If the Israelites followed Deborah as a Judge, why not follow a woman as Bishop?

Roger Harper

Here are some thoughts about Israel, Jacob and the surrounding peoples. I write as the Christian son of a Jewish father with relatives in Jerusalem and Haifa.

Jacob fought for and hung onto God's blessing. In his dream he was promised that God would be with him, bless him materially and bring him back to his own land.  So it happened. Jacob became prosperous and settled in the land promised to Abraham. It all pointed to God being with him.

Then a neighbouring people committed a terrible crime against one of Jacob's family. His daughter Dinah was raped. Jacob's sons retaliated - slaughtering the guilty family, all the men of the city and annexing all their women and goods.

Jacob complained that his sons had made all the neighbouring peoples hate them. The sons argued that the rape of Dinah justified such a response. Maybe they thought the neighbouring peoples hated them anyway and wanted them removed. Maybe they weren't worried about people hating them as long as they feared them - as indeed they now did. God Himself encouraged that fear, without which maybe retaliation would have been swift.

God called Jacob back to Bethel where he had had his dream. Jacob had promised God that he would return to Bethel himself on his return to the land and give God 10% of all God had given him. Genesis does not record Jacob ever keeping this promise. It seems that, in the end, God gave up waiting for Jacob to come. He called Jacob because he had something very important to say to him.

Jacob sensed that something was wrong. He thought the problem was with the idols of all the people with him, including the people just enslaved. He made them destroy their local idols. He did not think that the problem was with him.

In Bethel God repeated that Jacob would be Israel - 'God-striver.' God repeated the promises He had made to Jacob - that his family would thrive and produce nations and kings, that the land would be theirs. Why would God call Jacob to meet with Him and listen to Him, only to tell Jacob what he had heard before?

The promises of God are often, indeed usually, not fulfilled immediately. They are often given before a particularly hard time as an encouragement through the hard time. It can seem bizarre. God promises blessing but what comes immediately is trouble. Jacob needed to hear that God was going to keep his promises, despite what was to come next.

In the great stairway dream God had promised that He would be with Jacob. This was the key to everything - the key to Jacob's blessing. It was because God was with him that he prospered. This promise was not repeated when Jacob returned to Bethel. Instead God 'went up from Jacob at the place where He had spoken with him.' These are some of the saddest, and most overlooked, words of the Torah.

Jacob had been right. Something was seriously wrong. So serious that God could no longer be alongside Jacob and bless him. It was not a matter of having local idols. Getting rid of them made no difference. The problem was not with anyone else, but with Jacob and his family. God had to stand back from Jacob to allow the natural consequences of the wrong to be worked out.

The first tragedy was the death of Rachel. After the dream, the first blessing, the first indication that God was indeed with Jacob, had been for Jacob to meet Rachel. After God stepped away, the first disaster was the death of Rachel. Then father Isaac died. Then the brothers quarrelled violently and Joseph was 'killed.' Then there was sexual immorality within the family. Then there was a drought. Jacob and his family had to leave the land, the very land that God kept promising would be theirs.

What made God step away from Jacob? Was it the disproportionate violence against a whole city for a crime against one member of the family? Had the brothers become murderers, with Jacob's tacit approval, and God allowed them to bring 'murder' into their own family? Was it not just the neighbouring peoples who wanted nothing to do with this violent family but the land itself? Was this the outworking of the curse later specified in the Law, that the land itself would reject a people who turn away from the God of Abraham and His ways?

Is something similar happening today? A crime against a few individuals being avenged against a whole people? All the neighbouring peoples are being given cause to hate Israel. It is hard today to speak of God stepping away from the Jews because that kind of talk has in the past justified brutal anti-semitism. But I want to point to this part of our common Scriptures as something relevant for today.

The promises of God for His chosen people will be kept. The Jews will continue to be a great people, from them will come great leaders, and they will live in the land God promised to Abraham. But immediately, could it be that, as God steps back, the consequences of this disproportionate violence will rebound on Israel and there will be trouble they have not known before, even a further period of painful exile?.

Roger Harper

Dear Graham,

Thanks for replying. You seem to think that Fulcrum can be both a representative of Anglican Open Evangelicals AND hold together the Anglican Evangelical Centre. How can Fulcrum do both of these well - when some Open Evangelical views are, from the point of view of others, decidedly 'off centre?' How does this fit into the Mercedes spokes - Fulcrum is both one spoke and the whole centre?

Would it not be better to leave CEAC to be the centre coordinating body, and Fulcrum to contribute the views of one, substantial and important, wing? Thus Fulcrum would form one segment of the centre but not the whole of it.

Roger

Once again the root question is 'Is homosexuality a matter of Primary Importance?' If it is, then it makes sense for one Bishop to declare himself out of communion with another, as has happened. If not, then the need to 'make every effort to maintain the unity of the body' takes precedence.

What we need is to address this root question thoroughly and Biblically. Anglican Mainstream have simply declared, without detailed argument as far as I know, that homosexuality is a matter of Primary Importance. I would disagree, on Biblical grounds as well as Church History. (The ECUSA hierachy also, on the whole, see inclusion of practising homosexuals as of Primary Importance, for opposite reasons to Mainstream.)

Until we address and try to come to a common mind about the ranking of this issue there will continue to be rifts as between +Chelmsford and Kenya. When we will do this? When will Fulcrum address this? There could be an articulate 'centre' refuting the tendency of both extremes to exaggerate the importance of their point of view. But there isn't. Couldn't Fulcrum explore this 'centre?'

Roger Harper

Thank you, Graham, for your helpful and detailed presentation of what Fulcrum sets out to be and do in Renewing the Evangelical Centre. Sorry not to have responded before now.

My difficulty is that I had thought that Fulcrum was to bring together and articulate Open Evangelical views. You explain that this is not the case. There remains, I believe, a need for an Open Evangelical Association, not as the centre of Evangelicalism (except fancifully as the soft centre in a chocolate to counter the hard and bitter shell) but as one wing or Mercedes spoke.

Thinking and praying about this, I found myself wondering whether an Open Evangelical wing or Association would be best Anglican or Ecumenical? There are Open Evangelicals in other churches, as the debates in the Evangelical Alliance over Penal Substitution and Hell have shown. I would prefer the breadth of an Ecumenical Association.

In the US it seems to me that Sojourners, led by Jim Wallis, is an Ecumenical Open Evangelical grouping.  They call themselves Evangelical. They have a concern for sexual holiness but often castigate fellow Evangelicals for making too much of the gay issue. They have a central Biblical concern for justice and shalom, both personal and communal. They are not, I believe, tied to any denomination.

I think it would be useful to explore setting up Sojourners UK to fill the gap on this side of the Atlantic. Jim Wallis book about religion and politics has been well received here. The correspondence section of their website often includes contributions from the UK. Both Jim Wallis and David Batstone (Sojourners magazine editor) will be at Greenbelt this year.

What does anyone else think? Do you think it would be good to have an Association of some sort for Open Evangelicals? Would this be best Anglican or Ecumenical or do we need both? With limited time and energy which would we be keenest to see developed? My vote goes for Sojourners UK. Anyone else voting?

Roger Harper

Dear All,

This thread may well have run its course, but, for the record, I want to correct something I wrote.

Way back I branded the view that Scripture leads us into all truth as heresy and was taken to task for rashness. Well yes, this was a bit eaxaggerated, too sharp. I still have a concern that the excellent summary of Biblical teaching which is usual Evangelical doctrine is sometimes held to too fiercely, when what is needed is more going back to the Scriptures themselves. The summary is good, for an overview and a general grasp, but when issues are more complex, we need the complexity of the Scriptures themselves. And the guiding voice of the Holy Spirit.

For me the question is not 'How does God manifest Himself?' but 'How does God communicate with us His people now?' When Rowan Williams urged NEAC to listen to God I think he was saying something important. Reading and knowing Scripture is a vital part of this listening but not all of it. We do need to learn to listen to the Holy Spirit, who has the freedom to bring us truths hidden in what Jesus said, truths that we have not been able to bear until now.

As you have noticed I can only make occasional contributions here. I'll leave it to you to reply or not...

With love in Jesus

Roger

Dear All,

Sorry. I should have made an extra paragraph break. I was wondering what Roy Clements' vew was as I didn't know. An easy Google search gave me the answer. Worth a look, not least becasue he is now one of us - a member of a Conservative Evangelical Anglican Church in Vancouver...

Then, in another breath, which you did not hear, I mused about what sort of arguments people might want to bring to support same sex 'marriage.' I had no intention to imply that these were either Roy's views or mine. But there are clearly primary and secondary texts in Scripture, notably the 'but I say to you..' sayings of Jesus which are primary over the related OT passages. And I have heard people arguing along those lines in the 'women' debate.

I still hold to the view that is 'against' same sex 'marriage.' I just can't be 100% definite, which is why I think we need to find creative united ways forward. It is simple to say "They are heretics. Have nothing to do with them." People on both sides are saying this. It is more complex to know what to do when we see the issue as not Primary. And addressing this question I still see as the priority. We won't agree. We have to decide what to do about our disagreement.

Why doesn't Fulcrum do something dramatic like invite the Anglican Evangelical brothers Peter Akinola and Roy Clements (among others) to address the same conference on the question of what they they think we should do about having brothers and sisters with whom we disagree about an issue such as same sex 'marriage?'

My mother is significantly better and the smell of cigarette smoke is almost out of my study.

With love in Jesus

Roger

Dear Karen,

Thanks for pointing this thread back to its origin - whether or not Same Sex 'Marriage' is a Pimary Issue. Yes indeed, we need to look at our own cultural and political context as much if not more than Paul's. Much of the heat of this debate comes from over the Atlantic and it seems clear that the issue there has been used and abused by Republicans. I'm not sure how much the same is true here outside the Church, but it has become a rallying point to Conservatives inside the Church. This has driven them to call it a Primary Issue, on, I believe, little Biblical grounds.

This has direct impications for pastoral practice. If it is a Primary Issue then, in traditional terms, practising homosexuals are indeed 'going to hell' and we need to make sure they know. If it is not Primary, then their salvation depends on other things and we can say something like 'No, you're not going to hell just because of that. Can we put it to one side for a moment and talk about heaven and hell?'

The other issue is 'Do we think that homosexual 'marriage' could be allowed by Christians?' This is the question I understand George to be wanting to open up. I'm not sure that is helpful as lines have been drawn. But I would like to hear Roy Clements' view... I am open to the argument that there are different levels of authority in Scripture. With women, the need to express that we are one in Christ, has precedence over the verses about women keeping to a particular place in the church or home. Could there be something similar with homosexuality? The need for faithful and committed love superceding people keeping to a particular type of partner? Does anyone argue along these lines?

Personally I believe with Alan Storkey that 'homosexuality' is not as fixed as some people claim it to be, and that therefore we should not be making a fixed category for same sex 'marriage.' I think the weight of Scripture and the voice of the Spirit is against same sex 'marriage,' but I can't be 100% sure, because people whom I recognise as genuine brothers and sisters in Christ disagree with me.

How I recognise these people as brothers and sisters, while at the same time disagreeing with them is the difficulty, not only for me but for all of us. So when will Fulcrum debate this crucial question in a proper conference?

And there are interesting moves in Parliament over women bishops. MPs may want to insist that we open episcopacy to women without providing any place for those who do not accept this development. What if they then go on to insist that we open our marriage to gay couples as they have done with Civil Partnerships? What if our loving our brothers and sisters and making every effort to maintain the unity of the Church puts us in conflict with the State? An interesting scenario I hope we do not see for a while.

And apologies for a month's absence, mostly due to my mother in hospital and then convalescing in my study.

With love in Jesus

Roger

Many thanks for all the contributions. Sorry I cant respond more than once a week at the most.

Jody  Yes when we say that the Holy Spirit leads us into all truth, that does not make life easy. Discerning the voice of the Spirit is hard. For this we need our fellow Christians. It is too easy to go off on our own with our part of the whole truth, becoming mini-popes. Instead we need to stick together at virtually all costs, keep speaking to each other about what we believe the Holy Spirit is saying (for which what the Holy Spirit has already said in Scripture is an authoritative guide), believing, probably against reason and emotion, that we will be able to come to a common mind. Who said being a Christian was easy?

John R  Yes I know that the word of God can mean different things. But I still think it is simpler and more Biblical to say that the Spirit of Truth, rather than the word of God, leads us into all truth. The question What authority has the Bible? is maybe not the best question, not least because it tends to be answered according to party lines. Better would be How do we discern what is the voice of the Spirit of Truth? And I dont think a Biblical answer would be Only through reading Scripture.

And the Holy Spirit speaks not only in words, certainly not only propositional words, but also in pictures and stories. See how He spoke about the inclusion of the Gentiles. The whole point of John 1 is that Jesus is the Word of God, but he came with far more than words. God did not come to us as word. God came to us as word made flesh, which is very different.

Words are fine and God uses them. But God chose not to keep sending words (through prophets) but to send His Son, whom we could see. Lancelot Andrews reminds us that Jesus, for a while was the Word of God, not able to speak a word.  Jesus communicated most when he died in near silence. Jesus demonstrated grace as well as speaking truth. We can expect the Holy Spirit to act like Jesus, communicating in words, but not only in words. Communicating through the blood is one example.

As an Open Evangelical I think Conservatives have an unbalanced, unbiblical emphasis on words. Maybe this is more what you meant, Karen, rather than what Tony took you to be saying?

Roger

Fulcrum is a good development for the Anglican Church  a body expressing Open Evangelical views and welcoming ordinary clergy like myself, and anyone, to contribute to its Forum. I am happy to be a supporter of Fulcrum.

            But please can we address the most crucial Anglican issue of our day? The relationship between Christianity and other faiths has been much talked about for years. It is not crucial for us now. The relationship between Anglicans and other denominations is similar. What is the point of going over the same old ground? What is the point of listening to a couple of well meaning talks with a token opportunity to talk in groups, but no way of properly conferring towards a decision or a statement?

            Same sex marriage is crucial now. This issue has been at the forefront of Anglican minds for a while, and the conflict is becoming sharper. Anglican responses to civil partnerships show how far we are from agreeing, and move us further from possible agreement. What then do we do? What do we do in our Church when we disagree over an issue like this?  This is what we need to confer about.

            Addressing this question will involve addressing, among other questions:

What sort of issue is same sex marriage? Is it Primary or what?

What are our disagreements and how do they compare with other Liberal / Evangelical disagreements?

What possible ways forward could we envisage?

How do we know what the Holy Spirit is saying now?

            This is what Fulcrum needs to address. We need to take time to prepare for a conference such as this, (not announcing it a bare 3 months ahead). We need to invite contributions from interested parties (not just choosing the safe well known names we think will draw people)  We need to set up a process through which we can express what we have agreed on  even if it is very little initially. We need to keep working towards a common mind. We need to face up to the issue that is crucial for us now.

            Fulcrum has a supporters list. Could the members not be invited to vote on what they want their organisation to address? (E-mail makes this easy.) Maybe I am in a minority. But I think it is worth putting to the test.

            Otherwise, we will rightly be accused of fiddling with theology while Anglicanism burns.

Roger Harper

Returning to the Forum after a break, I was wondering whether to add a comment to this thread  about Conservatives believing that the Bible will lead us into all truth, which is not what the Bible says. Then I read that the thread is probably closing and thought better of it. Then I read John R quoting Martin Luther as teaching this very heresy!

I am Evangelical. I believe the Bible to be the Word of God, which is not equal to human reason, but to which human reason needs to submit, so that the Holy Spirit can then lead us into all truth. This is not the same as saying that the Bible leads us into all truth. The weight of Scripture is that slavery is simply part of the way the world is, it just needs to be organised humanely  but this is not the truth that the Holy Spirit has led us to. The weight of Scripture at the time of Paul was that Gentiles need to abide by the Law if they are to be part of the People of God. But this was not the truth that the Holy Spirit led the Church to. The main argument for inclusion of Gentiles without circumcision etc. was not a detailed exposition of Scripture, but the weighing of a vision that Peter had when he was waiting for lunch one day, a vision so important that it is repeated in Scripture now. This Biblical paradigm for Church decisions shows that it is not Scripture that leads us into all truth but the Holy Spirit. When I call myself an Open Evangelical I am trying to be faithful to Scripture and open to the Holy Spirit. This involves being open to the new  hence my difficulty with the label Conservative.

There is also, as I have pointed out in the Homosexuality thread, the relative importance of grace and truth. Conservatives, I think, stress the truth first  speaking the truth comes first, and in love is secondary. I disagree. Jesus was full of grace and truth in that order, not just in Johns description but in all His ministry. Protestants and Evangelicals do not have a good reputation on grace before truth. (I am not sure if this is justified considering both Martin Luther and John Wesleys hanging onto church membership until forced out. It is the Ian Paisleys of this world who stick in peoples minds.) Not only because of our reputation but also because of our Lord, we need to work at being people of grace first, without abandoning the truth that the Holy Spirit leads us to (which will necessarily be a holy truth and therefore out of step with the majority world view.) Easier said than done!

So I would say there is both an Open Evangelical theology and a mindset, a theology which stresses a mindset& I think Philip Yancey is a classic Open Evangelical, and, given his popularity, echoes with many Evangelicals in Britain today. We could do with more home-grown communicators like him. Is this what Fulcrum is about  giving a voice to us Open Evangelicals? Im not sure what renewing the centre means?

Roger Harper

Sorry for not contributing for a while.

Obadiahslope  Yes indeed. Finding an arrangement that allows some to go ahead with blessing same sex marriage while remaining in some kind of fellowship with those who are opposed is easier said than done. It is simpler to say If you dont like the (new) house rules  just leave the house. This seems to be the American view, not surprising from a nation born out of leaving the old house to set up anew. (Australians are maybe similar but less so?) The more English Anglican attitude is to look for alternatives. Christopher Hill in todays Church Times envisages separate houses (presumably in the same compound), semi-detached houses, separate interconnected rooms in the same house. He says TEA is the latter. If we are to make every effort to maintain unity  isnt this difficult path the more Biblical approach?

George Day  thanks for supporting the idea of a conference on What do we do in the church when we cannot agree on issues such as same sex marriage? Yes indeed. We do need to hear from what I call evangelicals who favour the soft approach, instead of only those who take the hard line. NEAC had hints of the former but was dominated, as planned, by the latter. Roy Clements would be a good person to have involved. Anyone else think we need a conference like this?

I think there are more of us soft approach evangelicals than recognised. Philip Yancey seems to echo this thread in the current Christianity magazine.

I dont have experience of same sex Christian couples  but of non-Christian ones who have demonstrated faithful commitment to each other and to their adopted children. I understand the dilemma. Yes we do need to engage with these people as brothers and sisters in Christ, without necessarily avoiding some strong differences. Isnt this the unity that bears witness to Jesus  the unity of people who in the worlds terms should be at each others throats but share a common love for Him? O that the world would see more of that!

The closest I have come to the dilemma for Evangelicals of same sex Christian couples, and it is not all that close, is with Freemasons. FMs are often very nice, helpful people, committed to supporting the Church and good company. But I cannot support their practice of freemasonry. Does that mean that they are banned from church or from communion as long as they continue as FMs? That hardly ever happens. So why should we treat practising homosexuals differently? Most Evangelicals, and, I guess, certainly the Conservatives, would be opposed to seeing the practice of Freemasonry compatible with Christian faith. But we, and they, do not break fellowship with Liberals who have no problem with Freemasonry, despite Freemasonry being more clearly idolatry than practising homosexuality within a life-long commitment. This is the kind of double standards which is a terrible witness.

Roger Harper