"I wince to see the philosophical mess that religious conservatives are making of their case. Is there nobody of any intellectual stature left in our English church, or the Roman church, to frame the argument against Christianity’s slide into just going with the flow of social and cultural change? Time was — even in my time — when there were quiet, understated, sometimes quite severe men of the cloth, often wearing bifocal spectacles, who could show us moral relativists a decent fight in that eternal debate. Now there’s only the emotional witness of the ranting evangelicals, most of them pretty dim. How I miss the fine minds of bishops like Joseph Butler, who remarked drily to John Wesley: ‘Sir, the pretending to extraordinary revelations, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, is an horrid thing, a very horrid thing.’
So, wearily and with a reluctance born of not even supporting the argument’s conclusion, let me restate the conservative Catholic’s only proper response to news such as that from Dublin last weekend. It is that 62 per cent in a referendum does not cause a sin in the eyes of God to cease to be a sin.
Can’t these Christians see that the moral basis of their faith cannot be sought in the pollsters’ arithmetic?"Of course Matthew Parris is not particularly kind above to 'ranting evangelicals, most of them pretty dim.' There is a certain kind of bigotry which presumes Christians of intellectual stature will be found anywhere but in evangelicalism!
Does he have a point, however, in what he argues above, that Christianity (in the West) is sliding 'with the flow of social and cultural change'?
Yes, he does. Christians are more than capable of flowing with social and cultural change (ask e.g. Catholics who use artificial means of contraception, check out e.g. Anglican priests who conduct remarriages of divorcees). It has actually always been thus and so. Paul changed the native culture of the gospel (Judaism, Israel, Aramaic) in order to win the world for Christ (Hellenism, Athens and Rome, Greek). The first Christians went with the flow which said slavery was part and parcel of life.
And why has this been so and why is this so today? The answer is a point I think Parris misses. Christians live their lives in the world and not out of it. Precisely because we are in the world and not out of it, we need, in the words of the Archbishop of Dublin after the result of the referendum was announced, a 'reality check' ... every day.
That 'reality check' means that Christians took a long view over (ancient) slavery and changed it eventually. On sexual relationships conservative Christians (such as Roman Catholics) have another sort of long view: that long view concerns communication and connection with society. We do not want to stop communication. We do not want to lose connection. Neither do we want to change God's revelation on sin.
Conservative churches are not separate from society. The Archbishop's point is not that 62% in a referendum have determined what is right is what used to be wrong and his church must now catch up. If it were so, Parris for Pope! No, the point the Archbishop is making is that a society contesting what is right and what is wrong is inside the church as much as it is outside the church. The reality check for the church is facing up to that fact and working out how to act.
If we wish to avoid either schism (a current Anglican option) or excommunication (at least a theoretical Roman Catholic option) then we need to find 'a way forward'.
That way - my Yes and No of the previous post - is going to look like flowing with social and cultural change to some and like stubborn, 'pretty dim' adherence to old-fashioned ideas about sin to others.
End Note: Oh, and by the way, if you do not know much about Matthew Parris and what kind of conservative he might be and thus what kind of conservatives I pal around with, this is how the citation above began:
"Even as a (gay) atheist, "
*If the title seems strange, it is a play on some famous words which I am sure our friend Google will assist with.
9 comments:
I'm with Parris on this one, and was pleased to see a rather more robust response to the Irish result from the Vatican than from the Archbishop.
I take your point that the ground rules are being challenged inside the church as much as outside it, but was it not ever thus. When Solomon took hundreds of foreign wives and set up temples for the foreign gods do we suppose that there were no pragmatists rationalising this as the globalisation was going (or some such line). Aaron - Aaron - made golden calf. Or church leaders who not just went with the flow, but reinterpreted the Scripture to advocate slavery in the US South, or to support the practices of eugenics (which possibly Hitler did more to finally end than the church). As for the compromises of the German church in the 1930s - plenty of decent reasonable people, who saw themselves as true believers in the gospel, favoured going with the flow.
Something about the gospel as counter-culture seems missing. And if we are in the world, we aren't supposed to be of it are we? The Hauerwas/Willimon characterisation of Christians as resident aliens has always resonated with me - or Heb 13:13&14.
This is probably a bit of a rant, which isn't very directly helpful to the sorts of institutional choices churches make. I've been reflecting all year on which issues the worldwide church has genuinely changed its stance on. I think usury probably counts, but I've struggled to find too many more (I'm not entirely convinced salvery is on - we might find it tolerated in the NT, but it is hardly endorsed: no "feel free to make someone your slave".
I wonder what is next down the line? Services of blessing for people committing physician-assisted suicide?
Well, Peter. Perhaps you need to accept him, boots and all, with both his criticism and his praise. But why does he have to suggest that all saints (evangelical conservatives) must be dim? Me, I reject him, completely, as - not only an agent-provocateur but also a flaneur.
" And if we are in the world, we aren't supposed to be of it are we?"
Iive always thought that a little ambiguous. especially when one considers that God took such pains to become, Himself, part OF the world - at the Incarnation of Christ. And then, too; that "God so loved the world...."
So let's see if I have this rght: the gospel as counter-culture is best expressed not by limiting heterosexuals to a single lifelong union, nor by radical inclusion of all, nor by being distinguishable in use of money, or attitude to war, ... But by making sure that the small minority of gay Christians who seek to live together as a couple faithfully for life are excluded from the church's life, and in the church's teaching destined to eternal damnation! John 11:35
Mike
Peter, the Archbishop of Dublin has disappointed everyone in the Catholic world. No-one knew what he stood for (pro or anti) and his post result comments indicate that he needs a new call; hopefully the Pope will find him a job, because the Lord might find it hard. That aside, it is time for those of us who believe that homosexual relationships are sin to be unequivocal in our stance.
Nick
"not by limiting heterosexuals to a single lifelong union"
Who said anything about that?
"nor by radical inclusion of all"
Since when is that Christ's teaching? (hint: it is, but only in a sense that is anathema to the modern liberal movement - you need to define what you mean)
"nor by being distinguishable in use of money"
Who said anything about that?
"But by making sure that the small minority of gay Christians who seek to live together as a couple faithfully for life are excluded from the church's life"
No-one is excluded from the church's life. Many people choose to exclude themselves, but that is their choice.
"and in the church's teaching destined to eternal damnation!"
Since you obviously don't understand the position of those you disagree with, I can excuse your ignorance on other matters.
Hi Ron
You have sent in two comments this afternoon.
The second I am not going to publish because it does not offer a fruitful way forward for the conversation to develop. I appreciate that 'biting' humour has its place, but I think it might be inappropriate today, thank you.
The first I am editing (below) because it makes a comment about Cardinal Pell which I am not absolutely sure is true and I would not like to find myself being sued by the Cardinal, who, I see, is in a litigious mood this week (http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/jun/01/pell-seeks-legal-advice-after-vatican-official-slams-mockery-of-abuse-victims).
Thus, your redacted comment is:
"".hopefully the Pope will find him (Archbishop Diarmuid Martin) a job, because the Lord might find it hard. That aside, it is time for those of us who believe that homosexual relationships are sin to be unequivocal in our stance"
- Nick Anonymous -
Well, Nick; the Vatican 'found' Cardinal Pell a cushy job in Rome, only to discover that [there has been continuing controversy about his past responses in Sydney re victims of sexual abuse]. One cannot hide from the truth - of problems, even in the Church of Rome.
"Judge not - that ye be not judged yourselves!"
"
Well, Peter. I am a little surprised. However, as I have said before; it is your blog and you have a perfect right to censor any comments.
In logging into to your link (and bearing in mind your comments) from the Guardian, I found this post interesting:
https://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCQQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Faustralia-news%2F2015%2Fjun%2F01%2Fvatican-officials-call-for-pell-to-be-removed-will-have-set-cat-among-the-pigeons&ei=liRsVcGmH4r68QXDvoCoAw&usg=AFQjCNF6t6zTlqrEWDQwP8_8DbDb9Qv0Yg&sig2=ry95nRMEiPZ8Xg4njuKyyA&bvm=bv.94455598,d.dGc&cad=rjt
Hi Ron
Yes, an interesting article, and to be read alongside Damian Thompson's salutary reminder of a more prosaic account of Pell's actions (more virtue than vice), http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/damian-thompson/2015/05/the-hounding-of-cardinal-pell-things-australias-liberal-media-dont-want-you-to-know/ .
The point Pell would presumably make were he to comment here is that the Guardian article is full of allegation but does not present an actual verdict supported by evidence.
That Pell is willing to return to Oz to speak with the Commission suggests a man with little to hide.
(Either way, my beef with your comment is not because I know Pell to be right but because I am out of time to go to court to defend the blog against libel!)
Post a Comment