A Tale of Two Clerics "A Different Life" Roy Clements' Story Part 4 1999-2026 The Longer Read

27 years of change – in our own lives

The 27 years between Roy’s public “outing” in 1999 and today have seen some huge global changes. Like other middle aged people I can plot many of these in my own life.

In 1999, as young parents of two year-old boy-girl twins, we traded up our 3-bed end of terraced house to a 4-bed detached. We bought this (mostly on a mortgage) for £163,000 – just over 8 times the average annual salary (and four times my own). I had also recently bought a relatively useless hand-sized bit of plastic, an Ericsson A1018s mobile phone.

It could (sometimes) make telephone calls but couldn’t text let alone do anything smarter. The internet existed but like most we had no home access to it. We didn’t even own a home computer until the following year and our first Internet experience was then a frustratingly slow dial-up. However, in 2000 I did boldly purchase a new Nissan Primera - through jamjar.com!

 At work, for three years my law firm had been using email and dabbled in the strange new world of the Internet. However, we still mostly communicated through typed letters, telephone calls, face to face meetings and yellow-papered faxes. We also still maintained vast rows of metal filing cabinets to house our masses of paper files. Every work day was a suit and tie office day sat in my own little room. At home I was a voracious buyer of CDs having only abandoned vinyl a few years earlier. Hannah and I were both New Labour voters but small c conservative evangelicals.

I staunchly held to my very traditionalist supposedly “biblical” views about “homosexuality” and even the role of women. So, I was deeply shocked that year to learn that the great preacher, Roy Clements, who’d baptised Hannah as a student, had just “left his wife for another man.” As my last post shows the true story was much more complex. See: https://www.affirmingevangelical.uk/post/a-tale-of-two-clerics-the-rise-and-fall-of-roy-clements-r 

Fast forward 27 years, those tiny twins are now young adults themselves. I’ve swapped my hairy head and clean-shaven chin for a hairy chin clean-shaven head!

We’re finally looking to move out of that house our twins grew up in – expecting to achieve a sale price in the £600,000s – nearly four times what we’d paid for it and 16 times the average annual salary. Even on my very good wage I would now be priced out of buying this house if we had to do it on a mortgage as, sadly, are most young families. And that hand-size bit of plastic we still call a mobile phone is the means through which the Internet lets us carry out nearly the whole process of moving house. It’s also now the conduit through which I stream all the music I could ever want.

My prized CDs were long ago dumped at charity shops. As I look towards retirement next year, my work is now paperless, almost entirely internet based and mostly from home. I usually “see” people through Teams calls. My work tablet allows my virtual office to be anywhere there’s a decent Wi-Fi connection. When twice a week I do go into our firm’s office, I just wear jeans and a smart-casual shirt. I hot‑desk in open plan docking-in the same tablet I use at home. And I’m now a solar panelled, EV driving member of the Green Party!

I’m even more committed to Jesus and his word but now as a progressive, affirming, universalist evangelical - things I would have believed contradictions 27 years ago! That change of perspective led me to write this website in support of same-sex marriage. This has privileged me to re-connect with Roy Clements and share the real lessons I believe God wants to teach us through his story – of which this piece is the final part.

27 years of change – in same-sex relationships

Between 1999 and 2026, across Europe, North America and beyond, acceptance of homosexuality and same-sex relationships has continued marching forwards, notwithstanding stubborn resistance in some parts of church and society.

The 1990s had seen several countries legislate for same-sex civil unions. But in 2001 the Netherlands became the first country to legally recognise same-sex marriage.

They were swiftly followed by Belgium (2003), Spain and Canada (2005), South Africa (2006), Norway and Sweden (2009).

The UK lagged a little but got there in the end! It legally  recognised same-sex civil partnerships from 2005, at the same time finally consigning to the legal rubbish bin the toxic section 28 ban on “promoting homosexuality”.  We finally legalised same-sex marriages in 2014. USA followed the next year courtesy of the Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision. By early 2026, 38 countries worldwide recognised same-sex marriage, the latest being Thailand, the first southeast Asian country to allow this, in 2025.

Legalisation of same-sex marriage walked hand in hand with a continued progressive change in society’s attitudes. As of 2000 UK society was still evenly split on approval of same-sex relationships. However, by the mid-2020s 78% positively approved of same-sex relationships.

Between 1999 and 2026, the church's relationship with homosexuality moved from a largely unified traditional stance to a landscape defined by denominational schism and the rise of "affirming" theology. I myself finally embraced this change in 2015 after reading Matthew Vines’ seminal God and the Gay Christian.

In 1999, almost no major global denomination officially sanctioned same-sex marriage. By 2026, several mainstream Protestant churches perform same-sex weddings. In the UK, this included the Church of Scotland, various individual Baptist churches starting with Bloomsbury Baptist Church in 2016, and from 2022 the Methodist Church. One of the first gay couples to get married in a Methodist church were Ben and Jason McMahon-Riley. You can read more about their story in my next two posts!

In addition, from 2023 the Catholic Church and the Church of England allowed priests to offer informal blessings for same-sex couples, though they still refuse to recognise these unions as "marriage". But currently Anglican Church progress from its Prayers of Love and Faith remains stuck in thick mud and its clergy in same-sex civil partnerships are still officially required to remain celibate.

And, sadly, certain parts of the world, especially in Africa, saw a vicious backlash against LGBTQ+ folk - often encouraged by white American conservative evangelicals exporting their own homophobic misreadings of Scripture. This included Kenya (where Roy’s ministry had started). In 2019 its High Court upheld the Colonial era ban on gay sex. And in 2023 their neighbour Uganda reinforced its “kill the gays” bill. I briefly highlight the story of “Robert”, one of Uganda’s gay Christian refugees, in part four of The Answers section of my website: What good or harm does the traditionalist teaching do for LGBTQ+ people? https://www.affirmingevangelical.uk/answers 

27 years of change - in Roy’s life

A quick re-cap

On 30 September 1999,  the career of the great evangelical preacher Roy Clements was pushed crashing into the sea by an article on page 3 of the Times. This piece outed him as gay under the inaccurate headline “Preacher leaves wife for man”. The article was likely supplied by one of Roy’s trusted friends and colleagues, Sir Fred Catherwood, then President of the Evangelical Alliance.

The true story was far more complex and painful. Yet through it God still mightily worked his purposes, illustrating the truth of one of Roy’s own books, Strength through Weakness. Read here my previous post about Roy’s turbulent rise and fall: the shorter version - https://www.affirmingevangelical.uk/post/a-tale-of-two-clerics-the-rise-and-fall-of-roy-clements-r and the long version, including my interview with Roy: https://www.affirmingevangelical.uk/post/a-tale-of-two-clerics-roy-clements-story-part-3-1992-1999 .

Roy had already planned to leave his current Christian ministry that year, but his carefully planned new career - as a voice in the growing debate about Christianity and Science – was now trashed before it had even started.

We now continue Roy’s story. He found himself suddenly banished from his home, his family and his church, with his whole career stolen from him. He didn't even have Chris, as months ago he'd left Roy for another man . He was now forced to journey into an entirely alien territory. But, though disowned by family and friends, in his mercy Jesus never abandoned him– not only did He go there with him but he brought him a life-partner and soul mate, a kenegdow ezer, to walk that journey hand in hand with him.

 Q & As with Roy Clements

How, why and when did your relationship with Chris resume?

In autumn 1999, I had to make an urgent decision about what I was going to do with the rest of my life now that my ambition to do the Masters degree had collapsed. I felt the transferable skills my time as a preacher had given me were teaching adults, a fair mastery of the English language, and an appreciation of other cultures. I thought Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL) was a possibility. I discovered a one-year course at Strathclyde university that led to a qualification and possible TEFL employment. I could just about afford the fees and to rent some modest accommodation for myself. Importantly, I also thought Scotland was remote enough from Cambridge to confound the Daily Mail and Daily Mirror reporters who were still looking for me. So I made plans to move to Glasgow.

In what I hoped might be a merciful providence, I learned that Chris’s relationship with the gay businessman had not worked out. He too had been thrown out of the house. With considerable trepidation, I asked him whether he would come to Glasgow with me. That the last 26 ½ years have been by far the happiest period of my life is entirely down to the fact that he said ‘Yes’ !

The infamous 1999 Times article describes you as pursuing a “celibate” relationship with Chris. Was it actually celibate at that time? I’m assuming it didn’t remain so?

I’m not sure how the Times would define ‘celibacy’ in the context of a homosexual relationship? But this is not the place for splitting hairs about the physical mechanics of sexual intercourse. Briefly, you are right. In autumn 1999, Chris and I began life together as a ‘normal’ gay couple in a second-floor tenement flat in the Hillhead area near Glasgow university. It was wonderful to enter the new millennium together.

How did you rebuild your life after your public outing and “cancellation”?

I signed on for unemployment benefit and enrolled for my TEFL course at Strathclyde university. Chris used the facilities of Glasgow university library to continue his research but it was becoming clear his real ambition was to teach. After a year, I got my TEFL qualification and began looking for a job with only limited success. Chris, however, struck gold. He found a well-paid opportunity to teach A-level Economics at a private college in London. So our brief sojourn in Glasgow came to an end and we moved back south. Within a few months of moving, divine providence once again was kind to me. I found a part-time job teaching academic English to science students at my old alma mater, Imperial College, in South Kensington. I eventually gained a permanent tenured post and remained there until my retirement in 2016. Chris took to teaching like a duck to water. He has developed an immensely successful career, eventually becoming Head of a large Economics department at a leading public school.

What effect did your very public outing have on your children and your relationship with them? To what extent have you maintained or rebuilt your relationship with them?

I have never had an opportunity to talk about what happened to my children. In fact, my younger son was deliberately removed from the house when I returned to collect my books. I later learned this was because Jane had been warned I might try to abduct him! I did write to them at Christmas and birthdays for a number of years. But the only address I had was via my wife, so I doubt the letters and cards were ever read. Certainly I received no reply. While we were in Glasgow, I learned HTML so I could set up a website.  Anyone could find and contact me via email through that site. But it is immensely sad to report that since my departure in 1999 I have had only a single very brief and unhappy message from my middle son.

I know you and Jane divorced in 2001 but were you ever able to build any bridges with her?

The simple answer is ‘No’. Jane consistently  refused to deal with me personally. She insisted on conducting the divorce in the most hostile manner possible, acting always through her solicitor.

Describe the evolution of your relationship with Chris since 1999. How and why do you think it works?

Like any couple, we have had our ups and downs. We are both strong-minded individuals who need to work hard to see things from the other person’s point of view. But our love is deep. And the bumpy road which our relationship had to negotiate in its early days has, I think, made it very resilient.

Jeremy: I asked Roy for a picture of himself and Chris together as a couple. As expected, he was reluctant to release any photo of himself with Chris that might lead to embarrassment for him in his teaching role. However, he did kindly share this silhouette piece he made about 4 years ago. Chris is the trilby-hatted one!

As Roy explains, “Chris is a bit of a fashionista! He has a lot of hats … and jackets … and shirts … and shoes! Sigh!”

What, if any, challenges do you find because of the 20-something years age gap between you?

We have known one another now for 33 years and lived together for 26 of them. Chris was a young and rather vulnerable Chinese student when we met. He has grown into a charming, mature, and much more secure adult. He has embraced a new culture as a British citizen and pursued a most successful career as a sixth-form teacher. I have had to adapt to these changes in him, giving him space to develop. For his part, he has had to adapt to a partner who is gradually growing old. Now I am nearly 80, I depend on him a very great deal. That willingness to adapt must be there in any relationship, but I guess it is particularly important when there is a significant age-gap.

Same-sex civil partnerships became possible in 2005 but you and Chris didn’t legally become partners for another 10 years. Why was that?

We felt entirely emotionally secure in our relationship. The decision to formally contract a civil partnership was taken at the time of my retirement purely for reasons of financial prudence in the event of my death.

By the time you became civil partners in 2015 same-sex marriages had already been legalised for a year. Why didn’t you get married instead and why have you never converted it to marriage?

Partly it is because we have never felt any need to use the language of marriage to describe our covenant relationship. We made private promises of lifelong fidelity to one another on a weekend in Paris long ago. They have been adhesive enough to keep us together.

Jeremy: This very much fits with how I see marriage – regardless of the legal formalities, I see it as any couple in an intimate relationship, permanently committed to faithfully doing life together. See: https://www.affirmingevangelical.uk/define-marriage

You’ve previously told me that you and Chris have never married “out of respect for those people who believe the term should be reserved for a union between a man and a woman”. Are you in fact one of those people?  Does part of you still struggle with the concept that two men or two women can be married in God’s eyes?

This is too large a question to be answered in a single paragraph.

So, as briefly as I can, let me simply say that marriage is a creation ordinance that belongs to all mankind irrespective of culture or religion. Societies define and enact ‘marriage’ in different ways; all are equally valid. A polygamous pagan in Africa is as truly married as a couple whose union is enacted by a Christian archbishop. The church can claim no monopoly rights over the definition of what is or is not a ‘marriage’ therefore. If parliament passes a law that applies the word to a same-sex couple, then I see no grounds for denying that they are ‘married’.

However, the water has been muddied by the longstanding tradition in many western countries of conducting marriages in church. I believe this is a mistaken hangover from the sacramentalism of medieval Catholicism. Everyone’s thinking on the subject would have been kept clearer if the church had limited its involvement to blessing and praying for couples who had been validly married elsewhere according to the laws of their land or the customs of their culture. Failure to deal with the question of what constitutes a valid marriage properly at the Reformation means that the Church of England today is hopelessly confused on the point. And this is why our government’s decision to legalise same-sex ‘marriage’ became such an emotive issue for many Christians.

Frankly, I am perfectly happy that a same-sex couple can now call their covenant relationship a ‘marriage’. It is simply a word – ‘a rose by any other name would smell as sweet’. Unfortunately, this trivial semantic issue has been conflated with the much more important debate over whether that same-sex couple are offending God simply by being together. (I’m fully convinced they are not). Following Paul’s irenical advice in Romans 14 about handling differences of conscience between Christians, I prefer to refrain from needlessly offending traditionalist believers on the point. The label ‘marriage’ is not important enough for me to fight about it. I don’t think Chris is bothered about this question either.

Jeremy: Wow, these are real pearls of grace and wisdom here!

Have you and Chris been able to find a church community where you’ve been loved and accepted?

Sadly no – and this is mainly my fault. One problem is that the kind of biblical exposition which I want to hear from the pulpit is very much out of fashion now. Another is that the churches which would affirm us as a couple and give us a role in the ‘body’ are in general either theologically liberal or what some have called ‘post-evangelical’. The reformed churches I used to serve and that still hold to what I understand as evangelical theology remember the trauma of 1999 and find me an embarrassment.

Jeremy: That’s such a shame, because you would both have so much to offer and receive from the church.

What are your views on the current church debates over LGBTQ+ issues, including same-sex marriage and trans issues (where I know we have slightly different perspectives!)?

Evangelical Christians are one of a rapidly diminishing number of pockets of homophobic prejudice that still remain in British society. A remarkable revolution in the attitude of the general public toward gay men and women has occurred during my lifetime. Credit for this must largely be given to gay rights organisations like Stonewall. I am just one of many thousands who have been liberated from the ‘closet’ as a result of their achievements.

There have been gay rights organisations in the churches too, of course: notably the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement (LGCM), now renamed ‘Onebodyonefaith’. Richard Kirker, its former General Secretary, was a personal encouragement to me in the early days after I ‘came out’. But though considerable progress toward accepting gay Christians has been made, this is largely confined to those who embrace liberal theology. With a handful of exceptions, the anti-gay stance of most conservative-evangelical churches has remained obdurate.

I think it extremely likely that the debate in the Church of England about marrying gay couples and ordaining gay clergy is likely to hit the ecclesiastical headlines again within the next couple of years, with the evangelicals probably causing a historic schism. As a non-conformist myself, I feel some fraternal sympathy with the desire of evangelical Anglicans to distance themselves from compromise with liberal theology. However, I wish they would choose to secede on the central doctrinal issue of the person and work of Christ, rather than their misplaced ethical objection to homosexuality. The longstanding alienation from evangelical churches felt by the gay community will be reinforced by their actions and evangelistic mission to the modern world greatly impeded.

As grateful as I am for the brave work of gay rights activists like Stonewall and LGCM, in recent years I have had to withdraw my support. They have added the letter T to the acronym I always knew as LGB. It stands for ‘Transgender’ and, in my view, represents a great mistake which has needlessly divided the gay community.

It would take far too long to do justice to this issue. Suffice it to say that, unlike Stonewall (and you, Jeremy), I am ‘gender critical’. This means I believe that sex is a biological property that identifies the vast majority of human individuals as either male or female from birth. I do accept that a very small number are born with characteristics of both sexes – so called ‘intersex’. I also accept that, once again, a very small number suffer from a psychological disorder called ‘gender dysphoria’; that is their inner sense of gender does not match their biological sex. In both these cases medical intervention and/or psychotherapeutic counselling may be needed following a careful clinical assessment to try to resolve the ambiguity in their personal identity. However, I believe these are very rare exceptions.

Most importantly, I believe the gender identity issue raised by ‘trans’ activists is quite different from the question of gay sexual orientation. Conflating the two invites all kinds of confusion. It is symptomatic of the regrettable division among Christian gays that the supplementary ‘T’ has caused that Richard Kirker, who so effectively led the LGCM for 30 years, has felt it necessary to come out of a much deserved retirement in order to support a rival gay Christian organisation that conspicuously omits the ‘T’: the LGB Alliance.

Jeremy: It may depend on how we interpret “evangelical”, but I believe a growing number of evangelical churches are embracing an affirming theology. Just within Kent I know of at least three Baptist churches who now do so: Bessels Green, Tonbridge and (my own) Ebbsfleet. I have a different take to you on the transgender issue, (although I more or less agree with your summary of the facts in para 5). My own views on transgender are reflected in my earlier post here: https://www.affirmingevangelical.uk/post/what-the-causes-of-homosexuality-taught-me-about-transgender 

Has adopting a more “liberal” view about same-sex relationships been a “slippery slope” or a “progressive climb” (depending on your viewpoint!) towards generally embracing more liberal theology or even losing faith altogether? If not, why not?

My theological position today has not significantly changed. A long article on my website entitled ‘Why I am still an Evangelical Christian’ is the best answer to your question. (See https://royclements.net/papers/ - under the “Theological” section).  I believe the importance of the gay question has been grossly exaggerated. It properly belongs with other ethical issues of conscience, like divorce, abortion, and war, on which evangelicals should be able to agree to differ.

Jeremy: I also still identify as an evangelical but a “progressive” one.

Where does the Roy Clements of 2026 stand on the following theological issues compared to the Roy Clements that I first heard preaching back in 1987 as a very conservative evangelical student?

a)    The authority of Scripture

Unchanged – I have the same high view of Scripture as Jesus did.

Jeremy: likewise, although on certain issues I have come to more "progressive" interpretations of Scripture to you.

b)    The gifts of the Holy Spirit

I believe the charismatic movement was a genuine work of the Holy Spirit that helped a great many nominal Christians to discover what it really meant to be ‘born again’. I have never spoken in tongues and I do not think it is an important gift for the church, though it may help some individual Christians. My views on the gift of prophecy have been fully explained in my book ‘Word and Spirit’, which a determined Christian might still discover somewhere on-line.

Jeremy: I agree. I too have never spoken in tongues but have had many Christian friends who do. I still own a copy of your helpful short book – somewhere in my loft! When I find it I'll copy it and add a link here.

c)    The five points of Calvinism

I still believe that Calvin’s ‘Institutes’ is the most comprehensive and accurate systematisation of biblical theology that has ever been written. I have tried to explain in a more digestible form some of his most frequently misunderstood ‘5 points’ in the book ‘Chosen for Good’, which again may still be unearthed.

Jeremy: As a Nottingham University student I was baptised by one of the fellow Calvinist preachers you co-authored that book with – the late great Peter Lewis. I’m now kind of a universalist Calvinist: I still believe in 2 of its 5 points: (ultimately) irresistible grace and unconditional election – but I now understand these things apply to the whole human race! Actually having been a Calvinist rather than an Arminian made it easier for me to accept universalism! I add here a link to Roy’s sermon about “irresistible grace” included in that book: https://royclements.net/messages/1-an-offer-you-cant-refuse/ 

Roy: “You are in good company in your ‘universal election’ stance. It was pretty much what Karl Barth said, and John Stott leaned heavily in that direction in his later years too. Maybe we shall talk about it with them in glory?”

d)    Our final judgment and eternal destiny 

It is Jesus who issues the toughest words about Final Judgement. I dare not contradict him. If our eternal destiny were not a matter of the gravest importance, what peril did he come to ‘save’ us from?

Jeremy: I now understand divine judgment rather differently; that those who reject the way of Jesus will go through kolasin aionion, an “age” of corrective punishment (Mtw 25:46, YLT), in the fiery furnace that will refine them and burn off their impurities so they’re fit for heaven.

e)    The role of women

I do believe that biological sex is linked to significantly different temperaments and skill sets. This is why women and men are often drawn to different occupations.

But I also accept that patriarchal societies have caused women to be oppressed and discriminated against. I greatly welcome the freedom women have discovered in recent years to explore roles that were formerly denied them.

As far as the feminist critique of biblical hermeneutics is concerned, I  believe it is vitally important to realise that, in inspiring the Bible, God accommodated himself to Middle Eastern, Greek and Roman cultures without endorsing everything about them. In the same way, in the incarnation, Jesus came as a first-century Aramaic-speaking Jew, without in any way implying that the dress, language and culture of that identity were to be copied by his later followers.

I believe in an ideally structured church for the culture of 21^st century Britain it is appropriate to have a leadership team that includes suitably gifted men and women, without distinction of rank, though their roles may differ according to their gifts, and this may sometimes reflect a sex-linked difference in  natural aptitude.

Jeremy: We’re more or less agreed here. But you made the progressive switch on this long before me. Even in 2006 I was still voting against a motion that my Anglican church accept a woman priest on the grounds it was “unbiblical”!

f)      The rapture

The dispensationalist interpretation of the apocalyptic and prophetic sections of the Bible is fundamentally flawed. The bizarre depiction of aircraft suddenly rendered pilot-less due to the ‘rapture’ that one finds in the books of Hal Lindsey and others is arrant nonsense. Expositions of the book of Revelation and Matthew 24 are available on my website.

Jeremy: Agreed! I add here  a link here to your Matthew 24 sermon: https://royclements.net/messages/4-signs-of-the-times/ 

g)    Christian Zionism and Christian Nationalism:

I wanted to ask you please for your views then and now on these two very current and linked topical theological issues - which personally I think are very harmful heresies, but the first of which I used to warmly embrace!

It is impossible to do justice to these issues in a brief paragraph. But if you are keen to know what I thought and still think about Zionism and nationalism, can I beg you to listen to three talks on my website which deal with them at length.https://royclements.net/messages/the-cross-and-the-flag/

https://royclements.net/messages/palestine-a-christian-response/

https://royclements.net/messages/12-why-the-jews/

Jeremy: I would like to thank you, Roy, for blessing the church with your wonderful gifts of preaching for so many years. There are certain issues over which we would now respectfully disagree. However, listening to some of your sermons again has reminded me of your wonderful double divine gifting - your incisive mind coupled with the ability to communicate in such a down to earth way with all types of people. A bit like our Lord and Master! I would heartily encourage anyone reading this post to dive for the pearls in your sermon archive: https://royclements.net/messages

It’s such a shame that the church never gave you the chance to lend your distinctive voice to the intellectual battle with Richard Dawkins and his fellow militant “scientific” atheists. And so we’ve probably missed out on reading a whole a shelf of great books that were never written!

And I would also like to thank you, Roy, for so openly, honestly and gracefully sharing your story with me, which, I believe, has been a great lesson and encouragement for many.

Roy: Thank you most sincerely for giving me the opportunity to tell my story.