tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6949629946811250058.post3693625893465631509..comments2023-12-26T03:07:42.703+00:00Comments on Nah Then: Unity and SexualityUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger45125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6949629946811250058.post-60455694228712646752008-08-12T14:34:00.000+01:002008-08-12T14:34:00.000+01:00Cool, thanks Tim, looking forward to it. I'd be i...Cool, thanks Tim, looking forward to it. I'd be interested to see how you read Moltmann in this regard.<BR/><BR/>PaulLornalimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10562085073537546850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6949629946811250058.post-57758792975771329352008-08-12T13:14:00.000+01:002008-08-12T13:14:00.000+01:00Interesting stuff. I agree that some liberation th...Interesting stuff. I agree that some liberation theology can have a tendency towards the errors you described, but don't think it's inevitable. I reckon it tends to happen when the biblical roots for that way of thinking are taken from the exodus rather than the incarnation, crucifiction and resurrection. I'm thinking more of a liberation theology that's somewhere between Moltmann and Guterriez. I'll comment more on this & respond to the rest when I get the chance.<BR/><BR/>btw, thanks Glen for allowing this discussion to persist. I'm finding it interesting and useful.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6949629946811250058.post-72632388197068666092008-08-12T10:44:00.000+01:002008-08-12T10:44:00.000+01:00Only a theology of gay liberatin that argues prima...Only a theology of gay liberatin that argues primarily from a new testament basis could begin to convince me, but there is too much data in the NT prohibiting homosexuality, and too many arguments from silence and culture deployed by gay liberation theologians, to convince me, I'm afraid.Lornalimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10562085073537546850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6949629946811250058.post-11985868751993443582008-08-12T10:37:00.000+01:002008-08-12T10:37:00.000+01:00I tend to lean more towards a post-colnial reading...I tend to lean more towards a post-colnial reading of the scriptures than a liberation reading. I think liberation theology is too bound up in modernism in its methodology. In its epistemology it has always put its weight too much (in my opinion) on the dualism poor/oppressed (from a modernist marxist perspective) than a Christocentric/pauline basis which revolves around being born-again and the new creation. Post-cplonial interps which read from the ground into an understanding of Empire seem much richer and more helpful for me from my position as a Christian in a neo-liberal pseudo democracy like we are increasingly seeing in the West. I think the point about our culture is not only that capitalism is having too much influence, but also neo-liberalism, supported by a post-modern culture. This is the direction the Empire is taking nowadays. Liberation theology is too wedded to the very modernism which has collapsed into post-modernism for it to be as effective a hermeneutic for the church to use in the current prevailing culture in the west.<BR/><BR/>On the issue of homosexuality, I think the prevailing culture in the UK is moving more towards the culture that prevailed in Corinth and which the Pauline epistles critique, rooted in a contextualisation of a jewish worldview onto this pagan culture. I find a poco-hermeneutic very rish for interpreting thsi stuff. But I still need to explore it all more. I do think we needto move beyond old school liberation theology in our changing culture.<BR/><BR/>I don't think gay liberation theology as presented eg in the Gay Bible is a satisfactory epistemology - there are too many holes and its too poorly structured to convince me, on many levels. David and Johnathon really weren't gay - thats a very bad way to project our mores onto the culture of the times, and a prime example of how the methodology of liberation theology (starting from existing culture) can go badly wrong. I also don't think that the coming out of Israel from under the oppression of the Egyptians can be connected with the coming out of gays in modern society. Its a twisted interpretation and just doesn't ring true. Quite apart from anything else, the mosaic law just flatly contradicts such silliness.Lornalimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10562085073537546850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6949629946811250058.post-19627709872113117602008-08-12T09:47:00.000+01:002008-08-12T09:47:00.000+01:00With regards to my comments above about scripture,...With regards to my comments above about scripture, I genuinely still have not heard a cogent and coherent argument from a scriptural basis that gay lifestyle(s) are consistent with Christian behaviour. I still think emphasis of scripture is on liberation from this lifestyle, why the weight of the culture around us is to say the church needs to liberated to conform to the culture's idea of what is normative.<BR/><BR/>I stil think that there is a sensitive pastoral approach to gay identity and lifestyle that mediates Christ's love and grace and transformation in this area without so ingenising the gospel message that it simply becomes the same message that society is talkigng about.<BR/><BR/>Maybe I'm the last of the dinosaurs in this. Much of the non-western world church doesn't seem to think so, and so I'm prepared to become a minority in the belly of the beast over this one. I believe that the original Greek Christian communities were too, and that scripture at face values is its its own liberation theology when read in the light of the Empire that it was originally written. <BR/><BR/>I don't think that the methodology of the liberation theology hermeneutic (start with culture and come back to the Bible) is the correct basis with which to read the scriptures. I think we can pay attention to some of the insights this type of reading brings but it is not the best foundation for understanding the BibleLornalimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10562085073537546850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6949629946811250058.post-66381736753704657892008-08-12T08:52:00.000+01:002008-08-12T08:52:00.000+01:00"If you think that then I don't think it's logical..."If you think that then I don't think it's logically consistent for you to attribute paternalism to the hypothetical Christian who believes gay Christians claiming to be fulfilled in heterosexual relationships have not fully encountered the full power of the Holy Spirit in their lives and are just conforming to the supposed norm to fit in better."<BR/><BR/>Agreed, I see now that your position is that the Holy Spirit liberates us into accepting our homosexuality and practising same-sex relationships. I don't think the Holy Spirit does this.<BR/><BR/>"Of course, you can believe that the hypothetical Christian described above is just plain wrong, but you can't consistently claim that her/his position is paternalistic and yours isn't."<BR/><BR/>Nope you're right, I was suggesting before exactly what you are suggesting now, that both positions can be paternalistic if not imbued with love. I was suggesting that liberation theologians can be just as paternalistic as anyone else, and should be wary of using the word. Also, because I think of God as Father, and know that there is a qualitative difference between paternalism (which is a controlling distortion of the authority of fatherhood) and genuine fatherhood, which is loving. Liberation theology can be as paternalistic as any other theology. I wasn't saying that liberation theology is consistently paternalistic.<BR/><BR/>"I find your interpretation of what liberation theology is limiting because it seems to be a liberation imposed on people through yourself and people who agree with you acting as God's agents. It doesn't seem to be respecting the agency of the oppressed" <BR/><BR/>Perhaps you are right, perhaps I am distorting liberation theology. Or perhaps I am highlighting how liberation theology can often work in practice rather than in theory. Now we see where we are perhaps talking about a different gospel. I really dont see the gospel as primarily about enabling the viewpoints of the poor and oppressed to come forth, establishing these inherently and without critique, as godly. Because sometimes, the poor and the oppressed aren't right. For example, as a liberation theologian, I doubt many would be willing to simply say "the African bishops are poor so their perspective on homosexuality is right." There are as many tensions and paradoxes in liberation theology as any other theology. I just don't think that its perspective comes anywhere near to being the basis of the gospel. It higlights important aspects, but I dont have the same ontological and epistemological foundations for the theology I hold. <BR/><BR/>"Since my approach means to an extent delegating my own interpretative capacity to others, I'm not sure that it can be described as individualistic. In fact, I would suggest that an approach which stresses the importance of your own interpretation to the extent that you would leave a church rather than submit to a collective decision you disagreed with on church leadership - that approach is more individualistic."<BR/><BR/>The difference here is whether its in concord with scripture. I do believe homosexuality isn't consistent with a christian lifestyle, and I don't believe that the gospel is derived only from our personal choices about what is and isn't sin. You are helping to highlight the different foundations for our faith that we seem to have. If a church makes a choice to appoint gay clergy then it has moved away from scriptura foundations, from the collective witness of the historical church and the Apostles (and Christ).<BR/><BR/>Also, as I have highlighted before, if you have a sense that our corporate identity will be restored at the eschaton by Christ himself, then institution and bodily unity doesn't apply as greatly today. Leaving a church is never an easy decision, and never an individualistc one. Its not about "I want my own way" but needs to be done in humilty and careful thought.<BR/><BR/>"Also, what does "release them into leadership" mean? All who are accepted as members of the church are involved in collective leadership. So are you talking about church membership, or about specific roles such as preaching and teaching? (If the latter then please explain how that role is less suitable than a role of leading the coffee and biscuits team - I would contend it is possible for someone to be homosexual and yet preach exactly the same sermon as you on the feeding on the five thousand.)<BR/><BR/>Leadership consecrates the aspirations of the church. I agree, I don't think a gay lifestyle is a consistent lifestle for any christian and I want to avoid clericalism. I'm not saying "gay leaders must be celibate but members can pursue this." I am saying that at the moment a church apponts gay leaders who are non-celibate, it becomes permissible for everyone. Churches need to be places where gay people can explore the meaning of their identity as it relates to Christ, so I am definitely not advocating that gay people cant even come to church. So, when I say this about leaders, its not to reinforce clericalism, but it is to recognise that taking this step of necessity implies that this lifestyle is ok for everyone. That is why the leadership iseeue is such a hot issue.<BR/><BR/>"And even supposing homosexual sex is sinful, what makes a homosexual leader different from a leader who sins in another way? (Please don't answer that it's a question of whether they are in denial about their sin and are unwilling to change - everyone is in denial about the sinfulness of some aspect of their behaviour at some point in their lives) Shouldn't we disqualify all leaders from leading in that case?"<BR/><BR/>Please, please reread what I wrote above about the need we have to consistent in the way we adress all sins. My argument in this area is about intentionality and the direction someone travels in. An single heterosexual has tendencies to sin with other women (genetic? cultural? spiritual?) just as a single homosexual person does. But they can both make a choice to model holiness through celibacy. Its about intent to move towards holiness. I would argue that neither should move away from this style of modelling sexual relations for the congregation unless they eneter heterosexual marriage.<BR/><BR/>I'm not saying that leaders must be perfect, or pretend (for example) that they dont' have temptations. But if they chose a lifestyle which is consistently sinful and suggest then that it is actually holy, then we are in trouble. Its all about intentionality, and consistency of relatinship with Christ and living in the presence of God.<BR/><BR/>"On a separate topic, I'm not convinced by the radical theory of separation of spiritual and physical spheres that I (perhaps wrongly?) detected in your above posts. I think that such a theory is more Cartesian than Christian. And I do think that all sin can be described in structural terms, but that that doesn't make us any less responsible for it."<BR/><BR/>Could you point to where you see this dualism? I'd like to correct myself if its there. I want to express a holistic jewish mode of throught not greek dualistic thinking. I am still trying to get this stuff straight in my mind<BR/><BR/>Cheers<BR/>PaulLornalimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10562085073537546850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6949629946811250058.post-2748491648530607382008-08-10T23:23:00.000+01:002008-08-10T23:23:00.000+01:00"I would suggest that many gay Christians hav..."I would suggest that many gay Christians have rejected that healing and grace because they haven't yet fully encountered the full power of the Holy Spirit in their lives, or have made a choice to walk away from that experience."<BR/><BR/>If you think that then I don't think it's logically consistent for you to attribute paternalism to the hypothetical Christian who believes gay Christians claiming to be fulfilled in heterosexual relationships have not fully encountered the full power of the Holy Spirit in their lives and are just conforming to the supposed norm to fit in better.<BR/><BR/>Of course, you can believe that the hypothetical Christian described above is just plain wrong, but you can't consistently claim that her/his position is paternalistic and yours isn't. <BR/><BR/>I find your interpretation of what liberation theology is limiting because it seems to be a liberation imposed on people through yourself and people who agree with you acting as God's agents. It doesn't seem to be respecting the agency of the oppressed (and yes, homosexual people are an oppressed minority especially within the church - I don't say that to patronisingly give them special victim status, but mention it simply because it's a relevant fact). Part of the logic behind my approach is not just that I respect other Christians as priests and prophets in whom God's spirit dwells (although I do), but also because I think that gay & lesbian Christians have a perspective on this issue that is MORE valid than mine. They have had to wrestle with these issues on a totally different level to me, and with more information and experience to draw on. Liberation theology is not simply about fighting for justice or building a church where transformation can occur but about how we bring those ends about - and entails deliberately siding with the oppressed and marginalised.<BR/><BR/>Since my approach means to an extent delegating my own interpretative capacity to others, I'm not sure that it can be described as individualistic. In fact, I would suggest that an approach which stresses the importance of your own interpretation to the extent that you would leave a church rather than submit to a collective decision you disagreed with on church leadership - that approach is more individualistic.<BR/><BR/>Also, what does "release them into leadership" mean? All who are accepted as members of the church are involved in collective leadership. So are you talking about church membership, or about specific roles such as preaching and teaching? (If the latter then please explain how that role is less suitable than a role of leading the coffee and biscuits team - I would contend it is possible for someone to be homosexual and yet preach exactly the same sermon as you on the feeding on the five thousand.) <BR/><BR/>And even supposing homosexual sex is sinful, what makes a homosexual leader different from a leader who sins in another way? (Please don't answer that it's a question of whether they are in denial about their sin and are unwilling to change - everyone is in denial about the sinfulness of some aspect of their behaviour at some point in their lives) Shouldn't we disqualify all leaders from leading in that case?<BR/><BR/>On a separate topic, I'm not convinced by the radical theory of separation of spiritual and physical spheres that I (perhaps wrongly?) detected in your above posts. I think that such a theory is more Cartesian than Christian. And I do think that all sin can be described in structural terms, but that that doesn't make us any less responsible for it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6949629946811250058.post-62780331341772987312008-08-10T16:19:00.000+01:002008-08-10T16:19:00.000+01:00"You now seem to be denying the experience of gay ..."You now seem to be denying the experience of gay Christians who have become liberated by a full expression of their sexuality with a loving partner. In what way is that qualitatively different from those who deny the experience of homosexual people who've found fulfillment in a heterosexual relationship?"<BR/><BR/>Here is where I would (perhaps controversially) disagree with their testimony. I couldn't stop them or force them to change, but I also couldn't leave that testimony unchallenged or unquestioned. I also couldn't release them into leadership in the church. I would politely and gently assert my different perspective, which is to say that this isn't liberation as the scriptures testify. Along with many other gay, celibate Christians. <BR/><BR/>On what basis? On the witness of scripture, on the testimony of the traditions of the church and other gay christians who have testified to liberation. <BR/><BR/>Unlike you, Tim, I don't advocate such a strong choice-based approach to the issue, and I don't think simply because two positions are held with equal integrity that we must endorse both equally. I dont think a resolution is found by simply saying "I trust people to come up with their own interpretation of what is or isn't liberation for them." Because I dont think Christianity is ultimately about such an individualistic approach. <BR/><BR/>You might read this as me being paternalistic or dogmatic or oppressive, but actually its my honest assessment and I feel it is based on a reading of integrity of the scriptures.<BR/><BR/>I would suggest that many gay Christians have rejected that healing and grace because they haven't yet fully encountered the full power of the Holy Spirit in their lives, or have made a choice to walk away from that experience. That is the qualitative difference, and I believe that this experiential difference is backed up by the witness of the scriptures.Lornalimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10562085073537546850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6949629946811250058.post-11818577849384691762008-08-10T16:04:00.000+01:002008-08-10T16:04:00.000+01:00Hi Tim,It hasn't all gone wrong - thats a sweeping...Hi Tim,<BR/><BR/>It hasn't all gone wrong - thats a sweeping statement, and unhelpful. You can only make such a statement if you are advocating a polemical position (which I think you are).<BR/><BR/>Some instances of Christendom-influenced Christianity used its power to oppress minorities rather than loving them. <BR/><BR/>BUT the Christianity of the New Testament (which had no power) seems to have promulgated a faith which enabled liberation in the sphere of sexuality by the power of the Holy Spirit. Many still today testify to this (including the Christian in the John Barrowman documentary). <BR/><BR/>We can't throw the baby out with bath-water. I think we need to critique the Christendom-type christianity (advocating and supporting justice and protection for all minorites), but not then follow the pendulum's swing so far that we go beyond what the early church taught and practised on this subject (effectively mimicking the culture around us).<BR/><BR/>Just because Christendom used coercive power to otherise gay people and oppress them, doesn't mean that delivering ourselves of this reality must also turning our backs on the original approach of the church. We can both strive for structural justice in the political sphere AND look to create and alternative polity of healing and holiness, like the earliest church pursued amidst the pagan culture of Corinth.<BR/><BR/>As for the oppressive structures that the eariest Christians were working against (and which we may start needing to engage with again today): we need to look at the structures of Roman society and ascertain its attitudes to sexuality. It seems that in Corinth there was a cultural hegemony on sexuality which Paul galavnised the church to 'come out' from. This seems to have included homosexuality (I do not have an equivocal stand-point on Romans 1).<BR/><BR/>Furthermore, as we look at what the gospel liberates us from, its not only social structures we need to be liberated from but also spiritual forces. The gospel also enables physical healing which can take place during an encounter with the Holy Spirit. <BR/><BR/>I would argue that a liberationist theology of gay liberation which overly emphasises the structural causes of sin can overlook the other, spiritual roots and physical of things that can oppress us. <BR/><BR/>We need to find a balance here, and the type of theology of gay liberation which I advocate and which I think the NT looks towards brings a balance between the three: we fight for justice in structures of society but also build a church where transformation can occur in the physical and spiritual realms.<BR/><BR/>Of course, this is a reading that is quite different from yours. Its because of this that I'm not sure there is too much scope for reconciliation between the two positions.Lornalimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10562085073537546850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6949629946811250058.post-69856360641883712452008-08-10T00:15:00.000+01:002008-08-10T00:15:00.000+01:00So where did it all go wrong? When and why did man...So where did it all go wrong? When and why did many gay Christians decide not to experience healing and transformation and grace?<BR/><BR/>You now seem to be denying the experience of gay Christians who have become liberated by a full expression of their sexuality with a loving partner. In what way is that qualitatively different from those who deny the experience of homosexual people who've found fulfillment in a heterosexual relationship?<BR/><BR/>I also think that the way you're twisting the normal idea of what "liberation theology" is doesn't work, because to use it to mean "liberation from homosexuality" you would have to identify oppressive structures which were causing it - which I'm not sure you can do.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6949629946811250058.post-55014144863633034112008-08-09T21:21:00.000+01:002008-08-09T21:21:00.000+01:00Ive just realised that we already have suh a theol...Ive just realised that we already have suh a theology of gay liberation (one that enables the church to be a place of healing and transformation and grace for people who are gay). Its called orthodoxy, and its been practiced by the church consisstently for centuries since the time of the new testment.Lornalimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10562085073537546850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6949629946811250058.post-6709621339888743952008-08-01T09:50:00.000+01:002008-08-01T09:50:00.000+01:00And finally, if the Anglican Communion does appoin...And finally, if the Anglican Communion does appoint gay clergy and bishops, is it not also the case that for justice to be done, it should also defend the rights of the rest of the church to NOT have gay clergy or bishops in authority over them?<BR/><BR/>Again, the tensions of liberatin theology. Do we need a theology of gay liberation that defends the minority gay population of our church who are convinced by the scriptures and living a celebate/married lifestyle by the power of the spirit? A liberation theology that protects against the paternalism of gay liberation theologians who affirm same-sex relationships as godly and want to impose their beliefs on the wider church?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6949629946811250058.post-88706983832229571992008-08-01T09:48:00.000+01:002008-08-01T09:48:00.000+01:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6949629946811250058.post-73586945013357845342008-08-01T09:45:00.000+01:002008-08-01T09:45:00.000+01:00I guess I also want to ask the flip side of your q...I guess I also want to ask the flip side of your question.<BR/>"Why is it percieved as maintaining corporate integrity if you choose to remain within a denomination that appoints gay leaders, and not if you don't?"<BR/><BR/>This is my big bugbear...to intentionally chose to remain in a denomination that doesn't affirm gay leadership so as to convert it from within, disobeying corporate decisions of what is holy or not, and then to say "why do you have a problem with remaining accountable to the wider denomination/communion (even as we put two fingers up to that accountability over this justice issue)" seems to me to lack integrity and putting huge political pressure on other Christians. If you want gay leadership, campaign for the rules to change before you do it, rather than forcing the issue before the rules change. Or if you want to do the latter, do an MCC and form your own denomination first. At least this is an expression of integrity because you are saying openly rather than subversively "this is the type of authority that we support."<BR/><BR/>Even worse to cross the boundary and then question why people might want to leave!?!? If you want to turn this into a justice issue, please be prepared for people to simply walk away from the fight. But equally, please be prepared for resistance.<BR/><BR/>Above all, accepting all this and the tensions involved, I think its important if we are in one denomination and intentionally engaging on opposite sides of this issue, stop complaining if you get whacked and knocked about, or if, ultimately, one side or other loses. Everyone is entering this with their eyes wide open. When the suffering hits, don't moan, but love like Christ without compromising your beliefs.<BR/><BR/>Please come back at me on this. Maybe I am percieving this wrongly, or interpreting it in a biased way.2Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6949629946811250058.post-38064174647801820012008-08-01T09:24:00.000+01:002008-08-01T09:24:00.000+01:00Hi Andy,Great question! I think of holiness in di...Hi Andy,<BR/><BR/>Great question! I think of holiness in different ways. 'Wholeness' being the key one. Integrity between head, hand and heart, imbued by the living presence of the Holy Spirit. The other thing I think holiness is intimately connected to is calling. Holiness is about remaining true to God, and what he is calling us individually and corporately to become.<BR/><BR/>The vision and direction of what we become corporately is massively concentrated in the nature, character and desires of those we ask to serve as leaders. Because God goves them such influence amongst us all. So leadership issues (or issue which end up concentrated in the question of leadership) will always be the most controversial in church.<BR/><BR/>Here's the rub, I think that in the middle of such disputes it can also be an issue of holiness ('wholeness') to remain in a church (by this I mean express unity bodily, institutionally and through accountability), rather than withdraw from it.<BR/><BR/>BUT it is a question of what you are called to do. <BR/><BR/>I couldn't with integrity remain part of a body of believers who appoint gay clergy because I would ultimtely be partly accountable for that. I do believe there are corporate as well as personal boundaries that need to be retained, even as we keep them porous so that people can come in and be welcomed, or we can move out and incarnate missionally.<BR/><BR/>For me, and the position I take, to remain in a church that facillitates this approach to faith creates (and to which i am accountable) creates huge tensions with the vision of what I feel God is calling me to, and the type of church I feel called to establish. It militates strongly with what I understand to be the wholeness of the gospel. It puts extreme pressure on my gay Christian friends who are convinced by scripture and depending on God in celibacy and hetero-marriage. It raises questions about how mutual accountability actually works: to reach the alternative position (I feel) involves an approach to ethics and scripture and theology that is in strong tension with my own.<BR/><BR/>Can I remain in a place where such fundamental tension exists, where in my heart I actually already dont really feel accountable, and where that sense of accountability doesn't really exist anyway? If people are fighting me and trying to convert the body of Christ around me in such ways that my personal integrity is profoundly challenged, yet with the other breath seem to be saying, "but we also want you around, you have so much to contribute"...what is my response? It seems they want me to be conformed into their image. Which is very different from the wholeness I believe God is calling me to and the church corporately to.<BR/><BR/>The main reason to stay institutionally connected in such a situation (a place of quite serious suffering) is if God is calling you to do it. But I have always said, there are many things Christ could have suffered for and died for without going to the cross. We all are called to specific things in specific ways, and we have individual and corporate convictions about that.<BR/><BR/>So I affirm anyone who senses they are called to remain in the Anglican communion in the midst of this issue. It would appear to be an issue (for them) of holiness and integrity to do so. But they do so with a clear agenda of seeking to reform the church, to persuade and convince. That's going to take a huge amount of energy and sacrifice. What happens if it doesn't work? Or if you lose the energy to struggle? The only thing that will see you through such situations is calling. If I dont have it in the first place, I couldn't ultimately walk it through when the going gets tough.<BR/><BR/>Its not something I am called to do. I do not feel God's hand on me saying "remain in a place where these tensions exist to be a light." I am called to focus on other areas.<BR/><BR/>And yet, I massivey affirm Tim and say that we need to intentionally find ways of connecting even across institutional divides, and to remain in touch and in contact.<BR/><BR/>In the same way as Tim I feel it may be necessary to create safe places for gays (both celibate and with partners) to express their convictions withour being harassed. <BR/><BR/>So MCC have chosen divergence in order to create that safe space for LGBT Christians with partners. They obviously feel it is an issue of holiness to leave the denominations, just as some folk in my shoes would defend that on the other side of the equation.<BR/><BR/>Ultimately, I guess, it all depends on the theological content that you pack into the meaning of the word holiness when you deploy it. We can use the same word and men totally different things, and God can call us to holiness in different ways.<BR/><BR/>Some of this debate, for example, comes down to the old Donatist/Augustinian ecclesiolgical debate.<BR/><BR/>What do you think?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6949629946811250058.post-36963698447850579142008-07-31T19:19:00.000+01:002008-07-31T19:19:00.000+01:00My position would be the same - practically speaki...My position would be the same - practically speaking I think generally it'd be better if people didn't divide but worked within the churches they're in for a culture shift. However I recognise that it's also important to create safe spaces where gay & lesbian Christians won't constantly be under attack and so I wouldn't be surprised if God does call people to leave churches for that reason from time to time.<BR/><BR/>But regardless of this, a shift from one church institution to another shouldn't stop Christians regardless of their position on this issue from meeting together, praying together, breaking bread together, and working together when it comes to witness, clothing the naked, eating with the hungry, sharing a roof with the homeless, etc.<BR/><BR/>I'm sure that's more difficult for a gay Christian who's told they're unnatural/damned than it is for me. But I've not met the Christian yet who's used up their forgiveness quotient.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6949629946811250058.post-278646768064207222008-07-31T10:44:00.000+01:002008-07-31T10:44:00.000+01:00Hi tim, paul and glen,I was going to post this sin...Hi tim, paul and glen,<BR/><BR/>I was going to post this single question on my blog, but when i saw this was going on here i thought i'd use this space (though it may be better suited to a post titled 'disunity and sexuality').<BR/><BR/>Why is it presented and perceived as 'holiness' to leave a church because it allows homosexuals into postions of leadership, but not to leave one because it doesn't?andy amosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01100233831041064444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6949629946811250058.post-15734633553423862342008-07-31T07:55:00.000+01:002008-07-31T07:55:00.000+01:00Your kind of 'bi-sexual' on the Romans passage, ne...Your kind of 'bi-sexual' on the Romans passage, neither straight nor gay? ;-)Lornalimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10562085073537546850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6949629946811250058.post-31275359988584803822008-07-28T13:34:00.000+01:002008-07-28T13:34:00.000+01:00I just listened to the Campolo stuff over lunch an...I just listened to the Campolo stuff over lunch and really liked it (although I'm still not willing to swing either way on the Romans passage)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6949629946811250058.post-67275483953400835662008-07-28T11:54:00.000+01:002008-07-28T11:54:00.000+01:00Book I want to read: Jones and Yarhouse MA, "Ex-ga...Book I want to read: <BR/><BR/>Jones and Yarhouse MA, "Ex-gays?: A Longitudinal study of religiously mediated change in Sexual Orientation, Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2007"<BR/><BR/>Just read the Honours Dissertation of a friend called "What is an appropriate response to male homosexuals within the church." A sensitive and helpful read.Lornalimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10562085073537546850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6949629946811250058.post-19812887608163375812008-07-28T11:51:00.000+01:002008-07-28T11:51:00.000+01:00"We can conceieve of unity in an eschatologic..."We can conceieve of unity in an eschatological sense, and therefore not necessarily concieve of it as unity under one authority in the present. I also think that I dont have to be part of the same denomination in order to be held in check from heresy. I can still read the books/partner with/have friends in other denominations and from other theological perspectives."<BR/><BR/>Yes, I completely agree with all this. I am however concerned that splits on this issue will in practice lead to a situation where different parts of the Church don't talk with each other and in fact direct propaganda at each other instead of having the serious and worthwhile kinds of interaction you describe. But I am in total agreement that the kind of unity we're talking about is not necessarily unity under the umbrella of a particular denomination, or a particular church that meets in a particular building. If you find you aren't inviting non-Christian friends to church because you are worried about them encountering false teaching, it is probably better for you to attend somewhere else - but that doesn't stop you being accountable to the Christians in the church you left or from having joint responsibilities for evangelism, social justice etc that are often best expressed in close partnership.<BR/><BR/>"Point taken re: George Bush. Its just an analogy. So you would stay in the same church if your leader preached Sunday after Sunday a rhetoric of war? Wow. Would you do that because you wanted to change him away from that view because ou thought it was dangerous? What happens if he/she keeps paying absolutely no attention and you are getting nowhere? If he was calling you an anti-war bigot from the pulpit? I guess if God was calling you to die over that issue then you would stay. Maybe the deepest in our conversation is about what God is calling us to do, individually. I suppose sometimes he calls people out, and sometimes he calls people to remain "in". Probably there is no catch-all ethic for this one."<BR/><BR/>I agree that God calls different people to be in different situations (even to the extent it's just about possible for God to call someone to be a Tory MP!). I wouldn't want a conservative Christian in a church that welcomed and endorsed a full expression of homosexuality to become so isolated they stopped having contact with all Christians - I would rather they joined a different denomination.<BR/><BR/>In terms of whether I would stay in the same church if the preacher preached a rhetoric of war week after week - I can't see myself choosing it as a church unless I felt called to a role in it. But I could easily see myself remaining in a church where that was happening and I already had established relationships with church members and taken on responsibilities. And regardless of whether I eventually left that church, I wouldn't want to cut myself off entirely from those people - or view myself as not accountable to them.<BR/><BR/>I have some experience of these kinds of problems in that at university I had problems with the focus of the Christian Union which was almost exclusively based around teaching personal salvation. It also had an extremely narrow ethic. I attended normal meetings irregularly and joined with them in official prayer meetings slightly more regularly. I sought to pray and share experiences & bible passages with particular members of the CU also. Where I had the biggest problem was where I had other stuff going on at the same time as CU meetings and had to prioritise one or the other. Where the CU meetings clashed with an opportunity to take practical action on an issue of social justice or take part in a meeting which would lead to the likelihood of that. It's possible (though not certain) that if the CU's theology and focus had been broader, I might've made different choices on different occasions. However, it's also worth noting that this dilemma was a practical one and not just a theological one - I would still now choose to attend protests etc in place of church from time to time, but where church is also a hub or social activity where ideas and experiences in that sphere are exchanged, I am more likely to see that as an opportunity for social action and therefore balance out which one is more important on an event-by-event basis.<BR/><BR/>I imagine my views on unity, loyalty, etc are influenced strongly by the fact that I have plenty of experience of staying in and being extremely active in an organisation (the Labour Party) who in government, have done many things I disagree strongly with.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6949629946811250058.post-90728708589700255102008-07-28T11:30:00.000+01:002008-07-28T11:30:00.000+01:00Sorry about the spelling mistakes, its down to lac...Sorry about the spelling mistakes, its down to lack of time not spluttering rage! ;-)Lornalimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10562085073537546850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6949629946811250058.post-84136684974854832042008-07-28T09:15:00.000+01:002008-07-28T09:15:00.000+01:00I take your point about schism perhaps being roote...I take your point about schism perhaps being rooted in a desire to prove that people aren't Christians. But that isn't necessarily the case. Luther probably went along this line, but institutional unity isn't the only way we can concieve of unity. We can conceieve of unity in an eschatological sense, and therefore not necessarily concieve of it as unity under one authority in the present. I also think that I dont have to be part of the same denomination in order to be held in check from heresy. I can still read the books/partner with/have friends in other denominations and from other theological perspectives. Here is where the arguments for gay leadership become cofused with a particular ecclesiology which also says we must express unity in a particular way. This is where I think Desmond is comng from. And this is where I fear issues of control and authority also play an unhelpful part, sometimes. If Desmond wants to hold people in the Communion because he is worried that they might become heretics because they dont express unity in his way, then that's moving towards issues of control. I wonder what actually holds the anglican community together sometimes. Is it just money and tradition? Doesn't seem to reflect reformation principles (semper reformandum) to me.<BR/><BR/>Rubber hits the road if I am expected to personally/have responsibility for releasing gay leaders. I probably can't do that, even if I can fight for justice on their behalf. <BR/><BR/>Point taken re: George Bush. Its just an analogy. So you would stay in the same church if your leader preached Sunday after Sunday a rhetoric of war? Wow. Would you do that because you wanted to change him away from that view because ou thought it was dangerous? What happens if he/she keeps paying absolutely no attention and you are getting nowhere? If he was calling you an anti-war bigot from the pulpit? I guess if God was calling you to die over that issue then you would stay. Maybe the deepest in our conversation is about what God is calling us to do, individually. I suppose sometimes he calls people out, and sometimes he calls people to remain "in". Probably there is no catch-all ethic for this one. <BR/><BR/>Which brings me back to the point I made about those who fight for justice also being prepared to see those they are fighting get tired of the fight and simply walk away. Do you run after them and browbeat them as schismatics or do what jesus would do and let them walk? I suppose it depends on your ecclesiology. <BR/><BR/>As for holiness being a negative concept, I defintely dont think of it as such. It is both positive and negative. I'm called to model both the indigenising and pilgrim principle in contextualisation,. The church exhalts one aspect of holiness and by default distinguishes itself other aspects. I think holiness is a massively positive thing, and one thing we lose in the debate is the wonderous sense of holiness to be found in celibacy and hetero-marriage...<BR/><BR/>Better go for nowLornalimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10562085073537546850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6949629946811250058.post-18423977196506881462008-07-28T08:59:00.000+01:002008-07-28T08:59:00.000+01:00By the eway, i liked Tont Campolo's stance that he...By the eway, i liked Tont Campolo's stance that he always uses the term homosexual lifestyles, with the emphasis on the plural, recognising that there are as many homosexual lifestyles as heterosexual lifestylesLornalimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10562085073537546850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6949629946811250058.post-14410935147628899052008-07-28T08:58:00.000+01:002008-07-28T08:58:00.000+01:00One curiosity that I have discovered is that both ...One curiosity that I have discovered is that both conservative evangelcals and traditional liberals seem to take different sides on different theological emphases depending on the debates they are facing. Here's one: on issues of environmentalism, conservative evangelicals tend to downplay the theme of creation and God's good and natural order, so that it becomes more suitable to to shape creation acording to their own desires, even to the detriment of creation. But when it comes to creationism, conservative evangelicals tend to massively emphasise the creation accounts according to their desire to emphasise original sin. Interesting eh?<BR/><BR/>But the reverse is alos true: on issues of environmentalism, liberals tend to emphasise the theme of God's natural creation against the tendency of man to dominate his environment as if he owned it, not God. Usually this is quite firmly rooted in a creation theology derived from Genesis. But on the issue of homosexuality, more liberal Christians tend to downplay the same way of interpreting the genesis account (the theme of God's natural creation) with regards to human sexuality. <BR/><BR/>So the motif of the rainbow, usually taken to be a symbol a God's commitment to the natural order, his promise to not destroy the world again in flood because of the sinfulness of man, becomes a symbol of celebration of a diversity of sexuality amongst humankind, even sexuality which inherently denies the ability of man to procreate. Ironic, isn't it?<BR/><BR/>Have you ever studied semiotics or read Umberto Eco's Name of the Rose? Its a very post-modern work in which he deals with the tensions in symbolism (referencing especially the symbol of the lion in the bible) and shows the limits to which we can push symbolism and metaphorical/poetical truth. He asks, if the lion is an image both for God (Jesus himself) and Satan (1 Peter), is it not the case that the only way we can really truly understand the meaning of a given symbol is from the inter-weaving of the context in which it appears. And this too, is a act of imagination and interpretation. Eco seems to want to demonstrate the problems of knowing an object fully. But he ends up seeming to push for a world in which meaning is so totally constructed that we can never really know the other. This is where I can't go where he goes, ultimately. I do think that there is an objective, personal being outside of our ken who we can have a relationship with and who can guide us into closer and closer truth. I have faith that we can know much more closely that Eco would want the meaning of the scriptures and that its less open to personal whim than many post-moderns would posit. Its because I think that God's authority is able to be discerned (though never perfectly) through the body of Christ and our own understanding of the scriptures and the empowering of the spirit. I do, ultimately, think that certain readings of the Bible are truer and lead us into deeper truth (in Christ and by the Spirit), and that its ultimately not just as happenstance as all that. Which is why as I try and humbly stancd on the convictions I hold about scripture, there are some issues that become issues to "stand firm" over and create spaces of protection over. I guess this is one of these issues, for me.<BR/><BR/>I think we need to read the creation accounts at face value and affirm the goodness of God's creation and intent for humankind, BOTH over environmental issues and over issues of human sexuality...because these are themes which remain in place throughout the bible and on into revelation and eschatology. I dont think men and women in the new creation will have sexual relations with the same sex in the full presence of God, and I think that part of modelling the resurection life now amidst our communities and the wrl is to reflect the reality of what that life will be like in the new creation. Someone with a homosexual lifestyle who choses celibacy is partly taking a courageous stand to model the meaning of human sexuality that will be present in the new creation. I recognise, though, that you probably dont see it this way!Lornalimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10562085073537546850noreply@blogger.com