Sex and sexuality Videos

The Dining Table 5 – Gender, Identity and Same Sex Attraction – Ed Shaw

This is our latest edition of the Dining Table – an interview/conversation with Ed Shaw…

Does Christianity have a plausibility problem when it comes to sexuality? What does the Bible say about our identity? Ed Shaw is a UK pastor who, in dealing with his own same sex attraction, is involved in Living Out, an organisation that helps churches and individuals grapple with issues of faith and sexuality.

The Dining Table – Melvin Tinker – Cultural Marxism



  1. How about identifying as being a member of the human race, with a sexuality, being created in the image of God, not being without flaws but yet having dignity through the grace of God, having meaning and purpose with an important contribution to make to the world with at core, it being to love God and to love others as myself?

    Seems to be a reasonable stating point for all of us?

  2. Did anyone notice that Ed Shaw is co chair of the Church’s Evangelical Council which is quite involved in the Church of England and politics within the Church of England? The use of “evangelical” here seems to mean political questions are evangelical ones the Council deals with. Please tell me I have this wrong and that I have taken this up wrongly. I would hate to think that the glorious gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ has been demoted to meaning the Church of England and its politics.

    1. Why would you think, or even like to think, that any organisation, including the church, does not have any political forces?

      Politics does not have to mean the rabble of apparently grown up people arguing in parliaments.

    2. Unfortunately, you are correct; Shaw follows the same lines as Sam Allberry, who promotes advocates many aspects of homosexuality. Despite their ‘soft’ approaches, they are a threat to the Gospel, which makes me wonder why Shaw have been given a platform here.

      1. Because Shaw is not a remote threat to the Gospel – he not only proclaims it, but lives it. As does Sam Allberry. Of course it may be that you have a different version of the Gospel? I prefer to stick with the biblical one…

      2. You still havnot told us what the Gospel is and why you think Ed undermines it. Your links are bizarre and don’t show any such thing. Given that you also trash Russell Moore (and I suspect 99.9% of Christians in the world) this is hardly surprising. Interesting that you think that the more detractors you have the more compromising you must be!

  3. Adam Julians
    “not being without flaws” unlike the rest of the “human race” by being sinless??
    Sexual attraction being a part of God’s plan…can you show the verse that teaches that, without one of your umbrella “love God and to love others as myself” un-verses?

  4. David Robertson @theweeflea

    Pointless announcements no.1 – “you are required to wear masks or get a $200 fine’ in Sunshine Coast airport – ignored by 50% of the people in a packed airport.”

    You are in my part of the world today. You must be glad to escape the NSW floods!

    Will you be preaching here?

    A huge thanks for spreading the Word of God here and I hope you enjoy this part of the world.

  5. Calling myself a heterosexual adulterously attracted Christian might be true but it is also something that is wrong as Christ said if I look at another woman other than my wife to lust after her I have committed adultery in the sight of God and have sinned. Also my wife might well take issue with describing myself in this way! She would of course be right to do so. Not committing the actual act is not good enough either for God or my wife. She would want me to repent and to seek help and prayer to overcome that temptation.

    By calling yourself something other than what God does you are inviting huge problems. God (if you’ve been truly converted) calls you ‘redeemed’, a ‘new creature’, saved’, ‘born again’ etc etc. He would never call you a ‘same sex attracted Christian’!

    You did not really examine the Biblical terminology that is used to describe all same sex activity and challenge Mr Shaw with this. The perverted and unnatural nature of same sex attraction was glossed over. This in and of itself should mean anyone is ashamed to call themselves as ‘same sex attracted Christian’. Mr Shaw may have found this offensive but that is something he would need to face up to as the same God who said that about homosexuality also tells him he is loved and not condemned. Both are true.

    Before I received Jesus as my Lord and Saviour I swore a lot and really thought nothing of it although I was careful not to do so in front of my mother. Salvation meant complete deliverance virtually instantaneously and although I slipped up a couple of times I was a baby Christian and repented and knew I was forgiven. It has since never been an issue for years. It would be nonsensical to call myself a ‘cussing inclined Christian’.

    There was no acknowledgment whatsoever of the demonic element that can be present in either temptation to sin or the habitual practise of sin and therefore no dealing with the subject of deliverance. I know instances where a homosexual has been converted and delivered and has a wife and family – this is what is possible for all homosexuals.

    Because this was not brought out the foundation was shaky and then there was no valid ground to challenge Mr Shaw on several subsequent comments that were also wrong. The assumption that ‘we’re talking so that must be good’ was erroneous and I am quite certain that in this case you left Mr Shaw thinking there was nothing wrong with either him or his views.

    1. God calls me (and you) a sinner, whose heart is desperately wicked and deceitful above all things. There is no more wrong with Ed Shaw, than there is with you and me. Other than perhaps we might be more self righteous.

      1. I did read the comments, but perhaps I have misunderstood what you are trying to get across?

        Instead of all this apparent ambiguity, perhaps it would be better if you just ”Spit it out” as my dad used to say?

        Fall or no Fall, if homosexuality, as witnessed and documented in many species of the animal kingdom – humans included -is a lifestyle choice and a biological reality ( born this way) then the question remains: Why did God create ( the genetic mechanisms for) humans (and other animals) who are biologically predisposed to homosexuality?

        As for Francis Collins: He probably accepts humans have a sinful nature but no, he does not accept the Fall as described in Gen 3., otherwise he would reject/disown all his work on the HGP and likely be regarded as a fraud – which he isn’t.

      2. Strange that you feel that you can tell Francis Collins what he believes! I have already explained that whilst there is no ‘gay gene’ homosexuality is likely a combination of nature and nurture. The fact that something occurs in nature does not make it right – unless you are willing to justify rape, murder and incest on that basis?!

    2. Are you asserting that homosexuality is brought about by environment/culture, lifestyle choices etc rather than nature (Born this way)?

      There is still no definitive argument produced by biologists or social theorists.
      However, if the biologists are correct why does God create humans ( and other animals) who are homosexual?

      1. Both.

        Your question is like asking why does God create humans who are murderous, lying, greedy, racist etc. Can these be justified by saying ‘God made me that way?’! Is there no room for human agency, free will, morality, responsibility etc. We are not robots.

  6. Your question is like asking why does God create humans who are murderous, lying, greedy, racist etc.

    Why indeed! And all are valid questions.

    However, and it is a very big however, the difference here, David is that if homosexuality is a biological reality then ”choice” does not enter the equation any more than heterosexuality, and as human genitalia has evolved primarily for the purpose of procreation, the question of why did God create humans ( and other animals) who are biologically disposed toward homosexuality should be paramount.

    Perhaps as a spokesperson for God’s Word you could provide us with an answer?

    1. Sure – God no more created human beings biologically predisposed towards homosexuality than he created them biologically predisposed to alcholism, anger and death! The fall changed everything…

      1. So, you are saying then, that homosexuality is purely a lifestyle choice?

        The Fall as described in Genesis 3 is, of course, a religious concept not supported by scientific evidence as the Human Genome Project has demonstrated.

      2. No – that’s not what I’m saying – which you would have been aware of if you had read the comments.

        And strange that the director of the Human Genome project, Dr Frrancis Collins, is a Christian who accepts the Fall….but what would he know? Just rely on Wiki and Google instead!

  7. That was one of the most thoughtful, considerate and genuinely helpful discussions on the subject I have encountered.

    A glorious example of just how much real illumination can be achieved when we seek the truth rather than the defeat of a notional opponent.

    My thanks to all three of you for challenging my own own assumptions and giving me much to think about.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

%d bloggers like this: