Many of the thousands of young people who never go to church in the UK but who are nominally baptised Anglicans cannot remember a time when sodomy was a criminal offence.
These are the people that Church leaders should be trying to attract. In a world facing the well-documented consequences of consumer and materialist greed the Church’s spiritual message is potentially of benefit to millions. If the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives can do it in Britain, surely the liberals and conservatives in the Christian world can form some sort of coalition to bring new leadership to the Anglican morass. They must put their differences behind them, for the sake of God, themselves and the common good.
[i]In other words, the infighting over homosexuality means that for the 77 million Anglicans worldwide, more important than the Resurrection, the Crucifixion, the Virgin Birth and the Trinity is what one person does in bed with another. [/i]
I have potted plants with greater understanding of the issues than Ms. Gledhill. The conflict is generally about the authority of scripture. We are in a Second Reformation. The first maintained the authority of scripture against those who added things to it. This second one is to maintain the authority of scripture against those who would excise from it everything a certain social mind-set finds inconvenient.
Ms. Gledhill, the divide is quite specifically about such things as the Divinity of Christ; the truth of the Resurrection (and consequent soteriology); the power of the Holy Spirit to effect profound change (as demonstrated in the Virgin Birth); and the nature and essence of the Godhead (divine Mother, anyone? Gaia, anyone?).
Sexuality is a side show. Socially liberal view on such things, however, reveal a decidedly non-biblical understanding of the Holy Spirit. By framing it as a discussion of biological determinism and alleged rights, [b]liberals openly reject the power of Jesus the Christ, acting through the Holy Spirit to [i]change[/i] lives.[/b] Such rejection constitutes blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, the one unpardonable sin.
The core tragedy is that the over-educated, over-fed, adolescent-minded Wonder Bread white Western church, which was at one point still somewhat Anglican — in spite of Pike, Spong, and a depressing number of others of their type — is now dominated and led by a coterie of tired old Baby Boomers who maintain a demonstrable hatred for tradition and continue to lack much vision beyond their next orgasm.
That they, and Ms. Gledhill, continue to focus on the sexuality side show proves that last point with discouraging clarity.
No, we can’t “all just get along,” as is typical of liberals across the social, ecclesiastical, and political dynamic, calls for ‘civility’ and ‘compromise’ and ‘harmony’ for some “greater good” merely reveals that the liberals are getting their arses kicked on the actual issues.
There is an undeniable appeal to Ms Gledhill’s call for a truce. That the Church’s mission in the world is being strangled by internal conflict is undeniable. But I have yet to see any call to “let’s just get over it” turn out to be anything but a disguised call for capitulation by one’s opponents (whichever side “one” may be on). I would love to see somebody put forth a scenario for “moving on” that isn’t just a declaration of victory by whoever has the most votes at the moment.
It seems to me that the social liberal/progressive contingent has successfully defined the argument so that any who hates the sin must, by definition, also hate the sinner. Somehow the orthodox faithful need to recapture and redefine the argument. I think catechesis and apologetics are the most important tasks for today’s church.
I was quite stunned by Ms. Gledhill’s argument that since sodomy was no longer against the civil law, the best thing for the church to do is accommodate itself to the civil law. To paraphrase the Grail guardian in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, “she chose poorly.”
For a vastly better discussion, see WR Mead’s piece on [url=http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2010/05/16/faith-matters-rebooting-the-episcopal-church/] re-booting the Episcopal Church. [/url]
Dan,
I agree. Ms. Gledhill embraces “Rodney King” theology…can’t we all just get along. This is a salvation issue. It address embracing our sin over God and when we do so it damages our relationship with God. It is not about orientation but behavior as has been pointed out time and time again. It is not about right, civil or otherwise, for we have been bought and paid for by the blood of the Lamb. We have no rights before God. Our obedience to Christ is an act of love to show that we do trust and love Him.
The Christian Worldview and belief can not change because the majority says so. It is settled even though the “Reappraisers” believe they can. It is Western Society that believes we settle matters by votes. In this case, the majority of one, God, rules whether the leadership of the Episcopal Church and others in the Anglican Communion realize it or not.
The EC is hostile to “Reasserters”. They say all are welcome but the reality is only if they embrace “the new thing” they argue the Spirit is doing. There is no new thing if it contrary to Biblical Truth. Sadly, Ms. Gledhill misses the point that the Creeds do not address behaviors but beliefs. She embraces the argument of the Reppraisers that it is not part of the Creeds and therefore not a salvation issue. I believe her intention is to be politically correct and mirror an example of compassion and sensitivity and in the end she misses the entire point. She is quite naive.
Good job commentators 1 and 2. Bravo.
I would refer Ms. G back to Leslie Newbigin’s book about the Gospel in a Pluralistic Society and its defense of things the Bible states which are contrary to the “plausibility structures” of our culture. Seems she has bought into both the argument and the form of arguing, into both the content and the structure of the argument. Neither is what we are saying is important. If you are going to argue against my point of view, you might at least correctly state it Ms. G.
In an alternate view from the UK, I prefer Churchill’s text.
“Never give in. Never give in. Never, never, never, never–in nothing, great or small, large or petty–never give in, except to convictions of honor and good sense. Never yield to force. Never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.”
Per Ms. Gledhill:[blockquote]n other words, the infighting over homosexuality means that for the 77 million Anglicans worldwide, more important than the Resurrection, the Crucifixion, the Virgin Birth and the Trinity is what one person does in bed with another. [/blockquote]This is the revisionist “Big Lie.”
The reason there IS “infighting” over sexuality in the western 20% of the Anglican Communion (the other 80% being pretty unified in upholding the doctrine of the Church) is that in order to come to an “interpretation” of scripture that makes sexual conduct outside of matrimony (gay or otherwise) holy, revisionists reject the very things that Ms. Gledhill pretends they hold in reverence.
All of the things she lists ARE more important than what 2 people do in bed together, else the Church would probably never have survived its infancy (just read St. Paul, who makes it clear this is not a brand new issue in the Church). BUT, in order to bless what they want to bless, the revisionists in the Western church reject the very foundational elements of the faith.
Ms. Gledhill needs to familiarize herself with the Vincentian canon. Perhaps she should consult her Dad, who is rather better versed than she.
So much to fisk, so little time. Dan Martins is right. The people who cry out for the fighting to stop are the folks who support the whole gay activist gospel anyway. So *of course* they want the fighting to stop — they’d like the reasserters to cease resisting what they themselves desire to inflict on the Anglican church.
RE: “Some years ago, at the Greenbelt Christian rock festival that takes place every August Bank Holiday near Cheltenham, someone close to the Archbishop of Canterbury told me that a person’s view on homosexuality was now what defined them on the Christian spectrum.”
Yep — this is true. Why? Because this the current “point of contention.” Every “current point of contention” defines people. Nobody’s worried about stagecoach robbing. But if it were announced tomorrow that Christians needed to embezzle and that we were going to bless embezzlement, then hey presto . . . that current point of contention would “define them on the Christian spectrum.”
RE: “What this person of considerable authority and intellect was saying was that it was no longer possible to be both pro-gay and evangelical.”
Well — it’s much deeper than that. It’s not possible for a person to be both pro-gay and an orthodox Christian. People who are “pro-gay” [sic — I assume by this she means “people who call gay sex holy and blessed and want the church to bless it and accept it”] have already pulverized the Christian view of 1) the sacraments, 2) marriage, 3) the authority of Scripture, 4) sanctification, 5) sin and repentance, 6) the Fall, 6) and salvation. You can’t get to “gay sex is holy and blessed and the church should affirm it” without traversing all the other areas mentioned above and violating Christian belief in those areas. It’s just not possible.
RE: “In other words, the infighting over homosexuality means that for the 77 million Anglicans worldwide, more important than the Resurrection, the Crucifixion, the Virgin Birth and the Trinity is what one person does in bed with another.”
No — it’s just that what one person does in bed with another is where the point of contention lies. If it were announced that we were all going to light fires or engage in polyamory, we’d find that all mighty important too.
RE: “The lines of Christian belief, in the Anglican world at least, have been redrawn around a battle over gay rights . . . ”
Yup — and when that is finally defeated, most likely through TEC dying on the vine as it is swiftly doing, the lines will be redrawn over the next point of current contention. That’s what defense of the faith is. You don’t fight over stagecoach robbing once the stagecoaches are all gone. Her statement is a bit like saying back in 1939 in Britain “The lines of England’s defense have been redrawn around a battle over Germany’s pretensions of conquest” . . .
RE: ” . . . over gay rights that, in the secular world, ended years ago.”
A delusion. In the US, the “secular world” is more firmly opposed to the redefinition of marriage than in the past ten years, both through surveys and in votes. It’s devastatingly clear that the majority of people do NOT want to accept gay marriage and believe that same-gender sexual relationships are disordered. And truth to tell, even in places like England, the populace isn’t nearly so happy to see same-gender sex affirmed as the “leaders” who have not represented the people at all with integrity or honor.
RE: “Sexuality figures nowhere in the creeds. It is not mentioned in the church’s liturgies.”
Yeh — neither is stagecoach robbing. Or kleptomania. Or embezzlement. Or polyamory.
An irrelevant red herring statement there.
On the plus side of Gledhill’s expostulation, there is this. She recognizes that the conflict will destroy the institution.
What she wants is for the resisters to lay down their arms. That won’t happen. Nor will the advocates for same-gender sexual relationships.
Why?
Because both would have to give up *their gospels*. Both sides recognize [as Gledhill pretends not to] that this is foundational, and core stuff, and that if either side were to surrender, they would surrender their foundational worldview.
For the gay sex advocates, this is their gospel. They can’t give it up.
Ms. Gledhill wrote:
“In other words, the infighting over homosexuality means that for the 77 million Anglicans worldwide, more important than the Resurrection, the Crucifixion, the Virgin Birth and the Trinity is what one person does in bed with another.”
Substitute “homoousios” (or “the Trinity”) or “one Person in two natures” or “iconodulia and iconoclasm” or “Sola Fide and Sola Scripture” for “homosexuality” (although what she really means is “homosexual practice”) — and would not the point she is making be equally cogent, or equally absurd?
Good comments. It is the process of how one goes from point A to point B that creates “issues” such as these. Until the process issue is settled, new battles will continue to arise.
Actually the message has validity.
But Ms. Gledhill needs to direct it to the ones causing all the trouble, not we who are fighting to preserve the very soul of the Anglican Communion.
-Jim+
Agreed. I especially liked Bart’s #1 and Sarah’s #9.
I’ve read some disappointingly trite, shallow stuff by Ruth Gledhill before, but this editorial may be the nadir, the absolute low point.
It brings to mind the Master’s saying early in the Sermon on the Mount that often haunts me: [i]”You are the salt of the earth, but if the salt looses its savor, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything…”[/i] (Matt. 5:13). A church that’s so conformed to this world that it’s no different from it is completely worthless.
It also brings to mind Jeremiah’s withering critique of the false prophets of his day who were urging “Peace, peace!” when there was no peace, nor could there be (Jer. 6:14 & 8:11).
Needless to say, as NRA, I particularly welcome Bart’s assertion that we’re in the early stages of the Second Reformation. Amen. So be it! But I think something even more radical than the theological revolution in the 16th century may be going on here. In many ways, what we’re ultimately dealing with is the undoing of the 4th century Constantinian-Theodosian arrangement that created the long marriage of Church and State, Christianity and Western Culture, that we call Christendom. As global north culture becomes more and more unChristian and even anti-Christian, we’re being [b]forced[/b], willy-nilly, into a directly adversarial, confrontational, Christ-against-culture stance. And for a “mainstream” ex-state church tradition like Anglicanism, that’s a very wrenching, profoundly traumatic transition that may make even the Protestant Reformation appear tame and mild in comparison.
David Handy+
Passionate advocate of Post-Christendom style Anglicanism for the 3rd Millenium
Clarification. I hadn’t yet seen Fr. Jim’s #11 when I composed my post above. I was agreeing with UP’s commendation of earlier comments in his #10.
David Handy+
If all Christianity has to offer is a “spritual message” it deserves to be part of the dust heap of history and I’ll sleep in on the Sunday’s I am up to going to Mass.
What Ruth G. misses in this article is the fact that Christianity is a religion for the whole person. Not just our intellect and emotion is used to glorify and worship and understand the Triune God but also our bodies. Our bodies are not just soul houses or only for base physical functions. They have meaning because they are connected to Christ through the Incarnation and the Ressurection. I would stumble poorly trying to articulate this thought so please forgive me on not doing so.
Sex between a married couple reflects a Trinitarian spirituality and rather than not being part of the faith and worship and/or creeds of the Church it affirms those teachings in a way that truly is a mystery.
#1. Bart Hall
Bravo!
#2. Fr. Dan
[blockquote]I would love to see somebody put forth a scenario for “moving on†that isn’t just a declaration of victory by whoever has the most votes at the moment.[/blockquote] The revisionists don’t have the most votes at the moment. They have the most important votes at the moment.
There is a question in our time as to whether the religion shapes the culture or the culture shapes the religion. Many liberals see religon as a manisfestation of the culture. Note the refusal to attribute religious motivation to terrorsim.
I sometimes wonder if Ruth writes provocatively in order to get a discussion going between one group and another. Anyway, sadly she is about to be walled up behind the upcoming Times paywall, which you may think is a rather harsh punishment for her and for us. Then we will miss her contributions and interest in things Anglican, and it has to be said her hard work, but maybe Mr Murdoch will relent on his plans to immure poor Ruth.
“I was quite stunned by Ms. Gledhill’s argument that since sodomy was no longer against the civil law, the best thing for the church to do is accommodate itself to the civil law”.
And it’s a good thing that NT Wright has a lot more education and clout than her, not to mention a better understanding of New Testament ethics; from “Shipwreck and Kingdom”:
“What has happened, of course, is that our Anglicanism has often become just a bit too much inculturated into the world of western Deism, where all beliefs are simply opinions, where all statements of theological truth are reduced to statements of personal likes and dislikes (remember Ronald Knox’s splendid line about ‘suave politeness tempering bigot zeal’ and correcting ‘I believe’ to ‘one does feel’?). But the cooling of ardour which some have embraced as a virtue, leaving room for tolerance, for generosity of heart and mind, for openness to fresh truth – that is all very well when you apply it, as we have often done, in the world precisely of private opinion. But when you are in Caesar’s world, where truth comes out of the barrel of a gun, or in his day the sheath of a sword, tolerance can simply be a fancy name for cowardice. The claim that ‘Jesus is Lord’ was never, in the first century, what we would call a religious claim pure and simple. There was no such thing as religion pure and simple. It was a claim about an ultimate reality which included politics, culture, commerce, family life and everything else you could think of. And if you stop saying ‘Jesus is Lord’ out of deference to the private opinions of your friends and neighbours, Caesar smiles his grim smile and extends his empire by one more street. After all, the great eighteenth-century virtue of tolerance was developed not least by those who were keen on extending their geographical or industrial empires, and who didn’t want God breathing down their necks to stop them. Keep religion in the private sphere and we’ll run the public square. And to that idea Luke says a clear No; and so must we”.
It’s the Church’s job to be an example to Caesar, Ruthie, not to SELL OUT to Caesar.
In a word, Ruth Gledhill: for the sake of [b][i]which[/i][/b] God?
As is often the case, Chris Sugden’s own comment in the Times itself is also most helpful.
liberal journalist wants church to follow liberal agenda……amazing!
Thank you, art, for the question. It is precisely the issue.
Dan, et al: only taking my cue from the likes of Joshua 24, 1 Thess 1:9-10!
And oh yes. Alasdair MacIntyre put it really rather well back in 1985, in an article in [i]Faith and Philosophy[/i], vol 3/4: “Which God Ought We to Obey and Why?” Enjoy …!