Is homosexual practice an issue of primary importance? Does it feature in the Creeds? It is a Scriptural issue but that does not necessarily mean that it is primary.

At NEAC Tom Wright said (in the late Saturday night optional question-the-panel session) that there are some issues which are not primary in themselves but which are integrally connected to a primary issue. I think this view needs expounding and exploring more.

Working out what is primary and what is not is vital. The Pharisees excelled in exalting the secondary over the primary - tithing dill over supporting parents, keeping the sabbath over helping those in need. We need to be careful not to follow the Pharisees.

Both the oposing sides say that homosexual practice is a primary issue. Anglican Mainstream say it is primary because it is incompatible with a literal reading of Scripture. The liberal majority in ECUSA say it is primary because it is an expression of inclusiveness, which is a necessary foundational hallmark of the Church. Rowan Williams seems to say that neither are right - which is why both attack him. Rowan says, I think, that unity is primary, and homosexual practice is not.

At present I would agree with Rowan Williams. What do others think? What is the Fulcrum position? Isn't it about time that we met together in as widely respresentative group as possible to talk and think and pray together, to come to a common mind on this crucial question? Is homosexual practice an issue of primary importance?

Roger Harper

Thanks Karen.

Yes indeed, how do we set up a widely represetative meeting to discuss whether homosexual practice is primary or not? I have over the last 2 years written to the Fulcrum leadership calling on them to do this - so far to no avail. Maybe now that Mainstream have declared their position Fulcrum will finally address this properly?

Yes there is an issue about our understanding of sexuality. But the more pressing isue is one of church order. Frankly, we are not going to all agree in detail on sexuality. So what do we do as a Church when we disagree on such an issue? If it is a primary issue, on a level with the Reformation issues, our tradition says that we part company. If it is a secondary issue, we stick with people even if we disagree with them. (I think Paul took that approach to the Corinthians, for instance - hence his writing to them again.) If it is somewhere in between we need to find a church order that is somewhere in between - maybe something like flying bishops. We may need to do something creative and new, lookng to the Holy Spirit to guide us  This is what we need to discuss together and try to come to a common mind about, before it is too late.

I have written about this at more length and will happily send a copy to you if you write to me at roger.harper@blueyonder.co.uk

With love in Jesus

Roger

A couple of thoughts responding to different points in this wide-ranging thread:

Stephen Sizer has recently published a critique of Christian Zionism which may well do what the Bishops were looking for. A key distinction to make is between support for the Jews (Israel in Biblical trems) and support for the State of Israel as we have it. There are Jews who are not themselves Zionist. For instance Tikkun.org is a broad based Jewish based movement strongly critical of the current policies of the State of Israel, including some anti-Zionist views. The bishops, rightly I believe, criticise Christian Zionism. At the same time we still need to make up for our part in the centuries of Christian persecution of Jews. More practical repentance about this would be welcome - not just in word but in deed, or in official donations to Jewish charities.

The 'war on terror' has specifically opted for military rather than law-and-oder language, and military approaches rather than -law-and-order approaches. Before 9/11 Britain had a law-and-order approach to terrorism. We treated IRA terrorists as criminals and our aim was to bring them to trial. They wanted us to honour them with the title of 'soldiers' in an 'army.' We refused, treating them as criminals. At the same time Israel had a military approach to terrorism. They bombed suspected bases. They assassinated leaders. Since 9/11 America has adopted the Israeli approach to terrorism, hence the 'war' language. America refuses to sign up to the International Criminal Court, the only body capable of prosecuting a Saddam Hussein, opting for the military instead. The gut-wrenching disaster is that Britain, which should have been the one country to champion the tried and tested law-and-order approach, has instead thrown that away and sidled up to the Americans copying the Israelis. After 9/11 we should have been saying "We feel for you. We have had bombs in our cities, in our Parliament. Don't fall into the trap of treating terrorists as enemy soldiers - that only dignifies them in their own eyes. Treat them as despicable criminals. Pursue them through the Law, only using the military to back up the Law when needed." O for the day when our government repents along these lines.

Roger Harper

Replying to Ian Paul on Nov 13. (Could we break this into 2 threads, one on homosexuality and one on women?)

If a doctrine is Primary then it overides the command to 'make every effort to maintain unity.' As Anglicans we hold that the Reformation issues were Primary and therefore we have separated from Rome. Is homosexual practice (HP) such an issue - one over which we should separate from those who disagree with us?

At NEAC David Holloway said forcefully that HP is such an issue. Others seemed to agree with him. But people like Colin Buchanan and Tony Thistleton hinted that HP is not of this order. Jane Williams seemed to be pointing the same way as Colin and Tony at the Fulcrum day in London. But these people have not adressed this question directly partly because, I believe, in both cases they were asked to speak in more general terms. It is time we invited people like this to adress squarely: Is HP an issue over which it is right to separate?

David Holloway says the parallel is with the church in Thyatira and the Jezebel teaching. I think the parallel is with Corinth, and the immorality there which Paul criticised sharply, while also continuing in fellowship.

If we do say this is a separating issue, why have we not treated other issues similarly? What about calling priests 'father.' We are specifically commanded by Jesus not to do this. But some Anglo Catholics do and we have continued in fellowship with them. Surely going against a clear command from the lips of Jesus denies Scripture even more. Then there have been denials of the physical resurrection and virgin birth. It seems that we can accept our fellow Anglicans going against Scripture as long as it is not about sexuality. We criticise them and call them to change their views but we stay in fellowship with them - unless it is HP.

Part of the reason for this is that we know that Scripture does not lead us into all truth. The Holy Spirit leads us into all truth - that is the Scriptural teaching. This makes things far more complex. We have to answer 'What is the Holy Spirit saying?' and not only 'What does Scripture say?' These 2 questions are very closely linked but not co-terminus, as the process of admitting Gentiles shows. In Paul's day Scripture as they had it was on the side of those who said that Gentiles had to become properly part of the Jewish people in order to follow properly the Jew Jesus. The big argument that 'clinched' the inclusion of Gentiles as Gentiles was not Scripture but a weird vision Peter had while his stomach was rumbling - hence its repeated inclusion in Scripture. I don't think Andrew Goddard has properly answered this in his Grove booklet, for he still seems to be arguing that Scripture leads us into all truth.

So the question to address is 'Is HP an issue over which it is right to spearate - what is the Holy Spirit saying?'

I think the Holy Spirit is saying, partly through our Archbishop, 'Keep talking, keep listening, keep treating each other as brothers and sisters in Christ.' We may need to find some arrangement like flying bishops to recognise both the differences we have and the unity we still have, but that is as far as it needs to go. I would love to be able to present this view. Please will the Fulcrum leadership create space so that I and / or others can adress this crucial question properly - before it is too late.

Roger Harper

A helpful way of understanding Penal Substitution was explained to me in terms of Primary or Formulating and Secondary or Explanatory Doctrines.

The Love of God is a Primary doctrine, a foundation for formulating all discussion about God. God is Love - and will be forever. We want the first thing in people's mnds to be that God loves them.

The Wrath of God is a Secondary doctrine, a necessary explanation of the Love of God. God does not want people to hurt each other. He becomes angry when they do. His love is not an 'anything goes' sort of love. But His anger does not last forever. Through eternity He will not be angry. We do not want the first thing in people's minds to be that God is angry with them.

Substitutionary atonement (SA) is part of the doctrine of the Wrath of God, explaining how, as the hymn puts it, the wrath of God was satisfied. SA is good and useful, but secondary to the doctrines which expound the cross as an expression of the Love of God. We can sing sometimes of the wrath of God being satisfied, but we sing much more of the floodgates of God's mercy opened at the mount of crucifixion, heaven's peace and perfect justice kissing a guilty world in love.

Roger Harper

Alan Storkey seems to be saying "Homosexuality is not a fixed orientation - so the Church should not treat it as such. But homosexuality is not the only, nor even the most serious sexual moral issue confronting us now."

Amen to both these statements. There are a number of good arguments to see the push towards same sex marriage as not of the Holy Spirit, and Alan presents one of them. As evangelicals we hold to the possibility and necessity of change. To adapt Just as I am, I come to Just as I am, I stay is a travesty both of the hymn and of Biblical morality. Knowing the evidence that homosexual desire is not fixed and is influenced by culture, helps us to argue this more confidently.

The trouble with this argument, we must also recognise, is that, by and large, Christians have failed to enable people to change their homosexual inclinations, even when the people concerned have deeply wanted to become normal  heterosexual. More work needs to be done on how we flesh out our belief in the ability of the Holy Spirit to bring about this kind of change.

It is also true that our focus has been too much on homosexuality and we have allowed the practice of drifting into cohabitation before or instead of marriage, with virtually no coherent Church response. Even the sex education in our Church Secondary Schools presents how to use a condom and not the approach of the Romance Academy seen on TV this year. It is good that Alan is drawing our attention to this.

After 2 Amens, I would also like to offer 2 criticisms.

Firstly Alans tone is still too strident. At the beginning he looks to a process of public debate followed by an outpouring of humility. Why that order? Surely the humility should come first. In this season we celebrate the One full of grace and truth, in that order. We too should be people of grace and truth in that order. A huge problem with the approach of Conservative Evangelicals is that they put truth before and even at the expense of grace, not necessarily in what they argue but in the way that they argue it. Acknowledging the flaw in our argument, as above, would be one way of beginning to be more humble. Refraining from using such language as As anyone half awake knows& The bluster of the gay lobby is not good enough, would also be a good step. Even if proponents of same sex marriage do not themselves adopt a graceful attitude, that does mean that opponents should follow suit.

Secondly, like many sermons, Alans article has good points but is weak on the so what? So what does this mean for the Church where we are now? Does it mean that we continue to fight as we have been doing, surer of the high moral, and sociological, ground? Or does it mean that we recognise that we are blowing this issue up out of proportion, and need to spend less time and energy on it? It would be helpful for Alan to work out the implications of what he is arguing.

Alan, in his second point, has, I think, begun to express a sense that homosexual practice is not a Primary Issue. Mainstream say that it is  and that therefore we should seriously consider breaking fellowship over this issue. If some people are fixating on homosexuality to the virtual exclusion of other crises shouldnt we be addressing this by challenging or at least debating if homosexual practice is a Primary Issue or not? Or all the issues Alan lists 'Primary'? Why are we not breaking fellowship with liberals over them?

Fulcrum is in a unique position to hold such a debate, in as much grace and humility as we can find. PLEASE can we do this? A conference open to ordained and lay, UK and overseas, specifically addressing the question: What do we do in the Church when we disagree on an issue such as same sex marriage? Tom Wright has argued that this is the question before us. So far NEAC and Fulcrum have refused to address it squarely. We need to do this soon.

Roger Harper

Dear 867

Where do your thoughts and feelings leave you? Not alone! Be encouraged.

Yes such a conference as I propose would be very hard to do, and would probably need to begin with repentance for stridency and worse. But isn't the hard thing the very thing that Jesus often calls us to do? Please see if other people can support the call for this kind of conference.

I think a proper evangelical approach is 'We think we're right. But then you think you're right and we are brothers and sisters in Christ. I can't rule out the possibility that you might be right. I can't go along with you at the moment. But I accept your desire to move ahead with this (homosexual practice) development as part of the family. We'll have to come to some arrangement that allows you to go ahead as you believe you are being led, and also allows us not to go down that road. We won't be so united as before, but we affirm that we are still brothers and sisters together."

How does that sound?

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

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

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

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

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