Vicky Beeching’s challenge to evangelicals about same-sex marriage

Christianity magazine has just published an interview by editor Justin Brierley with British Christian singer-songwriter Vicky Beeching (left), who self-identified as ‘gay’ in a high profile ‘coming out’ on 14 August.

Beeching, who is a media personality in her own right and has over 52,000 followers on twitter, has listed over 70 almost exclusively positive media reports covering the event on her website.

Earlier this year she joined the group Accepting Evangelicals, who back same-sex marriage, as a patron.

At one level it is not at all unusual today for Christians to admit to feelings of same-sex attraction or to identify as ‘gay’.

Furthermore, those who do, perhaps unlike in earlier generations, are in my experience, generally now treated in evangelical churches with warmth, grace and understanding. Having said this I fully accept that this is not always the case and Vicky's own early experience bears this out.  

I personally know many Christians who would describe themselves as either same sex attracted or having a homosexual or bisexual orientation.

In fact a number of prominent evangelical leaders, in order to help others, launched the Living Out website last November to share their testimonies about their own personal experience of same sex attraction and to explain how they had handled it.

But whilst the ‘Living Out’ leaders express their intention to remain committed to biblical teaching on sexual morality in practice (see my earlier post ‘Should ‘gay’ Christians be true to their feelings?’), Vicky Beeching says she intends to marry a same sex partner.

‘My goal is to find a soulmate and get married; that is what most of us are made to do. God said it is not good that people are alone.’

Furthermore she believes she can do this without relinquishing her claim to be an evangelical. This is what has attracted so much media attention.

‘People have told me that I don’t have the right to that name (‘evangelical’) any more as I’ve spoken in support of same-sex marriage, but for me evangelicalism is rooted in many things: loving the Bible; having a high view of scripture; a passion for social justice; wanting to share the good news about Jesus.  These are all things I hold true to. So I don’t see why there should be a black and white issue that casts me out.’ 

I do not doubt Vicky’s sincerity and indeed share her professed love for the Bible, passion for social justice and her desire to share the good news about Jesus. But I believe she has crossed a significant rubicon with respect to her expressed views and proposed actions on sexual behaviour. At the same time she has laid down a significant challenge to evangelical Christians and must not be simply ignored.

I’ve previously reviewed the Bible’s teaching on sexuality on this blog and Robert Gagnon and Ian Paul (see here and  here) have more recently published some helpful reflections responding to Beeching’s biblical arguments in support of her stand.

I’ve also previously listed on my blog six excellent resources giving an evangelical perspective on homosexuality.

In short, the Bible teaches that the only moral context for sex is within a life-long monogamous heterosexual marriage relationship. All sex outside this context constitutes sexual immorality (Greek porneia). This includes all sex between two people of the same sex whether legally 'married' or not. 

‘But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God’s holy people.’ (Ephesians 5:3)

‘It is God’s will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality;  that each of you should learn to control your own body in a way that is holy and honourable….For God did not call us to be impure, but to live a holy life. Therefore, anyone who rejects this instruction does not reject a human being but God, the very God who gives you his Holy Spirit.’ (1 Thessalonians 4:3-8)

I am not intending to revisit this teaching in detail here. Rather, especially for those who accept the biblical teaching on this issue at face value, I want to look at what the Bible teaches about Christians endorsing or practising what it classes as sexual immorality.  I have deliberately included Bible quotes rather than just giving references as I am convinced that many evangelicals are genuinely not aware of what the Bible actually says. 

First, the Bible is clear that sexual morality is not a ‘secondary issue’ on which Christians may legitimately disagree and on which there are a variety of acceptable views. Rather continuing in sexually immoral behaviour can put one’s own salvation at risk:

‘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 men who have sex with men… will inherit the kingdom of God.’ (1 Corinthians 6:9,10)

This is not to suggest that we are saved by good works. Rather it upholds the biblical teaching that genuine faith is evidenced in moral behaviour (more on this here). Furthermore, the Apostle Paul makes it clear that God views sex between two women in the same way that he views sex between two men.

‘Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.’ (Romans 1:26, 27)

The writer to the Hebrews makes it clear that God views those with a Christian testimony who willfully return to habitual sin very seriously indeed:

^‘ It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit,  who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age and who have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance. To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.’  (Hebrews 6:4-6)

‘If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left,  but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God... How much more severely do you think someone deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified them, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?’ (Hebrews 10:26-29)

‘If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and are overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them.’ (2 Peter 2:20,21)

Whilst the Bible is very clear that Christians should not judge those outside the church, dealing with those inside the church is a different matter altogether:

‘I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.’ (1 Corinthians 5:10-11)

It might be objected that Vicky Beeching, and others who share her views, have not yet moved from publicly endorsing same sex marriage (and all that it involves) to participating in it herself.

But the Bible is equally clear that teaching a specific sin is admissible is at least as serious as practising it:

‘Not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.’ (James 3:1)

Jesus was very clear about the seriousness of leading young ones astray through false teaching:

‘If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.’ (Matthew 18:6)

The epistle of Jude warns about ‘ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into a license for immorality’ (1:4) and warns that ‘Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality’  and ‘serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire’ (1:7).

In a similar vein the Apostle Peter warns that ‘if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell…’ and ‘condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly’ then ‘the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials and to hold the unrighteous for punishment on the day of judgment. This is especially true of those who follow the corrupt desire of the flesh and despise authority’. (2 Peter 2:4-10)

It is striking that in both these instances (both in Jude and 2 Peter) there is a specific reference to Sodom and Gomorrah where the sexual immorality involved was homosexual (see also Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13).

The Apostle John in Revelation records Jesus’ words to the seven churches. Two of them (Pergamum and Thyatira) he warns specifically about not tolerating teaching which endorses sexual immorality:

‘Nevertheless, I have a few things against you: There are some among you who hold to the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to entice the Israelites to sin so that they ate food sacrificed to idols and committed sexual immorality.’  (Revelation 2:14)

‘Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophet. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols.’ (Revelation 2:20)

I was told recently by a Church of England Bishop that Scripture nowhere commands us to stop people teaching heresy (false teaching which puts personal salvation at risk) in the church. But it seems to me that this is exactly what Paul instructed Titus to do:

 ^‘For there are many rebellious people, full of meaningless talk and deception, especially those of the circumcision group. They must be silenced, because they are disrupting whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach….’ (Titus 1:10-11) 

From the above Scriptures it is clear that:

1. All sex outside (heterosexual) marriage constitutes sexual immorality

2. Continuing in sexual immorality puts one’s salvation at risk (see also Revelation 21:8 and 22:15)

3. Teaching that sexual immorality is acceptable is very serious and deeply damaging

4. Tolerating such teaching is also contrary to the explicit teaching of Jesus Christ

5. Those who teach or practise such things whilst claiming still to be Christians should be subject to church discipline.

The implications are clear.

I do not know Vicky Beeching personally and as I have said earlier I do not doubt her sincerity. But my fear is that as a result of the warm affirmation she has already received for her endorsement of same sex marriage, including from many Christians, she is heading on a very dangerous and damaging course indeed – both for herself and for others.

I understand that she has so far ignored the sincere but serious warnings she has received from well-meaning Christian brothers and sisters.

We need to pray that she changes her course and that her teaching does not lead others astray. But more than this, those responsible for her pastoral oversight must ensure that her teaching is not tolerated in the church and that she is appropriately disciplined.

We owe it to our young people, many of whom will have been confused by what she is saying, and not least to Vicky herself. 

Evangelical Christian leaders speak of personal experience of being same-sex attracted whilst remaining committed to biblical sexual morality

After Steve Chalke and Rob Bell joined the ‘Accepting Evangelicals’ Group in affirming faithful same-sex erotic relationships earlier this year a new group of ‘post-gay’ evangelical Christian leaders has emerged.

Their testimonies are clear, powerful, hugely encouraging and most welcome at a time when many young evangelicals are genuinely confused about the issue.

These are men in pastoral ministry who admit to feelings of same sex attraction but who also see the Bible’s prohibitions on same-sex relationships as non-negotiable.

The core of this new group, recently interviewed by Christianity magazine, are Sam Alberry, a church leader in Maidenhead, Sean Doherty, a tutor at St Mellitus College, and Ed Shaw, who helps to lead Emmanuel Church in Bristol.

They are shortly to launch a website called ‘Living Out’, aimed at helping others think through the realities of being same-sex attracted while remaining committed to a biblical sexual morality.

Doherty (pictured), who has experienced some degree of shift in his sexual feelings and is now married, explains how his own church experience helped him:

‘Church was a place of nurture and unconditional acceptance, but at the same time the teaching was clear that I shouldn’t act on those sexual desires. In an environment where young people were being encouraged to experiment, I was really grateful that I had been kept from acting on my feelings.’

He is reluctant to describe himself as gay and instead adopts terminology adopted by blogger Peter Ould who has a similar testimony:

‘I don’t speak of myself as an “ex-gay” person. I prefer the term “post-gay”. You choose to move away from the label of “gay” altogether, which has come to be associated with a certain lifestyle. I’ve clearly experienced some change in my feelings so that I am attracted to my wife. But it’s definitely not a 180-degree reorientation. All of us will continue to have desires and feelings which aren’t right, until Jesus returns.’

Alberry and Shaw share Doherty’s perspective, but accept that they will remain celibate if their orientation does not change. 

Alberry previously posted an article titled ‘How can the Gospel be good news to gays?’ on the Gospel Coalition website, where he takes a firm biblical stance on the issue but argues strongly and compassionately that people with homosexual orientation need more grace and not less. 

Last year Vaughan Roberts, a leading conservative evangelical, spoke for the first time of his own struggle with same-sex attraction in an interview with Evangelicals Now. His testimony is clear, biblical, passionate and pastoral and well worthy of study.

Alberry, Doherty and Shaw's experience, and those of Ould and Roberts, underline the fact that there is a difference between experiencing same sex attraction and choosing to participate in homosexual erotic behaviour. 

The Bible is very clear that all sexual relations outside marriage (a life-long exclusive monogamous heterosexual public covenant relationship) are morally wrong (Leviticus 18:6-23, 20:10-21; Romans 1:26, 27; 1 Corinthians 6:9,10; Colossians 3:5; 1 Thessalonians 4:3; 1 Timothy 1:9,10; Revelation 22:15). This includes fornication, adultery, same-sex relations and all other sorts of sex imaginable, even if you are deeply in love with the other person.

Claiming that we are just ‘being true to our feelings’ in this area is just as wrong as claiming that our feelings justify any other form of sin. As Jeremiah put it ‘the heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure’ (17:9) It is God’s Word that must guide us, not our feelings.

So people who become Christians, who recognize that they experience same-sex feelings or have a homosexual orientation and/or identity, are in the same category as anyone who has opposite-sex feelings but is unmarried, divorced, widowed or in a marriage relationship where, for physical or psychosexual reasons, sex is not possible.

They must accept that not having sex is their only option. For those who recognize themselves to be exclusively of homosexual orientation this may well mean that the only course open to them is staying single. Sometimes sexual orientation may change over time, but often it doesn’t.

Jesus of course was unmarried and never had sex yet we know that he ‘was tempted in all ways as we are – yet was without sin’. This must surely have included the temptation to sexual sin.

Is it possible to live a full life without having sex? Well Jesus himself did just that. And he is able to help any Christian to do the same. Marriage is a great calling but so is singleness, and sex is neither compulsory, nor necessary, in order to live a fulfilled and fruitful life.

Sex is a wonderful gift but like any gift it is not granted to all. If for any reason you can’t have sex, then ask what other good gifts God has given you, and enjoy those instead.

For a list of helpful resources for those seeking an evangelical Christian perspective on homosexuality see my earlier blog.

Why Christians may eat shellfish but may not have sex outside marriage

An argument frequently advanced by those attempting to defend homosexual practice is that Christians ‘cherry pick’ the commands in the Bible – that is, they chose to emphasise some commands while ignoring others.

The Old Testament may forbid homosexual acts (Leviticus 18:2; 20:13) but it also forbids eating seafood without fins and scales (Leviticus 11:9-12; Deuteronomy 14:9, 10).

So how can Christians then justify upholding laws on sexual morality whilst at the same time ignoring the food laws from the very same books of the Bible? Why may they eat shellfish but not be allowed to have sex outside marriage? Isn’t this inconsistent and hypocritical?

Didn’t Jesus himself say that ‘anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven’? (Matthew 5:19)

The answer to this question lies in an understanding of biblical covenants.

A covenant is a binding solemn agreement made between two parties. It generally leaves each with obligations. But it holds only between the parties involved.

There are a number of biblical covenants: Noahic, Abrahamic, Sinaitic (Old), Davidic and New.

Under the Noahic covenant, which God made with all living human beings (Genesis 9:8-17), people were able to eat anything:

‘Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything’ (Genesis 9:3).

But under the Sinaitic (Old) Covenant, which God made with the nation of Israel, people were able to eat certain foods, but not others. These are listed in detail in Leviticus 11:1-47 and Deuteronomy 14:1-21).

However these laws were applicable only to the nation of Israel and were intended to set them apart from other races.

The Old (Sinaitic) Covenant was made after Israel’s deliverance from Egypt and involved laws, priests (all of whom were members of the tribe of Levi) and a sacrificial system based on animal sacrifice. It was aimed at protecting Israel from God’s wrath and judgement.

The nation of Israel, however, was unable to keep the requirements of the Old Covenant, meaning that a New Covenant was necessary, as foretold by the prophet Jeremiah:

‘“The days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them,” declares the Lord.“This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel after that time,” declares the Lord.“I will put my law in their mind and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will they teach their neighbour, or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. “For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.”’ (Jeremiah 31:31-34)

Jesus said that he had come to fulfil the ‘Law and the Prophets’ (Matthew 5:17; Luke 24:44). He would establish this new covenant with new laws, with himself as high priest based on his own sacrificial death on the cross. 

This new covenant would completely deal with sin (Hebrews 10:1-18) and protect all those who put their faith in him from God’s wrath and judgement (See more on this here).

‘In the same way, after the supper (Jesus) took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you”’ (Luke 22:20). ‘…we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all’ (Hebrews 10:10)

People would come under the protection of this new covenant, not by virtue of belonging to the nation of Israel, but through faith in Christ. In fact the function of the Old Testament Law (Sinaitic covenant) was to point to Christ as its fulfilment.

‘So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian. So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Gentile…’ (Galatians 3:24-28)

The Apostle Paul makes this very clear in saying:

‘I myself am not under the law… though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law’ (1 Corinthians 9:20, 21)

So what then did Christ say about foods? He pronounced all foods clean for his followers to eat:

‘ “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them?  For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.) He went on: “What comes out of a person is what defiles them.  For it is from within, out of a person’s heart, that evil thoughts come—sexual immorality, theft, murder,  adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly.  All these evils come from inside and defile a person.” (Mark 7:18-23)

Jesus was making that point that under the new covenant God required purity of the heart. Internal thoughts and attitudes were as important as external actions.  Consistent with this God commanded the apostle Peter to eat food that was forbidden under the Old Covenant:

‘Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.” “Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.” The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.” (Acts 10:13-15)

Similarly the apostle Paul taught that all foods were admissible under the New Covenant:

‘(hypocritical liars)… order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth.  For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving,  because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.’ (1 Timothy 4:2-5)

So Christians can eat anything, including shellfish.

But what about sex?

The Bible, consistently throughout, teaches that sex is only permissible within a marriage between a man and a woman. This principle is first laid down during the creation narrative:

‘a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh’ (Genesis 2:24)

It is upheld in the Old Covenant and in great detail every sexual act outside this pattern is listed as off limits in Leviticus 18 and 20.

Jesus upholds the same principle in his teaching on marriage (Matthew 19:1-12) and its importance is emphasised to Gentile Christians (Acts 15:19,20) and repeatedly emphasised in the teaching of the apostles.

‘It is God’s will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; that each of you should learn to control your own body in a way that is holy and honourable,  not in passionate lust like the pagans, who do not know God;  and that in this matter no one should wrong or take advantage of a brother or sister. The Lord will punish all those who commit such sins, as we told you and warned you before.  For God did not call us to be impure, but to live a holy life. (1 Thessalonians 4:3-7)

In fact in the very last book of the Bible we are told that the unrepentant ‘sexually immoral’ will not enter heaven (Revelation 21:8, 22:15)

I have unpacked this teaching on sexual morality in much more detail here and here.

So Christians can eat shellfish, in fact they can eat all foods, but they cannot have sex outside marriage. And that includes homosexual sex.

Answering Christians who are unclear about biblical sexual ethics

Anyone who presents a biblical perspective on sexual ethics on the internet will come in for a lot of criticism and be called all manner of things, especially if writing about homosexuality.

This is entirely what we should expect. 

We live in a world that is hostile to Christian faith and values and to many people biblical sexual ethics are antiquated, bizarre, naïve, unrealistic or even unchristian.

But when that criticism comes from fellow Christians it is can be more challenging to handle.

The Evangelical Alliance’s recent survey on the views of evangelical Christians in Britain reveals that there is a wide range of views on sexual morality even amongst those who accept biblical authority.

Only 59% of 17,000 British evangelicals surveyed in 2010, for example, ‘agreed a lot’ that ‘homosexual actions are always wrong’. 14% ‘agreed a little’, 11% were unsure, 8% disagreed a little and 8% disagreed a lot.

And yet the Bible is very clear on this issue and the stance of the Evangelical Alliance has been very strong in recent statements. The Accepting Evangelicals group, who wish to bless gay partnerships, are a very small minority indeed.

So why are so many evangelicals so unclear? There are certainly strong pressures from the prevailing culture to adopt an unbiblical view, but I suspect it really boils down to what they are being taught (or not being taught!) in their churches.

Are evangelical pastors and teachers equally confused, or have they just been intimidated into silence by the fear of what reaction biblical teaching on this issue might generate?

I suspect it is largely the latter. So in this blog I have given some of the usual reactions Christians give when the issue of sexual morality is raised along with some suggested responses.

As always our best guide is the Bible itself, and so I have illustrated (and linked) each point with Scripture:

1.  It’s unloving

It’s increasingly common to be told by Christians that telling people they can’t be true to their feelings is ‘unloving’. Above all we should love one another and that means affirming and building up and not implying that other people’s behaviour is unacceptable.

But Jesus himself said that the commands to love God and love one another are summed up the Old Testament Law (Matthew 22:37-40). The command to ‘love your neighbour as yourself’ comes from Leviticus 19:18.

But Leviticus 19 is sandwiched immediately between Leviticus 18 & 20 where most of the explicit OT teaching on sexual morality is found. And these verses are very clear that the only context for sex is within a lifelong marriage between a man and a woman (marriage).

Furthermore all this teaching is upheld in the New Testament.

Leviticus 19:18 is preceded by the command, ‘Be holy because I, the Lord your God, am holy’ (19:2) and its immediate context is 19:17: ‘Do not hate a fellow Israelite in your heart. Rebuke your neighbour frankly so you will not share in their guilt’.

Loving God and our neighbour involves being holy, being sexually pure and being concerned enough about our fellow believers to challenge them over sin.  Real love is willing even to risk being rejected for challenging a brother or sister because you care more about their walk with God than you do about what they think of you.

2. We shouldn’t judge

Jesus says in the Sermon on the Mount, ‘Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you’ (Matthew 7:1,2).

But it is clear from the wider context of Matthew that this is challenging hypocritical and judgmental attitudes and does not excuse Christians from challenging one another about sin. In fact looking out for each other in this way is a Christian duty.

Jesus commands in Matthew 18:15-17:

‘If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that “every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.” If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.’

The Apostle Paul is even more explicit about the need for church discipline for sexual sin:

‘ I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people. What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you”.’ (1 Corinthians 5:9-13)

3. It is between them and God

The Bible is very clear that sin is not simply between us and God. Sin damages the Christian community because all of us are inseparably linked as members of the body of Christ. In the body of Christ we are responsible for each other and when one falls all suffer. What damages the body is the body’s business. Furthermore sexual sin damages the body of Christ in a way that other sin does not:

‘Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never!  Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.” But whoever is united with the Lord is one with him in spirit. Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body. Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honour God with your bodies.’ (1 Corinthians 6:15-20).

4. The Gospel is about grace not law

It is of course true that we are saved by grace through faith through Jesus’ death for our sins (Ephesians 2:8, 9). It is also true that we rely on his grace and power to live holy lives. But once saved we are to imitate Christ (1 Corinthians 11:1), to walk in his footsteps (1 John 2:6), indeed to imitate God himself (Ephesians 5:1).

We are called to ‘the obedience that comes from faith’ (Romans 1:5) and to be sanctified: avoiding sexual immorality; and learning to control our bodies in a way that is holy and honourable (1 Thessalonians 4:3,4). Furthermore God’s grace and patience is intended to lead us to repentance, not to be used as an excuse for continuing in sin (Romans 2:4). Loving God and obeying him are inextricably linked:

‘If you love me, keep my commands… Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me… Now remain in my love. If you keep my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commands and remain in his love… You are my friends if you do what I command. ‘ (John 14:15, 21; 15:9,10,14)

5. We shouldn’t be modern day Pharisees

Absolutely not. The Pharisees ignored God’s real commands and substituted their own human traditions and made up laws for them.  They were also obsessed with outward appearances rather than any change of heart . (Matthew 15:1-20) They were hypocrites.

We should certainly not be like them, but seeking outward and inward sexual purity so that our thoughts and actions are aligned with God’s will is not being pharisaical. It is rather taking holiness seriously.

6. None of us is pure

This is of course true. Each of us misses the mark and falls short and who can say they have never looked at a man or woman who is not their wife with lust, or had an impure sexual thought? (Matthew 5:27-28)

But nonetheless we are called to a life of holiness and warned about the very real dangers of deliberately keeping on sinning after coming to a knowledge of the truth (Hebrews 10:26-31). We need to be very mindful of our own vulnerabilities but this does not absolve us of the responsibility to correct and restore one another. It is rather part of bearing one another’s burdens and fulfilling the ‘law of Christ’.

‘Brothers and sisters, if someone is caught in a sin, you who live by the Spirit should restore that person gently. But watch yourselves, or you also may be tempted. Carry each other’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfil the law of Christ.’ (Galatians 6:1,2)

7. Why don’t you preach about other sins?

Sexual immorality is of course only one sin, and we should remember that true discipleship involves teaching disciples ‘to obey everything I have commanded you’ (Matthew 28:19-20). But as we can see from the above sexual purity is very important which is why so much of Scripture is devoted to it, not just in pure didactic teaching, but through the many narratives of sexual sin put there for our warning:

‘We should not commit sexual immorality, as some of them did—and in one day twenty-three thousand of them died...These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the culmination of the ages has come. So, if you think you are standing firm, be careful that you don’t fall!’ (1 Corinthians 10:10-12) 

Pastors and teachers must teach the whole counsel of God, but neglecting areas where one is likely to encounter criticism – and this is a prime example – is not being a faithful teacher. And teachers will be judged, we are told, more strictly (James 3:1):

‘For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.’ (Matthew 5:18,19) 

‘A curse on anyone who is lax in doing the Lord’s work! A curse on anyone who keeps their sword from bloodshed!’ (Jeremiah 48:10)

It is essential that the sword of the Spirit, God’s word, is enabled to do its work (Hebrews 4:12).

There is of course more to holiness than sexual purity, but sexual purity is nonetheless an integral and essential part of the whole. 

Homosexuality is only one symptom of the real sin of Sodom

Most people have heard of Sodom and Gomorrah, the cities we are told were destroyed for their sexual immorality in the 19th chapter of Genesis (See John Martin’s famous 1852 painting left).

Sodom and Gomorrah have become synonymous with impenitent sin, and their fall with a proverbial manifestation of God's wrath. 

The story has given rise to the English word ‘sodomy’ to  describe a sexual ‘crime against nature’ and specifically homosexuality. 

Recently I was on a tour of the British Library with Jay Smith when he mentioned that a tablet discovered in the library of the ancient city of Ebla, in modern day Syria, had listed the five ‘cities of the plain’ (Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboim, and Bela) in the same order as in Genesis 14:1-3, 8-10.

William Shea pointed out in 1983 that on the 'Eblaite Geographical Atlas' [TM.75.G.2231], ad-mu-ut and sa-dam correspond to Admah and Sodom, and are contained in a list of cities that traces a route along the shores of the Dead Sea.

Rabbi Leibel Reznick, a senior lecturer in Talmudic studies in New York, makes a strong and highly plausible case for these cities being the five cities of Bab Edh-Dhra, Numeira, Safi, Feifa and Khanazir which are located at the southern end of the Dead Sea in modern day Jordan. This view is shared by Michael Sanders on the ‘Mysteries of the Bible’ website.

Reznick summarises the evidence as follows (but his whole article is well worth reading):

1. The Bible refers to a metropolis of five cities in the Dead Sea area. Five, and only five cities, have been found there (see map).

2. The Bible refers to a conquest by the Mesopotamians and the artifacts found in the Dead Sea area show a Mesopotamian influence.

3. The Midrash describes the metropolis as a thriving population. The enormous number of burials in the large cemeteries (over 1.5 million in three cities alone) attests to a great population.

4. The Talmud and the Midrash describe the area as an agricultural wonderland. The great diversity of agricultural products found in the ruins verify the lush produce enjoyed by the area's inhabitants.

5. According to the Talmud, there was a span of only 26 years between a war in the area and the ultimate destruction. Devastation levels found in Numeira (Sodom) are consistent with the Talmud's assertion.

6. The Talmud states that Sodom, unlike other cities in the area, only existed for 52 years. The ruins in Numeira (Sodom) indicate that the city lasted less than 100 years.

7. The Bible attributes the destruction of the cities to a fiery storm that rained down from above and thick layers of burnt material covering the remains of the cities in the area bear this out.

Whether or not Numeira will indeed turn out to be the biblical Sodom is yet to be finally confirmed, but Sodom nonetheless remains crucially important in biblical history and theology.

The cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, according to the Bible (Genesis 18 and 19), were destroyed by fire and brimstone for their immorality.

Abraham’s nephew Lot escaped the devastation and later, by his daughters (!), became the father of the ancient nations of Ammon and Moab, which engaged in centuries of conflict with the Israelites.

Sodom is mentioned 46 times in the Bible: 20 in Genesis, 17 in the rest of the Old Testament, and 9 in the New Testament, including five mentions by Jesus himself.

The prophet Isaiah (Isaiah 1:9-10, 3:9 and 13:19-22) accuses the people of Israel as being like Sodom and Gomorrah in their sinning and warns that Babylon will end like Sodom and Gomorrah.

Jeremiah (Jeremiah 23:14, 49:17-18, 50:39-40 and Lamentations 4:6) associates Sodom and Gomorrah with adultery and lies and prophesies the fate of Edom and Babylon using Sodom as a comparison.

In Ezekiel 16:48-50 God compares Jerusalem to Sodom, saying that Jerusalem was worse:

‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.’

In Amos 4:1-11 God tells the Israelites he had warned them and treated them like Sodom and Gomorrah and yet still they did not repent. And in Zephaniah 2:9 the prophet tells Moab and Ammon, southeast and northeast of the Dead Sea, that they will end up like Sodom and Gomorrah.

Jesus continues the same theme. In Matthew 10:1-15, and Luke 10:1-12, he declares certain cities more damnable than Sodom and Gomorrah, due to their response to Jesus' disciples.

‘And if anyone will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town. Truly, I say to you, it shall be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah than for that town.’

In Matthew 11:20-24 he prophesies the fate of some cities where he did some of his works (RSV):

‘And you, Caperna-um, will you be exalted to heaven? You shall be brought down to Hades. For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I tell you that it shall be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom than for you.’

In Luke 17:28-30 Jesus compares his second-coming to the judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah:

‘Likewise as it was in the days of Lot—they ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they built, but on the day when Lot went out from Sodom fire and sulphur rained from heaven and destroyed them all—so will it be on the day when the Son of man is revealed.’

In 2 Peter 2:4-10 Peter, in his description of the time of the second coming of Jesus, says that God ‘condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly’.

Jude 1:7 records that both Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns ‘gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion’ and ‘serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire’.

So Sodom is intended to be a strong reminder to us and a call to repentance and faith.

But whilst sexual immorality (and specifically homosexuality) was undoubtedly one manifestation of Sodom’s sin, it was far broader than that.

According to Isaiah (Isaiah 1:10-17) Sodom’s sin also included meaningless religious ritual, injustice, neglect of widows and orphans and the shedding of innocent blood. Ezekiel (Ezekiel 16:48-50) mentions arrogance, self-indulgence and neglect of the poor.

I am currently reading Rosaria Butterfield’s new book ‘The Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert’.

Butterfield was a lesbian English Professor who came to Christ and has described Romans 1:24-28 (which addresses homosexuality) as one of the scariest passages in the Bible.

But in an intriguing chapter titled ‘Repentance and The Sin of Sodom’ she argues that ‘homosexuality – like all sin – is symptomatic and not causal’ and points out that the Ezekiel passage quoted above highlights ‘pride, wealth, entertainment-driven focus, lack of mercy and lack of modesty’ amongst the city’s sins.

‘Pride is the root of all sin’ she declares, in words reminiscent of CS Lewis in ‘Mere Christianity’. ‘Proud people always feel that they can live independently from God’ and ‘feel entitled to do what they want when they want to’.

These passages, she said, ‘forced me to see pride and not sexual orientation as the root sin’. ‘The truth is that outside Christ, I am a manipulator, liar, power-monger and controller… I learned that sin roots not in outward behaviours, but in patterns of thinking.’

By contrast she testifies, ‘Conversion overhauled my soul and personality. It was arduous and intense. I experience with great depth the power and authority of God in my life. In it I learned – and am still learning – how to love God with all my heart, soul, strength and mind.’

Romans 1:18-32 takes up the same theme. Sin starts with ‘suppressing the truth’ (18) about God, failing to glorify or give thanks to him (21), denying his ‘eternal power and divine nature’ (20) and exchanging ‘the glory of the immortal God for images’ (22).

Sin’s later fruit includes ‘shameful lusts’ in which ‘women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones’ and ‘men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for each other’ (26, 27).

But those who reject God also ‘became filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity’ (29) including ‘envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice’ (29). They are ‘gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful… senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless’ (30-31) and ‘approve of those who practise’ these things (32).

The destruction of Sodom was a real historical event which Scripture teaches serves as a warning of the much greater destruction and devastation which is coming after death to those who refuse to repent and believe – the eternal fire of Hell.

But the sin of Sodom was far more than sexual immorality which is only a symptom of its real root - a proud and arrogant dismissal of God’s existence and authority and a deliberate choice to live our own way rather than God’s way. 

Another unworkable proposal from NHS ‘experts’ on morning-after pill

An influential group of NHS experts is urging the Scottish Government to allow the morning-after pill to be handed out in schools (See reports by BBC, Scotsman and Scottish Herald)

But the push has faced criticism from the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland for being irresponsible. The parliamentary officer John Dieghan said it ‘pours more fuel on the flames.

In a written submission to a Holyrood committee, the Scottish Sexual Health Lead Clinicians Group (SSHLCG) accused ministers of ‘running scared’ of its critics over contraception in schools.

The group said: ‘Why is emergency contraception not available in schools? Why are condoms and contraception not accessible? Why can’t pregnancy and other STIs be prevented?’

The Scottish parliament’s Health and Sport Committee are looking into the high rate of teenage pregnancy in the country, which is one of the highest in Western Europe.

Ministers had hoped to cut the pregnancy rate for under 16s to 6.8 pregnancies per 1,000 girls by 2010 but the pregnancy rate for that year was 7.1 per 1,000.

But according to the evidence John Dieghan is quite right.

An American study which I highlighted last December showed that making emergency contraception available free over the counter without prescription leads to an increase in rates of sexually transmitted infections and does not decrease pregnancy or abortion rates. 

These results were almost identical to those of a British study published in the Journal of Health Economics (full text) in December 2010 and reported in the Daily Telegraph in January 2011. 

This latter research, by professors Sourafel Girma and David Paton of Nottingham University (See my previous blogs on this here and here) found that rates of pregnancy among girls under 16 remained the same, but that rates of sexually transmitted infections increased by 12%.

In fact, in a systematic review published in 2007, twenty-three studies published between 1998 and 2006, and analyzed by James Trussell’s team at Princeton University, measured the effect of increased EC access on EC use, unintended pregnancy, and abortion. Not a single study among the 23 found a reduction in unintended pregnancies or abortions following increased access to emergency contraception (see also fact sheet here).

The phenomenon whereby applying a prevention measure results in an increase in the very thing it is trying to prevent is known as ‘risk compensation’. 

The term has been applied to the fact that the wearing of seat-belts does not decrease the level of some forms of road traffic injuries since drivers are thereby encouraged to drive more recklessly.

In the same way it has been argued that making condoms readily available actually increases rather than decreases rates of pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections because condoms encourage teenagers to take more sexual risks in the false belief that they will not suffer harm. 

Whilst condoms offer some protection against sexually transmitted infections the morning-after pill offers none. 

Britain has the highest rate of teenage pregnancy in Western Europe. In 2008, the latest year for which figures are available, more than 7,500 girls in England and Wales became pregnant. Nearly two thirds of these pregnancies ended in abortion.

Rates of sexually transmitted diseases are also rising. In 2009 there were 12,000 more cases than the previous year, when 470,701 cases were reported. The number of infections in 16-to 19 year-olds seen at genito-urinary medicine clinics rose from 46,856 in 2003 to 58,133 in 2007.

International research has consistently failed to find any evidence that emergency birth control schemes achieve a reduction in teenage conception and abortion rates. But now there is growing evidence showing that not only are such schemes failing to do any good, but they may in fact be doing harm.

Making the emergency contraceptive pill available free, without prescription, is sadly an ill-conceived knee-jerk response to Britain’s spiralling epidemic of unplanned pregnancy, abortion and sexually transmitted disease amongst teenagers. It is also not evidence-based.

The best way to counter the epidemic of unplanned pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease is to promote real behaviour change. The government would be well advised to enter into dialogue with leaders of communities in Britain where rates of sexually transmitted diseases and unplanned pregnancy are low, especially Christian faith communities, to learn about what actually works.

Church-based programmes such as Love for Life (Northern Ireland), Love2last (Sheffield), Challenge Team, Romance Academy or Lovewise (Newcastle) are getting great results and have much wisdom to pass on. How about financing some serious research into examining them in more depth?

Huge opposition mounts against gay marriage

With the coalition government about to publish their bill to legalise gay marriage in England and Wales there has been a huge increase in opposition to the measure over the last two months.

Over 624,000 people have now signed the Coalition for Marriage (C4M) petition against the redefinition of marriage which simply reads as follows:

‘I support the legal definition of marriage which is the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. I oppose any attempt to redefine it.’

The petition has overwhelmed that of the ‘Campaign for equal Marriage’ (C4EM) which has attracted only 64,000 signatures, just over 10% of C4M’s total.

This underlines the growing suspicion that the push to legalise gay marriage is the concern of a small liberal elite which does not speak for the majority.

C4EM is claiming that of 649 MPs in total, 305 (47%) support the proposal and 114 oppose it with 14 neutrals and 216 unknowns.

But the Daily Mail has already published a list of 118 Tory MPs alone who oppose it and the Telegraph said before Christmas that 137 Tory MPs, almost half the party, are expected to oppose it based on letters to constituents.

Ed Miliband has now offered Labour MPs a free vote on the issue and the names of eight who are on record as opposing it is available on the New Statesman’s website.

So together with the other ten MPs that C4EM have identified who oppose gay marriage (eight DUP, one Lib Dem and one Independent) we had already before Christmas a total of 155 opposed (137 Tory, 8 Lab, 10 other).

There is even stronger opposition in the House of Lords.

Three quarters of Conservative peers and 67% of cross-benchers have said in a poll that the government should call a halt to its plans to introduce equal marriage for England and Wales.

Meanwhile, a separate poll of MPs found two thirds of members of the Commons are opposed to using the Parliament Act to get the legislation through if it is blocked in the Lords.

Furthermore, over the Christmas period there were several new developments which may well lead others to declare their hands against the Prime Minister’s proposals.

The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Westminster, Vincent Nichols, used his Christmas message to attack the government’s plans branding them ‘totalitarian’ and has urged Catholics to write to their MPs asking them to oppose the move.

More recently he warned that the ‘true nature of marriage' will be lost to schoolchildren if gay wedding plans go ahead.

In his support the Pope used his New Year message to ‘warn David Cameron’ about damage to the family if marriage is redefined.

Over the Christmas period High Court Judge Sir Paul Coleridge criticised (video here) the plans saying the Government should not be focusing on a ‘minority issue’ involving only 0.1% of the population when families are in crisis.

Meanwhile A Conservative Home poll showed that 55% of Tory Party members would vote against SSM if they were in Parliament.

Angry Muslims have demanded that the government treats them the same as the Church of England allowing an exemption on having to conduct ceremonies and former Catholic Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor has said that gay marriage calls trust in David Cameron into question.

In the face of all this growing opposition our Prime Minister remains resolutely determined.

Whether he will be successful remains to be seen, but even if he is, it seems that his making this issue a key priority at such a time is alienating huge numbers of his own MPs, party members and hundreds and thousands of not millions of ordinary British citizens.

Other posts on this blog about the issue include the following:

1. Ten reasons not to legalise same-sex marriage in Britain
2. Ten myths about the redefinition of marriage
3. Ten ways redefining marriage would damage civil liberty
4. Ten People Punished for Believing in Traditional Marriage
5. Same-sex marriage - 24 articles on all aspects of the UK debate

Why Christians don’t say what they really believe about sex on Twitter

This morning, after the Coalition for Marriage Petition gained its 500,000th signature, and in response to an article in Pink News trying to undermine #C4M’s credibility, I sent out two tweets from my twitter account (@drpetersaunders) announcing the new milestone.

The first (admittedly provocative) tweet read as follows:

Growing paranoia from @pinknews over having its small unrepresentative cyber-community trounced by #c4m petition http://bit.ly/J6HnFh

The second was a ‘retweet’ from Archbishop Cranmer (@his_grace)

And many congratulations to the Coalition for Marriage @c4mtweetsfor reaching 500,000 supporters http://c4m.org.uk/?cranmer

As a result for the last nine hours I have been under constant siege from the several hundred secular twitterati who track my every move.

As I usually do, I have ignored frankly abusive comments but have attempted otherwise to take questions and comments at face value and do my best to answer them honestly and politely, but firmly and, as appropriate, with good humour.

Many of the responses have been in the same spirit, robustly but respectfully disagreeing with me. There has been a lot of mutual ribbing too and as is usual, certain members of the twitterati have taken great delight in retweeting some of my 140 character utterances to their adoring followers in order to demonstrate how self-evidently foolish I am.

This is all par for the course on Twitter. You can read the various conversations on my twitter page by clicking ‘view conversation’ on each tweet

Some of the twitterati have also tried to draw me out by asking specific questions that they know will elicit answers which will draw the baying mob most effectively.

Today I sent out two tweets in response to specific questions from a Dr David Jones (@welsh_gas_doc) that really sent the mob into a wild frenzy. As you will see he is copied into most of the ensuing tweets. My tweets read as follows:

@welsh_gas_doc @pocketapocketa @c4equalmarriage All people are sinners (Romans 3:23) and also all sex outside marriage is morally wrong

@welsh_gas_doc @pocketapocketa @c4equalmarriage Yes David. Sex between two people of the same sex - male or female - is always wrong

Both were simply factual statements about orthodox Christian belief. In days past, such statements would have been met generally with a reaction of patronising incredulity or even pity that someone could hold such unenlightened and antiquated, even quaint, views.

But today the sort of reaction such statements elicit explains I think why so few Christians ever talk about what they actually believe on twitter – at least about sex.

I’m pretty much used to this kind of stuff now and put up with it largely because I get a lot of traffic to this blog as a result from those who silently listen in to the conversations.

Anyway, for what it is worth, here is a selection of some of the more offensive tweets I have received today. I am frequently called a 'homophobic bigot' (although I prefer to think of myself as 'homosceptic') but as you will see some of these go a bit further than that. I haven’t replied to any of them.

For those unfamiliar with twitter, each begins with the name and account of the person sending the tweet. As you will see, some people appear more than once.

Simon Feeke ‏ @feekelife
@drpetersaunders @C4EqualMarriage you are such a terrible small minded person, I'm staggered by your hypocrisy, call yourself christian!!

Simon Feeke ‏ @feekelife
@drpetersaunders @C4EqualMarriage just admit you're a bigot and we can all just continue fighting the cause without your input, thank you

lisa pawson ‏ @emmliss
@C4EqualMarriage @drpetersaunders what a horrible out of touch man

Sarah Guest ‏ @sarah_gue5t
@jjswin @drpetersaunders ghetto??? Wot a shallow pathetic little man u are, I'm straight, live in the countryside #C4EM all the way! #twat

Sara O'Brian ‏ @Sara_OBrian
@drpetersaunders Shut up you stupid old bastard you won't be around to see marriage equality so pipe down.

Alex Graham ‏ @Rangaaar
@drpetersaunders I would love to give you the benefit of the doubt, but as a representative to lots of people, why are you so poisonous?

Lizzie P-B ‏ @LizzieMansfield
@C4EqualMarriage @drpetersaunders @mcgingersnap one day the gay community will receive a public apology from these homophobes. #c4em

Johnathon Waples ‏ @JohnathonWaples
@drpetersaunders But srsly? A civil partnership isn't equal. I hope your HATE for people who just want to be HAPPY makes you sleep at night.

Lorrie Hearts ‏ @LorrieHearts
@drpetersaunders: Smiley enough in his picture but he'd cut off your equal rights as soon as look at you. Not my kind of doctor.

Ollie James ‏ @OJB_clough
@drpetersaunders you're a massive cunt

Simon Feeke ‏ @feekelife
@drpetersaunders @UK_CMF @UCBMedia absolutley vile, no doubt you agree with Stephen Green on marital rape as well #OUTDATEDBADCHRISTIAN

The George ‏ @kaptainkrucius
@drpetersaunders no I merely stated that none of my friends were bigots like you. It was you who suggested I need to get out more.

Russell Norton ‏ @russyork
I find the opinions of @drpetersaunders scary. I would be terrified if he were my doctor, clearly has no idea about equal treatment #bigot

Simon Feeke ‏ @feekelife
@drpetersaunders utter tripe! thank GOD only the Daily Mail reports your offensive crap!!

Simon Feeke ‏ @feekelife
@drpetersaunders @C4EqualMarriage i fear if any of your children are gay, terrible things happen when you preach hate #BADCHRISTIANS

dam robinson ‏ @damrobinson
@drpetersaunders @C4EqualMarriage this straight, 2.4 kids dad agrees with equal marriage but not your small minded bigoted intolerance

Adam Kay ‏ @amateuradam
@welsh_gas_doc @pocketapocketa @c4equalmarriage I often have a wank to @drpetersaunders' avatar. That's still fine, right?

Rob Ward ‏ @PocketaPocketa
@drpetersaunders @welsh_gas_doc @C4EqualMarriage I feel sorry for you &your hindbound soul both. Still, it's never too late for ppl to grow.

Chris H ‏ @chris_m_h
@drpetersaunders (cc to @welsh_gas_doc @pocketapocketa@c4equalmarriage) Dr Peters, your discriminatory, prejudiced opinions are disgusting.

Dr_PaulC ‏ @Dr_PaulC
@drpetersaunders drag your bigoted ass out of the dark ages. @welsh_gas_doc @pocketapocketa @c4equalmarriage

Mr Stefani to you! ‏ @Glen_Stefani
@feekelife @drpetersaunders FUCK ME! How in this wonderful world can these ignorant morons peddle this hatred? Hang your head in SHAME!

Chris Wallace ‏ @CJWallace91
@drpetersaunders @welsh_gas_doc @pocketapocketa@c4equalmarriage Are you a medical doctor? If so, you're a disgrace to the profession.

Mrs Mackenzie ‏ @loftspace
@welsh_gas_doc @marty_hogg I thought @drpetersaunders must be a spoof account. He's real? Scary shit.

Shaun Lawrence ‏ @BigGayShaun
Want to see how some Christians regard LGBT people? I suggest dipping in to the mind of @drpetersaunders. What an intolerant person he is.

Stuart Sutton ‏ @StuSutton
@welsh_gas_doc @icuchris @drpetersaunders thank goodness he's not practicing. I would think a referral to @gmcuk appropriate if he was.

Wendy Lee ‏ @TheRealBaglady
@welsh_gas_doc @ICUchris @drpetersaunders Pretty terrifying that someone so judgemental would ever be let loose on people with a scalpel.

Shaun Lawrence ‏ @BigGayShaun
@welsh_gas_doc Frightening that people still think like @drpetersaunders but one ought to know one's enemy so I'm paying close attention.

ICU Chris ‏ @ICUchris
@welsh_gas_doc @deeteeuk @marty_hogg @drpetersaunders Does my tax money pay his wages? How do I stop this?

ICU Chris ‏ @ICUchris
@amateuradam @welsh_gas_doc @pocketapocketa@c4equalmarriage @drpetersaunders I bet you eat shrimp too, you godless heathen.

Paul Southworth ‏ @PaulMSouthworth
@DeeTeeUK @marty_hogg @drpetersaunders @welsh_gas_doc I hope they take a good deal of comfort from the people pointing out he's a twerp.

ThomThom ‏ @ThomJONeill
@drpetersaunders What of the kids who kill themselves because of the attitudes of people like you? Is your faith REALLY worth that?

Ruairi Doran ‏ @RuDoran
@welsh_gas_doc @drpetersaunders @nhs_hca @pocketapocketa@c4equalmarriage Is he quoting the Bible again? That doctor is sick. *notadoctor*

Heather ‏ @Spleather
Actually shocked that @drpetersaunders is allowed to be a medical professional with the unacceptably homophobic beliefs he holds

Owen Blacker ‏ @owenblacker
Wow. What an unChristian arsehole. RT @drpetersaunders: Yes David. Sex between two people of the same sex - male or female - is always wrong

Kris Manuel ‏ @kris_manuel
@C4EqualMarriage @drpetersaunders @c4mtweets what a prick!!!

Mike Ward ‏ @Schroedinger99
@zeno001 & I'm free to think he's an irrational evil misogynistic homophobe @anarchic_teapot @C4EqualMarriage

Will Jensen ‏ @mrwilliamjensen
@drpetersaunders This man believes its wrong for same sex sex!!! Tweet him and tell him he's wrong and should give it a go some time!!!! :-)

Alex Scott ‏ @alexscott292
@anarchic_teapot @drpetersaunders @welsh_gas_doc to be fair, it's big bumper book of bollocks he's got to thumb through to get the answer.

Owen Blacker ‏ @owenblacker
@helliewm @drpetersaunders Indeed. Sinners like him give Christians a bad name.

helliewm ‏ @helliewm
@owenblacker @drpetersaunders Yes Owen my news feed is full of it. The medics in my news feed are getting annoyed too. He is just a bigot IMO

Jason ‏ @Lewishamdreamer
@drpetersaunders I call you out as a liar. Based on my last retweet.@Spleather

G* ‏ @georgie_guy
That's a shame; it's just so good! RT @drpetersaunders: Yes David. Sex between two people of the same sex - male or female - is always wrong

Sam Beezley ‏ @sambeezley
Only if you don't know how to do it "@drpetersaunders: Yes David. Sex between two people of the same sex - male or female - is always wrong"

Alex Scott ‏ @alexscott292
@drpetersaunders eight. How is it relevant to your fulminating homophobia?

Bagguley ‏ @bagguley
@drpetersaunders @shanemuk @andyheeps How can anyone believe such obvious horse-shit-superstitious-nonsense? Grow up ffs.

Adam Banks ‏ @adambanksdotcom
Police officers can't be active members of the BNP, but @drpetersaunders can practise medicine. This isn't sustainable

Matthew Tibbit ‏ @MTibbit
@LeyNathan I look at his page when you retweet him and I fancy a laugh but I can't bring myself to follow the idiot @drpetersaunders

bagguley @Bagguley
@drpetersaunders @shanemuk @AbbieKWalsh @andyheeps @TheNiceLadyDoc You really believe this fantasy bullshit dontcha. You are delusional.

Alex Scott ‏ @alexscott292
It strikes me I could write whatever prejudiced, unreconstructed maliciousness and rename it something like @drpetersaunders "homosceptic"