In Greek and Roman
antiquity, every form of sexual expression that is now on full display in
society was present there as well.
Descriptions of celibacy, marriage between men and women, pre-marital
sex, prostitution, adultery, divorce and remarriage, rape, pederasty,
pedophilia, homosexuality of both men and women, men identifying and dressing as
women, homosexual marriage, bestiality—and whatever else one might add—are all
present in the literature. Some of the arguments
in regard to these practices developed as applications of philosophical schools
of thought in this pre-Christian era. This
essay compares and contrasts Paul’s understanding with some aspects of
Platonism and Stoicism and then expands this to contemporary discussion of
gender fluidity, so-called ‘Side B Christians,’ and ‘conversion therapy.’
Platonism
Platonic philosophy, for
example, saw the particulars (this chair, this kind of justice, this love) as
expressions of ideals or universals (‘Chairness,’ Justice, Love). In this line of thought, any criticism of a
particular expression of something would be made in terms of whether it was a
good or bad representation of the ideal.
So, for example, the universal ‘Love’ could be expressed in regard to
physical love or intellectual love (love of philosophy). The latter was said to be closer to the ideal
of Love, yet it did not preclude the former.
Thus, the argument could be made in Platonic terms that love that
embraces both the physical and the intellectual was superior to love that
embraced only the physical. On this
logic, pederasty—the love of boys—was superior when that love was not only
physical but also a love of their developing minds and learning. Moreover, pederasty could be said to be
superior to the love of a man with a woman, since women were not found in the
schools. That is, the love of women was
a purely physical love. The love of boys
could be presented as a love that, in addition to physical love, also involved
a love of a superior virtue, Wisdom.
Another argument related to a different virtue, Beauty. One could love another in appreciation of
their beauty, which partook of the ideal, Beauty, and this could apply to women
as well as pre-pubescent boys. Such arguments are found in works such as
Xenophon’s Symposium, Plato’s Phaedrus, or in Pseudo-Lucian’s Amores, presented alongside alternative
views. The essence of such arguments for
Platonists was the notion of ethics as a pursuit of the ideals or universals in
whatever particular expression of them one might find. Such an argument was not based in nature but
in concepts or ideas.
Stoicism
Over against this
Platonic approach to philosophy through ideals and their applications stood
Stoicism. Stoicism grew out of Cynicism
and, like it, held up ‘living according to nature’ as its core philosophical
principle. This is radically different
from Platonism—or Aristotelianism, for that matter. (Aristotle did, however, pay more attention
to nature, and he argued that the ideal existed in the particular rather than
being so separable from it.) For Stoics,
philosophy emerges from an understanding of what is natural, not as an
expression of ideals in values and virtues.
A discussion of what is ‘according to nature’ (Greek: kata physin) versus ‘against nature’
(Greek: para physin) was not limited
to Stoics, and one finds this in other philosophical writers as well. Yet the Stoics made this distinction
foundational to their thinking.
On this philosophical
precept, for example, the 1st/2nd century Stoic
philosopher, Epictetus, opposed homosexuality, cross-gender, and gender
fluidity notions or expressions. He
returns to the subject several times, since deviance from male-female sexuality
offers excellent examples of what Stoics opposed: living against nature. The language of ‘against nature’ was not
unique to the Stoics—it was not technical or esoteric terminology—and can be
found in other authors as well. Thus, it
was a simple concept that did not need definition. It is also a simpler concept than the
self-contradictory notion of ‘LGBTQ+’ individuals, let alone a ‘community’
consisting of these oppositional gender identities.[1] Stoics did not understand ‘nature’ to mean
something unique to an individual, as if one could confuse nature with an
‘orientation’ or ‘disposition.’ Nature
was the opposite of nurture, but an individual could claim either, or one’s own
choices, as the basis for an orientation.
What Stoics meant by ‘nature’ is what we would say is biological or the
way the world was made or how it works (by the gods, by God, by Providence,
according to the Reason that orders the world, etc.).
On one of the occasions
that Epictetus applies his Stoic thinking about living ‘according to nature’
versus living ‘against nature,’ he addresses gender fluidity. He argues that men and women have different
characteristics so that they do not have to identify their pronouns, so to
speak. People can look at them and
simply see that they are male or female.
For that matter, there are only two genders, and these correspond with
biology. No Stoic would argue that sex
with a handsome boy who is a bright lad at school is an expression of Beauty,
Wisdom, and Love in some wonderful sense, perhaps even better than the love of
a woman. Nor would a Stoic see anything
natural, and therefore anything good, about a male dressing up as a woman. Thus, Epictetus says,
Has she [Providence] not by these [hairs on the chin] distinguished the sexes? Does not nature in each of us call out, even at a distance, I am a man; approach and address me as such; inquire no further; see the characteristic? On the other hand, with regard to women, as she has mixed something softer in their voice, so she has deprived them of a beard. But no; [some think] this living being should have been left undistinguished, and each of us should be obliged to proclaim, " I am a man!"[2] But why is not this characteristic [of facial hair as a distinction of the sexes] beautiful and becoming and venerable? How much more beautiful than the comb of cocks; how much more noble than the mane of lions! Therefore we ought to preserve the characteristics made by the Creator; we ought not to reject them, nor confound, as much as in us lies, the distinct sexes (Discourses 4.16).[3]
In another passage, Epictetus again clarifies his thinking about nature, reason, gender, dress, and transgenderism:
Epictetus, Discourses 3.1 You are a human being; that is, a mortal animal,
capable of a rational use of things as they appear. And what is this rational
use? A perfect conformity to Nature. What have you, then, particularly
excellent? Is it the animal part? No. The mortal? No. That which is capable of
the mere use of these things? No. The excellence lies in the rational part.
Adorn and beautify this; but leave your hair to him who formed it as he thought
good.
Well, what other appellations have you? Are
you a man or a woman? A man. Then adorn yourself as a man, not as a woman. A
woman is naturally smooth and delicate, and if hairy, is a monster, and
shown among the monsters at Rome. It is the same thing in a man not to
be hairy; and if he is by nature not so, he is a monster. But
if he depilates himself, what shall we do with him? Where shall we show him,
and how shall we advertise him? "A man to be seen, who would rather be a
woman." What a scandalous show! Who would not wonder at such an
advertisement? I believe, indeed, that these very persons themselves would; not
apprehending that it is the very thing of which they are guilty.
Of what have you to accuse your nature, sir, that it has made you a man? Why, were all to be born women, then? In that case what would have been the use of your finery? For whom would you have made yourself fine, if all were women? But the whole affair displeases you. Go to work upon the whole, then. Remove your manhood itself and make yourself a woman entirely, that we may be no longer deceived, nor you be half man, half woman. To whom would you be agreeable, to the women? Be agreeable to them as a man.[4]
Note that Epictetus’ argument here includes the connection between hair and biological gender in a similar way to Paul’s discussion in 1 Corinthians 11.2-16. What is ‘natural’ is not the length of hair or how one wears one’s hair or how one dresses but what those things signify about one’s nature or gender (male or female).
Paul and Romans 1.26-28
In Romans 1.18-32, Paul offers an explanation of theological and ethical error as a result of turning away from the Creator and the way He has made the world. With allusions to the Genesis creation story, he applies his argument to idolatry and homosexuality. Idolatry is an unnatural turning away from the Creator to worship man-made idols. What could be more irrational than for a man to worship as creator something that he himself has made? Similarly, homosexuality is an unnatural turning away from sex as God intended it—heterosexuality—to lesbianism and male homosexuality. What could be more irrational and an affront to the Creator to use one’s sexual organs and persons of the same gender in a way that defies their natural, sexual purpose?
Against Nature/According to Nature
In
making this argument in Romans 1, Paul uses the well-known language about what
is ‘natural’ and what is ‘against nature.’
He explains lesbianism as something that is ‘against nature’ in that it
involves an unnatural ‘use’ (English translations obscure this key word and
point). The New Revised Standard
Version, for example, translates the relevant verses as follows:
For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.
The phrase, ‘natural intercourse,’ in both verses 26 and 27 is the NRSV’s translation of ‘natural use’ (physikēn chrēsin), and ‘unnatural’ is the translation of ‘para physin.’ The language and the understanding Paul presents is thoroughly understandable to the 1st century discussion and comports with Epictetus’ arguments.
Disordered Passions
Being consumed by passion
is not simply or even primarily about the quantity of passion but is about
passion being in control when reason should be.
To be consumed by passion is the opposite of being controlled by
reason. Moreover, when this is the case,
passion directs itself at the wrong objects, such as same-sex acts. This was a core teaching for the Stoics, and
Paul makes the same point in verse 27.
Men, letting their passion guide their sexuality, have gone against
God’s purposes in creating men and women for procreation. Passion is, of course, part of sexuality—Paul
discusses this in 1 Corinthians 7, as a matter of fact. Passion alone, however, does not provide a
sexual ethic and runs contrary to a creation ethic just as much as the Stoics
would have said it runs contrary to reason being in control and therefore is
against nature. For both, a passion-led
disposition defies God, nature, and reason such that one is so disoriented as
to imagine that same-sex acts are natural.
Consequences of
Homosexual Acts and Orientation
Also, Paul’s final point
in Romans 1.27 is something understandable to the Stoics: homosexual acts have
their consequences. What are these
consequences? The answer comes from
reading Paul in his own context, not through our own speculations. Epictetus is once again helpful, and note
that his point is not about some physical consequence but about one’s true,
biologically determined identity:
What is lost by the victim of unnatural lust? His manhood. And by
the agent? Beside a good many other things he also loses his manhood no less
than the other (Discourses 2.10).
Like Epictetus, Paul does
not have something merely physical in mind, such as contracting a sexually
transmitted disease, even though Romans 1.27b has in view sexual acts (the NRSV reasonably enough has
‘men committed shameless acts’) and speaks of some negative recompense (NRSV
has ‘penalty’) ‘in themselves’ (NRSV has ‘in their own persons’). This simply shows the connection between acts
and identity, but Paul’s thinking is in line with Epictetus. The very next verse concludes his thought: ‘And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God
gave them up to a debased mind and to things that should not be done’ (Romans
1.28). The moral result of unnatural
acts is, Paul argues, a debased mind that then supports one’s readiness to
continue in shameless, homosexual acts. Acts
lead to a distorted identity that lead to further acts, and so forth.
‘Side B’ Christians: A New Heresy Dividing Evangelicals
To clarify
this point, note that a peculiar and unbiblical teaching in our time has
emerged that seeks to affirm homosexual orientation and identity while opposing
homosexual acts.[5] It is called ‘Side B’ Christianity (!) and is
dividing Evangelicals. ‘Side A’
Christians are supposedly Christians who fully accept homosexuality—both orientation
and acts. ‘Side B’ Christians are those
who accept the orientation but forbid the acts. This appears to be a rather
obvious attempt to soften traditional Christian ethics under pressure from
Western culture, although it is a view that will find no favour from either
orthodoxy or the post-Christian culture.
What a distorted notion, to affirm a sexual orientation that one is not
to fulfill in sexual acts, and then claim it is something good. The College of Bishops of the Anglican Church
of North America rightly opposed this teaching in 2021.[6]
Paul’s
linking acts to mind and doing so in that order in Romans 1.27 shows the
futility of this attempt to oppose homosexual acts while affirming homosexual
orientation. The ‘orientation’ is a
result of acts, and further acts flow from the orientation. Acts and orientation go together. As Epictetus says, homosexual acts have the
consequence of losing one’s manhood. Note that Jesus’ own ethic stood over against the
Pharisees’ ethic that limited ethics to acts while not addressing the inward
person, the heart. This so-called ‘Side
B Christian’ view affirming homosexual identity and opposing homosexual acts is
a recent invention that undercuts basic Biblical ethics. It is an exercise in Platonic distinctions
between universal ideals and particulars that disregards God’s creational
intent not only regarding acts but also regarding the inner person.
Paul’s logic and language
would have been perfectly well understood in his day in regard to the
philosophical debates. He sides squarely
with the Stoics, although Stoicism did not share his Christian understanding of
creation or of God. Yet, in the Biblical
creation narrative, God determines to create humanity by forming a man and a
woman so that they might multiply upon the earth. That is, God made two genders that were
complementary for the purpose of childbearing.
The Genesis creation account reads:
Then
God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and
let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air,
and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every
creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.”
27
So God created humankind in his
image,
in the image of God he
created them;
male and female he
created them.
28
God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the
earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the
birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth”
(Genesis 1.26-28).
Unlike Platonic philosophers
and like Stoic philosophers, Paul speaks of the ‘natural use’ of sexual organs
and of each gender’s ‘right use of’ the other gender. Paul, of course, bases his argument on the
Jewish Scriptures and not on Stoicism, but he shared the natural argument of
the Stoics because of his creational theology.
Right
Understanding
The Stoics held that the
solution to human problems resulting from disordered passions was the exercise
of reason, and this reason would direct a person away from the passion-driven
life. Paul, as has been noted, could
also identify the human problem in terms of either the passions or the lack of
right ‘understanding.’ In addition to Romans
1.28, Ephesians speaks of Gentiles living in the ‘futility of their minds’
(4.17) and being ‘alienated from the life of God because of their ignorance and
hardness of heart’ (4.18). The result of
this is stated similarly to Romans 1.26-27: people therefore ‘have lost all
sensitivity and have abandoned themselves to licentiousness’ and are ‘greedy to
practice every kind of impurity’ (4.19).
Note that the problem with the passions is not only the amount of passion
when one is given over (by God or by oneself) to licentiousness but also the
misdirection of passion—‘every kind of impurity.’ This text in Ephesians captures the same
points as in Romans, and Stoics would have agreed. There is a need for a
correction of reason and a return to a right understanding.
Yet Paul differs
fundamentally from the Stoics in the solution to the problem. Right thinking—or mind or heart—can only come
about through a divine work and not through human effort. In this Ephesians passage, Paul speaks of
‘learning Christ,’ being ‘taught in him,’ and being ‘renewed in the spirit of
your minds’ (4.20-23)—all language that continues to capture the idea of right
reason but introducing the work of Christ in this transformation. There is a need to be clothed ‘with a new
self that is created according to the likeness of God in true righteousness and
holiness’ (4.24).
Christian
Conversion and the Debate over ‘Conversion Therapy’
Not only does this
theological ethic oppose ‘Side B’ innovations and distortions to traditional
Christianity, it also opposes another heretical view that is advocated in
mainline denominations: the attempt to ban what is called ‘conversion
therapy.’ The word ‘therapy’ is used
because certain counselling approaches intended to help persons with gender
dysphoria are applications of psychological therapies. In fact, what he says about philosophies
intended to help people in need of healing from the disease of the passions (a
common philosophical notion) would apply just as easily to therapies: they have
an appearance of wisdom but lack any value in checking self-indulgence
(Colossians 2.20-22). Instead, what is
needed is the new life in Christ, defined in terms of the Gospel of Jesus’
death, resurrection, ascension, and second coming (Colossians 2.20-3.4). Without completely dismissing effort and
therapy outright, the point is that they are not the real solution. The real problem was a spiritual matter. Besetting sins call for pastoral care and the
work of the Holy Spirit, not humanistic, social science, counselling—whether or
not there is some merit in these therapies.
Thus, the real issue at stake in the current debate of conversion
‘therapy’ is not ‘therapy’ but ‘conversion.’
False teachers who have crept in among us are actually opposed to
conversion itself.
The attack on conversion
is the latest move in a continuous attack on Biblical and orthodox views on
sexuality in mainline denominations.[7] For example, a public letter to Prime
Minister Boris Johnson, written by former Evangelical Steve Chalk of the ‘Oasis’
ministry and notably signed by the former archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan
Williams, offers a profoundly un-Christian definition of conversion in an
attempt to oppose any form of change for non-heterosexuals. It defines ‘conversion’ as ‘the event or
process by which a person responds joyfully to the glorious embrace of the
eternally loving and ever-merciful God.’[8] Note that there is no conversion at all in
this definition: one is simply embraced as one is. There is no repentance, no turning from sin,
and no change. Conversion becomes
embrace. Moreover, there is no mention
of repentance, Jesus, His death on the cross for our sins, the power of His
resurrection life, the work of the Holy Spirit, and sanctification. In short, there is nothing Christian in this
definition. (Indeed, some who might be inclined
to accept such a post-Christian definition of ‘conversion’ might yet criticise
it for not providing a broad enough definition to include an Islamic notion of
conversion!)
Any definition of ‘conversion’
must involve turning and going in a new direction: The Latin derivative, conversus, means ‘turning.’ Christian conversion
is not just accepting a new belief system, but turning around from sin to
righteousness in accepting Christ as Lord and Saviour. Conversion is under attack
in the public square since it is directly opposed to the three values of
Progressivism (diversity, equity, and inclusion) and does not affirm the
desired conclusion that homosexuals cannot and must not change. (That
many testimonies of such conversions might be cited is a very inconvenient fact
for Progressives.) Both governments and
Churches are involved in this debate, and some push-back to Progressivism, which
wants to shut down any counter-examples to its agenda, is presently underway.[9]
In addition to conversion,
there are the important issues of pastoral care and the Church to clarify. Paul’s
letters help to clarify for new believers what it means to be the Church, and
they offer pastoral care to new converts.
The Church is the people of God in Christ Jesus. It is not just a worship service, loosely
welcoming to all, a place of embrace or inclusion, open to all diversity as a
matter of principle. Pastoral care is not about making people feel
comfortable in their choices and sin but bringing sinners to salvation through
Jesus Christ and exhorting them to live righteously and to experience the
life-changing power of the Holy Spirit in their lives. (This is why seminary
counselling degrees that are therapeutic, accredited by a secular agency, and
teach toward secular licensing are in direct conflict with Christian theology,
ethics, and pastoral care.) The Church consists
of those baptized into Christ clothing themselves with Christ (Galatians
3.27). It plays a role in helping people
to follow lives of deeper discipleship in a rich spirituality pursued
through various spiritual disciplines and ministries. The Church
teaches people to follow Christ—to be ‘Christians’—and devotion to Christ
involves obedience to His commandments. (Jesus
says in John 14.15, ‘If you love me, you will keep my commandments’). The
Church helps to define the people of God over against the world. Only in
knowing how the Church is not the world can the Church engage in loving mission
to the world. Thus, the Church proclaims
a Gospel that includes conversion, not embrace, of sinners.
In Paul’s pastoral care
and understanding of the Church, a very different understanding from Stoicism
emerges. People cannot correct their own
internal disorder through philosophy by submitting all to reason. They need the life-changing power of God to
bring healing to their souls. They are
not on their own in this, but the Church exists to urge people towards godly
existence in Christ and restore them to righteous living (Galatians 6.1). Pastoral care in the Church through apostles,
prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers helps believers to grow to full
maturity in Christ (Ephesians 4.11-13).
Conclusion
An ancient division
between Platonism and Stoicism relates to contemporary arguments in ethics—particularly
in sexual ethics. The general debate is
between those who view ethics through the lens of ideas, particularly in values
and virtues (Platonists) and those who view ethics through the lens of what is
natural (the Stoics). This distinction
relates to debates today about sexual identity.
Do people choose their gender, or is their gender linked to what is
given in nature—to biology? A Platonist
approach to sexual ethics relates various
expressions of sexuality to very general values and virtues like Beauty, Wisdom, and Love and, in this way, makes sexual orientations a matter of choice. This gave Platonists an argument
that opened the door to a variety of sexual practices outside of heterosexuality
and monogamy. In the space between Platonic ideals and particulars, philosophical speculation about sexual choice could be
entertained (as it is in Xenophon’s Symposium,
appropriately set in the context of an all-night drinking party). For Stoics, on the other hand, nature
dictated internal order and its relation to practice, including sexuality, and
in this Paul as a Jew and a Christian was in full agreement. God had so created the world that established
truths are not open to choice: there were two genders (male and female); they
corresponded to biology; marriage was only definable in terms of the
procreative complementarity of a male and a female; people’s gender is not fluid;
and homosexuality and transgenderism are ‘against nature.’ Jews and Christians agreed with Stoics on these matters in that all approached sexual ethics from what was
according to the natural order. Jews and Christians
had a much richer understanding of this in their theology of creation and
understanding of God, but on this general point, they could find agreement with the Stoics and Cynics.
A further difference for
Christians in particular was the belief that divine help, not just human
determination to live by reason, was needed to correct people’s proclivity toward
internal disorder. Jews and Christians
would capture this disorder in terms of human sinfulness and their need to
convert to follow God, and Christians understood God’s help to come through the
death and resurrection of Jesus Christ for sinners and the ongoing power of
God, the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit, within them. That is, salvation was not reducible to an
embrace of individuals as they were by an all-merciful God; it was conversion
of sinners by God’s grace through Christ and the transforming grace at work
within them by the Holy Spirit to holiness and sanctification. ‘Side B’ Christianity denies so much of
Christian truth that it cannot be regarded as remotely Christian, despite certain
prominent Evangelicals promoting it.
Others, uncomfortable with the very notion of conversion, have strayed
so far from the faith as to appeal to the government to regulate the Church in
opposing conversion. Yet it is
conversion through God’s grace and empowerment, not ‘embrace’ of sinners, that defines
Christianity. Not only Paul, but all New
Testament authors and orthodox Christians understand this.
[1] For example, the opposition between ‘transgenders’
and ‘lesbians’ is frequently in the news.
Also, lesbians and male homosexuals still work from a notion of two
genders, whereas some other gender identities do not.
[2] I.e., when Providence or nature is ignored, we are
left with gender choice.
[3] Epictetus, The Works of Epictetus: His Discourses, in
Four Books, the Enchiridion, and Fragments, trans. Thomas Wentworth Higginson (New York. Thomas Nelson and Sons.
1890).
[4] The Works of Epictetus: His Discourses, in Four
Books, the Enchiridion, and Fragments, trans. Thomas Wentworth Higginson (New York: Thomas Nelson and
Sons, 1890).
[5] This unbiblical view has been advocated through the
Revoice movement, whose mission statement is a ‘progressive’ challenge to
orthodox Christianity: ‘To support and encourage gay, lesbian,
bisexual, and other same-sex attracted Christians—as well as those
who love them—so that all in the Church might be empowered to live in
gospel unity while observing the historic Christian doctrine of marriage and
sexuality.’ See https://revoice.us/about/our-mission-and-vision/ (accessed 24
March, 2022). The culture’s version of Progressivism in the value of ‘inclusion’ is inserted into Biblical
language about ‘unity’ among Progressive Christians. This heretical view is
tearing the Presbyterian Church in America apart. See Jon Payne, ‘Reality Check & the
Future of the PCA,’ Gospel Reformation Network (February 24, 2022); online at:
https://gospelreformation.net/reality-check-the-future-of-the-pca/
(accessed 22 March, 2022). It now has a Wesleyan advocate at an Evangelical
seminary even as the United Methodists are in disarray and heading towards a
major denominational split. See Tim
Tennent, ‘Side B Christians and the Restoration of Celibacy, part 1’ (March 22,
2022); online:
https://timothytennent.com/side-b-christians-and-the-restoration-of-celibacy-part1/
(accessed 24 March, 2022). Tennent’s
endorsement of this heresy is very disturbing for those orthodox Christians
needing a home and a theological seminary.
This heresy attempts to support maintaining a homosexual identity (in Paul’s
words, a ‘depraved mind’) with a view on celibacy that the Church has never
endorsed and that Paul did not entertain in 1 Corinthians 7. See Tim Tennent’s misguided argument, ‘Side B
Christians and the Restoration of Celibacy, part 3’ (March 30, 2022); online:
https://timothytennent.com/side-b-christians-and-the-restoration-of-celibacy-part3/
(accessed 30 March, 2022).
[6] ‘Sexuality and Identity: A Pastoral Statement from
the College of Bishops,’ (January 19, 2021); online:
https://anglicanchurch.net/sexuality-and-identity-a-pastoral-statement-from-the-college-of-bishops/
(accessed 25 March, 2022). However, as
Phil Ashey points out, even a clear statement by the bishops on this matter is
not enough to settle it in ACNA, although it should be: https://anglican.ink/2022/04/05/rowan-williams-urges-boris-johnson-to-ban-conversion-therapy-for-transgendered-individuals/ https://anglican.ink/2022/04/05/rowan-williams-urges-boris-johnson-to-ban-conversion-therapy-for-transgendered-individuals/;
accessed 7 April, 2022).
[7] See, e.g., Tim Wyatt, ‘Factsheet: Sexuality Timeline
in the Church of England,’ Religion Media Centre (January 11, 2022); online at
https://religionmediacentre.org.uk/factsheets/factsheet-sexuality-timeline-in-the-church-of-england/(accessed
30 March, 2022).
[8] A copy of this letter can be found at: https://anglican.ink/2022/04/05/rowan-williams-urges-boris-johnson-to-ban-conversion-therapy-for-transgendered-individuals/;
accessed 7 April, 2022.
Christianities,’ Christian Today (25 January, 2022); online: https://www.christiantoday.com/article/support-for-
conversion-therapy-bans-are-revealing-the-divide-between-two-different-christianities/138086.htm (accessed 24
March, 2022). See also ‘An International Declaration on Conversion Therapy and Therapeutic Choice,’ The
International Federation for Therapeutic and Counselling Choice;’ online: https://iftcc.org/the-declaration/; another
letter from ministers and pastoral workers pushing back opposition to care that includes conversion and
transformation can be read here: https://ministersconsultationresponse.com/.; accessed 7 April, 2022.
Comments