It's a Greek kind of crisis the Communion faces! (Updated x 3)

This morning I am a little bit confused which won't surprise regular readers here who know I am a bear with a small brain.

On Monday I thought I read in the news that Greece had overwhelmingly voted No in Sunday's referendum to further austerity. But today I read in the news that a new deal involving 'harsh austerity' is close to conclusion.

The problem with being a small brained bear as that my brain can't cope with tension and near contradictions in vast conceptual matters like economics and politics. Imagine if I tried to be an Anglican and had a go at being theological in the context of the Anglican Communion :)

Speaking of which things, two posts have caught my eye this week while travelling in paradise - sunny Westland with snow capped mountains catching the eye - one is by Ian Paul with the title What is at stake for the church and same-sex marriage? and one is by Trevor Morrison entitled I'll Trust God's Mercy and Grace.

I may add a para or two about the posts later today. In the meantime I encourage you to read them. My own question is this, When we read, digest and inwardly mark such erudition, are we coming closer to a convergence as to the Way Forward?

A deal, if you like, of a Greek kind, in which Sunday's No becomes Friday's Yes.

Added Later:

Ian Paul's Post's Notable Point

Divergency of views in the Cof E about the status of Scripture itself, captured in this cited paragraph from a post by John McGinley describing his experience as a participant in one of the formal shared conversations on sexuality which the CofE is organising through this period:

"I returned with great concern that the majority of the participants had lost any clear understanding of the Bible as authoritative in their lives. The approaches were shocking to me, and, as a result, my approach was shocking to them. This confirmed that we are already two churches, one which sees the Bible as a helpful collection of writings from which to draw inspiration but which can be used to say whatever we want it to, or simply be ignored. The other seeks to submit to Scripture as we interpret it and apply it to our lives and trust in its goodness as God’s word to us, even when it is painful and challenging. The result of this is that there were many moments of incredulity expressed by people from different positions as they realised others in the room held a belief so far from their own."

Trevor Morrison's Post's Notable Points

Something I am looking for, from a conservative perspective, is language which opens a way forward for our church which conservatives can connect with, empathise with, engage with and even agree with. While I do not think Morrison's overall argument through his post is convincing that we have now reached a different period of time and challenge for the kingdom of God and so previous restrictions can be relaxed, I do think he offers some language worth pausing on.

The argument is not convincing in my view because it does not nail down why we could think, from Scripture, that its prohibitions were limited to certain prevailing circumstances which could then be relaxed when those circumstances changed. It is one thing for us to reason to ourselves 'the prohibitions were because of such and such reasons, concerning Israel and its surrounding nations, concerning the church and its surrounding Hellenistic culture', it is another to draw the conclusion that Scripture intends the prohibitions to no longer apply in a different time and cultural space. (Incidentally I am in agreement with Morrison on a number of points he makes along the way, including the reservation of marriage itself to 'a man and a woman.'. See now, also, this.)

But that is not the end of the post and its contribution to our debate (especially not when Morrison writes from within the Anglican church of these islands). When Morrison writes this paragraph he speaks to me:

"I have now read many stories from people whose testimony of Christian faith resonates as credible with me (see, e.g., John Shore, “UNFAIR: Christians and the LGBT Question”), yet who testify of an overwhelming longing for same-gender relationships and inability to form deep heterosexual ones. When I read those stories, I do not hear the voices of people who are trying to stir up our sympathy so they can maintain a way of life they secretly know is sinful. In fact, I do not hear the voices of sinners at all, except in the general way that all of us are sinners. I do not see people who culpably chose to foster longings for kinds of relationships that prima facie belong in the set that God calls abominations. I hear the voices of people who are in distress."

The strongest argument for blessing same sex partnerships lies in this paragraph. It is essentially a pragmatic, pastoral argument. In today's world, where many aspects of kinship, domestic life, and socialization are different to the households and communities of the world of the Bible, might the church find a way to support those who long for relationship, not in order to sin but in order to love, not in order to rebel against God but in order to form a partnership for mutual society and support in their walk with God?

My personal argument through this series of posts, against the backdrop of Motion 30 discussion in our church, is that those of us who are unconvinced that same sex partnerships should be blessed (let alone that we should move to embrace equal marriage) could or even should consider whether our church might be inclusive and accommodating of those who are persuaded that such partnerships might be blessed in the context of church.

From this perspective, Ian Paul's post warns against being a church which pushes itself to an either/or decision, to the exclusion of a possible middle way. Trevor Morrison's post opens up a possible way forward towards blessing of same sex partnerships which might, just might receive agreement in our church if we saw our way to a pragmatic, pastoral approach.

POSTSCRIPT

Trevor Morrison has now posted a follow up post The Just Justifier.

After a statement of his doctrine of Scripture, Morrison proposes:

"On the basis of those beliefs, I believe that the time has come when the Church can:

• Heed the testimonies of LGBT believers who tell us that their orientation dates from earliest childhood and that it was not wilfully chosen, and that supposed re-orientation therapies do not work for them, no matter how whole-heartedly they engage with them.
• Heed their testimony that they are not able to form a meaningful, soul-satisfying heterosexual relationship, yet feel barred by the Church from entering a relationship with someone of their own orientation.
• Hear their anguish at this state of affairs.
• Recognise that a faithful same-sex union is not a threat to the Kingdom of God if it is welcomed and guarded with the same pastoral care as a heterosexual union.
• And therefore declare that, while same-sex unions were not part of God’s pre-Fall design for humankind, faithful unions of that kind are covered by the grace of Christ in his redemptive plan and can be accepted and blessed within the Church."

At the conclusion of his post he appeals:

"Dear faithful, conservative pastor-teachers, I appeal to you. Please lift your eyes from your systematic theologies and look unblinkingly at the God whom your studies should have revealed to you. Engage both your heart and your brain. Cease selling God’s love short by trying to make his judgment triumph over his mercy when you deal with LGBT people, by demanding of them what, after all, God does not. Recognise instead that, as Cranmer put it in his great Eucharistic prayer, God is “the same Lord whose nature is always to have mercy.” Be imitators of him, your Saviour."

Post Postscript

My attention has been drawn to an article by David Runcorn in a recent CEN. As an evangelical in the CofE, associated with the recent Pilling Report, Runcorn asks himself and fellow evangelicals the question, 'How would we know when we have got it wrong?'

Runcorn powerfully makes the point that for decades evangelical South Africans did not realise they had 'got it wrong' on apartheid, thinking that the Bible supported that foul social doctrine. He asks, through a series of reflections and questions, how evangelicals reading the Bible today might know when they have 'got it wrong' on homosexuality.

It is worth a read.