Fan into Flame

Jason Gardner's avatar
Posted by Jason Gardner Fri, 18/07/2008 - 10:01am :: Church | more by Jason Gardner

The controversy surrounding this week’s Lambeth Conference will be seen by some not simply as in-house fighting within the Anglican Communion, but as the final nail in the coffin of Christendom. For some, the ongoing debate over homosexuality marks a divergence between secular and biblical worldviews that cannot easily be reconciled.

Now, a country whose cultural contours have been shaped by church history desires only to nod to that heritage. Christian tradition is tolerated, but not celebrated. It’s a little like the great uncle at family parties, whose words used to be full of wit and authority but now seem antiquated and belligerent; although his presence is still required, he is often a source of embarrassment.

So it is that the intransigence of so-called traditionalists over the issue of homosexuality is regarded as ignorant and uncivilised by so-called liberals within the church and secularists outside it. And the delineation between toleration and celebration is by no means clear-cut. Consider the case, last week, of the Christian registrar who had refused to conduct civil partnership ceremonies for gay couples. Would her doing so have constituted toleration of homosexuality, in line with her civic duty, or active celebration of same-sex unions?

In short, there are no easy answers to this dilemma, nor to a number of others facing churches of all denominations as they seek to work out what it means to live in the contemporary world without being of that world. There will be disagreements between people who would all sincerely claim to be people of faith. The fact of disagreeing isn’t a problem – have a read of Galatians 2:11-21 – but the manner in which we disagree might be.

Jesus stated plainly that it was by the love his followers displayed to one another that people would know they were his disciples (John 13:34-35). History has proved him right. Tertullian, one of the early Church Fathers, reported that pagans often remarked of the Christian community, ‘see how they love one another.’ That’s not to say, of course, that they never disagreed with each other! Nevertheless, the way they conducted themselves – presumably both in agreement and in disagreement – was characterised by love.

If this were still the primary characterisation of the church in the eyes of those outside it, then perhaps Christians would still have the ears, and hearts, and minds of our nation. Christ commands us to agree to disagree in love.

Jason Gardner

Links

Find information and resources on engaging with postchristendom here.

Read the transcript of Andrew Marr’s recent interview with Bishop Gene Robinson here.

Visit the official website of the Lambeth Conference here.

For 'traditionalist' read Chr
Posted by  Douglas Renton on Fri, 18/07/2008 - 3:13pm.
For 'traditionalist' read Christian and for the rest read 'non-Christian'.

The Bible plainly states in all the well-known references that heterosexual relationships are the only kind God blesses and marriage is the only place for them. Contemporary culture and human reason do not seem to be uppermost in His mind in this respect.

Roll on the return of Jesus before the world implodes!
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding
Posted by  Nick Moyes on Fri, 18/07/2008 - 5:43pm.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the point Jason is making regarding the registrar. But should she not be encouraged to act according to her own faith and conscience? To do otherwise might have been neither tolerance or celebration but simply a cop out.
I usually really value your "
Posted by  Michael Camp on Sat, 19/07/2008 - 10:21am.
I usually really value your "Connecting with Culture" articles; they challenge and stimulate me and often contain real wisdom. However "Fan into Flame" seems to me to be taking a deeply unhelpful approach. It's full of stereotypes and unexamined assumptions and posits a polarisation which is at best only a half truth. It's by no means clear that the homosexuality debate marks a real divergence between secular and biblical world views. All those of us on the 'so-called iberal' side of the debate would affirm our allegiance to scripture as a source of authority so what is at isssue is nt secular versus Bible but a reral debate between a range of different biblical interpretations. More significant than this is the broad brush stereotypying of 'so-called liberals' and the characterising of their view of 'so-called traditionalists' as 'ignorant and uncivilised'. In reality the position is far more nuanced than this as Jason Gardner must realise. This sort of language is just the type of megaphone, sound-bite positioning that is bedevilling this debate and causing it to become so polarised.
It's all a question of words, isn't it?
Posted by  rof_royle on Mon, 21/07/2008 - 3:13pm.
I was interested by the responses to the article "Fan into flame". As expected, there were responses from both "sides" of the "divide". I must confess I am left feeling, "but if I had to decide, what would I do?". "Agreeing to differ" is OK, and, in theory, I'm all for it, but if I believe practising homosexuality is a sin, then how do I handle it when I believe someone is sinning and unrepentant - indeed, even denying that there is any sin?

The discussion really hinges on what we mean by "the authority of scripture". The correspondent who talks about "scripture as a source of authority" illustrates this, I think. Scripture itself does not delineate expicitly how we are to handle it. It seems likely that Peter and Paul expected it to be read as very precisely the word of God, but taken literally? I don't think so, in the light of many parables and the metaphorical statements so prevalent in the prophets and the Psalms. The question remains: if Scripture is authoritative ?for us, in what way? Which bits are literal and which aren't? And who decides?

Peter Royle,
East Sussex
Thank you for your connec
Posted by  dorothy on Sun, 20/07/2008 - 7:28pm.
Thank you for your connecting with culture articles. They are really helpful.
Definitions
Posted by  markce on Tue, 22/07/2008 - 7:15pm.
I wonder how tolerant or indeed loving (in our terms) Jesus would have appeared, were he to describe either side of this debate as "whitewashed sepulchres" or accuse members from either camp of being "of your father, the devil." Jesus' definition of love perhaps going deeper than sugar coated words.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click 'Save settings' to activate your changes.

With love (and extra resources, group-work ideas and links...)
from
www.licc.org.uk/culture.