Hi Jody, Roger, Karen

Jody, I don't think the idea that there are primary and secondary issues in doctrine comes from Roy Clements; it's a common (and I think traditional) way of distinguishing between things that matter so much that they divide 'orthodox' from 'unorthodox' -- say like the Holy Trinity or the humanity of Christ. I agree that we don't read scripture in the way thay you describe -- and there are vast swathes of Proverbs, e.g., or Song of Songs, or even Ecclesiates that we read (if at all) with a grain of salt or a smile... I don't know the Pauline scholar your mention -- and I'm not a theologian or anything -- but I wonder why we have to make this huge effort to explain away things in Pauline texts (women and heads covered, 'because of the angels'; doctrines of male headship) that no longer make sense, when there is a perfectly simple cultural explanation for them. Pace the Fulcrum leadership team, it's that approach that leaves some of us writhing on a hook (we can change the plain sense of scripture in relation to usury, women, slavery, BUT...)

It's good to be in tuch with you again.

Tony

Hi Tony

nice to hear from you.

I think I would like to distinguish between the idea of primary and secondary Scripture and primary and secondary issues of doctrine.  I agree that there are issues of doctrine for which we would have to exclude those who don't believe a particular understanding of that doctrine and issues where we can include many different understandings of a doctrine.  There are even doctrines of which we are not sure into which of these categories they fit :-)

However, when it comes to Scripture I would prefer to think of different areas of Scripture as having different roles in our understanding of God.  Whether it is to tell us something of God through his intervening in history, his otherness, his love, wrath in love, our response, creation etc etc etc.  Thus each strand of Scripture has its priority for whatever it is God is trying to say about himself.

I would like to argue that we should be trying to read the whole of Scripture together and if we do that then we will be able to see more of God in the minutiae of the detail of Scripture even if we identify with some Scripture more than others.  By the way Ecclesiastes is one of my faourites :-)

You say you are not a theologian, you'll have to excuse me getting on my hobby horse but you are a theologian if you are trying to talk of God at all (which you are, of course, that's why you're on this forum :-)  Gordon Fee, is a NT theologian/scholar and is particularly well known for his work on Paul.  I mentioned him because as an evangelical scholar it is highly highly unusual for him to take bits out of Scripture - to put it mildly!  It was just a point to make, I would feel uncomfortable about ditching bits of Scripture, but I am more than obliged to 'listen' to someone - like Fee - who has much more experience and knowledge of Paul and Scripture than I have and who is also someone who has a persausive argument for doing something that is totally out of the nature of his own, evangelical, tradition.

I'm not sure that there are easy cultural reasons for 'because of the angels' or for Paul's convoluted argument for wearing head coverings.  I think we might read those cultural reasons into the Scripture just as much as we might read a patriarchal mandate into them, what I mean is that we assume that the society is as patriarchal as it is today or, actually, we assume it is more patriarchal than it is today, this might not necessarily be the case. The fairly recent explorations into Scripture regarding women seem to me helpful ways of seeing the consistency of Paul's writings within his own thinking and also together with Jesus' teaching (and the rest of Scripture in fact).

I would also, I guess, not be totally sure about a 'plain' sense of Scripture.  I understand where this idea has come from and do agree with the sentiment.  I'm just not sure that we can be as simple as that.  We are not the first set of believers in history to have many different understandings of the same piece of Scripture, so it is arguable that the sense of Scripture has never been 'plain'.

I feel I have somewhat wondered off the point :-)  So, is Roy Clements talking about secondary and primary Scripture or doctrine?

love Jody

Hi -- I don't know the Roy Clements source. I should think he meant primary and secondary doctrine though. I am a fan of Ecclesiastes too -- not least because it takes such a swipe at other wisdom traditions... (See Walter Brueggemann's excellent Introduction to the OT, 'Canon and Christian imagiation'.) I don't understand your paragraph about Pauline and pseudo-Pauline patriarchalism or lack of it, on the one hand, and the weirdness of head-covering customs on the other. Don't misunderstand me -- I don't think there is any such thing as a plain sense of scripture the minute we are willing to see it in the context of human lives.

a lotta continua

Tony

I wonder if we could look at heterosexual marriage, considering how CHRISTIANS define this relationship, [If it is a relationship?]. Looking at whether the historical CHURCH has been consistent in it's definitions, legal and spiritual, of what constitutes marriage. Do the different strands in the CofE today share their views on what makes a heterosexual marriage?

It seems that heterosexual marriage is often laid before fellowships as something other than the private or the individual; that somehow the purpose of marriage is of communal import to the moral well-being of society or as some kind of witness of the Gospel. Little or no mention is made of the importance of "One Flesh" to God.

This could because preachers get embarrassed but it could be part of a process of teaching that marriage is a primary issue for believers. I believe that this is wrong. I've heard teaching on marriage as a gospel witness, preached this way using Ephesians as a basis. I watched the evangelical christians I was with look puzzled but unable to contradict or even critique this approach because, hey the preacher (an Anglican) is a bible believer and so he must be right!!! They said that they had never heard such a teaching about marriage before. They didn't question why they had never heard this teaching before. They seemed to feel that they had had some sort of revelation imparted to them. (And CE preachers claim that there are no new revelations beyond written scriptures! Tut Tut, hoisted by their own petard on this one, me thinks). But what is really frightening is that these people had their thinking subtly shifted from seeing marriage as something "in the personal" - God's gift of intimacy to a man and a woman, to seeing it more as a sign to non-christians that christians are different from the rest of society.

This teaching completely overlooks the fact that all the world religions and many atheists, including Communist Chinese authorities, support marriage too. This style of teaching is entangled with male headship beliefs so it actually kicks itself in the foot completely when trying to claim a distinctiveness for christian marriages. Most of the world's major religions teach male headship in marriage to differing degrees and in practice, many men worldwide, operate in headship due to their higher economic status.

Surely the primary issue on the hearts of christians is to witness Christ, not a particular lifestyle? Lifestyle is more secondary and an area for pastoral support and development of Christlikeness in the believer.

Hi all

Karen, I think that I would like to say 'yes' and 'no' to the idea that marriage is solely personal or individual (if I 'heard' you correctly)

This comes from my understanding of personhood being anything but a private affair.  Thus for me nothing can be solely private, even if we would like it to be or even if we think it is private, it invariably isn't.  What we are and what we do always impacts on the community of creation and, if we are Christians, on the community of God from the inside, as it were.

Thus, I would argue (albeit not from Eph 5) that our relationships as a whole give a witness of Christ, and marriage has been given to us as a community (community of creation in one sense, but also within the community of God) in order to foreshadow intimacy which will be so much more in the heavenly dimension.  This has a very super-personal effect, as well as being a very personal thing too.  I wouldn't want to take away from marriage as being a personal relationship between two people and in which those two people are taught many things about God's relationship with his Church (amongst many other things), but marriage is also a building block of community in which everyone takes part, whether it is being involved as one of the two marriage partners, or being born into a marriage, or missing the nourishing upbringing of a stable marriage, or being involved in a broken marriage etc etc.  I may be in deep water here because I might sound like I think someone who is not married is somehow 'less', but I don't mean that at all.  I think that those involved with sociology have come to a conclusion that marriage is the 'building block' of society (it used to be thought of as the nuclear family) and that the west has embarked on a ridiculous 'experiment' in which it is trying to prove the hypothesis that a society can exist without marriage, which it has never been proved to do in the past. Anyway, that was a slight digression, but my point is that whilst marriage is, of course, a very personal relationship, it is also a community relationship too.

My mum was brought up in the RC Church and I was talking to her the other day about sex, which I know isn't all that marriage is, but I got the idea that her teaching from the RC Church, was the idea that sex was simply for procreation, I have an idea that the Anglicans thought this way too and were forced to think about it when the contraceptive revolution erupted.  This idea must have a link to marriage as I guess the discipline of marriage is only needed for relationships which are sexual.  We don't suggest to very intimate non-sexual friends that they get married or are in a marriage relationship, so sex must go very closely with marriage (sorry to state the obvious)

Since then and certainly any teaching that I have had, the joy of sex has been emphasised by the Church and the fact that God invented it and its being a good thing has come into the Christian psyche.  This is good, but I have wondered if we have perhaps put too much emphasis on the goodness of sex in and of itself, perhaps buying into the sexual revolution too much (in the same way that modernity was bought into), so that Christian marriage partners have become disillusioned when their sexual relationship changes just as much as non-Christian marriage partners?  I seem to see some Christians still embarrassed to talk about sex though, that's probably an English thing.........

The other thing is that I see couples who are non-Christian, like my parents, who have a very high view of marriage and the work needed to keep in that convenant relationship, who seem to live out this Christian ideal much more readily than some Christian couples who think that because they're Christians it's all going to be plain sailing.

Anyway, must go, meant to be studying...........:-)

love Jody

However, I can't help going back to Genesis 2:18 , 'and the Lord God said, "It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him." ', when considering the purpose of marriage. So I suppose that I see marriage primarily as a companion-ate, sexual, One Flesh, permanent relationship between one man and one woman. Did Adam see it that way too - Gen. 2:23? In the words of Genesis and the Song of Solomon along with the additional teachings on mutuality from Paul and Jesus' regard for women, I see the model of Christian marriage. Is the witness to the Gospel borne by Christian marriage is a product of that marriage rather than the purpose of that marriage?

Being Christian doesn't guarantee a happy marriage and I think couples would be helped more towards reaching this goal by detailed and specific teaching on the personal aspects of marriage rather than over emphasising the public witness value of the relationship.

This kind of teaching can be reduced to the "Joy of Sex" type of teaching. I think that the "Joy of Sex" emphasis has occurred as perhaps an attempt to make restitution for the shove sex under the carpet attitude found amongst Christians. Telling children/teens/adults that sex is more than great and that it has sacramental aspects which actually have deeper, very spiritual ramifications, may be more helpful. But then some people would argue whether marriage is a sacrament or not. Is sex something more than a physical act which is enjoyable. The emphasis on the public nature marriage as opposed to the private act of sexual intercourse may lead us to place more emphasis on the societal value of the relationship; an aspect which I do not believe to be in keeping with what the bible says - reading with integrity, within how I understand the scriptures at the moment :-) he he.

Years ago when I did Sociology I was taught models of the family as a socio - economic unit which served the needs of society and the needs of individuals - by studying cross cultural analyses. Certainly in these models I noticed that there was more of an emphasis on the societal functions of the marriage and the family than on the "intimate". This was all back in the late 1970s and early 1980's on an A level course led by a lovely Marxist lady. She "prophesied' that society no longer required marriage in order to function; that the nuclear family and the extended family were no longer a requirement for the economy to function or to create a framework for raising the future workers. The state would control the reproduction, upbring, education and moral grounding of children. This viewpoint sees marriage as a luxury; romance as an indulgence. This may seem very harsh but look at what has happened to the traditional family/marriage and it's role in the economy and society in the last 25 years or so then I think that my tutor was right. More people now live openly in sexual relationships/lifestyles which were once subject to economic and social sanction. More children are being raised by the State ( ie dependant on welfare) and there are concerns about programmes like SureStart and Connexions with regard to how they gain information from and about people and children. I have read somewhere that an adverse comment from community nurse , midwife or social worker can lead to benefit sanctions for people in Surestart programmes. (Check this out via google etc and the internet homeschooling networks etc.)

I think it was Germane Greer who observed that divorcing couples were a massive boost to the economy - when you consider everything from legal bills to the costs of setting up separate households, she might have hit on a point. Being married in the traditional sense seems to be increasingly under pressure, this may be why some Christians are promoting it as part of a Gospel witness. I have heard many of my traditionally married acquantainces ( Christian and non-Christian) make comments to the effect that society/morality is collapsing and that they have a feeling of being backed up against a wall. I certainly sometimes have a sense that there are forces, which at face-value seem to be related to money and work/life balance issues, which seem to colluding against marriage.

A single parent neighbour of mine estimated by the total value of her benefits package that she was only about �10 per week worse off than my family (only my husband works at the moment). She was the one that said that people like me seem worse off than people like her - not me! (NB: I don't think benefits are too high just that wages and salaries are too low?!?!). I suppose I do see christian marriage as a type of witness of the Gospel but on the otherhand I don't see that I'm doing anything much better or different than my non-Christian, traditionally, married friends. Only time will tell?

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

Thanks Roger, glad to hear your Mum's health is improving. Yes I would like to see brothers Akinolo and Clemence in debate.

Sorry folks for wobbling on about A level Sociology etc. I think that the developments within our society with regard to the Family are perhaps encouraging some Christians in the view that Sexuality, Marriage and Family are Primary Issues, when perhaps they are Secondary/Pastoral Issues stemming from the the Primary.

Over the years I've noticed the susceptability to Moral Panics of some Christians within Evangelicalism. In the early to mid-eighties I met conservative Pentecostal Christians who were "panicked' about the Soviet Union. It was a time of Cold war uncertainties for the world and so this concern seemed to have filtered down into a particularly evangelical form for these particular Christians. I was told by these quite young Pentecostals that the Soviet system was totally evil with the inference that it was the people of the USSR that were the problem and that they were poised to eradicate christianity via the Bomb. It didn't seem to occur to these well meaning folk that A) there were Christians in the USSR (albeit persecuted) and B) maybe our own socio-politico-enonomic system might also pose problems for the Gospel too.

As our wider society today tries to find models for understanding human sexuality and the seemingly new ways of doing 'family' , does this general concern filter down through Christians to form very particular viewpoints i.e. stand-up bluntly for absolute Gospel Truth ( according to how you see that truth) without thinking of the complexities.

Is it fair to say that Christians and members of other faith groups are not the only people in our society who are concerned about family and sexuality ?

What are the ramifications for Evangelicals in saying no to Gay Marriage but (perhaps a tentative) yes to Civil Partnership (with or without blessing)? Civil Partnership is secular so can we just say let those that want a CP get on with it? If some Christians are open to Gay marriage and are wanting acceptance of that view can they reciprocate by accepting that other Christians do not agree with them and do not agree, not because they are homophobes but because this a matter of faith and belief? It does seem that the line has been drawn between all parties. If we have to part from one another can we be GRACE FULL ?

Of interest is this web link http://www.petertatchell.net/ - this is Peter Tatchell's own website where he discusses many issues. On the home page there is a scroll down menu which leads to a section headed "Partnership" which has some interesting articles regarding relationships and the State.

Hi Roger & Karen

The short answer is surely that Archbp Akinola would not share a platform with Roy Clements on the grounds that someone holding his views and living with another man in a loving relationship cannot dy definition be a christian...; on the marriage versus partnership question: do we believe that marriage is a sacrament? If so, how can one section of humanity be excluded from it genetically/biologically/by nature (however you want to put it...)? Or if it's not a sacrament, but an order in society, why should the sex of partners make a material difference to its cohesive and educative virtues? I am quite aware that grounds of faith and belief are claimed by those who oppose the sanctioning of gay relationships; where I remain suspicious is in relation to the deepest motivations that make us cling to doctrines that, in certain circumstances, are toxic (remember apartheid and its groundings in faith; or think of the state of Israel and fundamentalist understandings of the Hebrew Bible...).  I thought Roger's last remarks on the OPen Evangelicalism thread were very wise. Thank you (and good luck with the nicotine withdrawal, if that's what it is!)

Tony

As someone who grew up from my teens into adulthood with very leftwing political views and Gay friends at my college of FE I've struggled with my response to homosexuality and homosexual people in the context of the scriptures and the church. I've not been able to exercise my faith or my opinions with Lesbian or Gay christians. In the congregations in which I have been, I've not been aware of their presence. I'm not expecting folks to wear an identifier badge just because I lack awareness but I suppose that evangelical churches, of any denomination, are not likely to feel like safe places for that many Gay people.

At the heart of my dilemma, which I don't seem to be able to resolve, are two issues. Firstly have I treated the "ban" on homosexual practice as a sign-up belief to prove to others that I'm fully fledged evangelical christian? Answer, probably..............secondly, if reading the scriptures with integrity, I have come to believe that homosexual practice is not what God wants for me but at the same time I want to fight homophobia whenever I encounter it; am I just screwed up? Answers on a postcard, no seriously I can't for the life of me see Jesus acting aggressively towards Gay people in the way some christians do. My position will not please christian fundamentalists or Gay people.

As I've progressed through life, leaving singledom and radical leftwing politics, (well maybe not entirely the politics), behind for heterosexual marriage and a family, together with evangelical christianity, I have met fewer and fewer people who are different from me. Even my non-believing friends are heterosexual married couples with children. I live in 99.9% white working class neighbourhood with some large council estates. The people I'm most likely to meet who are different from me are single mums. Relationships I have had with single mums have been quite difficult especially when they realise I'm a christian. Some seem to assume that I'm judging them.

I did step outside my box a few years ago when I developed very intense friendships with some former heroin addicts which drew me towards seeing their needs and how they were relating to God. But more than anything, I was blessed to realise that God had forgiven me as much as them because I had been no better than them. As with gay community, drug addicts feel under the condemnation of Christians and have general difficulty finding acceptance in churches. I am NOT trying to say that homosexuality and addiction are comparable issues in themselves; rather I'm trying say that here are two groups of people who find church difficult, difficult perhaps because many christians in the church are fearful of people different from themselves.

My last church focussed it's most recent evangelical "specials" at personal friends of it's existing members. Whilst we do want our friends to know Jesus, it's hardly surprising that churches are so homogenous, when people shy from more adventurous and open evangelical outreaches in their communities. I heard a number of members at my old church come up with all sorts of convoluted reasons (excuses) as to why we shouldn't do a more open mission. The reason seemed to be that we would attract people we couldn't cope with - oh dear me - I wonder who these people who we can't cope with are? I was shot down when I suggested any more open outreach. I also felt looked at warily because I was hanging round with christian heroin addicts. It seems that some people are determined to play cosy churches at the expense of sharing the Gospel with every kind of human being.

Therein lies another problem within evangelicalism and that is the idea of personal sin and that subtley, oh so subtley, some "sinners " are worse than others and somehow not really "redeemable". I know that isn't what the bible says but in practice it does seem to be what some Christians think and this is reflected in word and deed.

I have also realised that some christians don't see homosexuality as a sin, as they understand scripture. Is Homosexuality an issue in which we can continue to afford to really offend each other until the Second Coming. Or instead can we look for a way of graciousness through God's Grace towards one another. Jesus commanded that we love the Lord God and that we love our neighbours as ourselves (Matt 22:36-40), perhaps we should leave the Judgement part to Him; He didn't give the role of Judge to any of us. (Matt 7:1-5)

Dear Karen

thanks for your response. I *think* I understand most of what you say, but I'm not sure what would be useful as a reply. I have been a member of a church that had a number of gay and lesbian couples and singles for a time. The arrival of a new vicar with one small child and the birth of two more in rapid succession changed the focus of the congregation so much that it got a lot straighter -- and it wasn't evangelical! Mind you, straight single people can be driven away by couple culture too... I guess it depends a lot on location as much as doctrine; but beyond that I don't know quite what there is to say.

Evangelicals including fulcrumby ones are (understandably) perceived as anti-gay; and as you say, it has almost become a test of loyalty. Maybe you have to leave gay people to us liberals and catholics! Perhaps that's what you mean about looking graciously towards one another. But I really sympathize withy your dilemma -- you are on the hook I posted about a while back: I think all that can be done is prayerfully to seek another way of handling the bible, that can deal with these questions of sexuality (or of different ways of being family) in the open-hearted way that some evangelicals (and catholics) have been able to change their thinking and feeling about women in priesthood or episcopate, or about usury (see various threads here and the Bishop of Bangor...) If you do find a different way of using the bible (and for my own part, I find the division into primary and secondary much too rigid) it will probably also take you out of some definitions of evangelicalist loyalty. (I wonder quite how many crunch issues there are: the 'inerrancy of scripture', the doctrine of 'penal substitution', the sinfulness of all nonhetreosexual physical intimacy -- are there any more? It's currently only the last one that matters.)

Archbishop Rowan offers a challenging example from Dietrich Bonhoeffer in his Guardian interview today: "I'm very struck by what Bonhoeffer writes in the middle-30s about the division of the church over the Aryan laws in Nazi Germany, where he says both that it's extremely important not to try and work out in advance every circumstance in which it would be necessary for the church to break. Equally, it's important to have the freedom and the clarity to know when the moment comes, and there just isn't a formula for that, I think he's saying. He felt in 1935 the moment had come, that he was faced with a context in which he just couldn't see a common Christianity between himself and the German Christians who accepted the racial laws, he just couldn't see what it meant for them to think they were a church at all. And that's, you know, that's pretty drastic, but he says you've got to have the ability to say that at some point. But once you start saying in advance - well, I think it will be this that will be the moment where it would all crack... That, he says, is trying to - trying to find large-scale reinforcements for your present positions before you're actually entering into the moment of crisis." ++Rowan's summary is a key idea, as I see it: Bonhoeffer "just couldn't see what it meant for them to think they were a church at all." I suspect that scotches all sorts of ecclesiological agonizing (pace the Windsor report and all that); but it does give us a rather stark principle. As long as I -- from my own liberal point of view -- can see what it means for fundamentalists to think they are a church at all, I suppose it is not yet time to walk apart. But the victims of the process will be friends of yours and friends of mine. I'm afraid.

in via: with kind thoughts Tony

Hello people :-)

Tony, I was sad that even fulcrumby (good word, gives me a picture of having bits of digestive falling off me) evangelicals are perceived as anti-gay.  I really would like to know if it is a total impossibility for someone to understand marriage as heterosexual and not be anti-gay?  I have thought it was, but maybe that is simply from my cosy place of heterosexuality.  Is it inevitable that from a gay perspective we will be perceived as anti-gay?  I certainly would not want to be thought of as anti any person because they were gay, but how do I square that with my understanding of sexuality which might seem anti-gay from what you are saying.

I guess this might go back to our understanding of whether our sexuality is something that defines us.  What do you think about this?  I am coming from a perspective which would say that it doesn't define us and is in itself a penultimate quality of humanity.  If this is my perspective you might be able to see that I would be able to hold the idea of who someone is in Christ and what their sexuality is in separate places in my head.

Having said this, all our experiences and relationships will inevitably define who we are, but I would say that it is that way round, rather than who we are defining what our experiences might be, or who our relationships will be with.  Does that make sense?

Anyway, the reality is that most evangelical churches do not attract gay people, so we are doing something wrong, whatever that may be.

By the way, I would slightly disagree with you that sexuality is any more 'hot' a topic than the inerrancy of Scripture and penal substitution, in my experience people have got more animated about the last two than sexuality, partly because they don't think there is a debate to be had on the sexuality issue, which is a shame and incorrect, but the atonement has shaken the evangelical world more than some of its members actually know.

ooh sausages are burning...........

Love Jody