Read on Twitter
Lots of excellent responses to the CEEC video this morning in many forms and I don't want to repeat what is already being said better elsewhere. But I do have one big question for those involved in the video that no-one else seems to be asking.....
It is a genuine enquiry and not meant to be mere 'whatabouttery' or 'gotcha' debate and it is this: why, on your view, are non-heterosexual relationships so problematic but the use of artificial contraception by heterosexual couples is not? To explain what I mean, here's a thread
You base your objection to non-heterosexual relationships on a clear narrative about the created nature of men and women in scripture which begins with Genesis. In the video you note that God says 'it is not good for man to be alone'. Yet that is not all that it says...
The companionship that is so crucial here serves a deeper divine purpose, namely that humans should 'be fruitful and multiply'. Historically, then, a key objection to any form of sexual activity that isn't or doesn't lead to penetrative vaginal sex between a married couple that
are open to the possibility of conception is that it breaks this commandment. We find further scriptural support for this view in Gen. 38, where Onan is killed by God for practising what we would now call 'coitus interruptus' as a form of contraception. Based on this clear
scriptural witness (supported by the church's reading of scripture in every century except the 20th and 21st) I feel compelled to ask why this doesn't seem so central to your teaching on the issue? Is there a difference that I'm not seeing?
(For the avoidance of doubt and for the sake of clarity: this is not a view that I hold. On this issue I hear a word from God saying clearly 'behold, I am doing a new thing' - Isa. 43.19 - in much the same way as the Spirit called Peter and the other apostles to rethink the
testimony of scripture and tradition that held that circumcision was essential for a right relationship with God, but I am curious as to why what seems the logical conclusion of the argument isn't presented in the video)
