In publishing the Presidential address to his synod, Jim Jones (Liverpool not Guyana) has drawn our attention to some interesting thinking and presented a wide gate and a broad path to take the CofE forward (see Matt 7:13-14).
Rather than address issues that might help shape a Christian response to the forthcoming elections or led us into a consideration of Jesus and faith issues JJ has instead retreated to the contemplation of (hopefully) his navel and brought us (yet again) to the topic of [yawn] sexuality once again, stating that for some, homosexuality has become the defining issue of orthodoxy. I would agree with him that it most certainly is not the defining issue but is certainly a defining issue. I would also say that the attitudes towards life, and more importantly the ending of it by abortion and euthanasia, are another area where the Church should engage in definite and unequivocal views.
If the church management was to support both sides we would be in a position whereby neither side would bring about unity and unless I've misunderstood it the divided house that will result will see more strife and as the Boss Himself said, "Any kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and a house divided against itself will fall!" (Lk11) Wise words indeed.
Sexuality is not the defining issue but I have to respectfully point out that whilst it is possible to entertain a number of views regarding, in this case, sexuality, one will occupy the position of being the guiding and controlling viewpoint - they will never exist as equals. Not only that but as I have seen, the road to hell is paved with people who get their feet in the door and then slowly, Cuckoo like, ease the others out of the nest so that only their viewpoint is taken as valid (see FiF and their struggle over the women's ordination)! Not only that but to suggest that the two different positions can exist in parallel is to confer upon that which has for two thousand years of Christian teaching and throughout the Jewish teaching been wrong, some measure of legitimacy. It is sanctifying and approving that which, as I understand it and have been taught all of my Christian life, is just plain wrong.
Some have heralded this 'great move forward' as something that will enhance the Christian life, witness and mission of the CofE. To this I have to most respectfully point out that some conversations I have had with ecumenical church leaders would see such a move as being the final straw and would see the CofE disenfranchised by other churches and denominations. It would also see an exodus from the CofE to other denominations and groupings. Taking this into account I struggle to see how life, mission or witness would be enhanced by JJ's 'wisdom'.
To claim, as some do, that JJ is a herald for the evangelicals and his speaking as he does signifies a move by evangelicals towards more open and accommodating views is merely hopeful engagement of the Simon & Garfunkel gene in that they are seeing what they want to see and disregarding the rest. I will consign this thinking to the same box marked 'Evangelical Universalism' and look forward to them coming and emptying it tomorrow with the black bins! The man certainly doesn't speak for rank and file evangelicals and I do have a sneaky suspicion that I know not only who he's speaking for but I also think I know where he's speaking from . . . . .
It's Liverpool, not Guyana (isn't it?)
Pax
No comments:
Post a Comment