Vicky Beeching and the sexuality debate

Vicky Beeching is a reasonably well-known figure in media circles. She often comments on Sky News virtually Christianity in the public sphere, is a correspondent to Thought for the Day, and (rather occasionally at present) blogs. Vicky studied theology at Wycliffe Hall in Oxford, so spent 8 years in the States where she established a reputation equally a singer-songwriter. She is now enrolled for a PhD programme in Durham.

Vicky recently announced that she is supportive of those who want the Church of England to change its instruction on aforementioned-sex unions, and has become an 'Ambassador' for Accepting Evangelicals. The dynamic of this and the debate effectually information technology illustrates some important issues in this discussion.

She recently published a blog post entitled 'LGBT Theology: what does the Bible say?' But the curious thing is that she never really answers the question. After commenting on the (often unpleasant) reaction to her declaration, she says she had concluded that blogs are non the best way to explore the issue. However, she and so goes on to draw some parallels:

Many people argued that the Bible supported slavery until they put time into prayerful report and realised they were incorrect.

Many used to (and some nevertheless do) fence the Bible says women should accept no place within the priesthood, and should never preach or teach in church. Lots of people have realised from prayerful report that this is not what the Bible actually says.

Superficial readings of texts should never exist the foundation of our arguments. Nor should parroting off the things we've but been told by others in church.

The quite potent implication of these comments is that the traditional view is simplistic, and equivalent to supporting slavery or opposing women's leadership, neither of which is true. The best response to these observations comes from Baptist theologian Steve Holmes—but you won't detect this, considering his comments are buried under the more recent avalanche of unmoderated comments.

The slavery/women comparisons. These are frequently made, and actually interesting. As yous know, I'thousand certain, slavery was more-or-less eliminated from the Roman empire quite quickly as a result of Christian ethical reflection; come the 'European discovery of the world' (the world knew it was there all along, equally far as I can see…), there was a huge economic compulsion to engage in slavery, and as a effect a series of (well-studied) exegetical gymnastics to try to get around what seemed to many to be a clear prohibition. To cast the history as a uniformly pro-slavery hermeneutic 1 twenty-four hours being overcome is to badly misunderstand it. (The history could, if one was being provocative, actually be read the other fashion up: in the West (only) we currently face a huge cultural force per unit area to revise classical Christian understandings of sexuality, and the exegetical gymnastics engaged in past some – but some – of the books on your list might be compared to those offered by the pro-slavery writers of v and two centuries ago…)

On gender, once more every bit I'yard sure you know, the lasting Christian opposition to female priests came from an adoption of Aristotelian biology, which saw being female person every bit existence defectively human being; in one case we, thankfully, got over that misbegotten thought, things changed adequately quickly in some places, and a whole variety of, often speedily shifting, arguments got fabricated in others to try to shore up the tradition. The start application of this is to note that nosotros never read Biblical texts outside of our cultural context, and our interpretations are ever coloured by our assumptions (we probably shouldn't condemn earlier theologians too harshly for accepting the all-time science of their twenty-four hours…). Drawing an analogy to our present debate over sexuality, we might suggest a parallel argument to the effect that we didn't used to understand sexual orientation, but now exercise, and so our readings demand to be revised. Apart from the exegetical problems with the analogy (see Webb for the still-standard treatment, of class), this places huge weight on our understanding of sexual orientation, which anthropologists of sexuality would tell us is very locally culturally constructed, and mail-Foucauldian queer theorists would want to deconstruct thoroughly as oppressive. And then there'southward an entire argument to exist had most what we mean by 'sexuality' earlier we turn to the texts, and which will seriously bear on our reading of the texts.

Vicky and then lists some resources for people to read, headlining Matthew Vines, James Brownson and Jeffrey John, and mentioning Robert Gagnon as a kind of footnote. Holmes again responds helpfully:

Gagnon's book is the best on detailed exegesis, but ought to come with a health warning; the tone is often unpleasant (& when he strays off exegesis into other fields he is often desperately incorrect). We really demand something as detailed but written with more grace…

Vines and John – really? Two of the poorest books on that side of the argue, surely? (better than Robinson's God Believes in Dear, but that is hardly saying much…)

I have offered a critique of Brownson'due south reading of the Genesis texts—which I don't find very convincing. Tom Creedy has offered a more than lengthy comment on his weblog, where he also very helpfully gives a wider list of resources. The all-time thing about Steve Holmes and Tom Creedy's comments is that they ask hard questions—only do so in the clear context of mutual respect and affidavit. Yet, the hard questions remain, and Tom highlights a primal one: how are we reading the biblical texts, and (how) are we discussing them?

He notes the importance of Richard Davidson'sFlame of Yahweh: sexuality in the Onetime Testament. 'Magisterial in its treatment…this 800+ page doorstop is brilliantly thorough, and gracious in tone.' On the NT he recommends work from a 'revisionist' scholar, William Loader,Sexuality in the New Testament: understanding the central texts. Both of these, from quite unlike perspectives, argue comprehensively and coherently that the position Vicky is advocating is not supported by a responsible read of the texts.

This all highlights something vital in this debate. In an interview in Christian Today, Vicky says she nevertheless wants to exist known equally an evangelical:

CT: Practise yous still consider yourself an evangelical?

VB:Information technology's important to me to retain evangelicalism as function my Christian identity. I don't call back the two [evangelicalism and supporting same-sex relationships] are incompatible. I don't want to lose what evangelical means; in that location are so many good aspects of it. The Bible is every bit important equally e'er; my LGBT theology comes from a high view of scripture, non throwing the Bible out the window. People have accused me of watering down what the Bible says, but for me information technology'due south about using the brain God has given us to put the verses [near homosexuality] into their proper historical context.

This ways that, as someone who has established herself in a part of leadership, at least in terms of public presence, she volition need to offer an business relationship of her reading of Scripture. But how to do it? She plans to write a book, simply not blog about this consequence—which I think is exactly the wrong manner forward. There are already a proficient number of books out there, so another one will only exist good news for the publishing industry. Simply, critically, a web log word could accomplish precisely what a book might wellfailto do.

When yous write a book, you tin cull who y'all want to mind to, and who you want to ignore—yous tin carefully select your dialogue partners, and cull non to engage with those who are besides challenging or awkward. And this is precisely what Matthew Vines appears to have done in his influential book. On a web log, you cannot exercise this, as it is much harder to avoid being challenged to engage with the tough questions—and this works all ways. I have hither hosted some very bad-mannered questions from people who disagree with me—and as a result, my view has changed and developed, and I retrieve some of theirs has too. Of course, you then are open to corruption and hostility—but there are really easy means to manage that:

• moderate comments—i.due east., delete ones that breach standards of respect
• restrict who can comment
• turn comments off altogether
• host a debate between yourself and someone with the reverse view
• post your views as a guest on someone else's blog, and so they have to deal with the nasty comments.

Vicky's other stated aim is to 'host a genuine debate, with people talking to, rather than past, each other'. I think she is quite correct here—this is exactly what is needed. But in writing a book, rather than putting her views out for debate, I remember she is encouraging the sceptics who think that her views won't be offering annihilation original or persuasive, and won't stand to scrutiny, even of the most charitable kind. Steve Holmes' comments already hint at that.

Vicky's is conspicuously an important voice for Christians and the Church in the media. I worry that her approach to this outcome has already conspicuously alienated a good number. Those she refers to who have boycotted her songs might be being vindictive. But if a genuine debate is going to happen, surely some of them demand to exist won back. As with the EA's decision well-nigh Steve Chalke, it is only possible that they have thought through the problems advisedly and have skilful, pastoral, biblical and theological reasons for their decision. Then my hope and prayer is that, as she says, Vicky's word might indeed foster more dialogue rather than more division—and to practice that, I call up it will need to exist offered online.

---

If you discover this blog of value, would you considerbecoming a patron to support my work?

If y'all enjoyed this, practice share it on social media (Facebook or Twitter) using the buttons on the left. Follow me on Twitter @psephizo. Like my page on Facebook.

Much of my work is done on a freelance basis. If you accept valued this post, you tin can make a single or echo donation through PayPal:

Comments policy: Good comments that engage with the content of the post, and share in respectful debate, can add real value. Seek start to understand, then to be understood. Make the virtually charitable construal of the views of others and seek to learn from their perspectives. Don't view debate as a conflict to win; accost the statement rather than tackling the person.

jameswhicessis.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.psephizo.com/sexuality-2/vicky-beeching-and-the-sexuality-debate/

Share this post