That which I have stated explicitly in this address I believe we are already living out implicitly, namely that we do already as a Diocese accept a diversity of ethical convictions about human sexuality in the same way that the church has always allowed a diversity of ethical opinion on taking human life. Within our own fellowship we are brothers and sisters in Christ holding a variety of views on a number of major theological and moral issues and we are members of a church that characteristically allows a large space for a variety of nuances, interpretations, applications and disagreement. I know that sometimes it stretches us, but never to breaking point, for it seems to me that there is a generosity of grace that holds us all together.
If on this subject of sexuality the traditionalists are ultimately right and those who advocate the acceptance of stable and faithful gay relationships are wrong what will their sin be? That in a world of such little love two people sought to express a love that no other relationship could offer them? And if those advocating the acceptance of gay relationship are right and the traditionalists are wrong what will their sin be? That in a church that has forever wrestled with interpreting and applying Scripture they missed the principle in the application of the literal text?
Do these two thoughts not of themselves enlarge the arena in which to do our ethical exploration?
This address has been about how we handle disagreements about ethical principles within the Body of Christ. It is also about how we promote a Christian humanism whereby we discover before God both how to flourish as human beings in Christ and how to treat each other humanely in the process of that discovery. It is my plea that the Church of England and the Anglican Communion must allow a variety of ethical views on the subject as in this Diocese we do and that to do so finds a parallel in the space it offers for a diversity of moral positions on the taking of life. Although it will doubtless remain a disputed question for some time in the wider church I hope this approach will continue to allow for the development of a humane pastoral theology here in the Diocese of Liverpool.
I have not addressed today the implications of this position for the ordering and governance of the church but I wish you to know that in due course we will discuss these in parishes, deaneries and in the Diocesan Synod as we continue to do together our pastoral theology on this subject recognising that decisions belong ultimately to the General Synod and to the House of Bishops.
A former evangelical who has lost his way in the post-modern haze. The same trivialization of the moral differences could (and, for the sake of analysis, should!) be applied with equal “humane and pastoral” sensitivity and inclusiveness to the two sides in the debate about consensual pedophilia. Or about abortion. Or about slavery. Or about whether it was necessary to cleanse the German nation of the Jewish contamination. At what point are we allowed to shudder and protest?
A far cry from J. C. Ryle!
But the argument that say human sexuality is an adiaphoron is not some neutral territory but itself a particular position in the conversation about human sexuality. (I note the truthfulness of this position is asserted in the address without any Scriptural context). I merely note that in TEC it was the view argued for up to about the start of the 2000s by progressives. Once sufficient ground was made by this, the next stage has been to argue that it’s not adiaphoron at all but demanded by the Gospel.
He’s an evangelical like all the pro-WO bishops are who call themselves “Anglo-Catholics.”
They’re not, and he’s not.
This is a journey Bishop Jones has been on for a few years. One of the nine or so bishops who wrote objecting to the putting forward of Jeffrey Jones as a bishop, in February 2008 he issued a sort of apology, along with an essay for the Lambeth Conference, which essentially was a circular argument, and which has subsequently disappeared from the diocesan website.
Always a little off the wall he has moved from evangelical to environmental campaigner, while giving his diocese ample opportunity to listen to similar vacuous and fluffy stuff like this. Everyone thinks he has gone a bit over the edge: the conservatives shake their heads perplexed and the liberals just don’t believe what they are hearing.
Like a formerly loved family dog which now drools over peoples’ trousers and is increasingly incontinent, Bishop Jones has just become embarrassing, to himself and to us. Very sad really.
Sorry that is Jeffrey John – too many first names around and too many J’s.
James Jones, Jim Jones, different flavoured kool-aid. Same results.
Unarguably, the varieties of wrongful human conduct includes all manner of things–adultery, gluttony, animal cruelty, and on and on–engaged in by all “manner” of people–people whose nature may be gracious, inspiring, selfish, violent, and on and on–as illustrated by Churchill’s statement to a dinner companion that “…It doesn’t TAKE all sorts, there simply ARE all sorts.” And I think it’s a fact that most Christians who hold a traditional view of the wrongfulness of homosexual behavior can, should, and do accept many people who engage in homosexual behavior on a personal level as fellow humans, but not because of agreement with a concept that these individuals engage in “expressing love” in a homosexual relationship. Bishop Jones’ letter, however, not only misses the fact that most Christians (and most are really “humane”) DO, because of grace, relate humanely to their fellow human beings–including other church members–who engage in all sorts of wrongful behavior, but also “reserves” the central issue in the Church relating to the whole subject of behavior relating to homosexual conduct: how leadership in the Church should be given to those whose pattern of living avoids certain behaviors and who can thus be expected to do the best “job” of leading all “sorts” in the Body to do the Body’s work. I would describe the Bishop’s letter as not reflecting much real analysis of the subject.