Good disagreement?
I spent last Sat in London at a consultation organised past the Church building of England Evangelical Council on (approximate what?) the current debate on sexuality. The focus was a new book by Martin Davie, commissioned past CEEC, looking at all the major publications on the Bible and same-sex unions that have come up out since the Church written report Some Issues in Human Sexuality. The impulse for this research came from the Pilling report, which suggested that scholarship had shifted in recent years, and it was no longer clear what Scripture really said or meant, though did not give evidence to support this claim. The invitation list included people with a broad range of views, some who would call themselves evangelical, some conspicuously not, and the whole spectrum of views on whether the Church building should change its educational activity.
I must confess that I was not looking forward to it. Notwithstanding another discussion, and more potential conflict—and on a day when I would much rather be having a prevarication-in, doing some gardening, and spending fourth dimension with friends and family. In fact information technology turned out to be a very positive and valuable occasion.
The piece of work Martin Davie had washed was very expert. The book is bundled in three sections, the kickoff exploring and citing 'revisionist' approaches to the texts, the 2nd doing the same with 'traditionalist' approaches, and the 3rd evaluating the respective arguments. Martin was concerned both to allow the arguments on each side to stand on their own merits, and to separate his evaluation from the texts, so that they could be considered carefully.
The arroyo was not without its critics. I recall we all felt that a unproblematic polarisation of views into 'traditionalist' and 'revisionist' was always going to be slightly problematic, though probably necessary as a wide outline. There are many things about the 'traditionalist' view which I wouldn't myself support, and I have gained insights from engaging with people who might be labelled 'revisionist'.
The 2nd primary criticism was of Martin's characterisation of our approach to Scripture. He suggested that there could be three main understandings:
- It could be the case that the existence of conflict shows that the teaching of Scripture on this matter is inherently unclear and that therefore caution is required.
- It could be that example that the scholarly debate about the education of Scripture on this matter is currently inconclusive and that for this reason caution would be sensible.
- Information technology could be the instance that the teaching of Scripture is clear and that the conflict is due to the fact that the people on i side of the disharmonize take simply failed to interpret Scripture properly. In this last case circumspection would not be justified. The Church building should declare the clear instruction of Scripture.
Many, perhaps about, of those who would like to come across a alter in the Church's pedagogy proposed a 4th possibility: that Scripture is clear to the limited extent that it engages with the issue, but that what we are at present considering (faithful, committed, same-sexual practice spousal relationship) is something that Scripture knew nothing of and therefore does non—indeed cannot—speak to. This proffer appears to brand assumptions in three areas:
- Social context. It assumes that the scriptural authors cannot accept had whatever conception of committed and faithful same-sex relations.
- It assumes that modern conceptions of 'sexuality' (which generally arose in the nineteenth century) fundamentally change our agreement of what it is to exist sexual humans—and that this anthropology is superior to the theological anthropology that we notice in Scripture.
- The authority of Scripture. All the people articulating this on the twenty-four hour period expressed their belief in the authority of Scripture, but that Scripture was unable to address our present question in the mode nosotros are asking it because it was trapped in its own cultural world. Only to claim this is in fact to make a statement about the nature of the authority of Scripture, and it is ane that departs from classical Anglican understandings in this surface area.
To my heed, Martin'due south work did demonstrate convincingly that in that location is no real case, based on what Scripture says and how it is interpreted within the Anglican tradition, for the Church building of England to change its teaching position on this discipline.
Ane of the most valuable things for me was (equally I always find) to appoint with people of different views face to face in a constructive context. Andrew Goddard had done an excellent chore of both inviting a practiced range of people and creating a positive process for common engagement. We spend time in the morning in small groups of iii or four, listening to each others' stories of how we had engaged with this result. There was a truly fascinating interleaving and interweaving of question of theology, philosophy, reflection and personal experience, and I felt I was beingness invited into a sacred space of other people's experience. In the afternoon we were in different, larger groups, because the issue in a dissimilar manner, but it was every bit illuminating.
From all these conversations 1 particular thing that came out very conspicuously for me—that the people with whom I don't agree on the result of sexuality take a wide range of views, and therefore my disagreement was oft for very different reasons. There were a number of people with whom I had much in common regarding our cadre theological outlook, fifty-fifty though we differed on this particular question. It was therefore piece of cake to have a constructive conversation about our reasons for differing. On the other hand, at that place were some people in attendance whose expression of Christian faith seemed a very long way indeed from annihilation which could exist described equally 'historic Anglicanism.' With these people I felt I had very little in common, and disagreement on the question of sexuality was the to the lowest degree of our differences!
This illustrates how engagement with this question can actually lead us on to chat nigh much deeper issues of belief, estimation and theology. Information technology is this which makes the issue and so of import to engage with.
So tin there exist 'good disagreement' equally we move forward? Despite all these positives, I am not clear that there tin be 'good disagreement', and on the day it was suggested that the pain and challenge in the give-and-take could either be 'birth pangs' of something good and new, or indeed the hurting of impending divorce. The position that has been reached regarding women in leadership is often cited as providing a model for 'skillful disagreement' and continued co-existence of conflicting views. I am pretty clear, though, that this cannot work, for three reasons:
- Offset, as I have argued elsewhere, the nature of the biblical texts are quite different in the two cases. In relation to women in leadership, in that location clearly exist texts in Scripture which, at least on a surface reading, at some points assert and at other points prohibit women in leadership. Both sides on that fence agree on this, then neither side could be seen as rejecting biblical teaching simpliciter.
- Secondly, the nature of the question is quite dissimilar. It would exist possible to have parts of the church with women in leadership, and other parts without women in leadership, and imagine that these two regimes could, in principle, coexist. Merely information technology would be impossible to even imagine the same thing happening on this result. Information technology could not exist the instance, fifty-fifty in principle, to have same sexual activity unions as opposite to catechism law (and therefore giving rise to clergy subject area) in ane diocese, and non in another. Such a patchwork arroyo would never stand up up in police force.
- Thirdly, this debate is not so much nearly whether SSM is right or wrong; the lines are clearly drawn (though a number of stories show that people can change from one side to another). The primary give-and-take is whether or not the issue is adiaphora—whether we can concur to disagree or not. It is not possible to affirm that we can agree to disagree and that nosotros cannot agree to disagree simultaneously.
It is far from clear that churches which are 'inclusive' on the question of same-sex marriage are in fact 'inclusive' of and welcoming to those who support the Church building's current teaching.
Much of my piece of work is washed on a freelance basis. If you have valued this post, would y'all considerdonating £1.20 a month to support the production of this blog?
If you enjoyed this, do share it on social media (Facebook or Twitter) using the buttons on the left. Follow me on Twitter @psephizo. Like my page on Facebook.
Much of my work is done on a freelance basis. If you lot take valued this post, you can make a single or echo donation through PayPal:
Comments policy: Good comments that appoint with the content of the post, and share in respectful argue, can add real value. Seek outset to sympathise, then to be understood. Make the most charitable construal of the views of others and seek to acquire from their perspectives. Don't view contend as a conflict to win; address the argument rather than tackling the person.
Source: https://www.psephizo.com/sexuality-2/good-disagreement/
0 Response to "Good disagreement?"
Postar um comentário