James Jones, Bishop of Liverpool, evangelical leader in the C of E seems to think the answer is 'yes'. See Ruth Gledhill's report; the Diocese of Liverpool's summary of his presidential address to his synod; and the address in full.
As Ruth Gledhill reports, Colin Coward of Changing Attitude thinks this is wonderful. But quickly out of the starting blocks are a number of evangelical Anglicans in England who do not think this is wonderful: Peter Ould (yes, he is brother to David Ould who has been commenting here), Stephen Trott, Charles Raven and John Richardson.
On further investigation I find David Ould has also responded!
John Richardson, I suggest, points towards the most substantive challenge to the analogy +Jones seeks to draw.
One shared theme in opposition to +Jones is his neat skirting of the particular challenge of 1 Corinthians 6:9-10: the issue is not simply whether we can get along with each other, but includes the question of whether same sex sexual activity excludes participants from the kingdom of God.
But weaknesses are present in evangelical responses. I put them as questions to consider:
(a) is it clear cut that the teaching of the Bible is against people of the same gender loving each other in a faithful, stable, permanent partnership?
(b) is it essential to orthodoxy that no variations in interpretation of biblical teaching on homosexuality are permitted within the framework of orthodoxy?
(c) is it necessarily the case that a church which includes variations in understanding of biblical teaching on homosexuality will end up persecuting those who believe that the only right context for sexual fulfilment between two people is marriage between a man and a woman?
On history’s eradication of memory
1 month ago
As always, Peter plays advocatus diaboli! or is it Malleus Maleficarum? :)
ReplyDelete"(a) is it clear cut that the teaching of the Bible is against people of the same gender loving each other in a faithful, stable, permanent partnership?"
Peter, it's about sodomy, not "love"! Read Gagnon, or see his website.
"(b) is it essential to orthodoxy that no variations in interpretation of biblical teaching on homosexuality are permitted as within the framework of orthodoxy?"
Did you really write that sentence or was it computer generated by a government department?
"(c) is it necessarily the case that a church which includes variations in understanding of biblical teaching on homosexuality will end up persecuting those who believe that the only right context for sexual fulfilment between two people is marriage between a man and a woman?"
Read Philip Ashey's account. But as for England, it's much more likely that the orthodox will ahve already voted with their feet and the redundant churches will have become mosques.
Please excuse the capitals but:
IT'S HAPPENING ALREADY, PETER. Wake up and smell the coffee.
I apologize for my sarcastic tone and marvel at your generosity in printing my first email.
ReplyDeleteMy more measured response is to say that if James Jones represents Anglican "evangelicalism", than the word means nothing more than the private (deferred) judgment of a bishop who grew up singing choruses and many of us may have to give up on Anglicanism after a lifetime of belonging. The sense of capitulation is palpable.
Hi Anonymous
ReplyDeleteThanks for apology.
Briefly,
(1) if I am advocate for anyone in these kinds of posts, it is for a fair, merciful and pastoral consideration of men and women in the church who in good conscience live in same sex partnerships as a 'modus operandi' for life which is difficult at the best of times in terms of the management of affections and desires - even the Apostle said 'it is better to marry than burn'. Unfortunately there are many agendas around these matters in the church, and such advocacy runs the risk of 'capitulation', or at least of incurring charges along such lines :), but it does not seem fair or frank to refrain from asking, as one evangelical to others, whether our arguments, whether reasoned or rhetorical, make proper pastoral concern for the reality of human life.
(2) Orthodoxy: let me put it in a less objectionable way: is orthodoxy on matter X or Y one and only one view, or could it be two or three or more views? ... I take it we might agree with +Jones that one can be orthodox and pacifist (e.g. John Stott) and another can be orthodox and militarist (e.g. many others).
(3) Awful things are happening and have happened in TEC re 'persecution'; though one should recognise that this term is loaded in various ways. But does that necessarily mean in another place and culture that the same will happen?
Re people leaving the church: I think we also have to watch for moderate Anglicans ceasing to come to worship because the shrill tones of evangelicals threatening schism is off-putting.
Re private judgment: whatever else +Jones is up to I do not think someone who articulates views representative of his whole diocese is engaged in 'private judgment'!
"One shared theme in opposition to +Jones is his neat skirting of the particular challenge of 1 Corinthians 6:9-10: the issue is not simply whether we can get along with each other, but includes the question of whether same sex sexual activity excludes participants from the kingdom of God."
ReplyDeleteOK, so let's face that challenge then. Paul says that "wrongdoers" will not inherit the kingdom of God, and then gives a list of examples of such wrongdoers. That list includes ἀρσενοκοῖται, generally translated "sodomites" but contentious nowadays as a general reference to all same-gender male relationships (let alone lesbians). It does not contain any reference to murderers or any other category of those who kill other people, including soldiers. Is that a significant ommision? Only if you read this as a complete list of the wrongdoers who will be excluded from the kingdom, rather than a top-of-Paul's head explication of what the term means.
However, even if you argue that the list is complete, we still have to decide what to do with it. Are those on the list to be excluded from Christian fellowship? Paul doesn't imply as much: rather he includes his particular targets (the greedy) in the middle of a wider list and challenges them to judge their own behaviour in the light of its long-term consequences, namely their possible exclusion from the kingdom. He does not call on the church in Corinth to shame or exclude them. So no-one now (in the West anyway) seems to be calling for gays and lesbians to be cast out of the church on the strength of this passage.
The question remains how the passage bears on the two issues that divide us - blessing same-sex relationships, and recognizing gifts of leadership among gays and lesbians. The general principle must be that what applies to one on the list applies to all. Where does that take us? You might argue that blessing same-sex relationships is giving official approval to something so wrong that the apostle warns it can exclude participants from God's kingdom. The church is then bound to give a warning, not a blessing. This must equally apply to all the other behaviours on the list, and none more so than greed which is, after all, Paul's pragmatic focus. "But we don't give our blessing to greed!" Oh no? Think again ...
Well, there is still the leadership issue. We would never ordain a greedy bishop, nor a drunkard, a reviler, or any such person. Down through the ages it has been the universal church's policy never to ordain anyone on Paul's list. As the Tui ads would have it, "Yeah right!"
Finally, a word in support of the good bishop of Liverpool. Surely his main point is this: over the centuries we have learned to live with differences of conviction and practice on moral issues which are far more serious than homosexuality. Among these, one of the greatest is state-sanctioned killing of other humans. If our tolerance of fellow Christians can bridge that divide, in recognition of our common faith and in obedience to our common mission, then why are we so deeply divided over this issue which cuts much less closely to the heart of the gospel?
Peter, I have to ask - what do you think that a proper pastoral response to a "committed" homosexual couple in the church looks like?
ReplyDelete"Re people leaving the church: I think we also have to watch for moderate Anglicans ceasing to come to worship because the shrill tones of evangelicals threatening schism is off-putting."
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't know how to quantify that kind of speculation. I've never heard of such a thing happening among liberal or 'moderate' Anglicans.
"Re private judgment: whatever else +Jones is up to I do not think someone who articulates views representative of his whole diocese is engaged in 'private judgment'!"
Jones wasn't just surveying opinions, he was saying he thinks same sex relations are OK, despite the official Anglican position articulated at Lambeth 98. That IS private judgment - and not something a bishop should be doing.
Hi David
ReplyDeleteMy concern with a lot of discussion I read (and contribute to) on the internet is that evangelicals effectively say to gay and lesbian Christians, there are just two options, lifelong celibacy or, somehow, change and marry (heterosexually). Often that seems to be the extent of our message.
So what we do not say very well (in my view) is what general help and assistance we might offer as a church to a person consigned to singleness for life without hope of marriage. I say this as someone who enjoys the privilege of marriage, but even from that privileged position has some sense as I get older of the burden of loneliness over the long haul of life which, let's face it, in the Western world is no longer nasty brutish and short for many people.
Nor, I think, do we say very well how we might acknowledge and be in relationship with those gay and lesbian Christians who, knowing what the Bible says, nevertheless choose to give expression to their love for a fellow human being by entering into a partnership. Such acknowledgement need not imply we are about to bless or ordain, but it might be more helpful than what (I perceive) is largely silence from evangelicals about how we think we might relate to gay or lesbian couples.
Obviously much more could be said. But may that suffice for the moment!
Hi Howard
ReplyDeleteI am not clear what point you are trying to make about the list of behaviours in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. In my general experience of Anglicans electing bishops, for example, we do not knowingly elect greedy or drunken candidates. I also think there is quite a bit of warning about greediness around in the church (and, yes, there will be some debate about what constitutes greediness in a materialist society). But I think you would have to press a bit harder with your point to convince those evangelical commentators I alluded to, who feel that +Jones pays insufficient attention to the salvation angle on homosexual behaviour.
You describe James Jones as an "evangelical leader in the Church of England". But he has not been regarded as such by Evangelicals here for some considerable time, and with this address to his diocesan synod, he has confirmed that he is joining the liberal establishment which is waging war on biblical orthodoxy.
ReplyDeleteHis address is wholly disingenuous: the moment he appoints a partnered gay cleric to a post within his diocese, it is no longer a matter of private opinion, but part of the fabric of the diocese.
Hi Anonymous
ReplyDeleteI agree that James Jones is signalling, or confirming and underlining a signal already given, that his views have changed.
On his evangelicalism within the C of E I note an Anglican Mainstream post of the past few days which says, "Bishop Jones is widely regarded as a prominent evangelical. His CV includes being a former chair of Wycliffe Hall Council and a senior figure in the Church Pastoral Aid Society and Scripture Union." He was chair of Wycliffe's council until a couple of years ago, so I am not sure that it is a 'considerable time' since he was a prominent evangelical leader.
Well, Peter I was laying out my own rather liberal take on the passage from ! Corinthians 6, in response to your suggestion that this is a weak point in + Jones's case. You seem to feel that his more conservatively evangelical critics mount a critique of his synod address that deserves an answer and that this passage from Paul is crucial to their case.
ReplyDeleteI will be more impressed with what those critics have to say about their application of this passage to the "salvation angle" of idolatry, greed and robbery as they apply to the banking crisis, and the reviling as it applies to the borderline tone of some of their comments on your blogs.
Let me underline my central point - most of the "wrongdoing" behaviour referenced on Paul's list is not now treated as requiring church discipline, despite its potential for excluding those who habitually do such things from God's kingdom. We tend to give warnings at most and then leave people to judge their own behaviour, as Paul was doing here. This is especially appropriate when only they can really know what they are getting up to. Why should homosexuals have their private behaviour treated differently?
Let's concentrate on the wrongdoing that is more public ... starting with reviling! Some of your correspondents may be in mortal danger.
Peter's last remark is fair comment. It should be added that Wycliffe has now decidedly distanced itself from Jones, while Jones has been distancing himself from traditional evangelical interests from a few years now, focusing much more on ecology and process theology than traditional soteriology in his own maunderings.
ReplyDeleteThe leading biblical scholars in Trinity College Bristol, Prof John Nolland and Prof Gordon Wenham, have just issued a strong rebuttal of Jones's views.
What Jones has done is not uncommon in the English episcopal scene, as men from evangelical backgrounds ascend the greasy pole of establishment. Roy Williamson in Southwark diocese did exactly this as well, because of the many gay clergy in his diocese, while John Gladwin (always a bit on the radical side of evangelicalism) did the same in Chelmsford, as John Richardson has documented.
Hi Howard
ReplyDeleteThanks for the support re 'reviling' commenters!
It could be that Bishop Jones, you and even I agree "Why should homosexuals have their private behaviour treated differently?" but that is not the only point at issue in the Communion.
Also at issue is whether the church will bless the private behaviour of homosexuals (same sex blessings) and formally declare it is indifferent to it (ordination). That step requires a theological argument to be made which achieves coherency in its widespread recognition. Jones has not contributed much if anything to that argument.
Speaking of revilers whose eternal salvation is very much in peril, your first correspondent above wrote, "Peter, it's about sodomy, not "love"! Read Gagnon, or see his website."
ReplyDeleteI think he is right. The fierce argument from Gagnon and other conservative evangelicals is really about private sexual behaviour. "Sodomy, not love". But the church's policy issue is about love - whether we should recognize and bless gays and lesbians whose public relationships meet the same criteria of loving, faithful committment as we ask of those heterosexuals we marry and ordain.
The church has recognized my heterosexual relationship twice - in marriage and ordination. At no point were my wife and I questioned about what we get up to under the covers. Do we engage in anal sex (sodomy) for instance? No one wants to know, and nor should they. We didn't ask the church's blessing on any particular sexual expressions of our love, but on our relationship per se. Why do we treat homosexual relationships differently? If the argument is really about "sodomy not love" we should just tell Gagnon et.al. to get over their obsessions. Leave it to the conscience of each couple to judge whether their relationship is about abusive sex or love. Whatever Paul meant by ἀρσενοκοῖτα in 1 Cor.6, it was something unloving and exploitive, maybe a variant of prostitution or the abuse of slaves; certainly not a loving, faithful relationship.
Hi Howard
ReplyDeleteI see what you are getting at (distinguishing, so to speak, love and sex) but I do not think your argument holds much strength.
The church, based on Scripture, does not go weak at the knees in the face of demonstrations of love, but encourages order and discipline.
Thus, for example, if I turn up before the bishop seeking ordination while proclaiming I believe that polyamory is wonderful, I am likely to be given short shrift.
We have a controversy in respect of homosexuality precisely because we are coming to terms with the possibility that same gendered love can be ordered and disciplined but we are not sure by what authority we may, as a church, contribute to that order and discipline.
So let me make my argument stronger. My first point was to refute the assertion that the crucial issue is "sodomy not love". You seem to agree with me there.
ReplyDeleteIf the church's focus is on relationships, which are public, rather than sexual behaviour, which is private, then we are already out of the forest and our destination is in sight, for only two unresolved questions remain:
1. What relationships among its members should the church bless? Not all relationships require or merit official blessing (whatever we might make of annual pet services). Marriage has traditionally been one of these, as a primary social relationship requiring public committment and recognition. How much of that should we transfer to a same-sex committment and blessing? Yes that is an important question, but should not be impossible to negotiate. What about the license-for-sex aspect of marriage, distinguishing blessed sex from fornication? That does seem totally passe nowadays, but should not be ignored, especially as a matter of biblical exegesis. I think this is actually the stumbling block for conservatives - that marriage is also about approving sexual activity, not just recognizing relationships. The hermeneutical task is then to ask how important/essential that element is within biblical depictions of marriage.
2. What relationships disqualify Christians from office? Here, the focus should be on constitutes abuse, dependency and immaturity.
I don't know how you got the impression that I am of the "all you need is love" school, or that I advocate weak knees in the face of those who claim to be loving. Of course the church needs order and discipline, and has a responsibility to discern whether relationships are healthy, especially among its leaders. We could do with a lot more of such discernment, in my view. The church's authority to bring order and discipline to relationships between its members may be problematic in an age of indiscipline, but is not made any more difficult because some of those relationships are same-gendered. The same principles should apply to all.
Peter, one further comment, in respose to your final
ReplyDeletescentence:"We have a controversy in respect of homosexuality precisely because we are coming to terms with the possibility that same gendered love can be ordered and disciplined but we are not sure by what authority we may, as a church, contribute to that order and discipline."
No, we have a controversy in respect of homosexuality because some Christians believe that same-gendered love is essentially evil and should be banned from our midst. Those who expressed their horror at Gene Robison's episcopal ordination where aghast that this happened despite his public acknowledgment that he loves another man.
Hi Howard
ReplyDeleteI am a disagreeing with you on some of these matters not because I particularly want to disagree with you, but because some semblance of emerging clarity between us might assist others thinking these things through to move towards some church wide agreement ... if you and I do agree together it does not mean we have sorted all aspects of the issue out to others' satisfaction!
Brief notes:
Your (1) above involves quite a bit of negotiation!
Your (2) above is not at all straightforward!! "What relationships disqualify Christians from office? Here, the focus should be on constitutes abuse, dependency and immaturity." There seems to be some agreement these days on what "constitutes abuse", and in extreme cases the courts are able to measure this with conviction/sentences. But 'dependency' and 'immaturity' leading to disqualification from office?! It would be interesting being a fly on the wall of a Bishop's Tribunal attempting to define 'dependency' and 'immaturity'!
Then your last comment: "No, we have a controversy in respect of homosexuality because some Christians believe that same-gendered love is essentially evil and should be banned from our midst. Those who expressed their horror at Gene Robison's episcopal ordination where aghast that this happened despite his public acknowledgment that he loves another man."
I do not know Christians personally who think same-gendered love is essentially evil or who were horrified at Gene Robinson's episcopal ordination. But I know plenty of Christians who thinking carefully and scripturally about these matters believe that same gendered sexual activity is sin, whether or not expressing love, and who were horrified to find that a member church of the Anglican Communion approved the consecration of Gene Robinson despite the Communion expressing its view that same gendered sexual activity is sin, and despite (as TEC Bishop Pierre Whalon has recently pointed out) TEC itself not officially pronouncing with due theological and hermeneutical underpinnings that same gendered sexual activity is not a sin. One could point out that at the time of Gene Robinson's ordination he was a divorced man in a relationship with another person which was neither blessed by the church nor legalised by the state. Are Christians not free to express concern about these things?
Thanks for that very considered and helpful response, Peter. I now have five important questions to address, with particular reference to biblical hermeneutics, and undertake to get on with doing so on my new blog www.hermeneuticsworkshop.org(...launched tomorrow?)
ReplyDelete1. What relationships among its members should the church bless?
2. What relationships disqualify Christians from office?
3. What part do the church's blessing and/or the state's legalisation of a relationship have in regard to question 2?
4. Is same gendered sexual activity sin, whether or not expressing love?
5. What responsibility does the church have for making official pronouncements clarifying whether given behaviours are sinful?
You and I agree on this, that our "disagreements" on this blog and elsewhere have always been intended to enable a public airing of vital issues in the life of our church, about which all Christians are free to express their concerns. Anglicans are bound to do so nicely, as you do so well.
Looking forward to the blog, Howard!
ReplyDeleteMay I suggest another question or set of questions?
What effect might some answers to the five questions have on the power equation in the church between different parts of its spectrum?
Personally I do not think it irrational of conservatives to worry that the church which one day says, 'You may bless relationship XY' tomorrow will say 'If you are unwilling to do so you will not be ordained or licensed'
Thanks for the encouragement, Peter. One reason my new blog has taken some time to get up and running was that I was determined to make it self-hosting, to give me more options about its future development, and this involved a steep learning curve that Has been stop-start for months. However, some intervention from one of my sons has now done the trick and my "hello world" post is there for all to see ... there but only just so far.
ReplyDeleteYour suggestion for a further question I might pursue. It doesn't interest me much, as I don't experience our own province as that sort of church, and if it is someone else can deal with it - someone like you, maybe! I want to focus on hermeneutics rather than politics right now.