This recent post by Ian Paul has prompted me to return to the subject of statistics on sexual identity.

According to the Office for National Statistics:-

• In 2016, just over 1 million (2.0%) of the UK population aged 16 and over identified themselves as lesbian, gay or bisexual (LGB).
• The population aged 16 to 24 were the age group most likely to identify as LGB in 2016 (4.1%).
• More males (2.3%) than females (1.6%) identified themselves as LGB in 2016.
• The population who identified as LGB in 2016 were most likely to be single, never married or civil partnered, at 70.7%.

The report further states:-

‘In 2016, around 2% of the population identified themselves as lesbian, gay or bisexual (LGB). This has increased from 1.7% in 2015 (a statistically significant increase). London had the largest proportion of the population who identified as LGB (2.7%), which could be associated with a relatively young and diverse population.’

(It is to be noted that sexual identity does not necessarily reflect sexual attraction or sexual behaviour.)

But, as Ian Paul notes:-

‘The proportion in the C of E appears to be much higher. Some have suggested that as many as 10% of Anglican clergy are gay; a friend told me that they reckoned the figure was 20% in the London area; in Southwark one clergyperson told me that in a deanery of 15, only 5 were not gay. (The C of E is in this regard in line with other institutions; the BBC recently reported that 12% of its senior management were LGBT+, as are just under 9% of MPs in Parliament.)’

Other thoughts arising from Ian Paul’s post:-

1. It is highly questionable whether there is such a things as a ‘LGBTI+ community’.

Paul quotes Gay atheist Matthew Parris:-

‘This community does not exist. The bolting together of dissimilar groups distorts understanding. LGBT isn’t a club I’m in.’

2. Christian leaders who advocate a revisionist approach to sexuality will usually do so while, at the same time, promoting sexual faithfulness between one person and another.  But how can it be possible for a person whose lifestyle is actively bisexual to remain faithful to just one person?

3. The gospel of Jesus Christ has always been radically inclusive.

Ian Paul asks:-

‘Was Jesus not ‘radically inclusive’ in his preaching of the kingdom of God? And Paul not ‘radically inclusive’ in seeing those ‘excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise’ now ‘reconciled’ with Jews ‘in one body by the cross’ (Eph 2.12, 16) so that there is now ‘neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus’ (Gal 3.28)?’

Paul quotes David Baker:-

‘You see, the thing is, I’ve always thought the gospel was radically inclusive already. I’ve always believed that ‘the vilest offender who truly believes, that moment from Jesus a pardon receives’ – as the famous hymn puts it. And when I look back on churches of which I have been a part, I recall them including paedophiles, an associate of the Kray twins, pornography addicts, adulterers – and others, including myself, whose middle class respectability masked sins which might have been less obvious but were equally heart-breaking to God. We, together, were vile offenders (in the eyes of God’s law if not of the world) who chose to repent and believe. And gloriously, all of us were welcomed and included! When you add in the mind-blowing mix of age, ethnicity and background as well, that seems pretty inclusive already.’

4. Responding to those who say that the church should not remain silent about issues of sexual orientation and gender identity, Ian Paul asks:-

‘Have they been teaching about the inherent goodness of the body and sexuality when received as a gift from the creator God? About the impact of the fall and human sin in distorting this most powerful of human desires? About God’s gift of male-female marriage as the safe place for this desire’s fruitful exercise? About the importance of faithful marriage as the place to raise children and provide lifelong support? About the possibility of forgiveness, healing and restoration when things go wrong in this arena of life? About the fact that sex and marriage is not the ‘be all and end all’, and the possibility of living a full and rich life in singleness and celibacy? About the merely penultimate importance of sexuality, since we will in the age to come ‘be like the angels’? To be silent on this rich and culturally relevant stream of Christian teaching would indeed be a serious failure.’