Tom Butler has changed his mind

But not his position going by this morning's Radio Four 'Thought for the Day'. We had Tom Butler speaking of Theresa May in the light of her revelation that she has changed her mind. Tom extrapolated May's change of mind into the observation that she wasn't alone and that, "It was remarkable to observe how, in spite of tradition religious teaching, public opinion in Britain over a decade or so in a clear shift of thinking has mostly changed its mind over homosexuality." Seems mind-changing is catching on - pity expanding it isn't!)

Whilst the world might have changed its position, seems to me that a large part of the Church hasn't. Then again, this would explain the moving away from orthodox or traditional Christian teaching as they were under it anyway! (Perhaps Tom needs to stay in more!).

Apparently (Tom continues), "The reason is simple in that it is difficult to hold dogmatic views about what is good or desirable behaviour when some of the obviously loving and responsible people you actually encounter are behaving in an alternative way. And, after all, love is a Gospel imperative."

Love is indeed an imperative, agape (perfect love) - all the way. Then again so is obedience and this obedience urges us to stay away from eros (sexual love)in a wrong setting. Filial love is cool, but that's not sexual love either and in fact, abstaining from wrong forms of eros is part of fulfilling agape in our lives! Seems, we might have a bit of a disagreement over what is good and desirable and, nice as they are, 'being happy', 'being faithful' and 'loving' are only part of the equation.

Tom moves to parallel divorce and homosexuality. He reasons that just as people were once prejudiced against divorce and remarriage and that thirty years ago people weren't remarried in church (this of course changed because people changed their minds as their kids and grand kids were the divorced people) and how, in the past, people remained in loveless marriages with the pressure this put on the family. As a result, the church, seeking to be pastoral, took the step of marrying divorcees (and of course, still wanting to be pastoral should now, I would assume, do the same for homosexuality).

Now there are many differences here and comparing divorce and homosexuality is a pretty big step of inclusion as it compares chalk and cheese and focusses on fudge. That some will change their position when someone they know becomes involved in some previously held taboo must be taken as a 'given'. It's called accommodation. Many of the people (Christian and secular) I have met are unable to drop their standards and bin their values and in so doing cause Tom's assertions to fall (yet again).

Extrapolating as Tom does, on what was taboo in the fifties and is now acceptable leads me to assume that so too will other sexual stuff that we now consider taboo be in fifty years or so! Let's hope not for the sake of the children!

Continuing Tom's 'thought', we moved on to Malawi and the case of two homosexual men who are serving 'hefty prison sentences' for 'loving one another'. Fourteen years hard labour is an extremely OTT response by any standards as I see it and should have all of us concerned and making a stand, regardless of our views. That the penalty is wrong does not, of course, confer rightness on the act that promulgated that penalty/

From here we have a quick trip to illustrate the fact that we (Anglicans) live within extremely diverse cultures. Of course, citing Maryland and the consecration of Mary Glasspool as evidence is just a little too weird and he might have done better if he'd used Malawi. Glasspool's relationship she has with another woman, is (according to Tom) legitimised by twenty odd years together and the fact that she was a lesbian was 'simply a non-issue' to the people who gathered for the service where she was made a bishop! Of course it was a non-issue, everyone there was a liberal. If he'd been to a cannibal lunch club would he expect the people present to be vegetarian? It is facile to say that because the liberals supported a liberal consecration that this is evidence of universal acceptance.

Tom of course was spot on when he spoke of the fact that the people at Glasspool's consecration couldn't grasp the fact that their liberal attitudes had severe consequences for people who lived in minority situations in Africa and Egypt (although U thought Egypt was in Africa!). It's called 'self first, self always, self on the throne' and is at the root of much liberal theological thinking and practice. Loving God above self is what being a Christian is all about - denying sin, not denying Him. Obedience and seeking what is right - just not popular is it?

Tom claims to have changed position regarding liberality and minority Christians, for which I am grateful (if this is the case). I am just a little concerned by the words:

"The price of holding the communion together can't all be paid by stifling the lives of gay people in the West and cruelly punishing them in Africa."

Here's a thought:
"The price of holding the communion together can't all be paid by denying two thousand years of traditional and orthodox faith or cruelly punishing those in the West and putting at risk those in Africa."