British Christian values regarding homosexuality in 2015. A Qualitative

Investigation.

Abstract

Using secularization theory and changing Christian values as a framework, this paper

presents findings from a study of the opinions of Church of England Christians regarding

homosexuality. Drawing on focus groups with Christians and interviews with gay Christians,

the discussion focuses on how values of sexual freedom, currently growing in British public

discourse, interact with traditional Christian prescriptions, and individual beliefs about

homosexuality. The following analysis identifies five hinges of concern upon which Christian

values regarding homosexuality are dependent; ‘Transcending love’, ‘Human autonomy’,

‘Truth’, ‘Human relationships’ and ‘Concerns about the future’. These underpinning themes

go some way to explain why anti-homosexual attitudes remain and potentially how they can

be demurred. The paper contributes to previous literature by considering societal context,

public discourse and culture, when investigating the Christianity-homosexuality intersection.

The core findings of this study suggest that a clearer distinction between moral and political

issues, and private and public spheres is necessary to enable more harmonious relations

between Christian and gay and lesbian communities. These findings support a suggestion of

the application of secularist principles to a democratic society.

1

Theoretical Orientation

What follows begins with a description of the processes of social change which provide

context for looking at sexual values and religious views. Next is an outline of previous

research on the interaction between secular culture and religious beliefs, and their

representation in public discourse. I then focus on theoretical frameworks relevant to sexual

and religious values and the nature of value change.

Social Change

“We can understand sexuality only through understanding the cultural meanings and power

relations that construct it” (Weeks 1995 :7). When investigating the interaction between

secular culture and religious beliefs, it is essential to contextualise these processes within

broader processes of modernisation and secularisation.

Modernisation

Modernisation, the theory of society’s transition from pre-industrial to post-modern,

encompasses a number socio-cultural shifts. It is generally justified that economic

development, “ leads to occupational specialisation, rising education and income levels, and

eventually brings unforeseen changes in gender roles, attitudes towards authority and

sexual norms; broader political participation and less easily led politics”,(Inglehart and

Wayne, 2000:21).

For this study, the importance of modernisation is significant insofar as it entails a

transformation of religious and sexual values. Inglehart and Wayne (2000) observe two

perspectives towards modernisation and the persistence of traditional values. One predicts

the decline of traditional values and their replacement with modern values (20). The second

2

emphasises the persistence of traditional values despite economic and political change,

(DiMaggio 1994). In the context of secular sexual values in Britain, the first school gives a

more accurate representation. Since the 1950’s when homosexuality was a criminal offense,

societal treatment and perception of homosexuals has changed dramatically. Now,

“acknowledgement of homosexuality has entered all aspects of popular culture...diversity

and acceptance are the words of the day” (Dow,2001). The twin pillars of cultural power

regulating homosexuality; the church and the medical profession, (stigmatizing gay men and

lesbians as immoral or pathological respectively), have gradually lost their authority.1

(D’Emilio,2002:28). The 28th report of the British Social Attitudes Survey (2011) concluded

that “we can expect to see ‘a continued increase in liberal attitudes towards…homosexuality

and same-sex marriage…as the influence of religion declines.” Thus traditional values have

been replaced by modern values and there is an increase in contingent knowledge and

uncertainty (Mouzelis,2012:211). As a result, the post-modern lifeworld of individuals at

present is characterised by choice. Devoid of traditional or collectivist regulation, individuals

deal with “empty spaces. From whether or not to marry and have children, to what life-style

to adopt and what identity to form – in all these areas the individual must be highly reflexive

in constructing ‘his/her own biography’ (Giddens, 1994).” (cited in Mouzelis,2012:209).

Individualisation promotes self-expression and a focus on personal wellbeing rather than

ones role in a community or the strict following of traditional social rules. These

developments are conducive to more liberal sexual values. People in contemporary Britain

are freer to express their true identities, previously stigmatized LGBT sexual orientations are

now embraced and celebrated by the majority of secular public discourse and public

1The medical profession declassified homosexuality as a mental illness between 1972 (American psychiatric association) and 1990 (World health organisation) due to a lack of evidence of poor mental health related to homosexuality (Bayer,1987).

3

attitudes reveal a similar trend. The daily telegraph reported results from the 2013 British

social attitudes survey, “A transformation in attitudes to homosexuality ranks as the most

dramatic change in British public opinion in a generation, according to the biggest study of

its kind.”2. The instructions of Section 28 of the Local Government Act in 1988 stated that

local government, "shall not intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with

the intention of promoting homosexuality". Just 24 years subsequently, British Prime

Minister David Cameron publicly claimed he is “a massive supporter of marriage and

[doesn’t] want gay people to be excluded from a great institution” (7th December 2012 ITV

lunchtime news3). It goes without saying that the gay rights movement has gained much

support and progress in a remarkably short period. However for every hurdle gay liberation

activists approach, there has been religious resistance. This begs the question, is support for

gay equality confined to the secular sphere? To investigate this study asks “Are Christian

values influenced by wider public discourse regarding homosexuality?”

Secularization

The ‘collapse of grand narratives’ paved the way for the argument that Europe’s religious

institutions, actions and consciousness [have lost] their social significance

(Wilson,1982:149). This includes the change in religious values. There are three broad

approaches to the secularisation debate; first are the supporters of secularisation theory,

second are those who argue for religious persistence, and third are those who argue for

pluralism of religion rather than a supposed decline.

2 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10297205/Revolution-in-attitudes-to-homosexuality-is-biggest-change-in-generation.html3 http://www.itv.com/news/update/2012-12-07/pm-i-dont-want-gay-people-to-be-excluded-from-a-great-institution/

4

Those who argue that secularisation is undeniable and irreversible, claim the spread of

modernity has doomed religion to a shadow of past glories (Wallace,1966). Voas and

Crockett (2005) argue that religion is no longer: “as widespread as before”, “as personally

significant as before”, or “as socially significant as before”. One can argue that the

increasingly secular climate of Britain provided fertile conditions for the activism of the Gay

rights movement with Christianity being less of an obstacle.

Furthermore, a recent poll from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation showed that faith is now

regarded by many as, “intolerant, irrational and divisive”,(cited in Kettel,2009:6). Certainly

the attitudes of some Christians may be perceived as such, for example the flood of

hundreds of online tweets using the hashtag “#onemanonewoman and #realmarriage to

oppose the recent US marriage equality ruling.

These tweets are evidence that religious beliefs still influence the personal moral

judgements of some. Other scholars agree that religious values remain persistent in the face

of modernisation (see Greely,1972 and Luckmann,1990). Stark and Iannaccone (1994) argue

that, “the vitality of religious firms can fluctuate greatly over time, rising as well as falling”,

(Stark and Ianaccone,1994:249).

The third approach to religious change suggests, religion has neither declined, nor remained

the same, but that it has undergone a transformation of fragmentation. In this context

individuals become “‘seekers’…on a continuous quest, moving from one religious network

or guru to another… choosing elements from a variety of religious traditions both Christian

and non-Christian in an attempt to achieve ‘authenticity’ (Taylor, 2002: 83)” (cited in

Mouzelis,2012:216).

5

The process of secularisation should not be viewed as exclusively linear, “other factors like

the individualization of decisions, detraditionalization, mobility, and expressive and

utilitarian individualism are also at work” (Dobbelaere,1999:244-245). Additionally,

secularization may not lead to a weakening of faith within the religious sphere. For Parsons,

secularisation may lead to, “a certain religious deepening among believers”

(Mouzelis,2012:212).

What seems certain, is that, “religion with some exceptions has been removed from the

centre of public life” (Mouzelis,2012:212). One exception being the construction of public

sexual values where Christianity remains a source of morality for some.

By focusing on Christian attitudes towards homosexuality, I hope to shed light on whether

there is a distinction between the effects of modernity and secularisation on the public

sphere compared to within Christian circles. By asking the question, “has public discourse

led to a liberalisation of Christian beliefs?”

Some evidence suggests the answer is yes, for example the Gay Christian Network in 2001

and the British organisation ‘Changing Attitude’ who are currently campaigning for the

nomination of gay bishops. There is now a “reformed interpretation” of scripture which

argues that in the new testament of the bible (regarded as most relevant to today’s culture),

there is not enough of an explicit censure of homosexuality to justify subordinate

positioning of committed monogamous homosexual relationships within Christian teachings.

The Church of England itself acknowledges that Christian views of homosexuality have

previously been damaging:

6

“The story of the Church’s attitude to homosexuals has…often been one of prejudice

ignorance and oppression. All of us need to acknowledge that, and to repent for any part we

may have had in it. The Church has begun to listen to his homophile brothers and sisters,

and deepen and extend that listening, finding through joint prayer and reflection a truer

understanding of the love that casts out fear. If we are faithful to our Lord, then

disagreement over the proper expression of homosexual love will never become rejection of

the homosexual person.” (Issues in human sexuality- The Church of England.)

This study seeks to establish whether congregational members’ views and attitudes are in

accordance with the recent published statements - To investigate this I will ask: “Do Church

of England prescriptions on sexuality reflect the opinions of Christian individuals?”

Having established the broad sociological theories concerning secular and religious society’s

change in sexual values, what follows are findings from previous studies on the interaction

between secular and Christian discourse.

Since the 11th century, Christianity has “limited 'acceptable' sexuality to heterosexual,

procreative marriage or celibacy, and has condemned same-sex relationships as morally

wrong”(Severson et al 2013:137). This has stigmatised homosexuality as an "unnatural

passion" (Goffman 1963). Consequently, early literature emphasises correlations between

scales of collective religiousness and homosexual prejudice. These studies are almost

exclusively quantitative survey data, and generally show an association between religious

fundamentalism and homophobia (Kirkpatrick,1993 and Barton,2010).

7

Social movements of the past 50 years have weakened the authority of traditional

prescriptions on sexuality (Roof and McKinney,1985 cited in Severson et al 2013:137).

Subsequently more recent research has recognised new Christian attitudes. Hodge has

identified "progressive" Christians who tend to understand ultimate truth as unfolding as

human society changes (2005). During the transitions of the past half-century, including the

contemporary struggle for marriage equality in the UK, a number of LGBT affirming faiths

have emerged.

Gorman's 1980 anthropological dissertation concluded that LGBT affirming congregations

provided support for same-sex relationships which were under pressure due to societal

disapproval.

A more recent study focusing on LGBT affirming Christianity is McQueeneys (2009) article,

which analysed how affirming church members reinterpreted Christian beliefs to include

people traditionally stigmatized by their sexuality (152). McQueeney observed a process

called, "oppositional identity work" which involved "transforming discrediting identities into

crediting ones…so they can be seen as indexes of noble rather than flawed

character"(Schwalbe and Mason-Schrock 1996:141 cited in McQueeney 2009:152).

Since the 1980’s more research has been published on LGBT affirming Christianity4.These

churches draw upon the “reformed view” of scripture interpretation to attest that

homosexual relationships are blessed by God.

For those critical of religion however, Christianity is seen as an ideological prop upholding

sexual prejudice (D’Emilio,2003:52). Many have been aggressive in their criticism5 to the

4 Most noteably Thumma (1991), Shokeid (1995 ),Rodriguez and Ouelette(2000).5 See Harris 2004, Dawkins 2006 and Dennet 2006.

8

extent that some Christians are now feeling discriminated against. A Christian view from the

Evangelical Alliance (2006,22) protests that, dominant anti-religious secularist forces, “far

from being neutral merely replicate discriminatory attitudes towards religion” (Evangelical

Alliance 2006:91 cited in Kettel,2009:426). Kettle (2009) notes that the main response of

the Church to these threats lies in political action. The Christian discursive position Kettle

observes is that of “Christianity as a source of morality”, the claim is that British society is in

a condition of social and moral decay due to consumerism and individualisation. Christians

perceive the influence of Christianity as the only way to combat this. Consequently the

church claims political power “with its unique abilities as a provider of ethical virtue and

social cohesion” (Kettel,2009:433). However, with the right to equal representation in the

public sphere, comes the qualification to stand against policies or legislation which conflict

with Christian ideals. If we apply this to the context of homosexuality, a potentially harmful

situation arises, much like it has in reality. The situation being: when Christianity clashes

with public discourse, subsequently laying claim to its ‘unique moral authority’, it results

(albeit inadvertently) in the moral condemnation of large cohorts of the British population,

leading further to backlash from non-believers perceiving Christians to be bigoted, dogmatic

and divisive. This is a problem which this study intends to better understand in the hope of

getting closer to an accessible and ethical solution.

To pursue this, it is necessary to comprehend why individuals feel so strongly about their

religious beliefs, resulting in “religious proselytising” (Newman 1982). This study explores

this by asking: “How do Christians respond to homosexuality? The following theories

provide possible routes for investigation.

Frameworks for understanding sexual and religious values and attitudes.

9

Definitions

Values and attitudes are fundamental to this study’s analysis. From a social constructionist

approach, sexuality has no intrinsic meaning, it embodies the imprint of a vast range of

social meaning, thus the value systems built around it must be understood as both historical

and contingent (Weeks 1995 :48). As a foundation for the rest of this paper I will use the

concepts of beliefs attitudes and values defined by Rokeach (1968,1970). His value system

theory, “explains…how beliefs and behaviours are interrelated and the conditions under

which belief systems remain stable or undergo change”, (Grube et al, 1994:154)

Attitudes and Values

Rokeach defines an attitude as “an enduring organization of several beliefs focused on a

specific object or situation, predisposing one to respond in some preferential

manner.”(1968:550).

Values on the other hand, “transcend specific objects and situations…To say that a person

“has a value” is to say that he has an enduring belief that a particular mode of conduct or

that a particular end state of existence is personally and socially preferable to alternative

modes of conduct or end states of existence…a value is a standard we employ to tell us

which values, attitudes and actions of others are worth or not worth trying to influence. If

you claim to have a value and you do not want to influence anyone else under the sun to

have it too, chances are it is not a value” (550).

So defined, attitudes and values differ from one another in three ways. First values

transcend specific objects and situations, whilst attitudes focus directly on them. Second,

values, unlike attitudes, are a yardstick - guiding attitudes, actions, comparison and

10

justifications of self and others. Finally, values, unlike attitudes, are a distinct preference for

a specified mode of behaviour or for a specified end-state of existence.

From these definitions I infer that values are the underlying informers of attitude examined

in this study. Moreover, Rokeach states that values determine which attitudes held by

others we should try to influence. Following this, we can see that the religious and sexual

values in this study are the kinds of governing values that Rokeach identifies. We can

observe social movements where people holding such values feel compelled to protest and

represent these values as an attempt to influence others and gain support, for example

Pride marches. Sexual values can be traced back to sexual orientation where LGBT

individuals are concerned, these values are grounded in their personal needs and

experiences. Additionally, regardless of gender identity or sexual orientation, there is a

human right to express ones’ identity, without facing discrimination. So if sexual values are

grounded in ‘individual needs and desires’, what kind of effect does religion have on ones

values?

Schwartz and Roccas (1997) suggest that influence flows in both directions between

religiosity and value priorities: Religious upbringing causes committed believers to adhere to

value priorities that support the theological doctrines of the church. Conversely, individual

value priorities, grounded in their personal needs and experiences, cause them to become

more or less committed to religion. This interaction explains why some gay Christians

distance themselves from their religion.

Having defined the concepts of attitudes and values, the following literature explains the

nature of sexual and religious values more specifically.

11

Gayle Rubin’s “Thinking sex” (1984) provides a theoretical framework to discuss changing

sexual values. Like Rokeach, Rubin views values as hierarchical, as such, different types of

sexuality are valued accordingly. Traditional perceptions of sexuality maintain that,

“sexuality which is ‘good’, ‘normal’ and ‘natural’ should ideally be heterosexual, marital,

monogamous, reproductive and non-commercial…it should not involve roles other than

male or female. Any sex that violates these rules is ‘bad, ‘abnormal’ or

‘unnatural’”(Storr,2001:115). According to Rubin there is an, “imaginary line” between

good and bad sex and arguments take place over where to draw the line. This is

demonstrated by the recent marriage equality debate whereby same-sex marriage has

recently moved over the ‘imaginary line’ into the ‘good’ category, at least for most of

secular Britain. Rubin’s ‘imaginary line’ is helpful to this study as it begs the question: How

can we think about this imaginary line in a Christian context? It could be argued that the

imaginary line for the secular population is a product of cultural values at the time, popular

public opinion or even the influence of scientific or psychological studies on sexuality.

However, this line is not necessarily imaginary for Christians. For some, the “rules” regarding

sexuality are explicitly prescribed in the Bible by God. Thus my study asks, “How do

Christians navigate the prevailing cultural acceptance of homosexuality with a seemingly

opposing steadfast guideline from God?”

Religious Coping theory is also helpful to this study’s analysis as it acknowledges that human

phenomena, “must be considered in the context of ongoing interactions between

individuals and life events” (Pargamet,1997). Coping theory sees individuals as goal

oriented, in pursuit of meaning and significance, evaluating situations in relation to how

12

they implicate the attainment of goals and the conservation of important values. “When

these important values are threatened individuals engage in coping strategies to conserve

or transform their framework of significance” (Pargamet,1997). Religious coping theory adds

the sacred6 as part of the search for significance. For the Christians in this study, the sacred

is a large part, if not the ultimate aspect of their value system. Within this framework, anti-

homosexual attitudes can be understood as a reaction of Christians to the perception of

homosexuality as a threat to sacred values and institutions. Burdette at al, (2005) observed

that homosexuality, is viewed as a desecration of sacred religious beliefs and values about

the institution of marriage and family. This is particularly topical today with the recent

legalisation of same-sex marriage. Christian discourse campaigning to oppose legislation

(for example the coalition for marriage petition) see marriage as an institution for the unity

of one man and one woman and it would be reasonable to expect some of the more

traditional participants in this study to argue along similar lines, in which case religious

coping theory may prove to be a helpful tool for understanding such attitudes.

Other theories have been used to understand anti-LG attitudes for example Social identity

theory whereby, “Religious organisations may create a shared negative view of LG

individuals that solidifies and protects the status and identity of the religious community”

(Trevino,2012:538).

Overall, previous research on the intersection of Christianity and homosexuality can be split

into two main categories, the Collective and the Individual.

Collective research uses quantitative survey scales, generally focusing on church attendance

as indicators of levels of religiosity. (Finlay and Walther,2003). These studies give a helpful

6 Sacred refers to divine beings, higher powers, God, or transcendent reality (Pargament,1999).

13

insight into general public opinion, and common trends in attitude. However, they do not

aid a full understanding of why certain attitudes and opinions are held, how they may

influence individuals’ behaviour, and in turn how these opinions are influenced by

environmental factors. This study aims to overcome these deficiencies by using a qualitative

approach to contribute to a more comprehensive understanding.

On an individual basis, the Christianity-homosexuality intersection has been researched in

two main ways. Many qualitative studies have looked into how gay Christians experience

identity dissonance between their sexuality and religious beliefs; these studies highlight the

negative effects of identity conflict and generally identify positive identity reconciliation

strategies ( McQueeny, 2009 , Subhi et al 2012). Secondly, there has been considerable

focus in academic literature on the ways in which straight individuals view and speak about

gay individuals (see DePalma and Jennet, 2010 and Sanders 2008). For example, how

hegemonic masculinities inform and perpetuate negative stigma surrounding homosexual

masculinities,(for example Kehily and Nayak,1997). Due to the potential conflict between

Christianity and homosexuality, these studies often hint towards religious belief as a

contributing factor to the nature of heterosexual discourse, but there has been little detail

on the ways that Christian individuals specifically view gay individuals and homosexuality.

This study will look at whether there are nuances specific to those possessing Christian

beliefs.

Research Questions

The main contribution of this study is its consideration of societal context. Previous studies

have looked at religious views of homosexuality but have not deliberated environmental

influence. Environmental factors are particularly distinctive at present, due to the recent

14

political movement for marriage equality and general attitude of sexual freedom within

public discourse; therefore it is crucial to take environmental context into account. With this

in mind, my research questions are as follows:

1. “Are Christians influenced by wider public discourse regarding homosexuality?”

2. “Has public discourse lead to a liberalisation of Christian beliefs?”

3. “Do the Church of England published prescriptions on sexuality reflect the opinions

of Christian individuals?”

4. “How do Christians respond to homosexuality?”

5. “How do Christians navigate the prevailing cultural acceptance of homosexuality

with a seemingly opposing steadfast guideline from God?”

Research Design

The most appropriate methods to investigate participant’s values and beliefs are focus

groups and interviews.

Interviews

15

Semi-structured, in-depth interviews were beneficial as they allowed interviewees to

express their opinions and ideas, therefore I gained access to participants’, “version of

reality” (Bruner, 1991, p. 5). Furthermore, I was able to request clarification or elaboration

when necessary. Interviews were semi-structured to enable investigation of important

issues, simultaneously allowing participants to divulge any other information they felt was

significant. Consequently, “the interviewee [was] seen as a participant in the research,

actively shaping the course of the interview rather than passively responding to the

interviewers pre-set questions”,(Cassel and Symon.,2004:11).

Focus groups gleaned the majority of data, but interviews were conducted with Gay

Christians and leaders of a Church of England congregation. One-on-one interviews were

most appropriate for leaders, because of their position of authority, their presence in a

focus group may affect the responses of other participants. Interviews were most

appropriate for gay participants to protect them from potentially offensive opinions.

Additionally, interviews are a good way to study historically marginalized groups, because

they have previously been silenced (DeVault 1999, Reinharz 1992).

Focus groups

Focus group discussions enabled me to observe the, “constant negotiation of meanings,

identities and stances”, (Kitzinger & Faqhuar, 1999 : Crossley, 2002). This was advantageous

in this context of ambiguous and contested issues. I also gained insight into the, “relational

construction of beliefs, (Waterton & Wynne,1999,p.127:Crossley,2002), which was

particularly suitable for the research questions.

I acted as a conventional focus group moderator, asking questions, prompting and

encouraging responses and discussion. I did not articulate my own views. If discussion was

16

not flowing I took a more “interventionist approach” (Kitzinger 1994). The topic guide for

the focus groups covered the same themes as the interviews for consistency.

These two methods provided access to multifaceted details, and enabled me to hear the

intonation of opinion which wouldn’t be heard from surveys or questionnaires.

Design of Instruments

An online pilot survey (appendix 1) was used to get an initial impression of the ideas that

Christians have about homosexuality. Responses were used to formulate appropriate

questions for the topic guide (appendix 5) which covered the following themes:

What does the scripture say about homosexuality?

What does the Church say about homosexuality?

What are your personal opinions?

Same sex marriage.

Your relevant experiences.

Secular culture.

Prejudice.

During focus groups, some video and document elicitation was used. Documents included: A

video from a Christian website www.livingout.org, which aims to support “same sex

attracted individuals”, the video chosen was of a man speaking about his personal response

to being same sex attracted, and his decision to remain celibate7. A quote from a recent

7 http://www.livingout.org/stories/vaughan

17

Sunday Times article8 about Jayne Ozanne, (a member of the Church of England’s

Archbishops council, who prior to her recent coming out, was anti-homosexuality.)

Additionally one of the responses from the pilot study was used to elicit discussion about

same sex marriage.

Focus Group Demographics

Much research indicates; “the basic values of individuals are largely fixed by the time they

reach adulthood” (Baker, Dalton and Hildebrandt 1981). Therefore, “to a large extent, one’s

basic values reflect the conditions that prevailed during one’s pre-adult years”

(Inglehart,2008:131). Consequently, I hypothesised younger participants to exhibit more

liberal values regarding homosexuality than older participants because they have spent their

formative years within a culture of acceptant attitudes towards homosexuality. However,

these postulations hold for individuals in the general population rather than those who

ascribe to a religious belief which has different prescriptions about homosexuality to those

of wider society. To investigate this, focus group members were divided by age to answer

the research question; “Has public discourse lead to a liberalisation of Christian beliefs?”.

There were 3 focus groups in total, the ages of the youngest group ranged from 18 to 25,

the middle aged group ranged from 40 to 55, and the oldest age group ranged from 70 to

92.

8 Link to Jayne Ozanne article : http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/newsreview/article1516065.ece

18

Participants

There were 24 focus group participants consisting of heterosexual Christians, and five

interview participants consisting of 2 gay Christians9 and 3 heterosexual church leaders. All

of the participants were British, middle class, and came from a variety of occupational

backgrounds.

Field

The sample was drawn from a Church of England congregation in a suburb of North West

London. A thorough analysis of all core denominations of Christianity would be desirable,

but due to denominational differences in stance regarding issues of sexuality, it was more

feasible to focus on one group for a project of this size. This study’s focus is on the

interaction between religious sexual values and the sexual values of wider public discourse -

to operationalize this, the Church of England was purposively chosen due to its particular

stance regarding homosexuality10. Their published statement shows that, all considered,

9 I use “gay” to refer to participants rather than “homosexual” because this is how they identified themselves. 10 in December 1991, the House of Bishops published a statement regarding homosexuality in Issues in Human Sexuality (CHP 1991) This endorsed the traditional Christian belief that the teaching of the Bible is that heterosexual marriage is the proper context for sexual activity between two people. It went on to declare that what it called 'homophile' orientation and activity could not be endorsed by the Church as:

'... a parallel and alternative form of human sexuality as complete within the terms of the created order as the heterosexual. The convergence of Scripture, Tradition and reasoned reflection on experience, even including the newly sympathetic and perceptive thinking of our own day, makes it impossible for the Church to come with integrity to any other conclusion. Heterosexuality and homosexuality are not equally congruous with the observed order of creation or with the insights of revelation as the Church engages with these in the light of her pastoral ministry.'

It also argued that the conscientious decision of those who enter into such relationships must be respected, and that the Church must 'not reject those who sincerely believe it is God's call to them'.

19

homosexuality cannot be viewed as equal to heterosexuality but that those who feel it is

their calling from God should be respected. This position takes the prevailing cultural winds

into account, (what they call “the newly sympathetic and perceptive thinking of our own

day”) but remains true to “tradition” and “scripture”. This intersection provides an

opportunity to inspect the opinions of individuals who are part of both current culture and a

long standing historical belief system and to observe the interaction between which current

progressive culture and traditional beliefs.

Procedure

Each participant was emailed the aims, procedures and purpose of the research, this helped

build initial rapport. Consent forms ensured participants made an informed decision to

participate; they were made aware of confidentiality, anonymity and their rights to

withdraw or decline to answer any questions. All interviews and focus groups were

undertaken by myself, recorded with participant permission and transcribed.

Thematic Analysis

I used six steps proposed by (Attride-Stirling.,2001:391) as a guide to conduct thematic

network analysis:

20

These ensured a systematic approach and the networks provide the “opportunity to develop

a graphical representation of the structure of relations between codes in the text” (Bauer

and Gaskell (2000:55). See Fig 1.

After transcription, I read the transcriptions in detail to code the material. 36 codes

(appendix 3) were deduced from the data and theoretical interests. For example, the code

‘Judgement’ included text segments such as “How could I judge someone on something like

that when I know I've sinned, just in a different way?”. I re-read the data within the context

of the codes to deduce 13 basic themes of common or salient ideas. I ensured these themes

were, “specific enough to be discrete but broad enough to encapsulate a set of ideas”

(Attride-Stirling 2001,392).

I then organised the themes into networks, focusing only on those present across all focus

groups and interviews (appendix 4). Basic themes with similarities and shared focus were

clustered to form 12 organising themes. From these, 5 global themes were then deduced,

these were formed through intuitive interpretation of the data in relation to the study’s

main research questions. The global themes refer to the more abstract interpretations of

data which were used to think about broader meanings and implications. As my analysis

21

progressed, themes developed and changed, some were discarded, this helped refinement,

prevented repetition, and ensured that data was captured and represented

comprehensively by the resulting global themes.

Fig 1:

Analysis of Age differences

To investigate age differences in views I created a second set of codes which divided all

views into five types:

View Type Description Example

Liberal Views Perceptions of homosexuality as positive.

“When I’ve come across gay couples as parents they are very devoted and providing a very safe home environment for their children”- JC 40-55

22

Reformed Views Non-traditional scriptural interpretation, in favour of a positive perception of homosexuality.

“In the time of the ancient Greeks it was quite common kind of that all the men would have sex with boys? Basically without having a relationship and I think that the Bible might refer to that kind of thing more than actual [gay relationships]”- L 18-30

Traditional Views Literal interpretations of the Bible.Traditional Gender Roles.Heteronormative statements.

“I completely understand what you’re saying, but I can’t help but feel that [homosexual parent families] is a perversion of what God ideals for us”-DB 40-55

Uncertain Views Statements of confusion or being unable to state an opinion.

“I do not know what I believe in this area at all”- N 18-30.

Personal Choice Views Perceptions that people’s sexual behaviour or desires is a matter for their individual concern, no one else’s.

““It’s not an issue and it’s not anyone else’s business, you know, “can you imagine marrying another man?!”, and you’re like “well you shouldn’t marry another man then should you.”” MK- interview participant.

I coded the text again using the above categories, and counted how many of each type were

present amongst each focus group. This technique was used to answer to research question

2. An alternative approach would be to do a longitudinal study asking the same questions to

the same individuals at different intervals in their life to determine whether their beliefs

23

change in different political and social contexts. However, since evidence suggest that

individuals’ value systems are largely fixed by the time they reach adulthood, comparing the

views of different age groups who have grown up in very different environments is a

reasonable and more feasible approach for this study.

Limitations

Findings only apply to middle class Church of England believers. Without time or financial

constraints it would be desirable to gather data from a more representative sample,

including Catholicism, Anglican and Methodist denominations. This would help to identify

the roots of Christian heterosexist attitudes and increase generalisability.

Previous research has identified regional differences between attitudes towards

homosexuality (see Chalfant 1991 and McCormack 2014), consequently a large scale survey

would be helpful to get an idea of the class and regional demographics of Christian

attitudes.

Because of the necessary flexibility of these methods interviews and focus groups took

different paths, therefore this is not a reliable technique for researchers to repeat the study

and attain similar findings. Despite this, it remains that the qualitative methods used in this

study are unsurpassed when trying to see the research topic from the participants’

perspective.

Successful interviewing relied upon my ability to draw out information and prevent

investigator effects. Accordingly I ensured that the participant felt at ease expressing

themselves and avoided leading questions. I took an unbiased position and questions were

kept open and simple.

24

It is important to mention that because the nature and history of the Christianity-

homosexuality intersection has been associated with prejudice- despite the emphasis that

my study is not designed as a critique - participants may present themselves in a certain way

due to social desirability bias. The data I gather may not necessarily be a true account of

participant opinions but instead “strategic communication, that is, a purposeful account to

make a particular point within a complex political context” (Jovchelovitvh and Bauer, cited

in Bauer and Gaskell 2002:65).

Ethical considerations are important when researching these issues because they involve

personal topics. In addition to consent forms, I clarified the research aims, stressing they are

not to argue against any religious sentiments. I ensured participants’ anonymity and

awareness of their right to withdraw.

Part of my motivation for undertaking this research is my own religious upbringing; I have

experience in churches like the one studied here. This is advantageous as it means I am

familiar with the belief system of participants. Clearly individual differences exist when it

comes to personal faith, but generally I am able to grasp participants “local language” in

terms of its contextual connotations (Bauer and Gaskell 2000:44). Despite these benefits,

my familiarity with the context also has disadvantages; I have my own opinions and

preconceptions which I must be careful not to apply by decentring my own position.

Results and Interpretation

Thematic analysis lead to the identification of 5 encompassing global themes. The resulting

thematic networks are presented and interpreted below.

25

Thematic network for “Transcending Love”

Transcending love, was observed in relation to two organising themes.

“Love despite difference”, pertains primarily to research question 4. How do Christians

respond to homosexuality?

Throughout focus groups and interviews it was constantly emphasised, that despite having

conflicting beliefs about what constitutes an “ideal” sexual relationship, Christians must

respond to gay people with love and acceptance. This is exemplified by the phrase, “Love

the sinner, hate the sin” which was used almost like a motto.

The majority of participants separated homosexual “inclination” from homosexual “action”.

There was a salient perception that it is acceptable to have sexual desires for members of

the same sex, (after all you cannot argue with the way God made you), but to act on these

desires was sinful. As such, Christians view sexual orientation as another temptation which

is best resisted.

It was difficult for me as a researcher to articulate that this view is problematic because it

implies that gay people are born with an additional temptation to sin from which

heterosexuals are exempt. The implication that God has made some individuals more

susceptible to temptation than others, would be contradictory to their beliefs in a just God. I

26

suggest this view enables Christians to more easily view homosexuality as sinful when its

sinfulness rests upon the human decision to act upon it.

For my gay participants, sexual inclination and action were not separated and their sexuality

was not viewed as something to resist, but rather as part of themselves, as one of my

participants explains:

“It’s not just that you are a woman who fancies women you are, it’s your everything it’s all

of who you are, it doesn’t define you but, it you know adds to the essence of you as a whole

human being…”

The second organising theme pertains to the recurring statements that ‘Love and

forgiveness are fundamental to Christianity’. For example, “Jesus would have had huge

empathy and compassion for them and tried to help them”, and, “Jesus tolerated

prostitutes and all sorts”.

The discussions about homosexuality were broadly characterised by dichotomies, whether

it is right or wrong, good or bad, moral or immoral, and at every end point of discussion it

was stated that whatever the conclusion, Christians should show the transcending love of

God as Jesus did. Despite this emphasis on compassion, the problem remains that

homosexuality is associated with sin, and homosexuals are ‘othered’, bracketed with

“prosititutes and all sorts” whom are also stigmatised in this context.

Thematic Network for ‘Human Autonomy’

27

‘Freedom’ as an organising theme encompassed a debate about individual freedom of

opinion and the difference between stating an opinion and judging.

Participants felt they had been accused of ‘judging’ homosexuals when really had just been

‘assessing’ homosexuality against its accordance with the Bible. It was argued by the two

older focus groups that in recent times the word judge has been conflated with more

negative connotations.

“When I was teaching if I gave an opinion on [homosexuality] ….and said,“I consider it to be

wrong” they all interpret that as you’re…judging them, No I'm not. All I'm saying is as far as

I'm concerned its wrong but this is conflated in public perception. If you say you think

somethings wrong… you’re saying you’re a terrible person. I hate you and you ought to burn

in hell.”

Interestingly, this view was not shared so widely by the 18-30’s focus group. There seemed

to be a more empathetic understanding that expressing such opinions would cause offense,

instead there was more emphasis on personal choice.

Regarding “Mutual tolerance of difference”, three basic themes were discussed, first was

the need to distinguish between moral and political views.

28

To illustrate, an example was cited whereby a gay activist ordered a cake from a Christian

bakery with the words, “Support gay marriage” written on it, the bakery refused his request.

Participants agreed that this was politically motivated. Some participants viewed this

activism as a persecution of Christian beliefs. Many participants mentioned secular backlash

since homosexuality has been broadly accepted:

“ It is an attack and for that part of the community, it is an attack on our beliefs and quite a

well-orchestrated attack…People standing up and saying [homosexuality] is wrong get really

vilified.”

This “attack” was also experienced on a personal level:

“I knew some of them were gay…but that didn’t change the fact that they were my friends,

and the fact that I loved them for who they were but when this [same sex marriage debate]

started coming out, they started judging me, and they weren’t letting me voice actually how

I felt so in a way they were doing what they thought I was doing to them.”

In this context, the secular influence on Christian prescriptions about homosexuality can be

observed as a political movement against the religious community, from my participants’

perspective this has been perceived as an attack. At this point it seems natural to argue that

the gay community have been subject to this kind of discrimination for years. This view was

acknowledged by some participants:

“The thing I find difficult about the whole situation…is the political movement. There’s no

swingers political movement say that if you say anything against them you’re a horrible

person and we hate you.”

29

“But no one’s been put in prison for swinging, no one’s been put in a mental asylum for

swinging. So it comes with the history. We have condemned the sinner a lot rather than

loving them.”

“But being a different race is not a sin in the Bible is it.”

This speech segment reveals that attempts to empathise with the homosexual community

are intercepted and rewound by scriptural statements. This interaction was observed

frequently, particularly within the 18-30’s focus group where there were more attempts to

empathise with gay individuals.

The third basic theme concerns the way the Church has officially responded to political and

secular pressure. The middle aged focus group had issues with the Churches reformed

stance, many felt that it was “bowing to political pressure”. This discussion was helpful

when answering research question 3. “Do the Church of England published prescriptions on

sexuality reflect the opinions of Christian individuals?”

When discussing some churches acceptance of gay marriage, participants felt the Church

had moved the line between right and wrong in order to be inclusive, this was viewed as

problematic:

“Adultery is in the 10 commandments, therefore you’re forcing [gay individuals] to sin

because you’re not allowing them to get married…if you allow marriage then you’re not

breaking the 10 commandments anymore which in some ways makes it easier to ignore the

verses and say it’s all contextual. Where do you draw the line? …since gay marriage has

been more accepted it feels like the church is giving a cop out clause”-ER

30

The discussion echoes Rubin’s ‘imaginary line’ and also helps to answer research question,

5. “How do Christians navigate the prevailing cultural acceptance of homosexuality with a

seemingly opposing steadfast guideline from God?”

When a situation is perceived as political and associated with the public sphere, fairness,

inclusiveness and acceptance were favourable. Where morality and the private personal

sphere were concerned, it was agreed that one should have freedom to express

disagreement with homosexuality without being accused of judging.

This discussion highlights difficulties as a result of indistinction between personal and

political issues. This dilemma is symptomatic of secularisation and postmodernism - having

changed British society from a theonomous culture to an autonomous culture, each person

now dictates their own moral prerogative rather than believing truths to be dictated by God.

The problem comes when individuals and communities feel the need to dictate the beliefs

of others as well as their own, this echoes Rokeache’s definition of values being those which

we are compelled to persuade others to conform to.

Thematic Network for Truth

This theme concerns particpants biblical intepretation. The majority of participants took the

Bible passages regarding homosexuality at face value. As one participant stated, “the Bible is

the word of God and the total truth”. Moreover, for older participants I observed that it

31

served as a stabilising function amidst a shifting society. This became evident when one

participant mentioned a hymn he sang as a boy and participants began singing:

“Yesterday today and forever, Jesus is the same.

All may change but Jesus never, glory to his name”

‘God’s word’ was viewed as an unfaltering strength, which served as a source of stability for

some participants 11

The participants who took a less traditional view of the Bible could be understood in

Hodge’s (2005) terms as, “progressive” Christians. These individuals viewed the Bible as

contextual. Some of these took a ‘reformed view’ including one gay participant but most

were wrestling with interpretations, but favouring a more liberal stance, for example :

“I really worry about these two New Testament verses, what I find hard is trying to match

some of the commited loving monogamous relationships I've seen among gay friends, with

this bracketing them with such a heinous list12. And my question would be, we spend a lot of

time on this topic, is this really the worst in God’s eyes? I don’t know if I'm adapting to social

morals and all that but I'm on a journey really, trying to work out this, But I don’t find these

two verses, in the light of the context really very convincing”

The theme of truth also pertains to research question 5. “How do Christians navigate the

prevailing cultural acceptance of homosexuality with a seemingly opposing steadfast

guideline from God?” My analysis suggests that the way in which participants navigate

11 It became clear to me personally at the time that the change spoken of in this rhyme was felt by my participants to be something negative, change was not progressive but has tainted what was before. On reflection this notion remains.12 GMT is referring to the verse 1 Corinthians 6:9, “The wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God; sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes and homosexual offenders”.

32

these issues is tied up with whether the Bible is interpreted from a traditional or reformed

approach. When the Bible is interpreted traditionally, prevailing cultural acceptance is

viewed as contrary to Gods will, and thus participants own beliefs. When the Bible was

interpreted with an emphasis on contextual interpretation, it was possible to successfully

integrate positive perceptions of homosexuality with Christian beliefs; this was only explicit

in two cases, one 18 year old participant and one 27 year old gay participant.

Thematic Network for Human Relationships

‘Human relationships’ refer to relationships of a romantic or sexual nature. The theme of

the sacred order included descriptions of God’s design. For example, “the whole point of

marriage being a sacrament is that it’s a God thing, and the union is a union that God has

established and blessed”. This definition of marriage as a gift from God was used to defend

heterosexual marriage as the ideal and to argue against marriage equality. These

arguments echo the suggestion of religious coping theory; that some Christians may see

homosexuality as desecrating religious values. One participant states that she couldn’t help

thinking that gay marriage was a “perversion of what God ideals for us”.

33

Regarding “the natural order”, the fact that two members of the same sex cannot reproduce

naturally was cited as proof that gay relationships oppose God’s design. As one participant

put it,

“The bits don’t fit together, male and female were meant to procreate so I suppose at a very

basic fundamental level I don’t think it’s [gay sex/relations] part of creation”.

The Christian belief that God created all individuals implies that God has created individuals

with their respective sexual orientations. Many of the Christains oppose this using the

general argument that non-heterosexual orientations came about as a result of the “fall”;

the idea that humankind disobeyed God and consequently sin and suffering entered the

world. Homosexuality was percieved as one symptom of an imperfect world . The vicar of

the church explains:

“The reference to "God placing same sex desires within individuals" suggests that the sole

source of these desires is God. I believe that same-sex desires are, just like desires for

heterosexual sex outside marriage, part of the pain of living in a fallen world.”

During the focus groups I observed that for people who accepted that sexual orientation

was not a choice, any non-heterosexual desires were viewed as an affliction. When

participants were asked whether they felt this perception of homosexuality was potentially

damaging, the general response was that the brokeness and sinfulness of the world, is

shared by all human beings in some way or other hence, “we are all sinners”. This idea can

be understood with a full comprehension of the Christian belief system, but this is not part

of the world view of the majority of the secular British population to whom this idea

appears destructive. Indeed these ideas when skewed are associated with destructive

34

practices and behaviours like reparative therapies. Despite the emphasis on the

transcending love and forgiveness of God, the view that homosexual acts are something to

be forgiven remains problematic.

“The social order” theme of human relationships refers to views that regard marriage as a

social construct invented for purposes such as the inheritance of wealth. This view was held

by only 3 participants, one of whom was straight, two of whom were gay.

Another element of the social order theme opposed same sex marriage based on ideas

about traditional gender roles including the idea that male and female traits compliment

each other. This was viewed as particularly important to child rearing; “ I think a father and

a mother give a combination which a same sex couple cannot possibly achieve”.

These explanations of homosexuality in relation to human relationships serve as another

route for Christians to navigate the prevailing cultural acceptance of homosexuality with the

seemingly opposing steadfast guideline from God. In particular they allow the appreciation

of homosexuality as a reality for gay individuals, and enable homosexuality to be classified

as not God intended without the element of condemnation permitted by the idea that “we

are all sinners”, therefore one who is imperfect cannot judge anothers imperfections.

Thematic Network for Concerns about the Future

35

One approach towards homosexuality was reagrding its contribution to society’s progress.

Many people in Britian would agree that the same sex marriage ruling was a huge step for

progress, acceptance, individual freedom of expression and most importantly equality.

Most of my heterosexual participants disagreed though one participant viewed it in a

relatively positive light:

“If its about forming a healthy environment where children can grow up…then society has

moved on in that respect. A gay couple can provide a very secure home environment and

often a…much wealthier environment possibly, through adoption. And so modern day

society, in terms of a balanced home environment for a child, is not necessarily saying that a

child’s not going to get that with gay parents at all.”

Particularly interesting was this participant’s focus on society having changed in order to

make gay parenting viable. Often social problems are viewed as the fault of a certain (often

minority) group, rather than the cultural meanings given to behaviour and the

consequences thereof in terms of power relations and stigma. This view was rare amongst

my participants, a more typical perspective was:

“ Most of what we do is for the benefit of society, whether we get on with one another,

whether we work together, but myself I don’t see where homosexuality fits in with that. I

don’t think it pushes things forward.”

This discussion is helpful when answering the research question 1. “Are Christians

influenced by wider public discourse regarding homosexuality?” For many of my

participants, cultural acceptance of homosexuality and moreover an increase in emphasis

on sexual freedom was associated with promiscuity and sexual immorality rather than

36

progress. This negative stigma attatched to sexual freedom lead to a particular worry about

its effect on youth. I found the majority Christians in my study have not been influenced by

wider public discourse regarding homosexuality, only 2 held a reformed interpretation of

scripture, and a further 4 appeared to be uncertain of their own views. Many of the

participants in my study find security in the unchanging nature of God and view the public

discourse surrounding sexuality as negative. , oftentimes participants seem to exhibit liberal

views which are then restricted by Bible passages. Here participants may be influenced by

wider cultural values but this is rewound by what their faith prescribes.

Having touched on questions one, three four and five, I will now outline my analysis of the

age differences between groups to answer question 2. “Has public discourse lead to a

liberalisation of Christian beliefs?” .

Table of view types observed in each focus group in percent.

Youngest focus group

37

View Type Youngest Middle Eldest

Liberal 12% 3% 0%Reformed 11% 6% 14%Traditional 31% 79% 71%Uncertain 19% 9% 10%Personal Choice 27% 3% 5%Total views observed 26 35 21

Age Group

Growing up in a more liberal context has not necessarily lead to more liberal views; there

were less traditional views compared to the other two groups but within the group itself the

most commonly held views were still of a traditional nature. Despite this I suggest that

growing up in a more secular environment has resulted in more individualist values, this is

shown by the personal choice category being notably higher within this age group. Levels of

uncertainty were also relatively high within the youngest age group which may also be

explained by the lack of traditional or collectivist regulation present in contemporary

society. I suggest that secular culture has not lead to an obvious liberal approach to

homosexuality, but has contributed to a more individualist and uncertain approach as the

younger participants attempt to reflexively negotiate conflicting secular and religious

influences to establish where they stand in relation to homosexuality.

Middle aged focus group

The middle aged group exhibited the highest percentage of traditional views of all the age

groups. This was unforeseen as I hypothesised older participants to have more traditional

views than the middle aged group.

The overriding notion of the middle aged focus group was their dissatisfaction with the

Church of England’s leadership, this may explain the dominance of traditional views. As

some branches of the church are beginning to reform their views and take an acceptant

approach, the majority of participants demonstrated frustration that the church was

“bowing to political pressure”. On reflection, this view was a symptom of a larger concern

about the social change that was taking place. I suggest that this frustration indicates that

when confronted with secular pressure and a religious cleavage, actors who generally

dissaprove of homosexuailty are now assessing their context and deciding how to act

38

rationally within the opportunities and constraints they are presented with. As a result they

return more strictly to traditional Biblical teachings in defense of their beliefs which they

percieve to be under threat.

Oldest focus group

Unsurprisingly, traditional views were the most widely held amongst this age group. More

surprising were the levels of reformed views, despite the lack of liberal views observed. I

did detect that the older participants who held reformed views had made a concerted effort

to study the relevant passages more rigorously and have since questioned what they had

always been taught.

The older cohort were less concerned about the threat of secular pressure, I observed an

underlying confidence and security of faith which was not so evident in the other two age

groups and the topic of political debate was never mentioned. What was mentioned was

that the treatment of homosexuals was radically different when they were young, many

pointed out the fact that gay men would be arrested on a regular basis (a prospect which

they all now agree is unjust). This highlights the fact that it is not the first time in their

lifetime that Christianity has changed its stance on matters in response to cultural calls, for

example, women being allowed to become bishops. As indicated by their singing: “All may

change but Jesus never”, these participants were acceptant of social change but were

certain that what their belief system rested upon would remain the same, and this was a

source of comfort. Therefore, the issue of homosexuality did not seem to have contentious

implications for their faith as for the middle aged focus group. As well as some starkly held

traditional views, the older focus group exhibited a relatively high level of uncertainty. I

suspect this uncertainty of stance was tied up both with the reformed views which were

39

expressed by some, and with their acceptance that times do change and that what people

often feel strongly to be right are proven wrong with time. This focus group valued the

Christian teachings of love and acceptance far more highly than the aspects of sexual

morality, thus despite their traditional views in most cases, the oldest focus group was

where I detected the most well intentioned compassion. As one of my participants stated,

“Life softens you”.

Summary

To summarise, the research questions are answered below:

1. “Are Christians influenced by wider public discourse regarding homosexuality?”

Generally the answer is no. There were instances in which participants took a reformed

interpretation of scripture but this was a minority within my sample. When participants

appeared to be striving for acceptance (as a result of public discourse), the Biblical

prescriptions about homosexuality ended up deconstructing these efforts. In this way,

traditional biblical interpretations can be seen as a barrier to the influence of the wider

public discourse of acceptance. A consideration of the Christian belief system also goes

some way to explaining the persistence of traditional values. As defined by Rokeach to say

one has a value “is to say that he has an enduring belief that a particular mode of conduct or

that a particular end state of existence is personally and socially preferable to alternative

modes of conduct or end states of existence.”(550) The desirable “end state of existence”

for my participants was eternal life with God, and this was reached through living life in the

ways God prescribes (taught in the Bible). This explains why participants living within a

secular culture do not embrace the values of public discourse, because they don’t see

40

themselves as subject to society’s standards but to another set of standards entirely, Gods

standards. This explains why participants may consciously refuse to integrate more liberal

ideas about homosexuality.

2. “Has public discourse lead to a liberalisation of Christian beliefs?”

This was investigated through a comparison of the view types held by three different age

cohorts. This analysis showed that public discourse has not lead to an explicit liberalisation,

as such the most prominent view type was traditional regardless of age. But the prevalence

of ‘personal choice’ and ‘uncertain’ view types attest to the influence of post modernity and

liberal secular attitudes upon individual stances, particularly in the younger age group.

3. “Do the Church of England’s published prescriptions on sexuality reflect the

opinions of Christian individuals?”

This was contentious for the middle aged participants. The reformed opinion of the church

having accepted that some gay individuals can experience their sexuality as a call from God

was perceived as the church crumbling under political pressure, and as such contradictory

with scripture. These frustrations lead to a return to traditional views in defence of their

faith.

4. “How do Christians respond to homosexuality?”

For Christians in this study, homosexuality conflicts with their religious beliefs. There was a

need to differentiate homosexual inclination from homosexual acts; these were seen as

acceptable and sinful respectively. In terms of the response to gay individuals, participants

41

emphasised their responsibility to show the transcending love of God and the compassion

that Jesus showed.

5. “How do Christians navigate the prevailing cultural acceptance of homosexuality

with a seemingly opposing steadfast guideline from God?”

Participants navigations of these opposing influences can be illustrated by the underpinning

global themes of ‘Transcending love’, ‘Human autonomy’, ‘Truth’, ‘Human relationships’

and ‘Concerns about the future’. The opinions of participants regarding these themes

determined their stance with regard to prevailing cultural acceptance and Biblical guidelines

concerning homosexuality. The most significant determinant was whether a reformed or

traditional interpretation of scripture was used. In addition the global theme of ‘human

autonomy’ highlighted the obscurity of the public- private, and moral- political boundaries

as problematic for participants’ navigation.

Conclusion

The Christian stance regarding homosexuality is inherently problematic despite the

emphasis on compassion and forgiveness. Ultimately, my study shows that traditional values

have resisted wider cultural acceptance of homosexuality. A reformed view of scripture is

rare amongst my participants which means that true integration of sexual freedom values

with Christian faith is compromised. Sexual freedom and religious liberty are both values

which seem eminently worth preserving. With this in mind “it is more a question of charting

the possible paths, clarifying choice, and learning to live with our irreducible diversity.”

(Weeks 1995:51).

42

The findings of this study show an increase in ‘personal choice views’, particularly amongst

the younger participants, these were based on the principles of tolerance and autonomy

whereby individuals govern only their own values and do not try to dictate or remark on the

values of others. In addition, the prominent concern with the political and moral spheres are

symptomatic of the inextricably bound public and private arenas which include the politics

of rights (Weeks 1995). The lack of definition between these arenas contributes to conflict

and manifests in hostility, for it is when religious beliefs inform political issues that they

begin to impinge on the rights of others.

These views suggest that rather than attempting to change the values of either the

homosexual or Christian community, it would be more helpful to better distinguish the

public and private spheres and to build upon the notion of tolerance which can already be

observed in my participant’s navigation of these conflicts. I also propose a need for an

organisation of values which emphasises tolerance of difference and diversity without a

hierarchical organisation. This may be harder to achieve considering human values have

been theorised as hierarchical goal oriented systems. Nevertheless, the well intentioned

compassion, and the agreement that one “cannot judge” is encouraging and shows a

growing notion of respect despite difference.

As for the most suitable path to the preservation of both sexual freedom and religious

liberty, I suggest this study’s findings support the application of secularist principles. As

defined by Audi (1989) Secularism includes three basic principles. The “libertarian principle”

is a principle of tolerance which holds that the state must allow the practice of any religion

within certain limits. The second principle is one of impartiality, the “equalitarian principle”

which holds that the state must not give any preference to one religion over another. The

43

third principle is the “neutrality principle” which says that the state should neither favour,

nor disfavour religion, (this includes favouring or disfavouring a lack of religion also). When

these principles are applied to a democratic society, structural barriers to religious freedom,

sexual equality, and protection of free speech and expression, will be removed. This adheres

to a fairer and more equal society for all, regardless of sexual orientation or religious faith.

In terms of individual values and attitudes, a secular society enables a clearer navigation

between moral and political arenas and may help to promote the growing notion of

freedom of personal choice, tolerance, and most importantly, respect for others despite

difference. In a society characterised by uncertainty and diversity, secularism may support

the search “ to find ways of living, and loving, together, in a world within intrinsic meaning

or foundational givens, which are securely rooted in our common humanity and our care

and responsibility for each other” (Weeks 1995: xi) .

Bibliography

Adamczyk, A., and Pitt, C. (2009) Shaping attitudes about homosexuality: The role of religion and cultural context. Social Science Research 38(2): 338-351.

Aubyn,S. Gorsuch,L. Maynard,A.(1999) Religious Orientation, Antihomosexual Sentiment, and Fundamentalism among Christians.: Journal for the scientific study of religion,38(1):14-22.

Audi, Robert. (1989) The separation of church and state and the obligations of citizenship. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 18(3): 259-296.

Barton, B. (2010) “Abomination”—Life as a Bible Belt Gay. Journal of Homosexuality, 57(4),:465-484.

44

Bauer, M., Gaskell,G. (2000) Qualitative Researching with text image and sound. London :Sage.

Bayer, R. (1987). Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnosis. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Beck, U., and Giddens, A., and Lash, S. (1994) Reflexive modernization: Politics, tradition and aesthetics in the modern social order. Stanford University Press.

Brown, R., & Williams, J. (1984). Group identification: The same thing to all people?. Human Relations, 37(7), 547-564.

Bruce, S. (1995) The truth about religion in Britain. Journal for the scientific study of religion, 34(4): 417-430.

Bruner, J. S. (1991). The narrative construction of reality. Critical Inquiry, 18, 1–21.

Burdette, A.M., Ellison, C.G., Hill, T., (2005) Conservative Protestantism and tolerance toward homosexuals: an examination of potential mechanisms. Sociological Inquiry (75): 177–196.

Burhans, D. (1971) The attitude-behavior discrepancy problem: revisited, Quarterly Journal of Speech, 57(4):418.

Cassell, C. and Symon, G. (2004) Essential Guide to Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research, California, Sage Publications

Chalfant, H. P., & Heller, P. L. (1991) Rural/urban versus regional differences in religiosity. Review of Religious Research, 33(1):76-86.

Charmaz, K. (2006) Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Pine Forge Press.

Crossley, M. (2002) “Could you please pass one of those health leaflets along?”: Exploring health, morality and resistance through focus groups. Social Science and Medicine,55(8):1471-1483.

Dow,B. (2001) Ellen, Television, and the Politics of Gay and Lesbian Visibility, Critical Studies in Media Communication,18(2):123-140.

Davie, G. (1994) Religion in Britain Since 1945: Believing Without Belonging, Oxford: Blackwell.

45

DiMaggio P, Evans J, Bryson B. (1996) Have Americans’ social attitudes become more polarized? American Journal of Sociology 102(3): 690-755.

D'Emilio, J. (2002) The world turned: Essays on gay history, politics, and culture. Duke University Press.

DePalma, R., & Jennett, M. (2010) Homophobia, transphobia and culture: Deconstructing heteronormativity in English primary schools. Intercultural Education, 21(1):15-26.

Dobbelaere, K. (1999) Towards an integrated perspective of the processes related to the descriptive concept of secularization. Sociology of religion 60(3):229-247.

Dolitsky,A., and Kuz’mina,L. (1986). Cultural change vs. persistence: A case from Old Believer settlements. Arctic 38(3): 223-231.

D’Emilio, J. (2002) The World Turned: Essays on Gay History, Politics and Culture. Duke University Press.

Esterberg, K.G.(2002).Qualitative methods in social research. Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Finlay, B., & Walther, C. S. (2003) The relation of religious affiliation, service attendance, and other factors to homophobic attitudes among university students. Review of Religious Research 44 (4):370-393.

Fullerton, J. T., & Hunsberger, B. (1982). A unidimensional measure of Christian orthodoxy. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 317-326.

Giddens, A. (1991) Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in the late modern age. Stanford University Press.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (2009) The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Transaction Publishers.

Glendinning, T., and Bruce, S. (2006) New ways of believing or belonging: is religion giving way to spirituality? The British Journal of Sociology, 57 (3): 399-414.

Gorman, E. M. (1980). A new light on Zion: A study of three homosexual religious congregations in urban America (Doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago).

Greeley, M.(1972) The denominational society: A sociological approach to religion in America. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.

Grube, J.W.(ed.) (1994): Inducing change in values, attitudes, and behaviours: Belief systemtheory and the method of value self-confrontation. Journal of Social Issues, 50, 4, 153-173.

Herek, G.(2004). Beyond “homophobia”: Thinking about sexual prejudice and stigma in the twenty-first century. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 1 (2): 6-24.

46

Hodge,D(2005) Epistemological frameworks, homosexuality, and religion: how people of faith understand the intersection between homosexuality and religion. Social Work [serial online], 50(3):207-218.

Inglehart, R., and E. Baker, W.(2000) Modernization, cultural change, and the persistence of traditional values. American sociological review, 65(1):19-51.

Inglehart, R. (2008) Changing values among western publics from 1970 to 2006. West European Politics 31(1-2): 130-146.

Kehily, M. J., & Nayak, A. (1997) 'Lads and laughter': humour and the production of heterosexual hierarchies. Gender and Education, 9(1): 69-88.

Kettell, S. (2009) On the public discourse of religion: An analysis of Christianity in the United Kingdom. Politics and Religion, 2 (3): 420-443.

Kirkpatrick,L(1993) Fundamentalism, Christian Orthodoxy, and Intrinsic Religious Orientation as Predictors of Discriminatory attitudes. Journal for the Scientific study of Religion,32(3):256-268.

Kitzinger,J. (1994) The methodology of focus groups: The importance of interaction between research participants. Sociology of Health and Illness, 16(1): 104-121.

Lambeth Conference. (1998) Section 1. from http://www.anglicancommunion.org/lambeth/1/sect1rpt.html DOA: June 2015.

Mouzelis, N.(2012) Modernity and the Secularization debate. Sociology, 46 (2): 207-223.

McAdams, D. P. (1993) The stories we live by: Personal myths and the making of the self. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

McCormack, M. (2011) Mapping the terrain of homosexually-themed language. Journal of homosexuality, 58(5): 664-679.

McCormack, M. (2014) The intersection of youth masculinities, decreasing homophobia and class: an ethnography. The British journal of sociology, 65(1): 130-149.

McQueeney, K. (2009) "We are God's Children, Y'All:" Race, Gender, and Sexuality in Lesbian- and Gay-Affirming Congregations. Social problems (Berkeley, Calif.) 56 (1):0037-7791.

47

Newman, J (1982) Foundations of Religious Intolerance. Toronto, University of Toronto Press.

Pargament, K. I. (1999) The psychology of religion and spirituality? Yes and no. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 9(1): 3-16.

Pargament, K. I. (2001) The psychology of religion and coping: Theory, research, practice. Guilford Press.

Pargament, K. I., Trevino, K., Mahoney, A., & Silberman, I. (2007) They Killed Our Lord: The Perception of Jews as Desecrators of Christianity as a Predictor of Anti‐Semitism. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 46(2):143-158.

Park, A., & National Centre for Social Research. NatCen. (2012). British social attitudes: The 28th report : 2011 - 2012 edition. Los Angeles, Calif: SAGE.

Pollack, D.,and Olson, D (eds.) (2012) The role of religion in modern societies. London: Routledge.

Reinherz, S. (1992). Feminist Methods in social research. New York: Oxford University Press.

Rodriguez, E. M., & Ouellette, S. C. (2000) Gay and Lesbian Christians: Homosexual and Religious Identity Integration in the Members and Participants of a Gay‐Positive Church. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 39(3): 333-347.

Rokeach, M. (1968) Beliefs, attitudes and values: A theory of organization and change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Rubin, G. (1984) Thinking sex: Notes for a radical theory of the politics of sexuality. In, CS Vance (Ed.), Pleasure and danger: Exploring female sexuality pp. 267-319.

Siebert, D. C., Chonody, J., Rutledge, S. E., & Killian, M. (2008). The index of attitudes toward homosexuals 30 years later: A psychometric study. Research on Social Work Practice, 19 (2): 214-220.

Shokeid, M. (1995). A Gay Synagogue in New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Roccas, S., & Schwartz, S. H. (1997) Church-state relations and the association of religiosity with values: A study of Catholics in six countries. Cross-Cultural Research, 31(4): 356-375.

48

Severson, N., Muñoz-Laboy, M., & Kaufman, R. (2014) ‘At times, I feel like I'm sinning’: the paradoxical role of non-lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender-affirming religion in the lives of behaviourally-bisexual Latino men. Culture, health & sexuality, 16(2): 136-148.

Shokeid, M. (1995) A gay synagogue in New York. New York: Columbia UniversityPress.

Stark, R., and Iannaccone, L.(1994) A supply-side reinterpretation of the" secularization" of Europe. Journal for the scientific study of religion, 33 (3): 230-252.

Storr, M. (2001) New Labour, New Britain, new sexual values?. Social epistemology, 15(2): 113-126.

Strauss,A., Corbin,J.(1990) Basics of Qualitative Research, Grounded Theory procedures and Techniques, London: SAGE.

Subhi,N., Geelan,D. (2012) When Christianity and Homosexuality Collide: Understanding the Potential Intrapersonal Conflict. Journal of Homosexuality, 59(10):1382-1402.

Taylor, C. (2007) A secular age, Cambridge : University Press.

Thumma, S. (1991).Negotiating a religious identity: The case of the gay evangelical. Sociology of Religion, 52(4):333-347.

Trevino, Kelly M., et al. (2012) "Perceptions of lesbian and gay (LG) individuals as desecrators of Christianity as predictors of anti-LG attitudes. Journal of homosexuality 59(4):535-563.

Turner, Y. (2014) The twenty-first century challenges to sexuality and religion. Journal of religion and health, 53(2):0022-4197.

Voas, D. and Crockett, A. (2005) Religion in Britain: Neither Believing Nor Belonging, Sociology 39(1): 11–28.

Heelas, P. and Woodhead, L. (2005) The Spiritual Revolution: Why Religion is Giving Way to Spirituality, Oxford: Blackwell.

Wallace, Anthony F. C. (1966) Religion: An anthropological view. New York: Random House.

Weeks, J (1995) Invented Moralities: Sexual values in an age of uncertainty. New York : Columbia University Press.

49

Wilson, R. (1966) Religion in secular society. London: C.A. Watts & Co.

Wilson, R. (1982) Religion in sociological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Yip, A.K.T. (1999) The politics of counter-rejection: Gay Christians and the church.

Journal of Homosexuality, 37(10): 47-63.

Appendix 1 : Pilot Survey

50

51

Appendix 2 : Consent Form

RESEARCH PARTICIPANT CONSENT FORM

Purpose

You are being asked to participate in a research study. I hope gain an understanding of Christian believers’ attitudes and opinions about homosexual orientations.

52

I hope to build a picture of the ways in which Christians view LGBT groups and individuals, understand the negotiation of beliefs, and to ascertain whether the picture differs depending on age.

Results from the project will be used to write my Dissertation for my Social Research Methods Msc.

Procedures

If you decide to volunteer you will be asked to participate in an in-depth interview. During which we will explore your beliefs and attitudes and your regarding the stance of many Christians.

With your permission I will record your interview.

Risk

There are no risks to you for participation in this study

Confidentiality

Any information you give will be held as strictly confidential. Your name or any identifying characteristics will not be used in any way. Any named papers will be destroyed.

Participants Initials:…………………………

Costs

There is no cost you beyond the time and effort that is required in completing the procedures above.

Right to Refuse or Withdraw

You may refuse to participate in this study. If you decide to participate you may change your mind about being in the study and withdraw at any time. Your refusal to participate will not affect you in any way. During the interview you may decline to answer any questions.

Name and Status of Investigator

Grace Brown

Msc Honors Student of the London School of Economics

If you have any questions please ask me.

Consent Statement

53

I agree to take part in this research, and I am aware that I am free to withdraw at any point. I understand that the information I provide will be treated in confidence by the investigator and that my identity will be protected in the publication of any findings.

Initial………………………….

Age……………………………

Sexual orientation…………….

Gender…………………………

Occupation…………………….

Highest level of education……..

Signature………………………

Date……………………………

Appendix 3: Code Book

Codes Issues Discussed Themes identified-Love-Acceptance-Compassion-Forgiveness-Pastoral treatment-Disapproval- Judgement-Inclination vs. Action

Jesus loved everyone. Christians accepting

homosexuals. Examples of Christians

showing God’s compassion and love.

Define judgement. “We are all sinners”

1. The view that Christians cannot condone behaviour yet still embrace the individual.

-Identity-Freedom-Self expression-Personal choice-Prejudice-Condemnation-Groups

It is important to be honest about who you are.

Christianity as restricting sexual freedom.

Individualisation. Political Correctness. Sexual orientation as

ones identity/not. Church as scapegoat.

2. The view that Christians are persecuted for their beliefs about homosexuality.

3. The view that everyone has a right to an opinion.

4. There is a need to distinguish between moral and political

54

views.5. The Church is

perceived as evading issues to avoid vilification and as contradictory in its approach towards homosexuality.

-Truth-Stoicism-Reformed view-Science-Principles-Scripture

The Bible as undeniable truth.

“All may change but Jesus never”.

Context.

6. The Bible is viewed as the word of God and its steadfast nature is a source of stability for participants in a changing world.

7. Context is important when interpreting scripture (more so for youngest focus group and gay participants than for middle and eldest focus group.)

-God’s design/plan-Nature-Sex-Intimacy- Choice

Marriage as sacred. Reproduction. Traditional gender

roles. Child rearing. Whether

homosexuality as a choice or not, science as justification.

Sex as sacred. Sex as instinctual.

8. The view of a God intended plan for human relationships and sex, this includes sacred marriage between a man and a woman, and homosexuality goes against this ideal.

9. Marriage is a social institution/Marriage is sacred.

-Promiscuity-Damaging-Stigma

Celibacy. Sexual immorality.

Homosexuality as wrong.

-Age-Environment-Culture

Generational differences.

Societal acceptance. Leadership and

influence on youth.

10. Debate about whether homosexuality contributes positively to society.

11. Contemporary sexual values, for example sexual experimentation and polygamy are perceived as damaging to individuals and society, particularly impressionable youth.

-Church of England stance-Confusion

Church bowing to political pressure.

12. There is a need to distinguish between

55

-Political Pressure-Consistency

“Fudging issues” Contradictions. Struggling with

opinions.

moral and political views.

13. The Church is perceived as evading issues to avoid vilification and as contradictory in its approach towards homosexuality.

Appendix 4: From Basic Themes to Global Themes

Basic Themes Organising Themes Global Themes

1. The view that Christians cannot condone behaviour yet still embrace the individual.

2. Compassion

Love and forgiveness and compassion as fundamental to Christianity.

Love despite difference.

Transcending Love.

3. The view that Christians are persecuted for their beliefs about homosexuality.

4. The view that everyone has a right to an opinion.

5. There is a need to distinguish between moral and political views.

6. The Church is perceived as evading

Autonomous Society brings a need for mutual tolerance of differences.

Freedom.

Human Autonomy.

56

issues to avoid vilification and as contradictory in its approach towards homosexuality.

7. The Bible is viewed as the word of God and its steadfast nature is a source of stability for participants in a changing world.

8. Context is important when interpreting scripture (more so for youngest focus group and gay participants than for middle and eldest focus group.)

The Bible as the word of God.

The Bible as a contextual document.

Truth.

9. The view of a God intended plan for human relationships and sex, this includes sacred marriage between a man and a woman, and homosexuality goes against this ideal.

10. Marriage is a social institution/Marriage is sacred.

The sacred order.

The natural order.

The social order

Human Relationships.

11. Debate about whether homosexuality contributes positively to society.

12. Contemporary sexual values, for example sexual experimentation and polygamy are perceived as damaging to individuals and society, particularly impressionable youth.

Progress.

Influence on young people.

Concerns about the future.

Appendix 5. Topic Guide

Topic Guide- Potential questions in red.

Where does it come from?

I. Scripture

A. What are our thoughts about what the bible is saying here?

57

Context? does context change how we interpret teachings on sexuality?

Nature? Romans 1.26

Reproduction?

God intended?

Culture of the time?

Taken from Christiangays.com, " It is our belief that the Original Scriptures, when

understood in the correct context and culture of their time, make no mention of

homosexuality. References to same sex acts were with regard to rape, domination, idol

worship, purity laws for the priest etc. We condemn these acts swell, but recognise that

they do not relate in any way to a loving , monogamous relationship between two people of

the same sex". - How do we feel about this? Does taking context into consideration change

things? A reinterpretation of Scripture, is this sound? "Makes no mention of

homosexuality"? - "Leviticus 18 seems to...

1. What the Church of England is saying

Do you agree with this approach?

Calls for homosexuals to live a life of chastity?

Is is fair to treat ones sexuality as a temptation to sin? It is not the same as adultery because

its not a choice.

a. Affirming churches who claim that loving homosexual monogamous relationships are

biblical

Do we feel these churches are cracking under societal pressures of acceptance?

b. Same sex marriage bill passed in July 2013 video

Arguments for the Coalition of marriage.

Do you think reproduction and marriage should be reserved for heterosexual couples?

Why?

c4m.org.uk

"I think what was meant was for it to be within a long lasting and mutually secure, loving

58

relationship.

I think that marriage should be reserved for male -female relationships. Quite simply, the

term marriage is a Christian term, Christians created it with a certain meaning in mind. If

homosexuals want to get 'married' - great! But they can't call it marriage because that is

simply a 'Christian term'. Call it a civil partnership or whatever else you want, make it legally

binding with all the same terms and benefits as a 'Christian marriage' but you cannot call it

by the same name. Marriage is a Christian term for a certain, distinct thing which was

created thousands and thousands of years ago. You can't simply change a term which has

been in use and in existence simply because you want to. I can't make the term 'vegetables'

include small, male children simply because I want small male children to enjoy the same

benefits as vegetable... I do realise that was a terrible example, however I do hope that you

understand the point I am trying to make.

I am not against homosexual, legal commitment, just please do change a thousand year old

term, create a new name for a new thing." How do you feel about this statement?

Why not? Change= progress ? Negative exclusivity?

II. Watch Eds living out video

http://www.livingout.org/stories/ed

Ed has clearly considered and prayed about the issue.

His use of same sex attracted ness instead of Gay? Is this helpful? It implies that identifying

as Gay is something negative within Christian circles?

He resolves that God has brought much good out of his "bad" sexuality. Which is his choice

based on his experiences. but is it right to decide this for other people?

How do you feel about the argument that you should sacrifice your ability to have a sexual

relationship as a Christian because it means that you will be sinning?

A. Jayne Osanne. member of the Church of England's Archbishops' Council has a different

approach

"I couldn’t cast out my lesbian urges, so ill cast out the church's bigotry" 8th Feb 2015 The

Sunday Times

The network advocates for the Church of England to accept same-sex partnerships at

"every level of church life," and open up its leadership to practicing homosexuals — those

59

who are involved in same-sex relationships and believe God condones gay marriage.

Ozanne said that although the majority Evangelicals within the Church believe the Bible is

explicit in prohibiting homosexuality, there are increasingly many others who feel God did

not intend for those struggling with same-sex attraction to be bound to celibacy.

Susie Leafe, director of Reform, an Evangelical organization comprised of Church of England

members who advocate for traditional biblical marriage, told CP that homosexuals who

think they're justified in giving into their desires are basing their justification off of personal

experiences, not the Scripture.

"I think that when we stop seeing God's word as the final authority and start to say that our

experiences overturn that, we are rejecting God's authority in the church," Leafe said.

What do we think about this? In terms of context and todays culture?

From <http://www.christianpost.com/news/fmr-church-of-england-archbishops-council-

member-comes-out-as-gay-pushes-for-church-to-affirm-same-sex-marriage-as-biblical-

133600/>

Video of jayne ozanne- 4 mins- 4.30 6.40- 7.20

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPRbZmxCws4

She concludes that she hopes positive changes will occur, acknowledges that there will be

deep divisions but we need to keep listening to each other and having respect.

Thoughts?

III. Your experiences

What does your church say about sexuality in general?

About sex? Do you think it educates about sex?

No sex before marriage?

What do you learn about homosexuality from church/church leaders?

What do you think the general attitude towards homosexuality is in your experience of

church?

60

Have you got any gay friends who have felt conflict between Christianity and their sexuality?

How would you feel if someone close to you came out?

Does your church welcome homosexuals?

If someone younger was to ask you about issues of sexuality. What do you think you would

say to them?

IV. Secular Culture

How do you feel about how our society perceives sex?

Is too much emphasis placed on sexual gratification?

Why?

Do you think it is good to live in a sexually open society where sex is less of a taboo subject?

On the topic of nature again do you think there are any kinds of "unnatural" sex that occurs

between heterosexuals? E.g sex toys fetishes?

What do you think of having safe consensual sex for pleasure/fun? Not necessarily with a

committed partner? Why do you think this is wrong if it is?

V. Prejudice

It is kind of taken for granted that Christianity and homosexuality is characterised by

dissonance. But is this a misconception?

Do media have an influence?

Religious leaders as representative of the whole church?

Do you personally feel Christians can be prejudiced? Have you ever noticed it?

Does this appear to be a problem?

Stonewall survey Love Thy Neighbour.

Mike, now 24, used to be part of an Evangelical Christian Church and came out in his

teens. The reaction from both his parents and the church was one of such strong

disapproval he was forced back into the closet.

“When I came out to my mum aged 15 she told the Church and they were not happy with

me; they told me that being gay was very wrong,” he says. “I came out to another Church

youth leader three years later and this time was quickly linked up with someone who tried

to ‘disciple me’ to stop being gay. They cut off my internet so I couldn’t use gay websites,”

61

he says.

Generally even when homosexuality is talked about there are vibes of denial or

suppression. E.g using terms such as same sex attraction to avoid embracing an identity.

And calls for a life of chastity.

62