I am with David in agreeing with Jody in raising questions concerning the place and voice of women at Wycliffe Hall.  I wonder too whether the Inspector’s Report in giving the college ‘no confidence’ with respect to Practical and Pastoral College is in fact pointing to a major deficit in listening and counselling skills, together with the neglect of pastoral care generally.  And this overall defect of a branch of theology, which is often treated as the ‘cinderalla’ in theological training, may well include poor listening with regard to the pivotal role of women’s ministry.  I realize this is conjecture but the point needs raising.

Professor Elaine Graham, one of the four inspectors, puts forward a ‘transformative Christian practice’ and has written of the neglect of the voice of women and the need for a ‘full humanity that values [women’s] “gender specificity”, rather than subsuming it under universal (bur overtly androcentric) human anthropology’.

These are big but important words and her presence and voice amongst the inspectors with their ‘no confidence’ view on Wycliffe Hall’s approach to pastoral theology must be heeded and responded to radically.

I have just read Oliver O’Donovan’s excellent chapter on Good News for Gay Christians and am most impressed with his realism, compassion and desire to hear the gay voice.

He faces head-on the differences of opinion in this area amongst Christians and is wise enough to acknowledge that a ‘revisionist’ view may yet win the day when he writes:

‘Discernment is not acquired in a vacuum; it is learned by listening to the tradition of the Christian community reflecting upon Scripture. In this exercise, of course, we cannot rule out the possibility that we may reach a "revisionist" conclusion. No element formed by tradition can claim absolute allegiance. But the right to revise traditions is not everybody's right; it has to be won by learning their moral truths as deeply as they can be learned’

I very much appreciate his caveat to any ‘new’ way of seeing the sexual sensibilities of gay relationships in the wise, reflective attention paid to Christian tradition.

His double good news for the gay Christian lies, as for us all, ‘in the light of the righteousness of Jesus Christ’ and, secondly, in the ‘open and candid neighbourly relation’ of ‘friendship’.

I value this constructive approach – attendance to tradition, an openness to the possibility of ‘revision’, an emphasis on Christ’s redemptive work and the centrality of the neglected relational value of friendship – as an invaluable way forward.  His words in the final paragraph are brimful of realism and hope:

‘Can we promise ourselves, then, that if the churches would only discuss homosexuality long and fully and widely enough, they would end up agreeing? Well, we are not entitled to rule out that possibility. But suppose it were not true; suppose that after careful exploration and a search for common ground, there was an agreement-resistant core at the centre of the issue - a problem about how modernity is viewed, for example, or about the ontological status of self-consciousness - it might still be possible to set the residual disagreement in what the ecumenists like to call "a new context", and (who knows?) learn how to live with it.’

As I posted on the parallel thread to this one (reviewing Melanie Phillips’ contribution to this debate): ‘This thread and the one on Patrick Sookhdeo’s book seem to be a steady expression of readily bruised psyches and a quite aggressive defensiveness.

I also re-read Ben White’s review the other day and could find no warrant for seeing it as a personal attack.  I agree with David that such reviews ‘can feel bruising and unjust and the temptation is to take it personally’.

Surely, a better response would have been a measured debate at a scholarly level on Ben White’s three main criticisms, ie., decontextualisation; generalisation; and the overuse of taqqiya.  These, to me, are simply a critique of Patrick Sookhdeo’s views as understood by Ben as he reads Patrick’s book on global jihad.  Certainly some have picked up on these perspectives and argued counter-views  in a reasonable, step by step way and yet so many have responded with accusation and counter-accusation.

What is the agenda behind all this invective?  Perhaps Patrick would pop his head above the parapet and speak for himself.  How deeply offended by Ben’s review were you?  And, if you were offended, why was that?  Such a direct response might clear the air somewhat.

Yes Ben, I am glad you have responded to David H.  And David H, I was taken aback by the vehemence of your response to Guy Wilkinson’s, to me, perfectly reasonable piece as well as your comments on Ben.  Why all this shouty language, accusing Guy of ‘complacency and arrogance’ and Ben of ‘anti-Jewish’ prejudice?  This thread and the one on Patrick Sookhdeo’s book seem to be a steady expression of readily bruised psyches and a quite aggressive defensiveness.

And David, you seem to be strongly excluding of dialogue between the three Abrahamic faiths.  Is that in the spirit of our boundary-crossing Lord?

In contrast I am reading David Ford’s Christian Wisdom and have noted his section on interfaith dialogue, in the spirit of Guy Wilinson’s piece it seems.  Ford is involved with a group under the banner of Scriptural Reasoning, where Christians, Jews and Muslims meet together to share and discuss their respective scriptures.  This ‘Abrahamic collegiality’ is not about consensus, but a ‘mutual hospitality’ which may turn into friendship and yet where ‘deep differences’ are acknowledged.

Isn’t that generous approach of listening and speaking faithfully a better route than talking of the church ‘betraying’ Jews and Christians and ‘whitewashing' Islam?

That is an excellent piece by Guy Wilkinson in response to Melanie Phillips’ article.  He is gracious, eminently reasonable and presents are series of factual statements elucidating Christian commitment to inter-faith dialogue, even-handedly amongst both Jews and Muslims.  It is a perfect example of ‘turning the other cheek’, not being a ‘doormat’ but countering excessive language and sweeping generalizations with measured, fact-based reason.

Yes, Nersen, it is reassuring that the Inspection Report gives a reasonably positive picture of life at the college, especially in the light of the recent upsets in Wycliffe Hall's story.  Even so, given Graham's observation on the other thread on this subject with regard to the quality of expertise offered by those members of staff who have left the college in recent years, it is no surprise that the main deficit in what is offered lies in the areas of Pastoral and Practical Theology.  Professor Elaine Graham, one of the inspectors, is amongst our leading pastoral theologians and her critique would have been discerning and constructive.

It is important to note that the college staff intend to take note and implement the suggestions made for the curriculum in this pastoral area, as well as pursuing the reconciliation urged upon them by the inspectors.

Thank you Mark and Graham for quoting some of my previous comments on this thread.  Words are tricky beasts, aren’t they?  They seem to be so easily misconstrued.

To clarify my view of Ben White’s piece, let me say again, that ‘I do not see BW’s piece as including ‘personal attacks’ on PS; I find his review clearly expressed, raising perfectly valid queries and offering reasoned counter-arguments.’

Mark has quoted some of my other words used as a response to the same review and I apologize if they have proved misleading.  When I wrote, ‘[White] offers a withering critique of a stance that seems to me highly subversive in terms of historical and political realities’, I was not putting a value judgment either way beyond agreeing with White that PS’s ‘stance seems to me highly subversive in terms of historical and political realities’.  The word ‘withering’ is perhaps unhelpfully strong.  ‘Penetrating’ would have been a more neutral word.

On the other quote – ‘White points out innumerable flaws in the book's arguments ... together with inaccuracies with regard to Islamic theology ...’ - I could have written, ‘White points out what he sees as innumerable flaws in the book’s arguments…’ but that would have felt tendentious since the nature of a review is to express what the reviewer sees in the work examined.

Just as this thread shows that Ben White’s well-reasoned and reasonable review is easily misconstrued, so a review of BW’s review (in this case, mine) can also be misinterpreted.

Thank you Graham for pointing to David's address and thank you David for a most moving and perceptive call to the 'desert' experience.  This call to a stripping and uncluttering of our lives fits well with my own recent reading and is a vital theme for Lenten reflection.

These phrases especially struck me:

'For the desert is ultimately a place for those who seek nothing but God.

So it is there we learn a radical dependency and trust. The wilderness is a place we can do nothing of ourselves to subsist.  It takes us out of our comfort zones and any ways in which life or ministry can be self-securing.'

Toby, you write, ‘It's probably worth pointing out, too, that we don't yet know 'who is in' the kingdom and 'who is out'.

Exactly!  And shouldn’t that uncertainty apply as much to the vitriolic condemnations of ‘gay weddings’ from Nigeria as to our understanding of any other marginalised group of people?

And Nersen, your repeated refrain of ‘incompatible with scripture’ of all gay relationships is with us once more.  I of course appreciate that that is your deeply held view and you tell us you hold it since both the Scriptures and the AC are unequivocal on the matter.

For myself, agreeing with Clare, Jeremy, David and Simon, I would like to repeat my posting from another thread:

‘I am intrigued why the Church seems almost to need some perennial dispute to get its teeth into, leading so readily to either/or language that can become accusative and name-calling.  In the past it has tacked between opposition to slavery and support of the same; the rights and wrongs of contraception; the place or otherwise of lending and borrowing with interest; claims of miraculous healing ‘if you have faith’ or caution about the same; the pros and cons of women’s ordination; the emphasis between infant baptism and believer’s baptism; etc.  Richard A Burridge, in his Imitating Jesus: An Inclusive Approach to New Testament Ethics, gives the telling example in this vein of Apartheid, demonstrating how adamantly the Dutch Reformed Church supported this vile belief and practice from its particular reading of Scripture.  They felt they were being thoroughly ‘biblical’

Here is my point.  I am putting forward that there are those (I am one such) who hold to the authority of scripture but are not convinced by the clearcut interpretive claims that the Bible is unequivocal in condemning all homosexual relationships.  You point to ‘contradictory views on core issues’ as the touchstone and so I ask ‘is the issue of gay sex a core issue’? 

Yes, Jesus spoke against stealing.  Show me where, please, he spoke against same-sex relationships.’

And so Nersen, why is this issue such a touchstone for you as you look out on your brothers and sisters in Nigeria, the United States, wherever?

Thank you Clare for starting up a new thread on Christian leadership.  You were right to do this in that the subject had waylaid the thread on a Buddhist bishop.  I appreciated the analyses that you and Pluralist have listed for different styles of leadership.

Like you, Clare, I see no problem in baptising secular models ‘for the sake of the gospel’, as you put it.  It seems to me that the Bible itself gives a mandate for exploring, analysing and systematizing within God’s world, whether it is in science, history, sociology, psychology, education, etc.

Taking your Hey/Mcber system, it seems that Jesus showed a form of leadership that was both authoritative and democratic.  We read, for example, that he said, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me’ and, to his disciples, ‘I do not call you servants any longer … but I have called you friends…’

The comparable terms to these in Max Weber’s system quoted by Pluarlist seem to be a leadership that is ‘charismatic’ and ‘human relations’ based

Hi Toby.  Thanks for your welcome to the party!  Thanks too for your well reasoned response to my contribution.

As you will have seen, I am no Greek scholar and am grateful to you for your correction of my misunderstanding in Luke 22:26 where I wrongly gave the Greek as hegemon rather than ho hegoumenos, although I assume there is some linguistic connection.

All in all, I am unsure how much you, Liddon and others of us disagree over what the Bible says about leadership.  I think we agree that Jesus introduces a splendidly counterintuitive notion of what it means to be top dog.  It is to serve, rather than to lord it over others.  And so much of our contemporary view of leadership is about people who are ‘up front’, seen to be decisive, take initiatives and, at times, show others who is ‘boss’.

Incidentally, I take your point about Pluralist’s metaphor of individual bricks and entire walls and my use of the term ‘proof-texting’ to typify the former way of handling the Bible.  I was using the term more in the sense of using individual texts as ‘proof’ of this or that belief, not necessarily, as you argue in your definition, ignoring context.  I'm not sure how that differs from your notion of being a 'micro-biblicist'.  Either way, surely we need to come to Scripture as open-mindedly as possible, prepared to learn new things as we re-read its pages.  This may mean setting aside our current ideas of leadership to see just how subversive Jesus is with regard to our calling.

Hello Liddon, Toby and Pluralist.  I have been following your interchange with interest and, on the whole, find I am in agreement with Liddon in the discussion on ‘leadership’.  And I like Pluralist’s metaphor of the wall and individual bricks to differentiate between an overview of this and parallel discussions and the more proof-texting approach.

I agree with Liddon in the sense that the word ‘leader’ is not dominant in the NT.  According to Colin Brown’s DNTT the Greek word hodegos only occurs five times and on one occasion refers to Judas, three times referring to the Pharisees and/or ‘blind guides’.  Interestingly, the word used in Luke 22: 26 is hegemon, a term normally referring to a ruler or one in power.  Jesus contrasts this ‘leadership’ with his own call to serve.

I appreciate the comments on the rich vein of other titles for Jesus’s style of ‘leadership’: shepherd, prophet, priest, friend, servant and am intrigued by the interplay between Liddon and Toby on the function of priest.  The Letter to the Hebrews declares Jesus to be a priest ‘according to the order of Melchizedek’, one who is ‘holy and blameless…’ (Heb 7:26) and we are deemed to be ‘a royal priesthood’ (1 Peter 2:9).  I suspect any differences of view between Liddon and Toby here relate to an understanding of sacramentalism.