Forum Thread
"Goddard 2 Goddard"

Assuming I've not misunderstood, I take it that Andrew Goddard - from his own explanation - is open to be persuaded otherwise. He says that only some relationships - and it is not an issue of their integrity - receive "evangelical authorisation" but, given that he wants this "Ephesian moment" not to fall out with Anglicanism of a different culture, it is supposed that, with his view that stances could change, that a point could arrive when "evangelical authorisation" is given to other relationships of integrity.

In other words, this is a soft evangelical view of the openness of the Catholic view to change its mind - a Catholic view that mistakes Communion for Church.

Communion allows for diversity. There is (as the General Synod answer said) no such thing as full communion, as there are varieties within and unacceptable elements from one Church to another within. So the argument does not hold - uniformity is not required.

Maybe it's a case of listening to the 'listening process' itself and concluding that we may after all be dealing with 'parallel universes' (AG).  There may not be any esperanto that pleases both Goddards, only conversion from one language to the other if there's to be communion or discourse which builds both up. 

I'm glad that the listening process doesn't presuppose unity where it clearly isn't there:  AG recognizes and affirms the bonds of affection to which we are called. 

AG uses 'communion' reasons, at least here, to try to persuade GG to move at least into a 'communion liberal' position.  That we're following a form of inter-faith dialogue on this thread is clear when we recognize that AG's reasons for being conservative aren't merely 'communion' ones.  Doesn't he, in plain English, believe that 'God has spoken' on the matter, so that whatever else 'dialogue' may mean, here it can't mean an openness to being persuaded otherwise?

The letter from Andrew Goddard, dated 12 November, is about as thin as it can get. My arguments are here:

http://pluralistspeaks.blogspot.com/2007/11/cultural-ricepaper.html

The silence of the Fulcrum forum is indeed puzzling.  Perhaps its the prayerful reflection and self-awareness that befits a genuine conversation? or the introduction of too many interesting threads to ponder, even the Andrew Walls words about an Ephesian moment.  As open evangelicals are we seriously listening for completeness sake, rather than enduring to some kind of victory? 

A very powerful & thoughtful letter from Giles Goddard.  He does put the personal-theological issue clearly.   It warants  a lot of thought and prayer, and responsiveness,

That is a very powerful letter, one that crystallises the situation of the conflict within Anglicanism and indeed the somewhat puzzling closed position of Andew Goddard - is the forensic approach the trees instead of the wood?

I comment further:

http://pluralistspeaks.blogspot.com/2007/11/giles-goddards-beacon.html

The commentary includes much of what I think of Fulcrum, that it is being squeezed, and that evangelicalism is getting itself in a mess as a result of the wider controversy. The damage seems to be everywhere, and one just hopes that something more generous and confident can emerge.

Andrew Goddard provides an open letter, so surely more people than Giles Goddard can reply?

I have just given a talk to Sea of Faith Yorkshire in Bradford about liberal groups, a solid two hours straight-through of mutually informed conversation about a patchwork of liberal groups related to Christianity etc. up and down the country, and some personalities with fascinating histories. The connections between the Independent Liberal Catholic Fellowship, the Liberal Rite, and the Liberal Catholic Church International and then Unitarianism turn out to be more extensive than I thought. The other groups of interest were Sea of Faith, the Progressive Christian Network, the Modern Churchpeople's Union, the Unitarians and The Quakers, the Metropolitan Community Church, denominations whit libral biases, like The Episcopalian Church and the United Reformed Church, and individual churches with liberal biases.

All these groups (except the liberal bias denominations with more complex others), have of course settled the gay question. Just as society is doing so. Somehow the Anglican Communion covers so much ground that it is locked in contradiction.

TEC is being given an either-or situation. It is being asked to pursue a bureaucratic ethic of preserving a Communion by sacrificing the LGBT community it includes. On the other hand, if it stays faithful to these people it finally brought in, it must apparently leave the Anglican Communion or at least be sidelined.

But it actually does not have an either-or. Others have either-or. It has both. Let those who present such either-or carry it through if they really want. Let the NURKS (Nigeria, Uganda, Rwanda, Kenya, Sydney) carry out the either-or that they present. Or, if the bureaucracy so pushes, let it through its instruments carry out the excluding deed. TEC does not have to and why should it play the sacrifice? It is being faithful to both visions - its people and the Communion as a principle.

Is it really a disaster if one or the other does carry through the either-or?

Well there are Roman Catholics in the same land as Anglicans; there are Orthodox in the same lands. There are even Methodists who have bishops first consecrated by a priest. What difference will another set of Anglican groups mean? There is this Liberal Catholic Church International and related - they have consecrations recognised by Rome as valid if irregular, whereas Anglican orders are utterly null and void! I don't suppose this null and void business bothers Anglicans too much, nor should it. Then there are already different Anglicans, in both the USA and UK. What will a few more add?

The predicament then is a bureaucratic one. Yes it will mean nothing is the same for this Anglicanism, should any party carry out the either-or. The Archbishop of Canterbury has become semi-detached: his strategy has become to do nothing - he gave a lecture on being a bishop to the TEC House of Bishops! It would be equally a good idea for the Anglican Communion to do nothing. That leaves it to the either-or NURKS to either put up or shut up.

It is better if no one did the either-or action, but, if they did, why not then see the positive side? A plant that is over-wieldy could slowly die. Prune it and it has a chance to grow better (more tolerant, more internally consistent, for example). Indeed a cutting may grow well elsewhere. More Anglican groups here and there may add some, but also they may bring back to themselves those that broke away some time ago. There might actually be fewer!

As for the culture in which we live, here, in which Civil Partnership has been largely accepted, the Church is looking more and more like a sect, entitled to mind its own business but of decreasing relevance as it carries out this obscure (for outsiders) infighting. Even pruning may just not be enough in the soil it now inhabits, given the damage to the plant that is taking place. Perhaps those concerned with the overall Church structure ought to consider this more than just preservation of those inside sensitivities, after considering the people at the heart of the issue.

This might be one answer, Blair, but probably not one you'd want.

Hello,

I'd just like to offer a ragbag of comments...

- the thought of a point "where there is nothing to reply to", I find saddening. It suggests that people in this debate (on the gay issue) can only retreat into hermetically sealed opposition, that it can only be an intractable conflict. (I'm not saying I think this is what you mean, Pluralist, just that this is how I'm responding to the phrase). Well, there's plenty of evidence that it's intractable, someone might say to me. Yes, but... maybe it's too naive and too easy for me to hold out a glimmer of hope that understanding is possible. But in a real listening process, in real conversation, surely the outcome can't be predetermined? (sorry. I'm not sure if this paragraph makes sense...)

- Giles Goddard says "that conservative Christians have been part of a failure of compassion". But sadly so have I - it's not just 'them'... (easy as that is to say on something as disembodied as an internet forum). I would like to suggest that if we begin to acknowledge to each other our 'failures of compassion' a lot of heat and noise might go from this debate (and by 'we' there I mean everybody, and every group, who speaks in/to the debate). And if my 'moral integrity' is broken can I demand it of groups I belong or want to belong to, much as I'd like to demand it....? "Lord, have mercy..."

Might have more to say when I'm less tired... but out of curiosity, Baptist Noel, are you aware of George Hopper's work? (www.reluctantjourney.co.uk just in case!)

in friendship, Blair

It seems we are waiting quite a while for a reply - which might be significant. It seems that it is getting to the point where there is nothing to reply to, and that there are two streams of thought and practice.

Hi

just to ask, baptist noel, did I read your last post correctly?

do you really think that sexual passion is not a reflection or expression of God's love?

I beg to disagree.

jody

Well, Baptist Boel, it is your obsession with sex that is perhaps driving you out - your "including sexual practices that we would all want to reject". Speak for yourself. Sex is not about plugs and sockets with notices on them about limited use.

The love gay people feel one for another is realised in the long relationships many have, one for the other, which are as entitled to sexual expression as others. And whether you like it or not, they are not going to go away, nor are they going to accept your prescription for second class status.

The Bible does not address these particular relationships: and the Bible is no more normative about this sexual relationship as it is a book of science about the origins of the universe or a book of history. It is a misuse that turns the Bible into some form of an oracle.

Gay people have as much right and duty, in ministry, to attempt to set models of faithfulness and fidelity one to each other in their relationships, including sexual, as the heterosexual, and should receive blessing for relationship where they intend loyalty and openness one to the other.

Dear 974,

Thank you for your feedback. It is always usefull to know how others see you. I would hope that my faith is childlike rather than childish.

On the matter of the use of words I still find hetrosexual and homosexual to be a balanced pair. I do not know what word to use in contrast to gay. Dull ? The opposite of straight is crooked or perverted which I assume you do not want me to adopt.

David