Theological discourse and the sexuality debate
A week is a long time in politics, and information technology is merely as long in church politics and the media coverage of it. Just iii weeks after perhaps the near of import gathering of the Primates of the Anglican Communion for a decade, almost everyone in the media has moved on, as if there is nothing to see here.
Terminal week, Angus Ritchie helpfully highlighted the significance of the remarkable understanding—not least the fact that all but one of the Primates really remained in the room together for the whole calendar week, something which not i single commentator had anticipated. Although the final Statement was leaked prior to the release of the full communiqué of which it was a office (which therefore put undue emphasis on sexuality at the expense of other key issues that were discussed), the Primates did address the question of discrimination against LGBTI people in the way they were asked to. And they went much farther, engaging with a wide range of issues facing humanity and the global church.
Predictably, almost news media outlets focused on sexuality (clearly the nearly heady affair that is ever discussed by Christians) and on the possibility of conflict. After all, 'Nice Christians actually agree on a lot, and even when they disagree, they keep to respect one another' is hardly a headline grabber. (Of all the coverage, perhaps Channel 4'due south was the nearly ill-informed and skewed.) So far, so predictable. But what is of more consequence, and less often explored, is the impact of the debate nigh sexuality on the nature of Anglican theological discourse.
Without lapsing into paranoia, I observe two major impacts of this discussion. Commencement is, like a many-tentacled octopus, the issue of sexuality appears to find its way into every nook and cranny of give-and-take. (I don't use this metaphor pejoratively; I am fascinating by these remarkably intelligent creatures.) In the church where I am Associate Government minister, nosotros have just started a sermon series on the Creed, and I preached the opening sermon on 'God, maker of heaven and earth.' Immediately the question arises 'What does it mean to be a creature, created by God as loving Father?' Is human being fulfillment nigh (re)inventing ourselves (a la David Bowie) or about discovering how nosotros take been created? Questions well-nigh sexual activity identity lurk behind every sentence, waiting to ambush us. Major theological themes all seem to accept a bearing on issues of sexuality—was Jesus inclusive in his ministry, and of what? What does it mean to apologize and believe? Does grace make any demands of usa, or (every bit Justin Welby tweeted last week) is it freely given without any expectation of return?
I don't attribute the omnipresence of this upshot of sexuality to whatsoever conspiracy theory. To be human is to be sexual, and then information technology is not surprising that the debate nigh sexuality touches on some of the deepest questions virtually theological anthropology—what it means to exist made, male and female, in the prototype of God. Merely this immediately raises a question over whatsoever suggestion that we can easily 'concord to disagree' within the Church. If nosotros practice, we are going to kickoff finding ourselves 'agreeing to disagree' on a wide range of others issues, and there will come up a point when nosotros are wondering exactly what we agree to agree on, if anything.
The Corrosion of Theological Discourse
This leads to my second observation virtually the contend's impact. Wherever it reaches, it appears to me to have a corrosive effect on the integrity, seriousness and depth of the theological discourse that information technology reaches. Angus Ritchie highlights an obvious instance of this—the exchange between myself and Martyn Percy, sometime Master of Ripon College, Cuddesdon, that took place during the Primates meeting.
So what is the nature of the obedience and obligation to which God calls u.s.? That is the crucial question in the debate, and as Ian Paul observed, none of Martyn Percy's essays offered anything to substantiate the exclamation that same-sexual activity relationships are uniform with the obedience to which the Scriptures call every Christian. Instead, Percy'southward chief focus was on the inclusive nature of God'southward love and forgiveness.
There are several worrying signs in this debate, as Ritchie highlights. The first is that so significant a theological thinker as Percy tin exist satisfied with so partial and sparse an expression of a theological position. The 2nd is that he is either unwilling or unable to reply to critiques of his position; I am not the only one to have found his position problematic. (See the responses of Martin Davie, former Theological Consultant to the House of Bishops here, here and here) but (in Ritchie's words) these have just been 'sidestepped.' The third worrying sign (equally Ritchie highlights) is that then many of the choir to whom Percy is singing found his tune disarming and satisfying.
Sociologist Zygmunt Bauman recently lamented the manner that social media, rather than connecting people and fostering dialogue, isolates the states and stifles contend.
Real dialogue isn't about talking to people who believe the same things every bit y'all. Social media don't teach u.s.a. to dialogue because it is so easy to avert controversy… But almost people use social media not to unite, not to open their horizons wider, merely on the contrary, to cutting themselves a condolement zone where the just sounds they hear are the echoes of their own voice, where the only things they run into are the reflections of their ain face up. Social media are very useful, they provide pleasure, but they are a trap.
The parallel in the debate about sexuality in the Church is well-nigh likewise painful to deport. The two sides of the debate seem to excel at listening to those on their own side, without much discernment, whilst failing to comprehend those on the other side.
The corrosion of theological discourse is evident elsewhere in the debate. Peradventure the about sophisticated theological proposition in this area is Robert Vocal'south Covenant and Calling. Information technology was hoped that it might offering a 'genuinely fresh contribution to well-worn debate', pointing to a theological style forward that didn't collapse into proof-texting. Indeed, the outset 2-thirds of the volume offer some profound insights into a scriptural theology of marriage and relationships, and arguing for recognition of the importance of non-procreative covenant friendships, made possible by the in-breaking of the eschatological kingdom of God into the created order. All the logic of this powerfully reinforces 'traditional' Christian ideals of marriage and celibacy (and Song freely admits this) until, inexplicably and without theological justification, Song all of a sudden proposes that such covenant friendships should involve sexual expression. What looked like a promising way forward took a precipitous and unexpected left turn. (Song promised some response to my extended review of the book, but thus far none has been forthcoming.)
Similar problems extend to the heart of the process of 'Shared Conversations' in the Church of England. I contributed the start affiliate of the 'reader' for the conversations process, setting out the case for a 'traditional' view of wedlock and same-sex activity relations, and Loveday Alexander, Emeritus Professor at the University of Sheffield, offered an culling interpretation of the biblical material. In amidst some splendid reflection on Paul's sexual ethics come two extraordinary claims. The get-go is that 'Nosotros know what the science says: some people are built-in gay.' Nosotros really know nothing of the sort; psycho-sexual development is a complex and contested area, and if we can exist sure of annihilation, it is very different from what Alexander supposes. First, from large-calibration studies in Denmark, we know that social and relational environments have a statistically significant impact on whether people are same- or other-sexual practice attracted. Secondly, from longitudinal studies in New Zealand, we know that at that place is pregnant fluidity in whether people remain aforementioned- or other-sex attracted over their lifetime.
The second extraordinary claim Alexander makes is that 'Paul knew nothing of loving, same-sex relationships, and therefore the Pauline texts cannot address the state of affairs today.' This is a remarkable endeavour to flatten the evidence of the diversity of attitudes to sex in the ancient globe which defies the prove, and has no warrant in the Pauline texts. That Alexander's statement should residual so centrally on this exclamation makes u.s.a. attain for Ritchie'due south assessment of Percy: 'surely in that location must be better arguments for the 'affirming' instance?'
A Improve Case?
And so has Angus Ritchie so offered u.s.a. just such a 'ameliorate example'? Unfortunately, I am not sure that he does.
He helpfully distinguishes between what he calls a 'concordance' arroyo to the biblical texts, and a 'contextualized' approach. The 'concordance' approach, which he sees as characteristic of conservative theology, simply reads for the 'plain' meaning of the text and from this deduces the 'traditional position' on women in leadership, on remarriage after divorce, and therefore also on aforementioned-sex relations. Since nosotros have changed our view on the first two past moving from a cyclopedia to a contextualized view (the logic goes) we tin can then likewise change our view on the third.
Unfortunately, Ritchie hither is badly misunderstanding the conservative reading strategy on all three issues. On the question of divorce, evangelicals have not been concerned only to understand the social context of Jesus' sayings, merely the particular context of the theological fence betwixt the schools of Hillel (who was more liberal) and Shammai (who was stricter). As David Instone-Brewer has demonstrated, Jesus was not answering the question 'Are in that location whatever grounds for divorce?' only 'Is it possible to divorce someone for any sometime reason?' Answering 'no' to this second question has a very different consequence from answering 'no' to the beginning question; divorce is possible, but is not piffling—the current position of the Church of England. Thomas Renz takes Ritchie to task for declining to sympathise evangelical thinking more clearly:
I do not know of a single evangelical defence of remarriage after divorce which works from the assumption that while Jesus condemned remarriage we should lift this condemnation considering the do of divorce is different today. No, not one.
And Renz also gives him short shrift for his failure to understand the education of the Church of England more fully:
In short, the assumption behind the claim that remarriage of divorcees goes against an affidavit that marriage must exist "between a man and a woman in faithful, lifelong union" is highly controversial. To present the claim as self-evident betrays either an astonishing ignorance of other Christian views on the matter or a breathtakingly arrogant conviction that other views tin be dismissed without fifty-fifty beingness mentioned.
When information technology comes to the debates near women'southward ministry, Ritchie's argument is even weaker. For 1, evangelicals have ever understood the context of a verse to exist office of its 'plain meaning' not something boosted to the plain meaning; without this yous wouldn't exist able to translate the NT from Greek, permit alone brand sense of information technology. For some other, ane of groovy exegetical battles has been on the meaning of the term 'have authority' in ane Tim ii.12. The inquiry of Linda Belleville has shown how close the pregnant of authentein is to the related autodikein, with its overtones of 'taking the life of'. So the 'evidently meaning' of this text is very far from a straightforward prohibition of the education ministry of women. Put that aslope Paul'southward apparent support of women in leadership in Romans 16, and his encouragement of women praying and prophesying in 1 Cor 11, and you have something close to a 'cyclopedia' endorsement of women in leadership.
Agreeing to Disagree?
Having misunderstood theological thinking well-nigh divorce, and misread the debate near women's ministry, Ritchie finally comes to the question 'Why can't nosotros agree to disagree on the issue of same-sex marriage as we have on others?' I suppose it might exist possible prepare aside the fact that the respective biblical texts on the three questions are of a completely different kind, with the texts on same-sexual activity sexual action universally negative, regardless of context, something not true of either divorce or women'south leadership. It might even exist possible to ignore the connection made in Paul betwixt sexuality and both idolatry and the inheritance of the kingdom of God, again also a connection absent from discussion on divorce and leadership. But it is hard to ignore the fundamentally different nature of the argue in practice.
I could quite imagine 2 next dioceses within the Church building of England permitting or prohibiting divorce, and recognizing or not recognizing the leadership of women. Information technology wouldn't be comfy, but information technology would be possible. Information technology is merely impossible, though, to imagine one diocese celebrating same-sex sexual unions as equivalent to other-sexual practice marriage, and a neighbouring one holding that this is outside of Christian moral teaching, and therefore (amongst its clergy) a cause of subject area. These ii different views are simply incompatible; two such dioceses could not co-exist in the same Church. That is why the question for the Church building is not about polity solitary, but almost the Church's doctrine of spousal relationship, and within that its understanding of human being sexuality. There is no middle ground to stand on.
Ritchie appears to share the view of Jayne Ozanne (former Director of Accepting Evangelicals whom he cites) that change in the Church is 'inevitable'. To that end, Ozanne cites survey evidence showing that popular opinion amongst those identifying as 'C of E' is irresolute, and irresolute fast. That is one way for the Church to decide its doctrine—on the basis of popular opinion (without considering the pregnant of 'membership').
Historically, though, the Church of England has pursued a patient appointment with Scripture in order to shape its theology, in the light of what previous generations have understood ('tradition') and in the calorie-free of how we brand sense of these Spirit-breathed texts of ancient wisdom ('reason'). Given the lack of improve arguments, all the signs are that this process will not lead to a change in the Church building's theology of sexual activity and marriage, and at the very to the lowest degree not 'inevitably'. The question for the Church is whether nosotros are will continue this patient engagement—or whether, giving up on theology, we make up one's mind it is time to move on regardless.
(This commodity was beginning published on 1st February at ABC'southward Organized religion and Ethics blog.)
Follow me on Twitter @psephizo
Much of my piece of work is done on a freelance ground. If you have valued this post, would you considerdonating £1.20 a month to support the production of this web log?
If you enjoyed this, do share it on social media (Facebook or Twitter) using the buttons on the left. Follow me on Twitter @psephizo. Like my page on Facebook.
Much of my work is done on a freelance basis. If you accept valued this post, you lot tin can make a unmarried or repeat donation through PayPal:
Comments policy: Good comments that engage with the content of the post, and share in respectful contend, tin can add together real value. Seek start to empathize, then to be understood. Make the most charitable construal of the views of others and seek to learn from their perspectives. Don't view debate equally a disharmonize to win; address the argument rather than tackling the person.
Source: https://www.psephizo.com/sexuality-2/theological-discourse-and-the-sexuality-debate/
Postar um comentário for "Theological discourse and the sexuality debate"