Thursday, July 1, 2010

Very Fruitful Thursday

What could be a measure of a successful Hui on Hermeneutics? One measure could be down the track of life, “Where the church is now, is down to that hui back in 2010.” We will pass that one by. Another measure could be a sense as people leave that some things in our life together are better. That may not be much of a measure, since whatever sense we have at the end of the hui could result in no action such as follow up reporting back to our dioceses and hui amorangi. Here are my thoughts about what is better in our life together because of our hui this week:

1. We may have a deeper commitment to move forward together resolved to lose no one, conservative or liberal (or those who do not identify as either), straight or gay or lesbian – a commitment deepened because we have listened to each other in a responsible way, recognising that both experiences and theological commitments matter.

2. We may have begun to say to ourselves that our reading of Scripture corporately is something we cannot sidestep. Holy Scripture is our Holy Scripture. We may, in this (new) beginning, be realising two things. First, that Scripture says what it says about sexuality (including homosexuality). Despite some creative hermeneutical explorations around the possibility of concluding that Scripture does not say what the church has thought it has been saying, it does say what it says (i.e. an overall negative approach to homosexuality). Secondly, that it is possible that we may need to go beyond Scripture because we face a new situation, unknown when the Bible was written. A ‘going beyond’ akin to what we have done on matters such as usury and remarriage of divorced persons. Yet it is notable that on those two matters our church has gone forward together.

3. We are recognising that each tikanga is engaged with consideration of the place of gay and lesbian and transgender and bisexual people in our church. Once upon a time we could only have said that of one tikanga.

4. We may be recognising that finding a way forward towards reaching some kind of decision as a whole church (any decision, one way or another) may involve “re-envisioning” of the situation. Perhaps a new framing of the situation in different language to the language that has been used hitherto. (I hope to offer further reflection on this soon on Hermeneutics and Human Dignity).

5. We may be recognising that through this last decade some things have been changing about our church, things which we need to factor into our reflections and explorations, such as certain ways in which we are becoming more conservative, and certain ways in which an underlying therapeutic model of church is being transformed into a missional model of church.

6. We may be recognising that more people are affected by the way we are handling these matters than we have recognised before: ‘more people’ including gay and lesbian people in our congregations, and gay and lesbian people in the extended families or whanau which make up our churches.

7. We may be recognising that some arguments are better than other arguments in order to advance whichever cause we are promoting. In each of the three hui so far there have been arguments advanced which have not gained traction across the majority of those present. Arguments are not everything in ‘changing attitude’ but for some aspects they are important. They need to be good, in tone and content, otherwise they will not persuade.

Well I never set out to write down seven emerging things; but I have. I will stop for now. If you are asking the question, ‘Where will this end up?’, then my answer is, ‘I do not know.’ But I think it is more likely that we will end up in a place where we are both undivided and inclusive than if we had not held the hui.

Please read this as a personal statement of one individual at the Hui. It is not a description of the Hui per se, nor a record of its outcomes. It is an attempt to offer a sense of what its meaning for the church might be.

9 comments:

Tim Harris said...

Peter, thanks for posting your reflections, both immediate and subsequent. I have to say the more I have reflected on your notations, the more alarm bells are ringing!

I recognise these are your personal perceptions, not a formal statement, and probably in no particular order (although leading with your first point as you do raises disturbing questions if this is the bottom line). I also recognise that the hui experience was a journey travelled together by those who participated and no doubt very moving at times.

However, I have previously expressed the view that the whole exercise was shaped around a flawed hermeneutical judgement to start with, and that to consider the isolated texts in a stand alone fashion, without prior regard for the larger canvas of Scripture on marriage, sexual expression and creational order would lead to skewed outcomes, and your summary has done much to confirm my fears.

To read your summary gives the impression that scripture is not particularly clear in such matters, because it is addressing another cultural world and time, and thus there is a need to go beyond scripture to address modes of relationship that are present realities. Are you suggesting we need to go beyond scripture's clear and consistent affirmation that marriage is between a man and a woman, and that sexual expression is only appropriate within the bounds of the covenant of marriage?

I do believe we need to find new modes of responding pastorally to all within our midst, including gays and lesbians, and no less those who have previously had homosexual experiences and lifestyles and have sought or chosen to leave such experiences and adopt alternative approaches and relationships, including heterosexual marriage or celibacy - I have witnessed quite appalling treatment of the latter by other more strident Christian gays and lesbians. Inclusion is a more selective outlook than the rhetoric suggests.

I am glad the hui was by all reports a respectful and safe place to enter honest conversations. It was clearly a significant step in the process, at least relationally. However, we also need to complement such experiences with clear thinking about where this is taking us. One of the strengths and weaknesses of the hui process is that it has internal dynamics (space for dialogue), but little concrete outward expression that provides much clarity for those unable to be present.

I look forward to further reports, and will reactivate my blog and interact at greater length on your reflections.

Tim Harris said...

Cont...

I do believe we need to find new modes of responding pastorally to all within our midst, including gays and lesbians, and no less those who have previously had homosexual experiences and lifestyles and have sought or chosen to leave such experiences and adopt alternative approaches and relationships, including heterosexual marriage or celibacy - I have witnessed quite appalling treatment of the latter by other more strident Christian gays and lesbians. Inclusion is a more selective outlook than the rhetoric suggests.

I am glad the hui was by all reports a respectful and safe place to enter honest conversations. It was clearly a significant step in the process, at least relationally. However, we also need to complement such experiences with clear thinking about where this is taking us. One of the strengths and weaknesses of the hui process is that it has internal dynamics (space for dialogue), but little concrete outward expression that provides much clarity for those unable to be present.

I look forward to further reports, and will reactivate my blog and interact at greater length on your reflections.

Peter Carrell said...

Hi Tim
That is good that alarm bells are ringing - they might be a call to galvanise some people to action, for example, our bishops, most of whom were absent from the Hui (for good reasons, yes, but nevertheless cumulatively absent in the majority).

On one matter of fact I hope I might set your mind at least slightly at rest: the point of the fourth hui [in my understanding] is that it becomes an opportunity to work with the wider canvas of the whole Bible on marriage and sexuality ... a step towards which was made in the last paper of the Hui when Paul Trebilco gave his paper A Theology of Sexuality and 1 Corinthians 5-7.

The mood of the Hui was not one of (so to speak) a group under gay and lesbian lobbying pressure so that the outlook looks bleak for celibate people etc. Far from it. The mood was one of respect for people finding their way through life with the tricky challenge of being a tiny minority in a heteronormative society and in a church which is both heteronormative and far from uniformly working out its pastoral response to gay and lesbian brothers and sisters in its midst. James Harding's plea (as reported in Taonga) was an important note of reality in the proceedings: the texts we worry about exegetically, and may be happy to engage with in a slow, patient way, can be terrifying to some.

In another comment I will respond to a particularly important question you raise!

Peter Carrell said...

Hi Tim,

Your important question:

"Are you suggesting we need to go beyond scripture's clear and consistent affirmation that marriage is between a man and a woman, and that sexual expression is only appropriate within the bounds of the covenant of marriage?"

What I am suggesting is that some of us heard, perhaps for the first time, perhaps in a clearer manner than formerly, that it might be both reasonable and merciful (1) to agree without doubt that scripture's clear and consistent affirmation is that marriage is between a man and a woman, and that sexual expression is only appropriate within the bounds of the covenant of marriage? (2) to acknowledge the possibility that nevertheless there are grounds for going "beyond Scripture" in order to engage with the reality of social life in 21st century Western churches; those grounds including the fact that this would not be the first time the church has gone "beyond Scripture". Other occasions mentioned in discussion were usury and remarriage of divorcees.

Two important words above are "some" and "heard". I may be one of the few individuals to be part of the "some", and what I "heard" should not be construed as a "view" of the Hui en masse, or of any particular grouping within the Hui. (I note that you carefully understand that what I posted was a personal view).

In short: some from the Hui are thinking about what they heard. Where that thinking will go to in their minds is not something I wish to second guess, and whether that thinking leads to any engagement in a changing dynamic for this or that group in our church is yet another question.

Peter Carrell said...

Hi Tim
Perhaps just one further reflection: if it is not a bottom line that we wish to retain our conservative members and our gay and lesbian members, what does that mean? My personal hopes are that it does not mean separation of conservatives and it does not mean excommunication of gays and lesbians.

It could mean conformity of gays and lesbians to certain standards of behaviour ... I struggle to see that happening any time soon.

It could mean something else ...

John Sandeman / Obadiah Slope said...

Peter,
TEC seems to have placed recognising gay bishops (and ISTM shortly will move to recognise gay marriage) on the table for the communion. It means we may be at the either/or moment you want to avoid. This makes it much harder for provinces to achieve your bottom line.

Peter Carrell said...

Hi John
TEC is making nothing easy for us ... hence the hesitant way in which we handled recent PB Schori's visit here :)

Tim Harris said...

Thanks for the various points of clarification Peter - very helpful. I would hope our 'bottom line' is fidelity to the gospel as received from the apostles. To make inclusion of all the bottom line is to make the gospel essentially one of inclusion above all else.

I had noted previous suggestions that approaches to divorce and usury establish some sort of precedent, although a much stronger case needs to be made to establish some sort of hermeneutical equivalence. There are many indicators to the contrary (do we want to celebrate divorce as something to aspire to?).

A more obvious response is to note that the church may have it wrong on both divorce and usury, and we should revisit attitudes to both in the light of scripture. Both have proven to be quite harmful in all too many instances.

However, some sort of concessive pastoral response might be made on the basis of 1 Cor. 7, but only where such actions are not subject to scriptural prohibitions.

On the latter - will Paul Trebilco's paper be made available more widely?

Peter Carrell said...

Hi Tim,
My more hermeneutically focused post at Hermeneutics and Human Dignity, http://hermdownunder.blogspot.com/2010/07/second-post-hui-thoughts.html, makes a similar point to yours re usury and remarriage after divorce not being straightforward analogies.

Yes, the bottom line is the gospel - I guess I am thinking of 'inclusive' in terms of Christians who disagree with traditional Christian understanding on such matters, and not wanting to see them ejected from the church!

I will ask Paul re the paper and its distribution ... it may not be as I think he wants to work further on it.