www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=122

Oliver O'Donovan's sermon on the role of bishops at the consecration of +Tom Wright is also relevant to the ongoing dialogue within the chuch.

http://www.sydneyanglicans.net/aroundtheweb/consecration_of_the_bishop_of_durham_oliver_odonovans_sermon

If Oliver O'Donovon (and others) truly  wish to engage with gay (& lesbian ?) christians, then the 'St. Andew's Day statement' was hardly the way to inititate it.  They need to  net work, make relationships and engage with us. This will be small scale and informal in the early stages / years. Just sending out Oxbridge style missives, that seem, at best,  condescending, and at worse, attacking. Oliver's present piece I also find patronisning, and I am in no hurry to engage with him. I do not believe he is genuine and open. 

If he thinks that the present time is one conducive to open sharing and engagment in the Anglican Churches, he is even more insensative to the lives of lgbt people.  In the Uk., our wown gay bishops are keeping their heads down--  I don not hear the house of bishops rushing to support them, let alone ordinary vicars and Readers. The treatment of ordinands and trainee Readers, is appalling as we are hearing, and gay people are living lives of fear and anxiety. The situation is becoming worse in the C of E., just at a time when life for lgbts is improving in the wider community (Civil Partnerships, acceptance, and so on).

If you are serious about dialogue engage with us sincerely. Publish the suppressed Osborne Report (at last!), and publish the proceedings of the last Lambeth conference's section on sexuality, which George Carey caused to be suppressed, and replaced by 'Lambeth 1.10'.

At the end of the day, this is my life, not a nice (sic) intellectual exploration.

Thanks Oliver and Fulcrum for such a valuable addition to the often tedious and fractious discussion of homosexuality and Christianity. 

My brief response relates to the last two paragraphs. They are the most pertinent to me personally as a gay Christian woman. I feel inclined to learn them by heart as they propose a hopeful and workable way forward for me. (I'll put your words in italics.)

the difficulty of raising questions in public - thanks for acknowledging this and please don't underestimate it, especially for evangelicals in positions of leadership.

... a conciliar process that will take up the experience of homosexual Christians as its leading question ... As far as I can tellis deeply in the interest of gay Christians, men and women, that their experience - by which is meant not merely sexual experience, not merely emotional experience, and not merely the narrative of experience, but the whole storehouse of what they have felt and thought about their lives, should become a matter of wider reflection, reflected on by those who are called to live this experience, by those who are called to accompany them in their living, by all who share their understanding of living as something they owe an account of to God.
Yes, yes, yes, Oliver, I wholeheartedly agree that is it is in my interest (and I dare say yours and other members of Christ's body) as a human being and a disciple of the Lord Jesus Christ to have the whole storehouse of my experience reflected upon, and yes, I have done so daily for the last thirty years, and more recently within the company of some precious and trusted friends. (And, I think, to real mutual benefit.) But can I, should I, how can I, enter a wider arena for reflection when the wider arena is so hostile and dangerous.

I am sorry that The Way Forward was such a disheartening experience for you. I thought your contribution was far and away the best, and I could only concur with David Atkinson's highly favourable review in the Church Times which first pointed me in the book's direction. As you say, What remains important about the attempt .. was that it addressed questions quite specifically to gay Christians, not to liberals, and about the essentials of Christian faith.

I agree that the way is long - and I am still on it. I wholeheartedly agree that there is an exploration to be had, which, if undertaken in good faith, might yield a common discussion over what it could mean to be both homosexual and Christian.

But I question your assumption and conclusion that It appeared that Christian gays were not prepared for that discussion at that time. Fruitful gay self-interrogations in the secular world had not yet prompted gay believers to embark upon a comparable course. Oliver, I was and am still prepared to embark upon such a course, but how? Both the secular world and the liberal church, for all their faults, appear to provide a safer space for gay discussion than any evangelical forums I've ever been in (present web company excepted.)

Phew,

Perhaps I'm just tired at the moment but I found that heavy going (although interesting)!

Let me get this summary straight:

Liberalism (both theological and political) grew out of an era where 'morals' were held to be 'obvious and self-evident' (I'm thinking of the opening lines of The Declaration of Independance here).  The noblest and highest of western societies values were the bench mark of human rectitude 'back then'.

From these assumed values the western church derived their 'neo-dogma' and reinterpreted 'pre-modern' assumptions of Christian doctrine (especially the nature of Sin, Creation, Judgement etc..) in light of these assumed ethical values.

I'm thinking here that this was part of the 'progressive paradigm' of the time, where it was assumed that human culture would just evolve increasingly into it's fullest and noblest expression (a form of sanctification/theosis by cultural progression).  As a side note this always seemed, to me, to be a flawed paradigm since it seemed to ignore the latent 'infection' of humanity by 'evil' which prevents such 'natural' evolution...(the book of Judges was a more likely outcome, 'Every one did what was fit in their own eyes..')

Accordingly, this 'liberal' modus operandi had a fatal flaw in it's ignoring of how 'evil' distorts human thinking as well as the fact that it's assumptions (ethical values) were, in turn, in need of derivation themselves (and couldn't just be 'assumed' from a consensus of society at the time - for the reason of 'evil' stated above).  Why should emancipation be an 'self-evident right'?  I know it's been said before but Jefferson et al clearly didn't think that emancipation applied to ethnic minorities within the colonies (i.e the african slaves) and that it took Martin Luther King to point out this hypocrisy at the heart of american identity (but that's for another thread!).

Prof O'Donovan pointed out that if one is going to triumph 'reason' (as the modernists did) then we need to reason all of our a priori positions (including which moral values are to be 'obvious' of not) - this the theological liberals singularly failed to do.

Thus, when western society's morals and behaviour went 'belly up' (many millions dead in wars, famines and genocide) the liberal position was fatally undermined.  Society didn't seem to be engaging in one glorious theosis, things weren't progressing towards an harmonious outcome.

The break up of the modernist 'ideal' and the movement towards western capitalist economies lead western society into a new 'value system', namely that of polemic against the 'evil East' (communist ideology etc..).  The 'west' was seen as a haven of self-determination and personal freedom.  If any one was 'oppressed' then the west offered the hope of 'liberty'.  In keeping with it's a priori assumption that society sets the 'Divine agenda', this led western Chrisitan liberalism into this paradigm where is proceeded to champion the cause of any/all oppressed minorities.  From my perspective this is not (in itself) a 'bad' thing, but Prof O'Donovan seems to be saying that, due to Liberalism's (long established) 'non-critical' stance concerning which of society's agendas it would or wouldn't support, it was led into a posture of unquestioningly supporting any minority or championable cause within society.

Prof O'Donovan says that this desire to 'do as society wishes' means that liberal Christianity actually fails to engage in a debate and discussion with the experiences and agendas of society.  He seems to be saying that society (and he mentions Gay Christians to illustrate this) desires a creative, mature and helpful discussion about the nature and reality of it's experience in order to 'make sense' of what it feels and experiences.  However all Liberal Christianity offers is a reflexive 'Yes' to whichever choice or lifestyle that is chosen.

This makes me think of the stars of Hollywood who crave honest feedback and discussion about their strengths and weaknesses, but who fall into chaos when surrounded only by sycophants and 'yes-men'.

If Christianity is to be 'useful' to society (and achieve the theosis and transformation that Liberal Christianity also looks for) then it needs to be able to say, 'No', to some things even as it hopefully also says, 'Yes', to others.

Prof O'Donovan appears to be saying, in short, that it is Liberal Christianity's general failure to be able to say, 'No', to any minority or minority lifestyle which marks it's overall failure to actually be the agent of theosis within human culture.

It appears that he is, if anything, calling for a restoration of the 'Anglican Way' (pace Bishop Ware!) where creative dialogue can occur amongst and with Christians who have a homosexual orientation/identity without either:

a) Liberals blinding saying, 'Yes, yes, yes - whatever you want...'

and

b) 'Conservatives' saying, 'No, go away you sodomites to the firey pit of hell' (or something like that...) 

I would suspect that what this might look like is an increasing acceptance of the fact (as opposed to the 'sin') of homosexual orientation and identity (and openess and love towards those so self-defined) combined with the ability, however, to say, 'No' to such sexual expression as defining the model of human sexuality (with consequent significance for those whose role it is to 'model' the ideal humanity (=Christ) as much as possible = Christian leaders).

Have I undestood the article correctly?

Richard

User 794 says, "In the Uk., our wown gay bishops are keeping their heads down--  I don not hear the house of bishops rushing to support them, let alone ordinary vicars and Readers."

As far as bishops, at least or at most, are concerned this is a statement made that cannot be confirmed or denied by the writer or by anyone else. Not just painting kettles or white milk jugs black or whatever. No evidence presented.

I think, Ken, if you look back a bit you might find that laurence had mentioned where the evidence you're keen on might be found. When I even said that names should NOT be named, I got a telling off from Simon -- presumably for suggesting that there were any names at all. At the moment we are all stuck with a policy or conspiracy of silence. Occasionally bishops retire and then speak something like the truth. Tony

I am an irate American Episcopalian over what just happened in my church's convention.  They basically gave you English siblings a "here's mud in your eye" toast to your upcoming General Synod.  Talk about stirring up the pot. It was a double dare for you guys to react to their "charade"and a kick in the pants to the primates' meeting.  (You'all recall a look at the Dromantine official lineup photo with a very disgruntled Frank T. Grisworld in the last row, probably intentionally put there for being a bad boy!!!) Frank got his revenge in his going out party.  Our Global Southern brethren are going to be beating their Bibles in an how-dare-you reaction and will most predictably reallign ranks now that Kathy Schorri is the PB. I'd think they'd disagree that the point is more plainly a question of DOWNRIGHT HERESY, rather than a liberal paradigm.

For as much as I agree with our brother Oliver in theory, he must remember that theological sturm und drang has been the political practice by the leadership of the Church of England from the getgo I think mainly because it was founded as a state church and not with any, ahhem, Magisterium like you all where.

HE HAS TO TONE DOWN HIS STYLE TO A READING PUBLIC WHO IS INFECTED WITH SHORT, SIMPLE "SOUND-BYTE" IDEAS, INSTEAD TO WRITING LIKE A RICHARD HOOKER.!!!!!!!!! sort of like I did in this add to thread .(It's what I do with my high school students).

Hope you're reading this, Olie, because while I can highlight your main points on paper, I'd find myself nodding off if I tried to follow this as a preached sermon. I've read you before and you're a tough don to follow.  Switch to vicar mode if possible. You've got to tone down the Oxford sprach to a more communicative style of English, something that you may hear in the future replacement leading Anglican theological campuses of Uganda, Kenya or Nigeria!!!!

Dan, in the Diocese of New Jersey

Hi all

thanks Richard for your, I think representative, summary of Oliver's essay.  What a mind eh?  Although I do sometimes think that it is worth the effort to tune into someone else's thinking even when you know they are several rungs above you in the 'intellectual' food chain, even if you just get a 'breath' of what is being said it is worth it.

I think User 1017 caught a sense of what was said and it was very helpful for her analysis of some of the points from her perspective (Hi, by the way, 1017)

I think it made me want to go 'woohoo, at last'.  Someone has voiced (well at least in my circle of information, it's probably been voiced elsewhere, but anyway) that 'gay Christian' does not necessarily equal 'liberal Christian'.  Now I don't want to get slammed here, this doesn't mean that I don't want to listen to all my brothers and sisters and gain from the 'liberal' paradigm also, but to separate these two has been most refreshing for me.

I also am interested what people think about the 'victim' mentality that Oliver seems to state is an outcome of the Liberal theology.  It's a fine line I think between thinking, because I'm a minority I deserve the championing of the Church ultimately being defined by that minority label(report?? :-), and only when championed belong, and belonging to the Church in which my fragility is accepted and transformed in some way.  It almost sounds like a self-imposed exclusion. (I realise that may sound completely ignorant, but we need to start discussion somewhere)

It reminds me of the saying that I was taught as a youth worker some years ago:

belong believe behave

I did not realise that this was a reworking of the even older phrase: believe behave belong.

I think that this was a positive reworking.

It also reminds me of something that CS Lewis says in Mere Christianity about not using Christianity to champion another cause (like pacifism in his context)

Simply belong, let Christ transform us.

love Jody

An interesting comment from Cloe Breyer on the Slate website:

Since Bishop Robinsons election that year, the ecclesiastical leaderships in Nigeria, Uganda, and Singapore have refused to accept any aid from the development agency of the American church. It is one thing for an archbishop to refuse expenses-paid trips to the United States for the sake of doctrinal purity. It is another to refuse aid for women and children in countries like Nigeria, where the annual per capita income is $1,400 and the rate of child mortality is 97 deaths per 1,000. Such actions lose sight of the Gospel. References in the New Testament to the needs of widows, orphans, and the poor outnumber references to the evils of homosexual behavior by at least 50 to 1. 

If Christianity be a universal religion, suited not only to one locality or
period, but to all times and all places, it cannot but vary in its relations
and dealings towards the world around it, that is, it will develop..and [its
principles] must be thrown into new shapes according to the form of society
which they are to influence.

John Cardinal Newman

Well... I have a lot of sympathy with 786 after attempting to follow that. I can't for the life of me see why a pas en arriere is preferable to a step backwards. (Unless the retrograde conservatism of that is just too obvious: see John R elsewhere on women and the episcopate) The baffled will always complain about lack of clarity I guess. A step backwards would unravel a good deal, of course. As is clearly the view elsewhere, if the reception of women's ministry is a kind of probationary period then we could step back and rescind it; Prof O'Donovan's example about the ethics of divorce would be another useful case: should the church step back there and disallow any remarriage -- or divorce itself -- and certainly withdraw the licenses of divorced clergy?

Who is meant to be addressed here? It looks as though you'd need to be an academic theologian to join in the conversation, if that's what it is invited -- or is it just 'perhaps mischievous'? I don't know anything about Ritschl and precious little about Kant: is the idea that I have to before I can have a view? It is clearly not enough to feel that the way the church has behaved doesn't seem to reflect the Jesus of the gospels who won my mind and heart.

I have some other queries:

Can we have some clarification of 'the aesthetic and  emotional timbre of gay experience'? Is 'gay experience' as monolithic as the phrase suggests? Any more than 'straight experience' would be?

Does a survey in History of Ideas tell us anything about something called the liberal project, as if it was something that  people signed up to? And I'm not sure about centrifugal poles either. generally there are two of those. The other crisis that the image seems to indicate is the one in evangelical rigorism.