At the summer conference of Living Out (LO), a ten-point ‘church audit’ was launched with the intention of helping churches to examine how ‘biblically inclusive’ they are with regard to people who may present themselves as LGBT.
However, concerns have been raised that though well meant, this ‘audit’ could have detrimental effects on the churches.
Website film
Ed Shaw, in an eight-minute film on the website1, took the conference through the audit. The ten points are 2:
1. Your church family meetings include people who could be labelled LGBTQI+ or are same-sex attracted.
2. Derogatory language or stereotyping attitudes towards anyone would not be tolerated either upfront or in conversation between church family members.
3. All in your church know that we all experience sexual brokenness and all are being encouraged to confess their own sexual sins.
4. Same-sex sexual relationships are never mentioned in isolation from other sinful patterns of behaviour, or from the forgiveness offered to all through faith in Christ crucified.
5. All in your church are hearing the same call to radical self-sacrifice of themselves in response to God’s giving of himself in Jesus.
6. All in your church are encouraged to develop an identity founded first and foremost on their union with Christ.
7. A godly Christian’s sexual orientation would never prevent them from exercising their spiritual gifts or serving in leadership in your church.
8. God’s gifts of either singleness or marriage are equally promoted, valued and practically supported in your church family’s life together.
9. Church family members instinctively share meals, homes, holidays, festivals, money, family life with others from different backgrounds and life situations to them.
10. No-one would be pressurised into expecting or seeking any ‘healing’ or change that God has not promised any of us until the renewal of all things.
Many of the points will helpfully prompt churches into thinking through how perhaps they have shied away from dealing biblically with the rainbow of lifestyles that the world has embraced.
However, a reading of Point 10 could result in biblical teaching being seen as ‘pressurising’ someone. There is also the assumption within it that radical change is unlikely to happen this side of eternity. With Point 4, there may be times and places where same-sex relationships need to be addressed in isolation, especially during individual counselling. Even Point 7 could be misapplied and create a situation where the desire to stick to it would box church leaders into a predetermined course of action in a tricky pastoral matter.
Problems with guidelines
This audit could be helpful, but it could easily be wielded by a hurt person as a tool to accuse a church of ‘abuse’. It may even stop individual counselling taking place that would have been helpful, but has been prevented due to fear that godly wisdom was out of step with the audit’s text. These kinds of problems are inherent in any attempt at making ‘guidelines’ for churches to follow.
To take part in a training course run by LO, participants are asked to assent to the Evangelical Alliance (EA) biblical and pastoral position with respect to homosexuality3. With regard to LO’s Point 10, the similar point in the EA list has been phrased clearly. It runs: ‘8. We welcome and support the work of those individuals and organisations who responsibly seek to help Christians who experience same-sex attraction as in conflict with their commitment to live in accordance with biblical teaching. This help will involve counsel and pastoral support to live a chaste life and, as part of this process, some may seek and experience changes in the strength or direction of their same-sex attractions.’
This latter point is not expressed with clarity in the LO audit, and as such it undermines the lived experience of many Christians who have used standard counselling approaches and experienced such changes in their lives.
