The shape of love

Last month we published an article entitled ‘Gender, sexuality and the shape of love,’ by Colin Creighton, a tutor at Crosslands Training (www.crosslands.training/) exploring how we can best use Scripture to teach moral orthodoxy. Since then, Colin and Mark Loughridge, a regular en Ireland contributor, have been engaged in thoughtful correspondence about some of the issues raised. Here we publish a letter from Mark to Colin. There’s a further reflection on Colin’s piece here from Matthew Roberts.

Hi Colin

I read your article in Evangelicals Now and wanted to drop you a line about it. I have been pondering and speaking on this area and the need for Christians to do it better, so there was much that resonated with me. But there was a section which left me with questions, and I wanted to touch base with you about them. I’m writing rather than ringing because I wanted to put my thoughts down clearly and also to give you time to read without pressure of having to answer immediately. Happier to talk though, once you’ve had a chance to read. I intend this as some brotherly discussion – I hope it comes across this way.

There is much in your article which I agree with – I do think we need to move beyond simple proof-texting and do the hard work of showing why God says what He says. This is something I seek to work at in teaching RE to 16–17-year-olds (a class which has included people of differing sexual orientation).

I agree that we need to take time to fathom the deep waters of a person – especially their background and experience. So often I have found that a person’s sexuality is a reaction to wrong done to them by the opposite sex – involving tremendous hurt – and simple proof-texting does not acknowledge that, nor even move towards helping them see that God knows about the wrong done to them.

I really appreciate that what you are wanting is the truth presented in a way which doesn’t leave young Christians set up for the rug to be yanked out from under them, and thrown into a quandary.

I agree massively that ‘The secular queer movement is not merely an attack on traditional ideas about sexuality or gender. It is an attack on reality.’ And really appreciated the paragraph about dust. It hits the nail on the head completely. I’ll be borrowing that!

There are, though, a couple of areas which I wanted to push back on – in the way they come across: 1. ‘Clobber texts’. 2. The implication that Scripture is not clear.

My main concern is that I believe your third point as it is worded diminishes people’s confidence in the Scriptures – even as I believe you are advocating for a better handling of the Scriptures in a way that engages the culture.

‘Clobber texts’ – I agree that often people use Scripture poorly, and take texts out of context. The texts aren’t necessarily the problem, it’s the way people use them. If they are presented as a single shot, wipe the floor, answer – that’s wrong, and we need to teach people to do better. Yet some (of the same) texts can be used as a ‘for instance’ to sum up the teaching of Scripture. I think the simple classification of them all as ‘clobber texts’ doesn’t help people understand how they are to be rightly used. People need to see how they fit into a framework. I would be happier to say ‘the day of reductionistic proof-texting needs to be over’ or ‘the days of clobbering people with texts must be over’.

Going a step further, it seems to me that this younger evangelical you picture needs to be equipped to push back against the new ‘exegesis’ of passages – even the ones referred to as ‘clobber texts’. I have read Matthew Vines, among others, and their interpretation of the commands of Scripture – I have found it weak. I even recall reading some LGBT-supportive scholars critiquing the arguments of Vines et al. It is valid to point out that the gang rape of Sodom is utterly dissimilar to that of gay marriage, but there are strong counter-arguments that can be made to many of the revised exegetical positions. But the main the problem with comparing the first-century with the 21st-century world is that we have shifted from seeing sex as act, to seeing sexuality as identity. That very assumption is what needs to be questioned.

It seems to me that what we need to do is equip people to have a deeper love for the Scriptures – such that they don’t merely proof-text, but are also equipped to push back against the reinterpretations of others, AND we need to equip them to have a deeper love for the lost.

Scriptural Clarity – the last line of the third point says: ‘We need to stop saying this is an open and shut matter, throwing out proof-texts to make our point’. To me, this gives the impression that the Bible isn’t clear on the issue.

I believe the Bible is clear and we need to teach it clearly and accurately – with compassion and nuance, but still clearly. I also believe that people’s lives are not clear, and that we need to walk with them through the murky waters of their lives until (under God) they find themselves standing in the clear waters of the gospel. There is a difference between teaching the Christian view on the subject and counselling/walking with someone, which involves the long intricate untangling of stories, etc. One can be done clearly, the other is done slowly.

For me the battle does not lie in discerning Scripture’s teaching, but in setting Scripture’s teaching in its proper Biblical worldview – showing young Christians why God says this, not simply what He says. And showing hurting people that this is why God says what He says.

As a girl said to me in school one day after asking ‘Why does God hate gays?’ – and I answered in terms of us being human beings, not human doings, and how identity that comes from doing is always going to reduce us, and therefore God actually has something far richer in store for us – she said: ‘That’s a much bigger answer than I had ever thought of, that’s given me a lot to think about. I like that.’

The issue we need Christians to grasp is that if we deal only with the sexual activity we have lost the discussion – the issue at the heart of it all is identity, and the reality of getting our identity from our sexuality.

I believe we need to spend more time in Genesis 1–3 than in Genesis 19, Leviticus 18, or Romans 1. So when I am teaching/ preaching I will frame God’s commands under the framework of getting our identity, meaning, purpose and value from God – rather than merely reciting a bare command or proof-text.

Anyway, my brother, I hope this reads as a non-combative response – I am aware that the printed note lacks tone. This is longer than I intended, but I’ve included some of what I do so that you can see that I’m not on a completely different page. Feel free to give me a call to chat over this. I’d be interested to get your take on this and the wider issues.

Your brother in Christ
Mark Loughridge By email