives have tried to live out, or beyond their sexuality, and in all honesty I wish they hadn’t.
And I am still waiting to hear from Andrew L the answer to my question: if Atherstone sincerely wants to listen to Vicky’s experience, but does not agree with her theological conclusions, how might he have expressed himself differently?
I quoted Andrew twice in my blog. Of course he could have expressed himself differently. Do you really think the use of ‘life coach’ as a motif was neutral and objective? Surely not.
Andrew, thank you for a stimulating, gracious and insightful review (not least, of some of the reviews) of Vicky’s book. Since much has been said, and many excellent points already made by Jason and others that don’t benefit from repeating, I’ll just confine myself to a few short observations in no particular order:
1. I sense that the vituperative hostility shown against Vicky by so many conservative evangelicals is not because she is saying something no-one else has said, but because she is such a prominent Christian (and female, and beautiful) and hence, her thoughts are likely to be disturbingly influential in the popular realm. This, I think, explains the aggression and character assassination being directed at her. They are taking their lead in this behaviour from politicians, in what is essentially a reversal of “The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world.”
2. I am amazed that so many conservative evangelicals fail to see that they will not win over a postmodern audience — not simply of unchurched neutrals, but also a majority of Christians within their own churches — to their way of thinking, by going about it like this. Objectively, whose ‘story’ is more compelling to a neutral — Vicky’s or theirs? Really, we need to do better. Postmodern thinking naturally and instinctively values justice, love, fairness, and personal story above what conservatives presume to be game-winning one-liners of “the Bible says”. We have to show postmoderns how “what the the Bible says”, and what their personal values instinctively say to them, are not incompatible. This requires considerable work. Soapbox rhetoric, even quoting “the Word of God”, will not do it. Especially if the ‘values’ that we display in our rhetoric appear to be anything but “just, loving and fair”.
3. If one of the indirect objectives of the conservatives is to put the literal “fear of God” into those in or around the Church who may have feelings of same-sex attraction, such crude tactics are more likely to simply drive them away from the Church, period, or to ensure they live with a private hell, that they are scared to talk about, for fear of personally experiencing precisely this kind of reaction.
4. One can (if one wishes) take the view that the Bible is timelessly true, transcending all eras and cultures in everything it says, such that each verse (at least on this subject) can simply be copied and pasted from “then” to “now” without further thought, but we know full well that we do not do that with most other subjects, including but not limited to NT statements about women in the Church and a whole host of other Levitical commands (contexts within which, the main texts that expressly concern homosexual matters are located). Hence, there is a conversation to be had here, on the grounds of hermeneutics, that goes beyond a crude “the Bible says and that’s the end of it” rhetoric.
5. I am amazed — and concerned as to where this may lead — for the EA to publish a critical review of Vicky’s book. By what authority does EA decide that such a position is theirs to adopt? Is this simply a precursor to yet more words being added to the ‘statement of faith’? To improve still further the doctrinal purity of the remaining (presumably, fewer) members? A new ‘red line’ for current evangelicals to have to affirm, to continue to be evangelical? Rob Warner, writing about evangelicalism and fundamentalism, identifies what he calls ‘the law of increasing prolixity’ — the original 1845 EA faith statement required 111 words, 1846, 153 words, 1970, 182 words, and 2005, 300 words. Has what it means to be evangelical really changed? At what point do we reach doctrinal purity? Here’s the thing: Warner says that the law of increasing prolixity leads to a second law, ‘the law of increasing conservatism’. And the final law to which it leads is ‘the law of non-reflexivity’ — i.e. ‘no sense of contingency due to the specificity of culture and generation, nor any recognition of the plurality within the tradition’, because ‘the rhetoric of evangelical certainty, derived from the infallibility, sufficiency, and perspicuity of scripture, appears to make such relativism inconceivable to many conservatives … finality and certainty take centre stage, drowning out any intimation of provisionality [in interpretation], contingency, and open-ended critical theology.’
Note that Warner is not discussing LGBTQ matters here. What we are observing, though, is an ever-increasing migration of evangelicalism towards closer and closer identification with fundamentalism, because of its stark fears of assimilation to the current culture, and the proverbial slippery-slope — fears about, the “fundamentals” of the Christian faith. History is repeating itself, and its features are not attractive ones.
Steve, interesting comments, but two observations. First, moving from a hundred and something words to 300 in a very much more complex social context isn’t really a sign of anything much. Historically, I suspect that much of mainstream evangelicalism from 100 years ago would look out-and-out fundamentalist to most of us.
Secondly, your raise the question of attracting or retaining ‘post-moderns’. I wonder why you take that as a given? In my own ministry and preaching, I think one of my aims would be to help people move beyond being ‘post-modern’, if that means believing that words are plastic, all cultures are relative, and the self is constructed by personal choice. The reality we are seeing in church attendance is the corrosive effect of postmodernity on the whole concept of commitment, decision and discipleship (though of course a number of philosophers don’t think ‘postmodernity’ is actually a thing).
I don’t know about where you are, but around here the only churches that are attracting any numbers of young people do have a postmodern-friendly culture, but in their beliefs they are anything but.
Interesting comments. And, apologies for butting into someone else’s conversation. I do, however, have one question and and on observation. The question: given that ‘Historically, I suspect that much of mainstream evangelicalism from 100 years ago would look out-and-out fundamentalist to most of us,’ would it be fair or unfair (or something in between) to wonder whether evangelicalism is in the end as ‘progressive’ as other parts of the church? The observation is that round here (my deanery) there are fair few churches that are attracting young people that are fairly formal in terms of their worship, but also friendly and participatory, whilst also being progressive in certain (but by no means all) aspects of belief. My deanery colleague is unashamedly liberal has just started a well attended youth group and has introduced a ‘Praise Mass’ into the liturgical offering. Eight of our teenagers are being confirmed in September and we have a fair number who travel from the next market town to the north who would fit the description of being ‘post-modern friendly in culture, but in their beliefs anything but.’ Its not a simple and straightforward picture.
No, not ‘progressive’. But interpreting and recontextualising. Any movement committed to Scripture must in the end also be committed to hermeneutics.
Sure, but given your initial comment, which I thought was interesting, would history not show that a commitment towards interpreting and recontextualization, which if I understand correctly you would say is a commitment to hermeneutics (?) has led to a shift away from what looks like fundamentalism, with the benefit of hindsight?
No–whether something looks ‘fundamentalist’ concerns how it relates to its world. As Graham Cray said a while ago, in a changing world, our proclamation needs to change in order to preach the unchanging gospel.
Having butted into your conversation re church attendance I would like to make it clear that I am only answering from a C of E perspective. The Vineyard’s (where Steve is the pastor) experience may well be entirely different.
Thanks Steve. I appreciated your thoughts on the post-modern era. And, I think you are right re the virtues that it holds dear. I have frequently asked others, who wish to maintain the historic position, to talk about justice (particularly distributive justice) but without success. So the conversationalists just end up talking past each other. If everyone simply selects their own guiding virtues and refuses to engage with others then there is in the end no conversation that can really take place.
I don’t for a moment, BTW, think that for revisionists to work from contemporary notions of justice, love and fairness is remotely enough to ‘win the argument’ so to speak. Nor (as some conservatives have rightly pointed out) that ‘story’ (however compelling) should trump ‘scripture’. That’s not what I’m saying. What I’m saying is that a very significant proportion of our audience — churched as well as unchurched — and, not just the 5% (or whatever) who may be LGBTQ but the 95% who are not but increasingly sympathise with them, not least because of the way some conservative evangelicals treat them — instinctively relate to those values. They hold them very high. And, they value story and experience very highly. They’re also aware that organised religion has a pretty poor track record. So, we ignore the impact on the “95%” of how we conduct ourselves at our peril, missionally.
He has a business background in the City of London. Outside of family and Church, Steve’s main passion is rugby union, especially his beloved Harlequins. This was all going so well until I read the last word: Harlequins! I too used to work in the city and my passion is rugby union: Northampton Saints! btw I think one of my church wardens sons is very happy worshiping with you. Let’s meet!
Fao Peter Jeremy and Jason as indicated above I don’t want to get involved in prolonged comment back and forth here but happy to flesh things out in detail via email. Feel free to contact me via the faithroots.net contact page link available in my first comment