What will we do about Kevin?

Christian legal academic Neil Foster writing for Eternity News in an article: “The prayer puzzle: will 'conversion therapy' laws ban Christian teaching?” opened the door to consideration of a possible bind that the Sydney Anglicans have waltzed into.

To consider that bind we need to understand the case study that Foster published and then consider the possible Sydney Anglican response to such a case study.

Case study

Foster’s excellent article considers whether Christian teaching and practice will fall foul of proposed legislation. Foster introduces a case study as a way of testing draft legislation. Fundamental to the study is a person approaching the church willingly and knowingly:

“Suppose there is a devout Christian person who accepts the Bible’s teaching that same-sex sexual activity is not God’s will, and yet experiences same-sex attraction. They approach their pastor or their small group leader and ask for help to overcome what they see as a sinful attraction, by reading the Bible with them, counselling and regular meetings for prayer. Is that going to be caught by legislation?”

For convenience let’s put a name to the person of the case study. His name is Kevin. What will we do about Kevin?

 

Caption: a stock photo of a man from pexels.com which is used free and unattributable.
There is no interest, nor intent, to associate anything in this post with the particular man in the image.
The man is unknown to me.

Kevin you’ll note does not split hairs as to homosexuality. Kevin does not differ same-sex attraction from homosexuality. To Kevin, same-sex attraction is “same-sex sexual activity” or homosexuality. This stems from Kevin's excellent comprehension of the Bible (with perhaps particular focus on Matthew 5:27-28).

Kevin doesn’t split-hairs when it comes to sin. Kevin is pursuing holiness, he knows his stuff about sanctification and he knows that Jesus can make him whole. Kevin does not recognise with “brokenness”, but sin.

For avoidance of doubt we at this point leave Foster’s fine article. Only the case study is relevant here.

Possible Sydney Anglican response

I have documented elsewhere that Sydney Anglicans placed visiting British minister Ed Shaw at the lectern to share his message of inclusion. That message is perhaps summarised by the title of Shaw’s Sydney youth event: "Jesus is great news for a rainbow world". By extension of how Shaw has made a ministry of same-sex attraction, as one who admits to experiencing same-sex attraction, one concludes that Shaw does not see same-sex attraction as sinful.

To which you need to understand some of the colourful mental gymnastics. Same-sex attraction is cleaved from same-sex orientation. Same-sex attraction is not said to be sin per se but the result of sin. The reformed tradition of recognising both the desire and physical action are both from the heart is dismissed. Lots is said, with much spinning of wheels, to not recognise same-sex orientation or same-sex attraction as homosexuality. The church is playing games.

For convenience, and to illuminate the bind that the Sydney Anglicans have waltzed into, let’s name the Sydney Anglicans who so warmly welcomed Shaw, and willingly put themselves under his teaching, as Shaw-ites.

The bind

So, Kevin approaches a Shaw-ite – a minister in a Sydney Anglican church. Here is how the conversation possibly runs:

Kevin: “I am as a devout Christian person who accepts the Bible’s teaching that same-sex sexual activity is not God’s will, and yet I experience same-sex attraction. Could you please assist me to overcome what I see as a sinful attraction? I would appreciate your help in reading the Bible with me, arranging counselling and meeting regularly for prayer.”

Shaw-ite: “Ha ha ha, my dear boy, you are so confused. You are not sinning. I welcomed that lovely Ed Shaw chap the other day and while he was same-sex attracted, I recognised that he was merely experiencing brokenness.”

Kevin: “So I will not be blotted out of the book of life that I cannot keep my eyes off your adult son?”

Shaw-ite: “Ha ha ha, my dear boy, in respect to the concept of sin, it is one thing to be attracted to another person, and altogether another thing to act upon that attraction. Although, please do direct your lustful eyes to someone other than a member of my household.

By-the-way Kevin please consider taking up the late-teens youth group leadership opportunity I offered you the other day (Note 1) – those boys are often very confused as to their sexuality”.

Do you get the drift here?

Are you willing to tell Kevin that he is not in sin (where there is much pastoral satisfaction that Kevin has first self-identified his sin – Luke 15:21)?

To which there is the matching question: Are you willing to place Kevin so that he is set into his sin?

So, we have a problem with Kevin. 

But is not really a problem with Kevin is it? It is a problem that has its base in not calling out sin.

Shalom,

Ozhamada

[813 words] #fallacy #ignorance #inclusion #humansexuality #sin #SSM #homosexual #Sydney #livingout 

 #samesexattraction #chastity #bible

Note 1: the notion of Kevin leading a youth group comes from the seventh statement of the Living Out audit tool (as linked).

Note 2: This wonderful article continues the theme of the troubles of brokenness theology.