An Exercise in the Fundamentals of Orthodoxy

Sharing Rooms

Peter Ould — Thu, 02 Sep 2010 15:53:36 +0000

Many moons ago I went on a road trip through southern Utah with an Anglican priest friend of mine. We drove into St George in the early evening and looked for a cheap motel to stay at. It was when we found one that my friend turned to me in the car and said, “Do you mind if we have separate rooms? I know it’ll cost more, but for a long time I’ve made it a habit never to share a room with anyone so as to avoid any hint of anything that might make someone else uncomfortable”. Now, I had been quite prepared to share a room (all the motel rooms had two large queen size beds) but I understood straight away what he was getting at. Plus, having a room of my own meant that I could watch the TV I wanted until whatever time at night I wanted.

As an aside, a few years later I took the same road trip with my wife and we stayed at the Best Western motel in St George on the night before the trial verdict in the Warren Jeffs case. We ended up getting the honeymoon suite because there were no other rooms available (but paid the normal room rate – the manager liked us). That was possibly the best motel room I’ve ever stayed in AND the most number of TV satellite vans I’ve ever seen parked outside my bedroom window.

I digress. Anyway, you all know what I’m going to talk about now don’t you? Sharing rooms has been a topic of news interest here in the UK with a leading political blogger, Guido Fawkes, asking all kinds of questions (and insinuating other things at the same time) about whether it was appropriate for the now Foreign Secretary and de facto number two in the Conservative Party to share a room with a young graduate working for his election campaign. The response was the resignation of the young man (until yesterday he was one of the special advisers to the Foreign Secretary) and a clear and frank denial from Hague that he is gay or that anything sexual happened between the two men.

Now, put aside the more important political issue as to why several leading talented Conservative party activists and advisers got overlooked and instead Hague went for a relatively inexperienced young man to advise him on foreign policy. This blog is far more interested in how Christians would approach the whole issue of room sharing and the principle of “not even a hint” (coming from Ephesians 5:3). Josh Harris, he of “I Kissed Dating Goodbye” fame, wrote a great book with that very same phrase as its title a few years ago. Not Even a Hint is a fantastic read and covers areas around sexual temptation and has lots to say to Christians about how to handle issues of sexual desire and the sexualisation of the modern western world. You might also want to get hold of his follow up book, Sex is Not the Problem (Lust is).

What do you think about unmarried Christians sharing bedrooms? Is it appropriate? Can two people of the same sex share a room but not two people of the opposite sex, or vice-versa? Do the rules change if there are more than two people (i.e. there is a greater accountability)? What are the general principles which we should look to follow? Should we even be assuming that anything sexual might take place in the first place?

Over to you.

Use this Post:

The Body’s Grace

Peter Ould — Wed, 01 Sep 2010 08:05:01 +0000

If you’ve never read it before, Rowan Williams’ essay “The Body’s Grace” is now available online here. It’s a good read, though remember that it’s now over 20 years old and Rowan has moved on in his thinking since then.

For conservatives reading it, can I suggest pondering the following questions:

Do you agree with Williams’ proposition that “For my body to be the cause of joy, the end of homecoming, for me, it must be there for someone else, be perceived, accepted, nurtured; and that means being given over to the creation of joy in that other, because only as directed to the enjoyment, the happiness, of the other does it become unreservedly lovable”? Is this just in the sexual sphere?
What do we think of the following – “In other words, if we are looking for a sexual ethic that can be seriously informed by our Bible, there is a good deal to steer us away from assuming that reproductive sex is a norm, however important and theologically significant it may be. When looking for a language that will be resourceful enough to speak of the complex and costly faithfulness between God and God’s people, what several of the biblical writers turn to is sexuality understood very much in terms of the process of “entering the body’s grace”.”?
What is the flaw (if any) in Williams’ argument?

Use this Post:

Anglican Marriage – A Guide to the Law

Peter Ould — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 15:16:55 +0000

The third edition of this perennial favourite has just dropped through the letter boxes of Anglican clergy in England and Wales. It’s an update in the light of the new rules for who can (and still can’t) get married in a Church of England building and the recent developments with civil partnerships.

Of interest to readers of this site are two sections, 14 and 15. Section 14 deals with civil partnerships and has the following key sentences:

The existence of a civil partnership is an impediment to marriage. However, a minister may not refuse to marry a man and a woman on the basis that a party of parties has a former civil spouse still living (where the civil partnership has been dissolved) and the English House of Bishops’ Advice to the Clergy on the remarriage of divorcees does not apply.

Interesting, because the obvious conclusion is that the Church of England does not recognise civil partnership as equivalent to marriage. In case anybody was wondering…

Section 15 on “Persons of acquired gender” raises a particular issue that many clergy will probably never encounter, but if they do might provoke some moral deliberation.

In England, the personal consciences of the clergy are protected so that the minister is not obliged to solemnize the marriage of a person he or she believes is of acquired gender … Clergy do not have a right in law to ask a person about a changed gender, even if suspected. There are strict rules governing issues of confidentiality in this area.

Now, I’m happy with the idea of confidentiality in this area (and I’ve indicated on this blog before that I’m prepared to be more open on the issue of transgenderism then on homosexuality) but how would this refusal to marry someone you thought had changed gender work? I mean, if you’re not allowed to ask, do you simply refuse to do the wedding and you tell the couple why? Can you imagine the conversation if they both were biologically the sex they were born? Wouldn’t it be easier to say to all your couples (in the process of asking questions about previous marriages and civil partnerships) something on the lines of,

“I am not allowed by law to ask either of you is transgendered. However, I would like to tell you that if at some point in the process before the wedding day I suspect that either of you are transgendered I have the right to refuse to marry you. I would prefer it that if either of you were transgendered you would feel able to tell me before the wedding”.

Would that fall foul of the law? From my experience in asking about previous civil partnerships, 99% of couples would respond to such a question by saying, “that’s OK, we’re not transgendered” in the same manner that they do when I ask about whether either of them has ever conducted a civil partnership before (assuming that they understand the question – not all my wedding couples know what a civil partnership is!).

And, while we’re on the subject, how do you think we should handle the case where a man and woman present for marriage, with no legal impediment, but the man is a transsexual who, while having gender transited, has not applied for legal recognition as a female?

Thoughts? I’ve invited Peter Beesley, the lead author of the Guide, to respond to the questions above. Let’s hope he’s got time to contribute.

Use this Post:

Universe Challenge

Peter Ould — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 14:46:44 +0000

For the record, I would have got them all right in seconds…

Click here to view the embedded video.

H/T, the wonderful Blogtor Who

Use this Post:

The Bible is About…

Peter Ould — Thu, 26 Aug 2010 20:32:13 +0000

Click here to view the embedded video.

Use this Post:

Irgendwo, Irgendwie, Irgendwann

Peter Ould — Thu, 26 Aug 2010 15:12:03 +0000

Back from Austria and regretting the fact I live in Britain and miss out on all the best Euro-pop. This summer, the radio in the car was full of this (from 2003 but being played constantly at the moment in Austria).

Click here to view the embedded video.

The original is from the mid-80s and sung by Nena (her of 99 Red Balloons). Over the past few years Nena has been going through a bit of a revival with a combination of new songs and fantastic remixes of old classics (like the one above – and did you spot who she was duetting with? Yep, the one and only Kim Wilde).

Now, the next time I preach on the Communion of the Saints, I might just use that.

This is the original, for posterity’s sake

Click here to view the embedded video.

What else is doing the rounds over on the continent, but won’t get a look in in Blighty because it’s not sung in English? Well, this little number by Velile and Safri Duo (remember the Bongo Song) for starters.

Click here to view the embedded video.

How about Geboren um zu leben (Born to live) by Unheilig (Unholy)

Click here to view the embedded video.

And finally, you simply cannot escape this tune sung in Neapolitan dialect (Italian) which is massive in every single country in Europe (and also over here…)

Click here to view the embedded video.

Normal service will resume shortly…

Use this Post:

Off on Holiday…

Peter Ould — Wed, 11 Aug 2010 05:00:09 +0000

Car then plane then car then mountains and lakes and sausages and beer and schnitzel but no noodles. See you in a fortnight.

(Since I’m away, and leaving everything technological behind, I won’t be able to moderate comments. My apologies if your missive gets caught in the spam trap – I’ll rescue it when I get back).

Use this Post:

Where were you?

Some Thoughts on the Prop 8 Ruling

Peter Ould — Thu, 05 Aug 2010 16:42:33 +0000

In case you hadn’t noticed, there was a significant ruling in California yesterday.

A US federal judge has overturned California’s voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage.

The judge found it unconstitutionally discriminated against same-sex couples who sought to wed.

The state measure, known as Proposition 8, was passed by voters in 2008. It banned same-sex marriage, although the state offered same-sex civil unions.

Backers of the ban intend to appeal against the judge’s ruling. The case is likely to reach the US Supreme Court.

The measure was passed in a ballot referendum by a vote of 52% to 48%.

Currently, five states and Washington DC allow same-sex nuptials, though many states have enacted bans.

The ruling does not immediately allow California same-sex couples to marry, as US District Judge Vaughn Walker has delayed final entry of his judgement so he can hear arguments on whether to stay the ruling, pending appeal.

Kelvin Holdsworth has a good response for an Anglican revisionist this side of the Pond which gets down to the core of the argument.

Whilst Civil Partnership in this country once appeared quite progressive, it now does not seem to be so. A separate institution for gay couples seems far from satisfactory. Gradually in one place after another, the argument for Equal Marriage is being made and is being won.

And it moves me too. Even though I’ve long been convinced that people need to be treated equally under the law, when victories are won, it is often the words of the judges or politicians which move me even more than those folk who just want to get wed.

So what do I think? A few thoughts…

The fact that the judge ruling in this case was himself gay is irrelevant. If you object to a gay judge ruling in a case about same-sex civil rights then what do you do when a man is accused of raping a woman? Ban a male judge because he might sympathise with the accused or ban a female judge because she might sympathise with the alleged victim? Of course not, and so the objections to Judge Walker being gay are facile (and homophobic).
This ruling is not the end of the matter and there is no doubt that the matter will go to the Supreme Court of the USA via the regional Federal Appeals Court. This means that at some point in the next two years, the USA is going to settle once and for all the matter as to whether same-sex marriage is a federal right. Note though that even if the Supreme Court rules that it is not, that may not stop individual States legislating in favour of such a move. OF course, that is what the Defence of Marriage Act was introduced to avoid and why it caused so much controversy.
The ruling by Judge Walker raises some interesting questions. The plaintiffs argued that Proposition 8 “prevents each plaintiff from marrying the person of his or her choice AND the choice of a marriage partner is sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment from the state’s unwarranted usurpation of that choice”. One might fairly ask whether the acceptance of such an argument (and this is what Judge Walker did, since his ruling which reads

“Plaintiffs do not seek recognition of a new right. To characterize plaintiffs’ objective as ‘the right to same-sex marriage’ would suggest that plaintiffs seek something different from what opposite-sex couples across the state enjoy — namely, marriage. Rather, plaintiffs ask California to recognize their relationships for what they are: marriages.”

provides no grounds for rejecting an equal claim by a polygamist or someone wishing to enter a marriage that is disbarred by virtue of being incestuous. I would welcome a discussion below with someone who doesn’t think that this ruling opens the path for legalising such (currently illegal) marriages.
The whole case rests around the relationship between the law and the judicial interpretation of the law and raises issues around jurisprudence and the place of morality within a legal framework. Defendants of Proposition 8 argue that if the will of the people is that gay marriage not be allowed, there is no place for a judge to over-rule such a decision (especially given the place of DOMA in the US legislative framework). Of course, judicial review exists not just to ensure that the law is not broken, but also to ensure that the law is fair. For example, you would expect and hope for judicial review to knock down any law that legalised the murder of Jews, even if it is was voted for by a majority in a state. The problem for Christians is that if we accept this general principle that a reviewing judiciary is a good thing, we have to be prepared to accept such a reviewing judiciary taking a different moral view to the Biblical one. This then raises issues for how Christians interact with a State which does not recognise their moral framework. As I argued last week on Premier Radio, Christians in this country need to accept the fact that we have de facto gay marriage already. Amongst the heathens therefore, what is our place?

Your thoughts?

Use this Post:

Marie Stopes Ad Ruling

Peter Ould — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 08:19:03 +0000

The ASA ruling on the Marie Stopes TV advertisement on Channel 4 is out. You can read a copy for yourself here.

SPUC have the best cursory analysis:

London, 3 August 2010 – A ruling by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) in favour of a television advertisement by Marie Stopes International (MSI), one of Britain’s main abortion providers, has been condemned by the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC), one of Britain’s leading pro-life groups.

Paul Tully, SPUC general secretary, commented: “Advertising abortion, whether directly or under the guise of so-called pregnancy advice’, is indecent and dishonest. Yet the ASA has approved showing TV ads from one of the biggest abortion-providers in the UK.

“The ASA says the ad is not offensive, thus ignoring the fundamental nature of the ad’s message which is: ‘We can kill unborn babies’. This message is just as offensive as saying ‘We can kill immigrants’, ‘We can kill paedophiles’ or targeting any other disparaged group. It is simply casuistic of the ASA to hold that the ad isn’t advertising abortion.

“As an industry-based group, it is free to reflect the views of the broadcasters and publishers who want lucrative advertising deals: it is a great shame that it has not acted more impartially in this matter. The ASA is not a statutory authority. It is not answerable democratically or judicially to anyone, nor does it have power to impose any penalties or hold anyone to account. The ASA’s approval of TV abortion ads highlights the need for Jeremy Hunt, the media secretary, to intervene, as he can*, to stop these deeply offensive ads”, concluded Mr Tully.

SPUC has launched a nationwide leafleting campaign to put pressure on the Government to intervene.

To be honest, when I received the ruling last week I read it and went, “Yeah, thought as much”. Anyone with just an ounce of integrity can see that if you go to the Marie Stopes website, the *only* service they physically provide to deal with a pregnancy is abortion. The whole of the pregnancy part of their website is geared towards this aim. There is nothing on the website that provides any form of material support for those who seek to continue with a pregnancy. How the ASA could rule that the Marie Stopes advert did not promote abortion when it guides viewers to a website that does exactly that is beyond belief.

For heaven’s sake – the “Are You Late” campaign video is accessed under the “Abortion” section of the menu and not under the other nine menu items. The blurb which goes with it says,

Remember you are not alone – Around 200,000 abortions are carried out in Britain each year. Women choose to end a pregnancy for a number of reasons. Women are in the best position to know whether or not to continue with a pregnancy – no one else can make this decision for them.

How clear can it be?

Marie Stopes provides abortions which means Marie Stopes sells abortions which means Marie Stopes makes money from selling abortions which means Marie Stopes makes money from murdering children. It’s just sad that now the ASA has become a worshipper of Molech and Mammon as well as Marie Stopes.

Use this Post:

4Thought.tv Piece

Peter Ould — Tue, 03 Aug 2010 19:00:07 +0000

A warm welcome to you if you’re coming to my website after seeing my piece on Channel 4 this evening.

It’s worth pointing out that I had no editorial control over what was eventually broadcast, so there was plenty of stuff that I talked about that didn’t make the final cut and also what you saw was not necessarily filmed in the same order. If you have any questions then please comment below and I’ll do my best to answer them. If you want to get in touch privately for a pastoral matter, use the Contact Page.

A brief summary of what I’m about is available on the Fundamentals page. If you want to explore in greater detail my writing on the issue of human sexuality and sexual identity, then start with the section entitled “Key Posts on Sexuality” which can be found on the right hand side of the page.

If you want to see the slot again or missed it the first time, it can be watched here.

Thanks for dropping by!

Use this Post: