Tuesday, October 2, 2012

Fair's fair (3)

If you are tired of wondering whether there is a simple deadlock over the next ABC, or a complicated one, such as Ruth Gledhill reports (or 'reports', how does she know?), that is, that there is agreement on name number one, +Durham, but disagreement on name number two, then you could return with me to the intriguing flow of posts coming from England which, in a sense, is about another deadlock.

Continuing a series of posts from English evangelicalism, as linked in my posts below, in which an important voice of a celibate person experiencing same sex attractions is heard (Vaughan Roberts), along with a serious, respectful voice of a conservative-on-marriage-itself but pragmatic-on-the-reality-of-gay partnerships within the context of centrist Fulcrum (Matthew Grayshon), we now have a rejoinder from another celibate evangelical experiencing same sex attractions. Meet Sean Doherty, also writing on Fulcrum, who challenges Grayshon's ethic.

It is refreshing to find Christian brothers writing who are open about their sexuality even as they support traditional Christian sexual ethics. For too long it has seemed that the only voices to be heard on the internet were straight Christians insisting on the traditional ethic or gay Christians insisting the traditional ethic is impossible.

However keeping evangelicals grounded is this citric opinion from Andrew Brown who argues that the liberals have won because the churches' wars on sexuality are over (at least in the Normandy landings' sense that WW2 was over on 6 June 1944).

Brown is wrong. He does not know where the church will end on vital issues such as officially accepting and publishing a marriage rite which is gender neutral.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

I am actually not convinced Brown is wrong. The church has got itself in the position where whenever it teaches the traditional view of sexuality (whether homosexuality, sex before marriage, sex outside of marriage or divorced) it is seen as a kill-joy repressive organisation.

Killjoy and repressive does not win the war.

Margaret

Father Ron Smith said...

"...we now have a rejoinder from another celibate evangelical experiencing same sex attractions. Meet Sean Doherty, also writing on Fulcrum, who challenges Grayshon's ethic.."
- Peter Collier -

Peter, I think you may have misread Sean Doherty. He is not a celibate, but actually a married man with 3 children, and therefore, bi-sexual - yet another variant on the God-given spectrum of human sexuality!

with regard to your reference to Andrew Brown's article; you may be right in saying that 'the church's wars on homosexuality are over'. I'm sure that while there is breath in their bodies, some conservatives will still want to 'war' against gays in the Church.

Bryden Black said...

I'm sure that while there is breath in their bodies, some conservatives will still want to 'war' against gays in the Church - Ron

If one reads Sean's article carefully, the false dilemma of being both conservative and waging 'war' is denied us all.

carl jacobs said...

The Church has lost the war on homosexuality? Truth remains the truth regardless of who rejects it. It would still be true even if every man in the world rejected it. Truth finds its origins in God and not in the vagaries of men. But let's consider some more temporal reasons to reject this claim.

1. It assumes stability where there is great instability. In truth it's just one more assertion of the Hegelian march of man into modernity. It assumes that ground once claimed can never be lost - that the church is on the 'wrong side of history.' But in fact the libertine secular west is becoming more unstable with each passing generation. It can't even muster the will to reproduce itself amidst the cacophony of orgasms that form the foundation of its existence. The shock of suffering and want will bring the emptiness of liberalism to the front and force it to confront a materialist existence in the absence of plenty. It will not have the tools to do so, and so it will turn to other sources in its distress. Secularism is too unstable to sustain itself through its own success.

2. It assumes that liberalism is the future of the church. The churches where the war has been lost are themselves lost. They are universally declining (alarmingly fast) in membership. So what we have here is a bureaucratic victory in a doomed organization. There is a very small demand for liberal religion. Doubt and angst do not make for good answers to big questions. These churches are led by intellectuals who are attracted to the freedom presented by doubt. But they have no followers. Said intellectuals will preside over failing religious institutions until the money runs out, and then hope to retire. Liberal religion is the kind of religion that secularists would prescribe "for people who need that sort of thing." But secularists have no interest in it themselves. That's why liberal churches are condemned to be marginal ghosts in a materialist society. Unseen. Unheard. Unlamented.

carl

Father Ron Smith said...

" That's why liberal churches are condemned to be marginal ghosts in a materialist society. Unseen. Unheard. Unlamented." - carl -

It's the reverse of this imagined reality that makes you so mad!

Incidentally, why are you SO angry?

carl jacobs said...

FRS

Incidentally, why are you SO angry?

That wasn't an angry post. That was dispassionate analysis. If you want to see me angry, then get me posting about the Vietnam War.

Why are western churches declining in general? Because the Church is in the business of proclaiming metaphysical Truth and the dominant western culture no longer accepts the idea of a knowable metaphysical Truth. It sees any claims based upon such asserted knowlege as inherently flawed, and illegitimate. In the absence of Truth, it instead asserts autonomy. This is the watchword of our modern culture. The reason Christians have so much trouble with moderinty is precisely because the Christian religion must place constraint on human autonomy.

This is why the actual Church will be driven more and more into a counter-cultral position. It is no longer seen as integral to society, but in fact is increaseingly seen as pernicious. I expect some form of very soft persecution will follow. But the inevitable end result is that people like me will be driven out of the public square. So do not think that I see a resurgance of the Christian religion in the West anytime soon. I don't.

Now you will say "Ah, but Liberal religion is different. We accept modernity." Yes, you do. But modernity doesn't accept you. They need you only as a foil against people like me. They despise and hate and fear what I believe. They are completely indifferent to religious liberalism. Once I am no more, you become expendable. For example, I guarantee you this. The quicker TEC consolidates its victory over conservatives, the quicker TEC will disappear from public view. Secularists aren't interested in your religious opinions any more than mine. But they consider mine to be lethal. They consider yours to be harmless.

The cultural war over homosexuality is largely lost to the Church because the larger culture accepts presuppositions that make the normalization of homosexuality inevitable. Unfortunately, a civilization cannot be sustained upon those presuppositions. Secularist modernity is an empty shell. It's going to implode and soon. The only question is "What will follow?" I know this. I won't be Christian in any recongnizable sense.

What then will it be? I look at Weimar and I fear.

carl