Thursday, 23 October 2014

"Sexual Maturity in the Church" Carla Grosch-Miller

"Sexual Maturity in the Church" with Carla Grosch-Miller was part of an Autumn series entitled "Enriching Relationships in an Inclusive Church" held at Holy Trinity Church in Headington Quarry on October 22nd 2014. The pamphlet said that this was a series of "midweek conversations touching on moral and theological questions" and it would be "encouraging open conversations".

David alias Brenda Reimer

It turned out to be a talk, given by the Rev. Carla Grosch-Miller who works at the Centre for the Study of Christianity and Sexuality in the USA. I don't know who funds this Centre, but its website states as follows.
"Our Aim. The Christian community needs a contemporary sexual theology. To build this we have to talk to one another and share experiences in both affirming and challenging ways. CSCS provides opportunities for sexuality to be discussed honestly and openly, and aims to help others in the churches to provide similar opportunities."

However the event did not consist of a dialogue, nor did it provide any opportunity for people to "share experiences in challenging ways". Instead it was a one-sided lecture given by somebody whose idea of contemporary sexual theology is for the Christian churches to just follow and mindlessly replicate some of 
the worst ideas of the 20th century, including the nonsense of the LGBT movement and the fake science of "gender". 
            Ms Grosch-Miller started by telling us that the sexual morality of the Old Testament was designed to maximize procreation because the life expectancy then was so short; therefore, we can easily conclude that it is outdated and discard it. She did not explain why, if that was true, the descendants of Abraham rejected the fertility rites of the Babylonians, and their rather gregarious sexual practices, since those too would surely result in procreation. Actually according to the Bible, Abraham lived to be 175, Isaac 180, and Jacob 174. Abraham's mother Terah was said to have lived to be 205. I would hardly call that a short life expectancy.
        Ms Grosch-Miller said that the ancient Israelites believed in the homunculus theory of Aristotle, which surprised me. She could not provide any back up for this, and if they did it is rather odd that Judaism runs in the female line. 
         The real problems with Ms Grosch-Miller's approach were visible when she offered us a list of 37 rules or criteria for defining a so-called "Sexually Healthy Adult" drawn up by SIECUS, the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States. I wonder who and what SIECUS is and where its funding comes from. She challenged us to study this SIECUS list of Desiderata and say whether the Church in our opinion helped us to achieve each of them. The focus of the talk was supposed to be on "sexual maturity" (whatever that is) and "sexual theology" (whatever that is) but now it had abruptly switched to sexual health. At least we know what that is  - or do we? According to the ridiculously long list issued by SIECUS, sexual health starts with "appreciating your own body"  - does that include sexting pictures of your private parts to others? It requires that we "express love and intimacy in appropriate ways"  - but what the hell is appropriate and who decides? "Exhibit skills that enhance personal relationships" - and what exactly does that entail? Then we must "Discriminate between life-enhancing sexual behaviours and those that are harmful to self and/or others," but harm is a very difficult thing to prove and who exactly is going to decide what is harmful?
Then we are told to "Express one's sexuality in ways that are consistent with one's values"... It doesn't matter apparently what those values are, so long as they're yours. If that's your choice according to SIECUS that's fine. And number 27, "Act consistently with one's own values when dealing with an unintended pregnancy," must come as a huge relief to the woman in Winnipeg who was found last week to have stored the dead bodies of six newborn babies in a rented locker for years. She was consistent all right because she did the same  thing six times!
We are urged to "Help to prevent sexual abuse"  - how exactly are we supposed to do that? And how do you define abuse? We are told we must "Exercise democratic responsibility to influence legislation dealing with sexual issues." But in the UK we are not allowed to do that. The government has just forced through a redefinition of marriage without any prior warning in their manifesto or mandate from the voters. So according to SIECUS we are all sexually unhealthy. 
     Nowhere in the SIECUS document do I find the words "love", "marriage", "commitment", or even "morality". So what is it doing in a church?
     Number 33 exhorts us to be critical of all bias on grounds of "gender, sexuality, culture, ethnicity and race". Here we have the familiar fallacy of equating different sorts of category, and insisting that to discriminate between anything at all is always wrong and unfair. As a ploy of rhetoric, this is called "bracketting". By listing gender and sexuality alongside race it encourages you to assume that the same answers must automatically apply to a wide range of totally different questions. They don't. Being black is not a form of behaviour. It is not an action, or a lifestyle, but merely a matter of your personal appearance, therefore it is not a moral issue. To compare being black to any form of social or sexual behaviour is an invalid argument. It was quite obvious that Ms Grosch-Miller accepts all those hasty, superficial ways of  thinking. 
       It would take too long to point out all the weaknesses, contradictions and fallacies of the SIECUS document. The deplorable thing is that Ms Grosch-Miller took the line that the church's role is to follow what secular society decrees, instead of offering a lead. If secular society and the Guardian newspaper decide that "gay is good" she thinks the church should follow. It must take its orders from the likes of Ian McKellen of Stonewall, who goes around schools reading out some obscene poem about a necrophiliac queer assaulting the dead body of Christ. He's obviously completely crackers.
      By urging us to be "inclusive" Ms Grosch-Miller means the Church of England should give its blessing to the revolting perversions described in the literature of the Terrence Higgins Trust (which I will not even stoop to quoting). It should replace the Ten Commandments with the Gay Liberation Manifesto, which says "We must abolish the family..."
      The argument that a church needs to be "inclusive" is another fallacy. By telling people to repent and offering forgiveness of sins it is already inclusive. Inclusion does not mean pretending that gross behaviour is acceptable or something to boast about. Nor does it mean accepting at face value the lie that somebody can change their sex by cutting off their genitals. 
      This fake science originated in the 1950s when Simone de Beauvoir wrote, "one is not born a woman, one becomes a woman". She was wrong of course and since then she has been proved wrong by the disastrous experiments of the misguided Professor John Money. Money's attempts to change people's sex by carrying out operations on their genitalia ended in tragedy when his chief guinea-pig, David Reimer, committed suicide in 2004. Many other sex-change stories end in suicide, regret or tragedy.
       So the trendy ideas of Ms Grosch-Miller do not lead to sexual maturity, to sexual health or even to mental health. They will not lead to enriching relationships. They are out of place in a church and would indeed do a lot of harm anywhere.

1 comment:

  1. Good, Julia.
    SIECUS stands for the Sex Information and Education Council of the United States.
    I recommend that you get hold of a copy of this valuable and amazingly well researched book -SIECUS Circle - A Humanist Revolution - by Claire Chambers (publ.1977). This contains the blueprint of secular humanism which shares a common materialism with Marxism. Its principal objective is the re-education of the secular worldview a la Kinsey and the interlocking and overlapping organisations and NGOs. Their agenda: abortion, atheism, forced sex "education", homosexuality, pornography and a permissive attitude to drugs. To understand the decline of the West this book foretold it all.

    I quote: “Once a circle is drawn, it is difficult to trace its beginning. The SIECUS circle is similar to others in this respect. Few others than its actual architects can be certain of its origin. We do know that the nucleus, became a physical reality in 1964, shortly after an international symposium for the study of universal sex education was held. Since then, the SIECUS orbit has expanded to envelop publishing houses, film producers, governmental and private agencies, foundations, medical societies, educational institutions and religious bodies. This massive network of interlocking organisations is the power structure through which SIECUS operate to exert pressure on local schools and an unsuspecting public to adopt its sex education program”.

    To take the view that sex education was inevitable, to cave into the political mind-set without launching a campaign to fight against it nationally with parent-power, underestimated the insanity of toxic sex education to enslave children and destroy their innocence. Hence our situation today where we should hang our heads in shame at the trauma children are to be faced with the use of CHIPS and other evil grooming sex lessons by SEF, FPA, Brook and Stonewall.