Church Pays £47,000 for Gay Discrimination
February 14th, 2008 by Sean
Last Friday, 42 year-old, homosexual, Christian, John Reaney was awarded £47,00 (approx. $92,000) for being denied the job as a youth worker for the Church of England based on his sexual orientation. The man had been approved for the job by an eight person panel and only needed the approval of the Bishop. However, after a two hour interview, Bishop Priddis came to understand that Reaney had just exited a five year same sex relationship. A few days after the interview Reaney received the call and learned that he had been turned down for the position. In response, and backed by the homosexual rights group “Stonewall,” Reaney sued the Hereford Diocesan Board of Finance and won. Read the recent BBC article here or an older article from last year here.
Something I was quite surprised to see is that the Bishop insisted that he had not denied Reaney the position because of his sexual orientation but because he was participating in a sexual relationship outside of marriage. In other words, the implication is that homosexuality is fine, but if you are unmarried then it becomes a problem. Even so, there are biblical texts that are quite clear on the matter (Leviticus 18.22; 20.13; Romans 1.26-27; 1 Corinthians 6.9; 1 Timothy 1.10). Does anyone know how Christians practicing homosexuality interpret these Scriptures? If there are not convincing arguments and the traditional understanding of these verses is correct, then we can certainly see some very difficult times ahead for Christians (in particular Christian leadership) who hold to the biblical teachings regarding homosexuality.
Hi Sean,
seems to me that this particular topic is no different than a few other items where biblical thought is not in harmony with (or is even contrary to) common political, state, civil government thought …
I’ve known of similar trouble with church owned kindergardens being told that they must hire teachers who are not necessarily members of that particular denomination because the civil law does not allow discremination on the basis of religious preference either …
Of course, if the church did not have a kindergarden where they hire teachers etc , they would not have these troubles either …
Cheers,
Wolfgang
I Corinthians 6:9-10 – NASB – Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.
I Corinthians 6:9-10 – NIV – Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
Notice the subtle difference? NASB – “homosexuals” vs. NIV “homosexual offenders”
Perhaps one could be a homosexual, but not “practicing” and you would not be an offender?
I Corinthians 6:9-10 – NLT – Don’t you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don’t fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality, or are thieves, or greedy people, or drunkards, or are abusive, or cheat people—none of these will inherit the Kingdom of God.
Notice the subtle “practice homosexuality”
I Corinthians 6:9-10 – TNIV – Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
Again, “practicing homosexuals” is translated.
So perhaps we could do a “Truth In Translation” on the practical implications of the translation of this word here in this text.
Some could read this and think it is okay to be a homosexual, as long as you aren’t a “practicing” one? This negates the truth of Jesus dealing with the heart of the issue so often in his teaching.
(as a side note, I think one of the most helpful parts of this section is the next verse which says “Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.” – this is not something that people have to be involved in forever, the power of our God can break the hold that any and every sin has upon us – “such were some of you” implies strongly that sin is a choice, not that “we were born this way and can’t do anything about it”)
Victor,
Good comments. I haven’t yet had the opportunity to have a conversation like that, but I imagine I’d use one example from my own life. I was born a thief. Just because I was born liking to steal things doesn’t mean God liked me doing it. I am no longer a thief. I don’t like to steal things anymore. I’m sure it will be thought of as trivial, and the response will likely be “but everyone knows stealing is wrong”. However, that is a different point than “God made me this way, therefore you have to accept it as an viable option from God’s point of view”
Victor,
I have heard that “homosexual offender” (cf. NIV of 1 Cor 6.10) is referring to someone who is having promiscuous sexual relations with multiple partners whereas one is perfectly within his or her Christian rights to have homosexual relations within a monogamous relationship.
Wolfgang,
This is exactly the problem with a state church. The government has a say in what the church does. This is obviously not a good model.
Hi Sean,
indeed … and I think we here in Europe have most likely closer ties between church and state than are evident in the USA and perhaps in other places.
Cheers,
Wolfgang