The Revd Dr Mark Vasey-Saunders is a Church of England priest who is the Academic Tutor at St Hild College in Yorkshire. He oversees the formation of part time and full time Anglican ordinands at St Hild Sheffield and leads modules in Doctrine, Advanced Christian Ethics and Mission Entrepreneurship. His new book, published by SCM in June this year is entitled Defusing the Sexuality Debate: The Anglican Evangelical Culture War. [1]
The argument of Defusing the Sexuality Debate.
In the introduction to his book Vasey-Saunders writes that the Church of England’s debate about sexuality:
‘….has become destructive, and exerts a profoundly negative influence on all areas of church life, leaving casualties in its wake on both sides. Some have been persecuted. Sone have been excluded from communities in which they were once welcomed and accepted. Some have been driven to despair and have left the church.’ [p.4]
In the light of this fact, the purpose of his book is to try:
‘…to help defuse a debate that has become corrosive to the spiritual health of all those caught up in it, on both sides, by trying to unpick exactly what it is we are arguing about and why it has aroused such passionate intensity’ (p.5)
He then goes on to identify what he calls the conservative evangelical[2] ‘consensus position’ about sexuality, which he describes as ‘the understanding that the only permissible patterns of sexual life for gay or straight people are heterosexual marriage or abstinence’ (pp.5-6), and to explain that much of what he writes in his book:
‘…. will effectively act to undermine a key position defended by conservative evangelicals: the conviction that adherence to the consensus position represents a first order issue of faith, where disagreement represents unfaithfulness to the gospel. This is deliberate. I believe that this conviction is a major contributor to the current destructive state of debate, preventing genuine engagement with the issues ostensibly being discussed. For both sides the debate has become a nil sum game where they either win or they leave. This in itself would be a good pragmatic reason for challenging its, but I want to make the case that it is also fundamentally mistaken. None of the arguments commonly advanced as to why adherence to the consensus position should be considered a first order issue are compelling, in large part because they all represent a rush to judgement. At present I am not convinced we even know what it is we are taking a stand to protect or to prevent. Similarly, I believe that the pattern of biblical interpretation on which the consensus position is based is far newer, and far less certain, than much rhetoric would suggest, and that the passages on which it is based are considerably more complex to understand than is generally admitted.
None of this means that coming to an understanding of what scripture is saying to us is impossible, or that we do not have the obligation to sit under its judgement. It does not even mean that the consensus position itself is wrong – it may be the best attempt we can make at coming to the truth of scriptural witness. It simply means that discerning what the word of God is saying at this time is difficult, the more so when we may not properly understand the choice before us, and are actively seeking to invalidate the perspectives of those we do not agree with’ (pp.6-7)
Following the Introduction, Vasey-Saunders develops his argument further in five chapters.
Chapter 1 is entitled ‘Evangelicals talking about sexuality: The creation of the consensus position.’
As its title indicates, in this chapter Vasey-Saunders traces the development of the evangelical consensus position. His conclusion is that:
‘The Evangelical consensus position on sexuality, often presented by conservatives as ‘the tradition of the church’ is in fact of twentieth-century origins. The only way it can be argued that the consensus position is substantially a restatement of earlier tradition or earlier interpretation of scripture is to implicitly assert that the rejection of homophobia is a relatively minor modification of that tradition, and that the traditional pattern of biblical interpretation is irrelevant to the tradition. The consensus position not only rejects homophobia, it also rejects an interpretation of scripture centred on the Sodom narrative and God’s judgement on non-procreative sex as the sin against nature. These are not minor modifications to tradition, but represent a far reaching modernization of that tradition.
It is inarguable that in its current form the consensus position did not exist before the Seventies, and there is no evidence that the pattern of biblical interpretation on which it is based was widely accepted in the Church of England before 1991 with the publication of Issues in Human Sexuality.’ Prior to this point, the understanding of Bailey (that no biblical texts could be seen as having direct relevance to the modern discussion) was still the official position of the Church of England, with Homosexual Relationships[3] concluding in 1979 that ‘The appeal to scripture…. provides us with a rather narrow and somewhat ambiguous base for contemporary Christian teaching.’ As we have seen, the consensus position is neither in line with traditional interpretation of scripture in regard to sexuality, nor in line with the understanding of scripture in pre 1991 Church of England reports. It can only realistically claim to have achieved broad acceptance within the Church of England within the last 30 years.’ (pp.47-48)
Chapter 2 is entitled ‘Evangelicals talking about scripture.’ In this chapter Vasey-Saunders traces ‘some of the history of interpretation of the key biblical passages behind the consensus position’ (p.6) His conclusion is that:
‘Evangelicals are far from biblical literalists or homophobic bigots blindly parroting unexamined tradition. Twentieth century evangelical biblical interpretation of sexuality represents serious engagement with critical scholarship, respectfully encompasses different interpretations of complex passages, and upholds a doctrine of marriage that is thoroughly modern and radically different from pre-modern understandings. Neither progressive accusations of unreconstructed fundamentalism nor conservative protestations that they are simply setting out the plain truth of scripture can therefore be taken at face value. Most of the key insights underlying evangelical understandings are reliant on scholarship that was carried out well within living memory – in some cases within the last 20 to 30 years. There is little to suggest that interpretation of key passages will not continue to develop as new scholarship is carried out. Very clearly this is modern biblical scholarship addressing modern questions.’
Chapter 3 is entitled ‘Evangelicals talking to evangelicals,’ in it Vasey-Saunders explores ‘the politicized nature’ of the debate about sexuality, ‘tracing the history of how it is become as destructive and intractable as I suggested above.’ (p.6) Drawing on the thinking of the French writer Rene Girard, he argues that:
‘Discussions around sexuality act as lightning rods for fears and tension around evangelical identity. Throughout the second half of the twentieth century evangelicalism has become steadily more fractured. The anxieties this caused have encouraged the creation of a monstrous other – a gay- liberal conspiracy – in a bid to externalise the threatening differences and bring a new unity. However, the cost of this strategy is high. Individuals can easily get crushed by the political conflict raging around them. This has clearly been the case for high profile figures scapegoated for their unwillingness to entirely follow a party line, who seemed to suggest the possibility of some sort of middle ground. It is also been the case for a significantly greater number of less high profile people, particularly gay Christians, who have essentially become pawns in a political struggle. When the need to acknowledge and guard against the reality of homophobia in church circles is downplayed or denied (as it has been conservative evangelical rhetoric) it is these people who end up bearing the cost.
It is clear now that the fracture lines between conservatives and progressives run through the middle of evangelical groupings as well as between evangelicals and liberals. As the Church of England moves towards some sort of settlement on sexuality, progressives are openly challenging the certainties of the biblical interpretation behind the consensus position, while conservatives are doubling down on the claim that scripture is clear, avoiding debate on contentious passages, and focusing more on strategies for negotiating some sort of split. Division and breakdown of community seems inevitable.’ (pp.132-133)
However, he writes:
‘Apocalypse is not the only possible outcome. There are signs that conservatives are still open to new perspectives, as is shown by the new prominence being given to gay voices that are critical of the church’s homophobic tendencies.’ (p.133)
Chapter 4 is entitled ‘Evangelicals talking about modernity: The question behind the question.’ In this chapter Vasey-Saunders explores ‘the extent to which the sexuality debate is really a proxy war for a deeper conflict over the interpretation of modernity itself’ (p.6) His conclusion is that:
‘Since the Sixties, evangelicals have been painting themselves a picture of modernity as a monstrous enemy – an anti-culture that is utterly inhospitable to faith and makes living a faithful life impossible. Alongside this, they have been quietly accommodating various strands of modernity, most visibly in their worship and organisational structures, but also less visible areas, including a re framing of sexual morality around the centrality of fulfilling relationships rather than procreation. Growing conflict with more self-consciously progressive Christians has encouraged an increasingly oppositional stance, which denies the possibility of common ground. Despite this, the reality is that conservatives and progressives are both equally natives of modernity, and modernity itself is multi vocal, and by no means as inhospitable to faith as writers like Carson or Trueman suggest.’ (pp.184-185).
Chapter 5 is entitled ‘Advice to a divided church.’ As this title suggests, in this chapter Vasey-Saunders makes some suggestions for positive ways forward in the current Church of England debate over human sexuality.
His first suggestion is that conservatives ‘should stop suggesting that refusal to adhere to the consensus position represents a first order issue of faith.’ (p.189)
His second suggestion is that both side should resist ‘the pressure towards immediate and often suspicious or defensive responses to perceived acts of provocation by the other ‘side.’ (p.193). This, he says, would give ‘space for more moderate voices on both sides to be heard.’ (p.193)
His third suggestion is that both conservatives and progressives should avoid ‘demonizing modernity.’ (p.193). This is because both conservative and progressive dystopian accounts of modernity, which identify modernity with the approach taken by the other side in the sexuality debate:
‘… represent an oversimplification and denial of the existence of substantial common ground between conservatives and progressives. Both make a genuine conversation with ‘the other side’ impossible. They can be no compromise with the modernity that is an anti-culture and fundamentally opposed to the gospel. Both tend towards the denial of hope and the possibility of redemption and encourage extreme solutions. Both massively reinforce tendencies towards self righteousness and discourage genuine self-awareness.’ (p.195)
His fourth suggestion is that evangelicals need to:
‘… hold our theology a little more humbly, in the awareness that we might be wrong, and our brothers and sisters in Christ who disagree with us might have seen something we are blind to. It means listening openly to the perspectives of others in the expectation that in so doing we might both discover something new.’ (p.197)
His fifth suggestion is that the complexity of the debate about sexuality needs to be recognized. This means recognizing that:
‘…rather than a simple ethical question with a yes/no answer, the church is in reality engaged in an extended conversation about a variety of interrelated areas of doctrine and practise, as well as an even more divisive debate about the appropriate tools and methodology to employ in this debate (and who should ultimately have the last word in it)…. The inherent complexity of the debate needs to be acknowledged, rather than ignored in the rush to find a resolution. Otherwise, and inevitably, the underlying questions will resurface, still unaddressed, in whatever the next issue might be, making it equally intractable. The dream of a quick resolution allowing everyone to move on, although comforting, is utterly impossible.’ (p.198)
His final suggestion is that we should follow Ephraim Radner in challenging:
‘….the myth that faithfulness to Christ is expressed in separation from our brothers and sisters in the church with the notion that faithfulness to Christ may actually be best expressed in self sacrificially continuing to bear with one another. Romanticising division as an expression of faithfulness maybe never present Protestant temptation, but it is one we can ill afford at present.’ (pp.202-203)
What are we to make of this argument?
Vasey-Saunders has issued a major challenge to conservative evangelicals to dial back both their rhetoric and their certainty in regard to the current Church of England debate about sexuality, and to instead commit themselves to greater humility and openness and to remaining in the church alongside those with whom they disagree come what may. Conservative evangelicals need to take his argument seriously and to think how to respond to it.
However, while it needs to be taken seriously, I do not think that Vasey-Saunders’ argument is persuasive. This is for a number of reasons.
First, contrary to what he says in his introduction, conservative evangelicals, as represented by the Church of England Evangelical Council, are very clear what it is they are taking a stand to protect or to prevent. They are seeking to protect the belief that marriage is between two people of the opposite sex and that the only legitimate place for sexual intercourse is within marriage thus understood. They are seeking to prevent the Church of England moving away from this belief in its teaching and practice.
Secondly, contrary to what he says in chapter 1, the position that conservative evangelicals are seeking to protect is not ‘in fact of twentieth-century origins.’ The belief that marriage is between two people of the opposite sex and that the only legitimate place for sexual intercourse is within marriage thus understood goes all the way back to New Testament times and has been universally held by Christians of all traditions in every generation since. It is only since the 1960s that it has begun to be challenged.
It is true that for much of the history of the Church Christians have supported ecclesiastical and civil penalties for same-sex sexual activity that have been much severe than even the most conservative Christian in this country would support today (which is what Vasey-Saunders means when he says that the Christian tradition has been homophobic). However, this fact is distinct from the belief that same-sex sexual activity is sinful. It is perfectly possible for Christians to share the traditional Christian belief that sex outside marriage (including between two people of the same sex) is profoundly sinful while disagreeing with previous generations of Christians about the penalties that such activity should attract.
A good analogy would be the way that most (if not all) people in Britain today would hold that hanging people for theft is wrong while still sharing the traditional belief that stealing is wrong. The belief that theft is wrong is separate from the belief that people should be hung for it. So it is with the belief that same-sex sexual activity is wrong and the judgement about what is the appropriate response to this wrong doing.
Thirdly, Vasey-Saunders is also wrong when he suggests that the consensus position departs from previous Christian thinking in a major way ‘when it rejects an interpretation of scripture centred on the Sodom narrative and God’s judgement on non-procreative sex as the sin against nature.’
The traditional rejection of homosexual activity on biblical grounds was not (in spite of the widespread historical use of the term ‘sodomy’) dependent on the story of the judgement of God on Sodom in Genesis 19. This story was seen (as it is in the Bible) as a warning of God’s judgement against such activity, but the belief that such activity was wrong was not solely dependent on this text, but was more widely based on the witness of Scripture as a whole concerning the proper place for sexual activity and the proper end for which sexual activity was created by God. Thus, the fact that conservative evangelicals today would not necessarily make the story of Sodom front and centre of their case for opposing same-sex sexual activity does not mark a significant breach with the traditional biblical case for opposing such activity.
In a similar manner, while it is true that most conservative evangelicals support the use of contraception, this is not contrary to the historic Christian belief that sex should take place in a marital relationship that is open to procreation. As Oliver O’Donovan notes, the problem with the belief that procreation must be in view every time a husband and wife make love is that it wrongly atomises the relationship between a husband and wife. In his words, this idea violates:
‘…. the principle that the sexual life of a married couple should be viewed as a whole, not in terms of its distinct acts of intercourse. Fornication may take the form of a series of one-night stands (for that is its moral corruption, that the sexual act never leads beyond the occasion to establish a permanent bond of loyalty), but married love is entirely different. To break marriage down into a series of disconnected sexual acts is to falsify its true nature. As a whole, then, the married love of any couple should (barring serious reasons to the contrary) be both relationship-building and procreative; the two ends of marriage are held together in the life of sexual partnership which the couple live together. But it is artificial to insist, as Humane Vitae did, that ‘each and every marriage act’ must express the two goods equally.’[4]
To put it another way, conservative evangelicals still adhere to the traditional Christian position that marital sexual activity is intended by God to be both unitive and procreative, but (like other Christian traditions) it holds that not every marital sexual act has to open to procreation.[5] The ‘modernization’ of the tradition is thus not as major as Vasey-Saunders suggests. The tradition itself is still upheld.
Fourthly, Vasey-Saunders is misleading when he suggests that it is ‘inarguable that in its current form the consensus position did not exist before the Seventies.’ It is true that modern evangelical responses to the acceptance of same-sex sexual relationships began to be produced in the 1970s. However, as previously noted, the basic position that evangelicals have sought to uphold is that one that has traditionally been held by Christians of all traditions since New Testament times.[6]
He is equally misleading when he suggests that Bailey’s view that ‘that no biblical texts could be seen as having direct relevance to the modern discussion’ was the ‘official position’ of the Church of England until 1991. Perusal of Church of England documents from 1955 until 1991 provides no evidence to support this claim. The quotation that he gives from the 1979 report is accurate, but that report gives no evidence that it thinks it is putting forward the church’s official position and the position taken by the report never became accepted as Church of England teaching.
Furthermore, a wider study of the history of the Church of England shows that what Bailey describes as the conservative evangelical consensus position was the one held by the Church of England throughout its history (for example, it underlies to the marriage service in the Book of Common Prayer and is found in the homily ‘Against Whoredom and Uncleanness’ in the First Book of Homilies). The real story is that this accepted position was challenged from the 1950s onwards following on from the work of Bailey, but in the end the traditional position was re-affirmed in the motion passed by General Synod in 1987 (the ‘Higton motion’) and that motion remains the official legal position of the Church of England to this day. Issues in Human Sexuality is the House of Bishops response to the passing of that motion.
Fifthly, Vasey-Saunders is further misleading when he writes that conservative evangelical scholarship ‘upholds a doctrine of marriage that is thoroughly modern and radically different from pre-modern understandings.’ On the contrary, the view of marriage taken by conservative evangelicals is simply that set out in the marriage service in the Book of Common Prayer, which in itself was a conservative text reflecting an accepted understanding of marriage which can be traced back through the medieval and patristic periods to the New Testament itself. [7]
Sixthly, Vasey-Saunders is correct when he says that the studies of the biblical texts relating to human sexuality that conservative evangelicals have produced since the 1970s represent ‘modern biblical scholarship addressing modern questions.’ However, it does not follow from this that the conservative evangelical claim ‘that they are simply setting out the plain truth of scripture’ cannot ‘be taken at face value.’
What conservative evangelicals mean by the ‘plain truth of scripture’ is what scripture actually says, as opposed to misleading readings of it. The tools of modern biblical scholarship are a means by use of which what scripture says can be determined as precisely as is humanly possible. The conservative evangelical claim is that their use of these tools shows that what scripture says is what the Christian tradition has always thought it said, namely that God has ordained marriage to be between two people of the opposite sex and that marriage is the only legitimate context for sexual activity. Vasey-Saunders provides no evidence to show that this claim is mistaken, and unless he does so his assertion that conservative evangelicals are wrong to make it remains just that.
Seventhly, Vasey-Saunders likewise provides no evidence that conservative evangelicals have created a ‘monstrous other’ in order to try to maintain their own internal unity. This is unsurprising because this is not what happened. As someone involved in the events which Vasey-Saunders describes, I can testify that the reality was the opposite. A renewed unity among conservative evangelicals was in fact created by a common realisation that the threat of the Church of England departing from biblical teaching with regard to marriage and sexuality was more important than the matters which divided them.
To use two modern analogies, Vasey-Saunders thinks what happened was like the Argentine junta invading the Falklands in 1982 in order to try to bolster up their political authority at home, whereas in fact what happened was more like the Ukrainians coming together in the face of the Russian invasion in February 2022. To put it another way, conservative evangelicals were not looking for an enemy to fight. The current conflict in the Church of England was not of their choosing.
Eighthly. Vasey-Saunders is correct to note that conservative evangelicals inhabit modernity even while they criticise it. However, what he fails to do justice to is the basic point made by evangelical scholars such as Don Carson and Carl Trueman that while modernity is indeed multivocal the prevailing ethos of modernity:
‘…. encourages us to create our own beliefs and morality, the only rule being that they must resonate with who we feel we really are. The worst thing we can do is to conform to some moral code that is imposed on us from outside – by society, our parents, the church, or whoever else. It is deemed self-evident that any such imposition would undermine our unique identity.
Ultimately, this form of expressive individualism, with each person doing his or her own thing, leads to a form of soft moral relativism: we should not criticise each other’s values because each person’s right is to live as they wish. The only thing we cannot tolerate is intolerance.’ [8]
The reason that conservative evangelicals have felt that Christians need to stand against this prevailing ethos is both because it is theologically wrong, since God did create human beings to be morally autonomous but to live together in the way that he has laid down, and because it has proved to have had seriously damaging real life consequences for individuals and for society as a whole (this is the point made, for example, by Glynn Harrison is his book A Better Story[9])
Finally, with regard to the six suggestions made in chapter five:
- Conservative evangelicals cannot abandon the belief that ‘the consensus position represents a first order issue of faith’ because that is the status it holds in scripture. In scripture un-repented sexual sin brings with it the threat of damnation (1 Corinthians 6:9-11) and therefore the sexuality debate is ultimately about the salvation of people’s souls.
- Vasey-Saunders is right that conservative evangelicals should not be unduly defensive although, given the issues at stake and what has happened in other Anglican jurisdictions, they are right be cautious about what those on the ‘progressive’ side are seeking to do.
- He is also right to say that they should not demonize modernity in its entirety, or paint a completely dystopian picture of the modern world, although for the reasons previously given they are right to criticise and reject modernity’s prevailing ethos.
- He is right to say that they should cultivate the virtue of humility and be willing to listen to others, although this cannot be at the expense of being willing to compromise on the traditional teachings of the Bible and the Church of England about marriage and sexual ethics.
- While he is right to say that the complexity of the current debate needs to be recognized, he is wrong to suggest that there is not at the heart of the debate ‘a simple ethical question with a yes/no answer.’ At base the debate really is about a simple question – is it right for the Church of England to affirm the godliness of sexual relationships outside marriage between two people of the opposite sex? – answer yes or no.
- He is right that it is wrong to romanticise division. However, he fails to acknowledge that there are situations where it is necessary for Christians to visibly differentiate themselves from false teaching and false teachers. In view of this latter point, Ephraim Radner’s argument that all that a Christian can ever do is remain in their church no matter what absolutist is too. There can be situations in which division is the least worst option.
Conclusion
Conservative evangelicals should read and wrestle with Vasey-Saunders book, but they should not take it as a reliable guide to what has happened in the past or to their future conduct.
[1] Mark Vasey-Saunders, Defusing the Sexuality Debate: The Anglican Evangelical Culture War (London: SCM, 2023). The page references in this review are from the kindle edition.
[2] By ‘conservative evangelicals’ he means those evangelicals aligned with the Church of England Evangelical Council who hold to a conservative position on marriage an human sexuality.
[3] Homosexual Relationships – a Contribution to Discussion was a report from the Church of England’s Board of Social Responsibility.
[4] Oliver O’Donovan, Begotten or made (Oxford: OUP, 1984), p. 187.
[5] It is important to note that the Roman Catholic tradition’s acceptance of natural methods of birth control means that it too accepts in principle that not every marital sexual act needs to be procreative in intent.
[6] For the evidence for this claim see, for instance, S Donald Fortson and Rolin Grams, Unchanging Witness (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2016).
[7] For justification of this claim see Chapters 5 and 6 of the CEEC study Glorify God in your Body (London: CCEC, 2018).
[8] Jonathan Grant, Divine Sex (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2015), p.30.
[9] Glynn Harrison, A Better Story (London: IVP, 2017).
Reflections of an Anglican Theologian 
Some of us are convinced that the Bible teaches that same-sex inclinations and practice are sins. Therefore we must in conscience seek a visible separation within the CofE if others authorise God’s blessing on sins.
I cannot think of any case where the CofE has ever authorised God’s blessing on sins.
Phil Almond
I found Mark Vasey Saunder’s book incredibly helpful and an important contribution to understanding how we have arrived at the place we are in.
The ‘stealing an apple’ example in this review exposes a misunderstanding of the situation. I have never met a Christian who feels that being a thief is an integral part of who they are. A thief does not feel that conservative Christian teaching is asking them to be someone different to who they profoundly believe God created them to be. In asking a thief not to steal, we are not asking them to live outside of their deep sense of self. Wherever we stand on the theological spectrum it is important that we understand that a deep sense and profound sense of being gay is very different from being tempted to steal.
The doctrine that some people just happen to “be gay”, and all that this doctrine implies, including that this gaiety has nothing to do with temptation such as the temptation to steal, is a modern doctrine that was first mooted other than in the church. What is it about this new doctrine that you find “helpful”? Helpful with what?
Thank you so much for such a balanced and generous review of my book, Martin. I appreciate the care you have taken in picking through the detail of my argument, particularly given the profound disagreements between our perspectives in places.
I think from the outset I can happily concede two of your points. In your point 1, you correctly note that I do not provide enough evidence to substantiate the claim that conservative evangelicals have not properly understood the question of sexuality. I still think I’m right, but I concede that this was more of a rhetorical flourish than a proven statement! In your point 4 you note that Church of England reports cannot be accurately described as ‘the official position of the church’. I readily concede that it is almost impossible to point to any statements as representing ‘the official position of the church’ on controversial matters. Church reports represent only what those who wrote them think (and many include dissenting statements), and synod votes represent only the makeup of Synod at that time. Although I believe the central point I was making (that the particular pattern of biblical interpretation behind the consensus position doesn’t appear in any CofE statements until Issues in Human Sexuality) still holds true, the terminology of ‘official position of the church’ is a misleading shorthand.
I think there are then a few places where you may have misunderstood the points I am making. In point 2 you use the analogy of changing understandings of the appropriate punishment for theft to explain why changing understandings of homosexuality within tradition might not be significant – we still see theft as a sin. This assumes that the changing understandings of homosexuality are only related to appropriate punishment. But this is not my argument – I am clear that the significant change that has occurred is not simply around appropriate punishment, but around the recognition of the reality of homosexual orientation. To use your analogy, we have not only recognised that theft should not be treated as a capital crime, we have also recognised that some people are kleptomaniacs, and that it is inappropriate to treat theft committed by a kleptomaniac in the same way as we might treat theft committed by someone without their compulsions. The analogy is not exact – gay people do not experience compulsions towards sexual acts that are in any way different from anyone else – but the point is that the key change in understanding that has occurred is not simply to do with the punishment of homosexual acts, it is about recognising that for at least some people this does not represent a conscious movement away from their naturally-occurring opposite-sex desire but is an expression of a naturally-occurring same-sex desire, because we now recognise that some people naturally experience only same-sex desire. This, I argue, is a very significant change in tradition.
In point 3, I believe you again misunderstand the point I am making. I do not in any way seek to argue against the understanding that tradition is clear that marriage between one man and one woman is the only appropriate place for sexual expression, or that the Sodom narrative is or has ever been central to that understanding. In fact until modernity there is no evidence that any attempt was made to link the tradition of teaching about the sinfulness of homosexuality to the tradition of teaching about the sacrament of marriage in the way that conservative evangelicals do. It is this linking of the two that I argue is a distinctively modern change. The reason the two were not linked in tradition *is* linked to the centrality of the Sodom narrative to understandings of sexuality however (and particularly in its most developed form to the link made between the Sodom narrative and Romans 1 in seeing sodomy as the crime against nature). In tradition (unlike in the consensus position) sodomy was not regarded as sinful simply because it was sexual expression outside of marriage (and thus of an equivalent level of sinfulness to adultery or fornication). Sodomy was regarded as more sinful than this (and according to Aquinas the most serious form of sexual sin), because it was deliberately non-procreative sex. The centrality of arguments relating to procreation in assessing sexual sin is the reason why the modern shift to acceptance of contraception is significant.
In points 6 and 7, I think we are simply disagreeing with each other in our interpretation of essentially the same facts that we would both describe in basically the same way.
In regard to the interpretation of scripture (your point 6) we both accept that modern scholarship (based on the understanding that in order to hear the text as its original hearers did and as its original authors intended we need to use careful historical and critical analysis) is a key part of modern evangelical understandings of scripture. You argue that as by employing this scholarship we have access to the plain meaning of scripture (which might otherwise be unclear) it is legitimate to argue that the meaning of scripture is plain and clear in the texts about homosexuality even if this plain meaning is dependent on critical scholarship. I argue that as a layman cannot necessarily simply read this plain and clear meaning from these texts without the aid of critical scholarship, and scholars disagree amongst themselves as to what this clear and plain meaning might be, it is misleading to state that the meaning of scripture here is clear and plain without further qualification.
In regard to your point 7, we both agree that conservative evangelicals did not seek a conflict on sexuality (in order to create unity amongst themselves or for any other reason), and that they perceive themselves to be defending themselves against an aggressor in the face of which they are experiencing surprising levels of unity amongst themselves in a way that matches the lived experience of the Ukrainians responding to Russian invasion. You argue that this means that Girard’s scapegoat mechanism cannot be employed as a tool of analysis for what is occurring. I (and Girard – who argues that these are unconscious processes) argue that this does not prevent a scapegoat mechanism from being a plausible explanation.
In points 5 and 8 I’m afraid I believe you are simply wrong.
In regard to point 5 (your argument that the church’s teaching on marriage has not changed in any significant way throughout its history) it is clear that in the most basic sense marriage (a legal relationship between one man and one woman, where a new family unit is created) remains the same institution being referred to throughout tradition. However, there are clear ways in which it changes throughout this period which are recognised by all historians – the most obvious being the growing sense in the West that marriage should be understood as a relationship between two equal partners who choose to enter into it themselves for no reason other than love. For most pre-modern marriages this was clearly not the case. Families would arrange marriages for their children (something still common in many cultures around the world but now seen as highly unusual in the modern West), and women were clearly not seen as equal partners. This is apparent even in the difference between the marriage service in the BCP (where the father giving away the bride to the husband, and the wife promising to obey her husband are a compulsory part of the service) and in Common Worship (where these are relegated to options in the supplementary material). Although you may feel that this acknowledgement of female autonomy and equality is a relatively inconsequential change most historians (and many women!) would disagree with you.
In regard to your point 8, you correctly state the position that Trueman, Carson and Harrison adopt, but fail to engage with my critique of it, which is that none of these writers have correctly understood the all-encompassing nature of modernity and of expressive individualism as Taylor has expressed it (despite the fact that Trueman claims to build on Taylor’s work). Taylor is very clear that modernity is not best understood as having a single ‘prevailing ethos’, but rather is best understood as an exploding supernova of different philosophies and patterns of life. Truman exemplifies this confusion in seeming to accept that ‘we are all expressive individualists now’ yet then somehow arguing that the church can step outside of and stand against expressive individualism. With Taylor (and his evangelical interpreter James K A Smith), I argue that this is mistaken. Christians in the West are unavoidably expressive individualist Christians. Our calling is not to seek ways of turning back the clock to pre-modernity and live in a reconstituted Christendom (which is I assume what you mean by ‘live together in the way that [God] has laid down’), but to live as faithful morally autonomous individuals within modernity.
Thank you again,
Mark