Hi Jody,

I think that C S lewis in his "The Discarded Image" indicates that the true bookish christianity is that of the Catholic Chrisendm of the medieval period. The enlightenment seems to be vey much about getting your hand dirty and seeing for yourself. This generated an optimism about the possibility of human achievment. The results of this power in human hands was recognised  as a result of WW 1 and clearly demonstrated by WW 11. The distortion of Christianity which may be detected i evangelicall theology is making it into an inductive or deductive system of timeless truths. The nature of faith as story and world view has been more recently recognised in the evangelical church whilst the wider culture expresses an inredulity of metanarrative.

The CE views theology as a reflection on revalation. The final truth about God was revealed in those last days in the person of his son. This truth is apprehended under the guidence of the Spirit by carefull excegesis. Put in those terms I think that the charismatic and open evangelical will accet this starting point but the charismatic will claim to be more open to the Spirit and the open evangelical more aware of the questions which modern culture asks of scripture. I believe that in the L'Abri movement remains true to its CE convictions and asks all the questionsyou could with of culture as do for example John Stackhouse and Os Guinness

Hi Tony

Am just about catching up on sleep, however got caught up in a film last night and didn't get to bed until midnight!  Ho hum, I'm still a child really, can't organise my own sleep...........

Regarding my comments on personhood and its definition; I believe that this stems back to how we understand who God is, and for this perspective I am totally indebted to my lecturer, John Colwell, for most of what I write, in fact you could probably say that for anything I write, pretty much the same caveat applies.........having said that, as he introduced me to the idea that there are only two questions 'what God and so what' it is inevitable that everything stems from the outworking of these two questions, for me anyway.

In light of this, basically everything comes back to the doctrine of God and in this John Zizioulas has been formational for me too, his book 'Being in Communion' is brilliant to say the least.  So rather than this being about us as persons, we need more to be thinking about God (generally this is my answer to everything   ;-).

About the 'Enlightenment'.  I haven't read any Kant (he's on my 'list', no really.......), I know that critique of this period has seemed negative, but I think that for Christians it has been a bit of a disaster, however God works in all things, so lets not let ourselves get into a slough of despond or anything :-)  In terms of a 'period of time', the Enlightenment period has been studied and seems to have produced - among other things like optimism, trust in progress, love of science - a trust in the individual.  This is not negative in itself, it is simply an observation of the consequences to society of that period of time.  For some this still will seem an incredibly positive thing, yet when Christians bought totally into this way of thinking and made it 'Christian' rather than 'Modern', we created a problem, in that when this 'way of thinking' or 'paradigm' shifted and culture reacted against 'modernity', Christians were suddenly struggling to extract the distinctness of Christianity from the modern way of perceiving the world.  I realise this is old news, but I'm explaining where my thought processes come from.  Rather than criticize the Enlightenment, it is perhaps better to criticize our reaction to it, but I think we have learned from it.  It is necessary that we don't wholeheartedly buy in to the new paradigm that we are now in, in the same way.  We must affirm what can be affirmed, but reject also what must be rejected, and in the end, through further engagement, transform what can be transformed through Christ (to paraphrase David Ford, gospel among different faiths, this website)

Anyway, I understand that some Christians don't agree with this perspective on modernity at all.  In fact, John R, I wonder if you could comment, as in my experience it has been CEs who have defended the rational, bookish nature of Christianity as being inherently Christian rather than Modern.  This might just be my experience and might not be a CE thing in general.............

better go

love jody

Hello

I've just arrived back from leading on a youth camp and so am absolutely the most knackered that I've ever been and that might possibly include having newborn babies, I know I'm prone to exaggeration, but I am sooooooo tired.

That's my caveat for any stupid thing I now type ;-)

Laurence and John, reading your discussion is heartening, I pray that you continue to grow and learn from each other.  I was particularly interested in what you were saying about the 'individual' Laurence and I wondered what you thought about the idea that actually the individual to be the best individual that particular person can be, actually has to be part of the 'whole' also?  What you seemed to be saying was that discovering oneself and who that self really is, is actually the purpose of our lives, and I'm assuming that you are also linking that discovery to that fact that the individual might be discovering who God has made them to be?

My feeling about this is that the 'particular' only becomes truly and distinctly themselves when they are part of the living community of the whole, this means that there is not a 'substantial' understanding of self, or rather the 'substantial' understanding of self is caught up in the 'relational'.  If this is the case then what you have said about gaining insight that is extraneous or second-hand is, in fact, exactly what makes us more distinctly ourselves, rather than the more enlightenment way of understanding 'self' which sees us sitting alone to 'find ourselves'.  This, of course, makes us vulnerable, it means that we are allowing ourselves to be defined 'outside' ourselves, but perhaps we discover that the 'outside' is actually where our 'self' is to be found.

I don't think we can make this purely subjective, but I also don't feel that we are being realistic to try to cling to an absolutely objective which, inarguably, is not pertainable for us at the moment.

am slowly sinking into a fog of zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

hi John, having slept on it, I have another reflection.  In your last paragraph, you say, something like :Are we to say then,  'If it feels good do it,as long as commited' ? I do think the word commitment is very important, crucial ultimately.

But as for 'feeling good'.  I think that while as a cretures we do like to feel good physically and most of all emotionally,and so it is crucial, I think that when it comes to relationships, it is about much more than feeling good.   Love goess way beyond that. And often people are put to inconvenience, troubles, or terrible suffering for the sake of love, for the sake of the beloved. (E.g. Romeo & juliet, etc).

So I think with love, we are in the realm of integrity --the psychological, spiritual  and human integrity of a life-of two lives  -- two persons, one heart.  They 'just know they have to be together', 'are made for each other', fated, feted, and 'drawn together by God'. All this kind of language. It may not fit an external frame of mores, doctrine or culture --but they feel and know in themselves, the rightness, goodness of their relationship, of their love -- with Juliet and Romeo, and many others.  So, yes, I think, that's it for me, it is not that it 'feels good' ('I can't get that girlie action...' as per the pop song), but that it is experienced as goodness, and later confirmed as good over the course of the years.

Also, it strikes me now, that it is often the early, 'licit' realtionships that happen when we are young -- so 'married properly' in church, at say 20 or whatever, that don't stand the test of time, or 'go awry'; and the later relationship that does work , does last. But that relationship may be regarded by C of E or RC denomination as wrong, because after  divorce --irrespective of the quality of the newer relationship.  (Or the newer relationship could be same-sex, if the person divorcing realized they'd been pressurized into an early marriage, before knowing their own heart.  Though divorce & re-mariage,  has been largely accepted by the C of E in practice. And same-sex relationships were accepted for the laity in 'Issues in Human Sexuality' some years ago now, under George carey'swatch.  And the HoB accepted that some clergy would enter into civil partnerships, and be treated as spuses and in due course, as widowers /  widows, by Church Law. ).

So after that digressin, my last idea was the realisation that it is often the later relationships , tradtionally seen as illicit, which are of better quality --feel and work well, or better, and may stand a test of time.  so that's a bit ironic, if the churches can't say, "Welcome, Congratulations--we seen you have learned, and gained so much from your life and the vicissitudes of your relationships.  You are now better placed to make of go of your loving and living.  We will share your pain and now joy.  We wil support you, stand by you."

Examples of what I mean, from the public record :

I well remember that godly bishop Kenneth Woolcombe ( then of Oxford,or retired from,I think ), who married later in life in a registry office.   I think his wife had died and he married someone who had been previously divorced.  He was criticized and yet how could it have helpd any one for them not make each other happy, and support each other through the life that remained to them ?  Myself, I just don't see the Jesus of the gospels demuring, at all.  Let alone blaming them.  I do mean the Jeus of the gospels ( and not the Constantinian Christ, or the one of certain Byzantine coats of arms.)

Father Williams CR in his *autobiography he speaks of sex, relationships, self discovery, 'wild oats' if you will.  It is clear that all this is necesary on his path from mental breakdown, to wholeness, self knowledge, and ultimately a kind of 'self transcendance'.  Ultimately, he took religious vows, becoming a Mirfield Father.  His life of celibacy seems to have grown out of his years trying to find and heal himself.

I still find his books very creative, visionary and helpful, -- and his 'Poverty, Chastity Obedience--the true virtues' ; and The True Wildreness, & True Resurrection,  relevent to this discussion.

* Some Day I'll Find You.

John, i want to let you know of a change in me, during our discussions.  I now find that I no longer feel polemic when  writing in response to your posts--but more thoughtful.  Also I no longer harbour feelings of blame or anger towards you. (I am being very honest). I feel encouraged that I can improve.  Perhaps you have had a hand in it --it takes two to relate / get on.  Though areapproaches are so apparently different, I feel like a collaborator --you have helped me feel and think.

I do feel for you words, that at times you find yourselfasking, "is it just me ?" Thanks for your honesty and heart felt words.

with my best wishes

laurence

Good points and  questions, John.  You have articulated what I have certainly struggled with, and how very painful these things are for young people, struggling to find a way, the way. To find their self, their feet, and live with integrity.  I think it is (can be) vey tough for christians.

Perhaps we should not be putting people through anything ?  Perhaps this is where th autonomy of the individual comes in to its own ? Folk would need to feel that any course of action, is from deep sensibility and personal conviction, and not extraneous / second hand --determined by others -whether the Bp. of Rome or ppps (parish pulpit possessors!).

I agree deeply, John, with the  issue, you have identified.Are people are honoured for the conscintious decisions and sacrifices they have made. (or have they 'wasted their time' as you ask--or indeed their life, or something vital within their life ? ).  I do not feel 'the church' does truly and deeply honour such people and such decisions.  And IMPORTANTLY I do not feel people are supported emotionally, personally, morally or practically.   The huge emphasis on families, couples and the superficiality of middle class life and culture in churches, is hardly supportive of those who find themselves in a different situation. Or who have  so chosen. Also, up until recently, these things were not much discussed or written of.

For myself, I was very fortunate and count myself blessed to have found the 'pastoral care & counselling' movement, as a Curate.  I was particlrly lucky, as I believe few UK dioceses have an organised 'pc & c' organisation to meet the needs of clergy and other workers.  This is the only 'part of the Church' which I found gave effective help, resource, support and a real chance to reflect theologically on my experiences, dilemmas and choices.

So as far as 'the deanery scenario' goes I should want there to be all kinds of opportunites for people to take account of, recognise and reflect on the facts and feelings of their lives.  So I would be interested in the deanery folk I referred to below, and want theological, psychological , pastoral and existential reflection on,  the data of their lives.  (If they wanted it, or when they wanted to). For me , some of the SPCK Library of Pastoral Care give pointers,to  this kind of way--especailly books of Michael Jacobs (Swift to Hear, etc., SPCK), Mary Anne Coate, John Fosket, Peter Selby and Wesley Kerr, etc.  But for me, it the psychological ones, drawing on CPE and ultimately back to Jung and Freud which I find most solid and useful, in helping myself -- or others. I also find the InnerCity books imprint by Jungian therapists very creative spiritually too.  (Swamplands of the Soul-- New Life in dismal Places, is particluarly good).  Also the kind of approach of the St. Marylebone Centre and the minister who is also a Jungian analyst.  He in fact, (name escapes me for the moment) draws in theology, spirituality and 'spiritual direction' type thinking too.

Hope this makes sense.   I realize it wouldn't be everyone's solution / way forward.  I have fond this approach, hugely useful, enabling and productive, both  for myself and others.

I understand that Mark Tully (Something Understood, radio 4, sundays 6.30 & 23.30) had two relationships at the same time, without dishonesty and that the three of them worked things out  together.  Although  both were women, this may well have a bearing upon this discusion.

Also, many years ago, when  a Curate, the vagiries of the various (heteroxesual) relationships among the Deanery ministers was quite an eye opener to me, from a PB background !  Two anglo-catholics lived with women, and would not marry as they could not bear to break the teaching of the  Church, by divorcing their ex-wives!  (I always found this rather hard to follow, somehow! :-) ).

There was me -'nuff said, and a Curate from an evangelical parish confided he was afraid he was gay, and went into therapy , and was engaged in no time !

I think many could further enlighten us, but with such personal matters, great trust is called for. I seek, myself, to approach such matters phenomenologically, which is freeing.

Nelson's Embodiment should shed light -not read it recently. And Adrian Thacher.

In my initial attempt at posting on this issue, I quoted Issues in Human Sexuality in full. That was the post that I messed up, and which didn't appear, but for the sake of clarification, here is what Issues says:

"We recognise that there are those whose sexual orientation is ambiguous, and who can find themselves attracted to partners of either sex. Nevertheless it is clear that bisexual activity must always be wrong for this reason, if for no other, that it inevitably involves being unfaithful. The Church's guidance to bisexual Christians is that if they are capable of heterophile relationships and of satisfaction within them, they should follow the way of holiness in either celibacy or abstinence or heterosexual marriage. In the situation of the bisexual it can also be that counselling will help the person concerned to discover the truth of their personality and to achieve a degree of inner healing."

I appreciate not everyone will have been able to look up the relevant paragraph, but as I've indicated by my italics, Issues is quite clear: bisexual activity is always wrong for at least the stated reason that it would involve unfaithfulness.

However, I keep reading that the only proper goal for the Church is to include people of bisexual orientation. Yet no-one seems to have advanced a concrete proposal about how this might be achieved (no-one except the Quakers, anyway). I am suggesting strongly, therefore, that the whole debate is being conducted in a way that we may politely call 'disingenuous', and that this is something which needs facing. Either bisexuals should be excluded from the 'inclusive' agenda, or someone should explain how they are to be included. My frank suspicion is that the subject is being avoided because it is too hot a topic. Maybe the people to ask are Colin Coward or Richard Kirker.

Hi

Some of my responses will be slightly out of date, because I've not been able to post for some reason, but now 'the master' has sorted me out, so.......

Alan, with regards to your comment about children 'consenting' to paedophile actions.  I understand (just) what you are trying to say, but isn't the point, just that children are children? They cannot consent with any real understanding of what they are consenting to, unlike adults who have a certain amount of understanding with which to make a decision about what they are doing.  I think we must draw a different 'line' if we are going to properly discuss issues of sexuality.

With homosexual relationships there are two equally consenting partners, as opposed to an 'abuser' and a 'victim' as there is in a paedophile encounter, 'grooming' is a well known technique in which a paedophile illicits a child's 'consent', but we would not give that any credence, would we?

Now, the question you might ask is whether just because both partners are 'consenting' does this mean that the action is 'okay' and not that we actually have two 'abusers/victims' in the scenario with both people taking on both roles and effectively not 'understanding' what they are doing to each other in a spiritual and even physical sense.  I realise that I am being crude in my language.  I guess this is a valid question - does the answer you have come to match with the conversations and relationships that you have had with gay people?

I too am 'traditionalist' in my understanding of sexuality, but I think that, particularly with references to paedophilia, we can push real people, with whom we might engage, into our peripheral vision in a way that only allows us to see them in an opaque way and ensures no real engagement at all.

Also, I am interested in the 'invert' word.  What does it mean and why do you use it?

John R, with regards to your very first question, which I did try to reply to at the time :-) I don't think that 'issues' says bisexuality is 'always' wrong because it is inherently always wrong, but because it will lead to unfaithfulness.  I think that someone already said that if someone with bisexual orientation can enter, and be faithful in, a marriage then great, if they want to be faithful to someone of their own sex, then the issues regarding homosexual relationships are where the discussions are.  In this I would be surprised if you found a website specifically propounding a Christian way of being in two relationships, or moving between a heterosexual and homosexual relationship without this being obviously in the arena of adultery or promiscuity, which is, of course, an issue for all Christians, not just bisexual ones.

Have to spend this morning packing :-(  see you in a week.

love Jody