Skip to main content.
« Previous entry: The breakup of the Anglican church | Main page | Next entry: My Emerging Church credentials »

July 11th, 2006

The Anglican debate

i am hoping we might be able to meet

I hadn’t anticipated that my last cartoon would provoke quite such strong reactions. To those who felt my cartoon was helpful: I’m glad, thankyou for your kind words. To those who felt that I was trivialising something too important to be represented by a cartoon: I’m sorry that you felt that way – to trivialise the matter was not my intention.

It is my opinion that the debate in the Anglican church is not really about homosexuality any more. It is a fact that we hold different views. We can trade Bible verses and scriptural interpretations. At best we may come to understand each other more fully, at worst the result will be unedifying for all who participate and observe. I suspect that changing each other’s mind is not going to be a likely outcome.

The question is therefore really how we consider those whose views differ from our own. Does their point of view mean that we consider that they are no longer fit to be part of the church? That they are no longer valid Christians? That would appear to be Judah’s point of view in the comments of my previous post. I suppose it comes down to what we consider central to our faith. If sexual ethics are central then perhaps this is indeed an issue we need to break up over. But if not that I don’t understand why we cannot continue to be a broad church following the one creed but with room for widely differing expressions of faith as we have been for hundreds and hundreds of years.

16 Comments »



Share this on Facebook:

If you enjoyed this post you might also enjoy these (possibly) related articles:

If you liked this post why not send it to someone else by e-mail? Click here to do so.

This is a single post on the Cartoon Blog by Dave posted on Tuesday, July 11th, 2006 at 10:26 am. Click here to read all of the latest posts. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

Other things technologically advanced people may like to do: trackback from another site, follow responses via the comments feed, bookmark on del.icio.us or digg.

16 Responses to “The Anglican debate”


  1. Judah says:

    Dave, I made no comment at all about whether or not one is a “valid Christian” depending on the view held concerning the ordination of practising homosexuals.
    We are all sinners, no matter what sins are committed. Christ called us to repentance and to follow Him, and our love for Him will be seen in our obedience to His call. Christians are sinners in every different way but still Christians by the grace of God through their faith in the finished work of Christ on the cross. To repent and resist sin is a constant struggle and none of us will ever be perfect this side of heaven.

    Personally, I think the words from the 114th Annual Meeting of the Baptist General Conference sets it out very well regarding the ordination of those unrepentantly practising a homosexual lifestyle:

    Since beliefs about the sinfulness of homosexual behavior, like beliefs about the sinfulness of lying, stealing, murder, greed, etc., are an essential part of our commitment to the supreme authority of the Bible in all matters of faith and conduct,

    and since a person who believes that lying, stealing, murder or greed are Biblically acceptable lifestyles would not and should not be deemed qualified to serve in the leadership of our Conference, or teach in its educational institutions, or serve as pastors of Baptist General Conference churches, or as principals or teachers of all church-sponsored schools, or as missionaries of the Baptist General Conference,

    therefore we affirm that, in the same way, those who believe that homosexual behavior is a Biblically acceptable lifestyle are not qualified to serve in the leadership of the Conference, or to teach in its educational institutions, or to serve as pastors of Baptist General Conference Churches, or as principals or teachers of all church sponsored schools, or as missionaries of the Baptist General Conference.

    To read the entire statement on this subject, click on Source

    Unfortunately there is no “middle ground” on which to meet here, as implied by your cartoon above. It is a binary choice – homosexual practices are either immoral or they are not. A traditional exegesis of Scripture clearly regards them as immoral. Others who adopt a more liberal theology will disagree. The liberal position pushes Biblical Christians too far from God’s Truth on this matter.

    July 11th, 2006 at 11:17 am
  2. Judah says:

    My use of the term “Biblical Christian” in what I have written above is meant to refer to those who accept a conservative/traditional exegesis of Scripture as opposed to a liberal revisionist interpretation that makes an allowance for current postmodern cultural and political influences.

    July 11th, 2006 at 11:21 am
  3. Judah says:

    Regarding the issue of a “middle ground” I would like to draw attention to something recently written by Dr Albert Mohler to be found here.

    Again, the problem for those looking for middle ground on these issues [the controversy over Scripture, church authority, and sexuality that stands at the center of the looming schism in the Episcopal Church] is that no legitimate middle ground exists. In his rather amazing address to the Anglican Communion last week, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams made this point clear.

    On the issue of openly homosexual clergy and bishops, he said, one side paints the issue as a matter of justice and cannot imagine being in a church that does not welcome homosexuals into all ranks of clergy and leadership. The other side sees the issue as inescapably theological and cannot imagine remaining in a church that would defy Scripture, tradition, and communion in order to justify ordaining, electing, and consecrating openly homosexual persons in ministerial leadership.

    The middle “is losing members” because the middle has disappeared. When these two positions meet, there is not room for a principled middle ground. This is a titanic clash of worldviews and theological understandings.

    There is a simple and irredicible question here. The church will allow openly homosexual bishops or it will not.

    Now, when I pointed to this fact several months ago, I was besieged by readers from the land of Postmodernia, complaining that, here again, I was trapped in old-style modernist thinking. I am, they suggested, trapped in “binary modes of thinking” that those given to more contemporary thinking have presumably escaped.

    The problem for my postmodernist friends is this — in the real world we still face “binary” questions. Not all issues reduce themselves to clear binary categories, but many do — and they reach this status precisely at the point when desperate efforts to find “middle ground” fail. That is what happened at the General Convention of the Episcopal Church last month.

    In one way or another, every church and denomination faces issues like this. The decision to go one way is a decision not to go the other. As Yogi Berra once advised, “When you see a fork in the road, take it.” That’s pretty much where the mainline Protestant churches are — at the fork in the road.

    On the issue of ordaining homosexual persons to the ministry, the Presbyterian Church, USA tried to take both roads at the fork last month –determining to maintain the requirement that all ordained ministers maintain fidelity and chastity in heterosexual relations, and then allowing “flexibility” so that local presbyteries can defy that standard. It is a clumsy attempt at refusing to choose, and it will not last.

    As for the Episcopal Church, it stands at an historic binary moment — and the middle ground is gone.

    I personally think that it is not that one group is “no longer fit to be part of the church” or “valid Christians” as you have commented, Dave, but that we now seem to have two churches in one, each straining away from the other. The conservative point of view is that the liberals are no longer accepting of the the clauses of 1998 Lambeth 3.1 and 3.5 and in the foundation Articles of Religion where the 20th Article states that “it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God’s Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another.” Also, Lambeth 1:10 (b) and (e) is increasingly being strayed away from by those holding the more liberal position. It would seem that the Church as a whole cannot adhere to the one creed after all.

    July 11th, 2006 at 12:57 pm
  4. Rob says:

    Ladies and Gentlemen,

    God loves me. I try to love Him back.

    I get things wrong from time to time, but He still loves me. I find it easier to love Him when I am with others who also try to love him.

    We all get things wrong, but He still loves us.

    Thankyou for your time.

    July 11th, 2006 at 1:13 pm
  5. mark says:

    three cheers for rob

    July 11th, 2006 at 1:30 pm
  6. James says:

    Make that four cheers for Rob!

    July 11th, 2006 at 2:39 pm
  7. Karin says:

    Five cheers!!!!! :D

    Why can’t we just all concentrate on loving God through loving his creation and loving our fellow human beings as we love ourselves, knowing ourselves loved, accepted and forgiven by God.

    Why the need for exclusion and hate and disapproval?. Why bring Christianity down to the level of human petty mindedness? Let’s keep it holy and an aspiration to be like Jesus the Messy Messiah, who didn’t conform to human expectation or prejudice.

    July 11th, 2006 at 4:41 pm
  8. Nefertiki says:

    Dave, Rob and Karin with “plain” common sense cut through so much verbiage. Dave’s last sentence especially sheds light in his brilliant, deceptively simple manner. Except for those who will not see.

    July 11th, 2006 at 5:46 pm
  9. Davo says:

    I have to disagree with you on one point – your suggestion that it was *ever* really a discussion over sexuality.

    The debate has always been about this; do you:

    a) assume the Bible is the ultimate authority for Christians (and therefore conclude, from a plain reading of the text, that homosexuality is wrong)

    or b) assume that our modern sensibilities / feelings are the ultimate authority for a Christian (and therefore conclude that any part of the Bible that appears to disagree with that should be ‘reinterpreted’ to fit).

    It always saddens me when I hear the view that homosexuality is wrong being instantly equated with hatred; that saying that homosexuality is right is instantly equated with love. The bible has clear examples of *loving correction* for those whose actions are wrong (which is not to say there are not examples of hatred of practising homosexuals, but simply to ask that disagreement and hatred are not immediately linked).

    Besides, ‘do whatever you feel like if it doesn’t harm others’ sounds more like indifference, not love.

    Sorry if anything I’ve said upsets anyone – please remember that I too am *searching* for the best way to serve God faithfully.

    July 11th, 2006 at 7:53 pm
  10. Dave says:

    Much has been said today in the comments here and in the previous post. Thanks for the points made, which I have read and appreciated even if I have not replied.

    Two points. Judah, you have said several times that there is ‘no middle ground’. I still don’t agree I’m afraid. How about a situation where I accept that you have a different view from mine, but that we agree on the essentials, perhaps defined by the creeds of the church. You on the other hand accept that I have a different view from yours, but that we agree on the essentials, perhaps defined by the creeds of the church.

    That is the situation as it exits today in large parts of the Anglican church, where Evangelicals, Liberals, Charismatics, Anglo-Catholics and goodness knows who else accept that they don’t agree on the details but are part of the same church.

    Rob, I absolutely agree with you, I really do. But there still remains the necessity to decide how we are to approach those who disagree with us. But I’m sure you realise that. I’ll be quiet now.

    July 11th, 2006 at 11:16 pm
  11. Judah says:

    Dave, I agree with you absolutely regarding there being essentials upon which we can agree, thereby having us both “valid Christians” without question. I believe that situation already exists and have never doubted it.

    The lack of a middle ground is pertaining to the authority of Scripture, and to issues of ordination – that of women, and that of practising homosexuals. In regard to that of women, especially their ordination as bishops, there is a concern around valid apostolic succession which worries quite a few folks as well.
    Where is the middle ground?
    In practical terms, either the Church goes ahead and ordains, or that it does not. How can it do both? And if there was a way that both situations could co-exist, could it really hold to two such positions and not suffer for being the dissociative body it would become?
    I know that ++Rowan has mooted a structure that is an attempt to address that dual state, but then the Church would be existing in a split state over matters as fundamental as the authority of Scripture, a breach of Tradition, and further vulnerability to the politics of secular philosophies.

    Davo expresses my position too in his post above, and does so with humility and love.
    I keep wanting to say to folks “please don’t shoot me – I’m just the messenger” as the wrongful accusations of homophobia are hurled.

    Karin, this is all about holiness and love for God and each other. God wants us to live holy lives and to do so, we are to obey His commands and resist the temptation to sin. When a fellow Christian persists in a sinful lifestyle, can you – knowing that the wages of sin are death – not lovingly draw their attention to your concern for them? Or is it more loving to say “Oh, that’s OK. God probably won’t mind. And it has nothing to do with me really.” The Apostle Paul writes to the church in Galatia about their sinfulness and what must be done to restore the errant one – Galatians 6. Also, Proverbs 27: 5 Better is open rebuke than hidden love. 6 Wounds from a friend can be trusted, but an enemy multiplies kisses.
    This is not petty-mindedness, disapproval and hate, etc. It is about what is written in Scripture for us all to know and to follow.
    Living a holy life means reflecting God’s own holy character by obedience to Him and following Christ’s two great commandments to love.

    But I have already said enough and will leave it there.

    July 12th, 2006 at 12:42 am
  12. augustus meriwether says:

    Plain reading of scripture?

    See them hills? Me run.

    July 12th, 2006 at 12:43 am
  13. Dave says:

    I’ll make one more comment before I go off to paint a ceiling.

    I’m generally very pleased with the way debate has been conducted on these issues by the way. Thanks to everyone for being so polite.

    Karin: To echo something Davo and Judah have said. My own experience of living amongst those of a conservative disposition on these matters is that ‘hatred’ is very rarely a motivation for or result of the evangelical viewpoint. Those who hold to the conservative point of view do so because they genuinely want to follow the truth as they understand it.

    Davo: I think to characterise all liberals as those for whom ‘modern sensibilities / feelings’ are the ultimate authority is a little unfair. Many liberals love the Bible and do hold to it’s ‘authority’ (though would not use that phrase). However, their genuine desire to make sense of the text and apply it to their lives today leads them to different conclusions to yours.

    I also, like augustus, struggle with the phrase ‘a plain reading of the text’ of scripture. The writers of the Bible lived in a different time, a different place, a different culture and were writing to people in specific situations. If we think we can read the Bible without doing a lot of hard work to find out what was being said and thinking very carefully about how to apply it then I think we could easily come to some dubious conclusions.

    But then I know that as evangelicals you know that. I’ve been to more of your Tuesday night Bible studies than all of you put together.

    July 12th, 2006 at 9:29 am
  14. Richard says:

    I have to say that I’ve got to the point of not sure whether I want to scream or cry at this whole debate.

    Essentially whenever one of these kicks off, it just goes round in circles, and invariably ends up with attempts by the conservative side to use quotes from the books of the bible, as a weapon to verbally beat the other side.

    Then just to really rub it in we get pious comments like “please don’t shoot me – I’m just the messenger”.

    What frustrates me is that all this Bible quoting just goes to show how little of the liberal/progressive position they understand. Like most people on the liberal side I know exactly what the verses say, and quoting them back at me endlessly won’t make a jot of difference compared to the time I’ve taken over those verses in the past. All it does is annoy me, and I guess lead to the seemingly frustrated multiple posting by them in a vain attempt to try and ‘win’ the argument. I have to say that on my own blog of late I’ve tended to try and cut off these discussions before they start.

    Dave sums up my position pretty well:

    The writers of the Bible lived in a different time, a different place, a different culture and were writing to people in specific situations. If we think we can read the Bible without doing a lot of hard work to find out what was being said and thinking very carefully about how to apply it then I think we could easily come to some dubious conclusions.

    Dave – I hope you don’t mind, I’ve added what I think is an important emphasis to that.

    July 14th, 2006 at 10:29 am
  15. dagurreotype says:

    1. Another cheer for Rob!

    2. Will this be available for other bloggers to use via We Blog Cartoons?

    July 16th, 2006 at 2:49 am
  16. tumbleweed says:

    There will always be disagreements and different arguments in every denomination of church, I know, I belong to one. But I wonder in this argument whether we have got hold of the wrong end of the stick. It sounds very much to me like children squabbling over the best toys to play with. That robe that seat is mine, it belongs to me and I want it, Me Me Me. What did the real head of the church have to say about such things? ‘If you would follow me then take up your cross.’ ‘If you attend a banquet do not seek the seat at the front, but seek a lowly place.’ I know the church needs leaders, but these high places in the church are a calling, not a right. Our society is consumed with its rights and is embroiled in immorality, and this seems to be seeping into the church, may I suggest, because of liberal thinking. What about our responsibilities? The bible calls us to leave our ivory towers and take the love of Jesus out into our community, to show compassion and to give to the poor, to be good stewards of the gifts we have been blessed with. In all our ‘churchy’ squabbling perhaps we should be asking; is God going to be pleased with our conduct when we get to heaven, is he pleased with us now? When we become Christians we are called to lay down our rights and to become servants like our Lord Jesus. We are called to stop thinking like the world asking what do I want, what can I get for me, but what can I give, what can I do for others in need. As Christians wanting to become ordained these homosexuals are causing the arguments and splits in the church, so perhaps they should pose the question to themselves, is what I am doing or pursuing pleasing to the God I profess to love and obey?

    The argument over whether Jesus loves them is futile; Jesus loves everyone, he died for ALL. Jesus wasn’t messy; (this is my son with whom I am well pleased) he mixed with the messy, ate with the messy, loved the messy, but best of all, forgave the messy. The bible isn’t just about love, it is also about mercy and grace, and heaven forbid we forget this, because we ALL are in need of Gods mercy and grace.

    Now I know its not particularly easy for homosexuals as seeking a leadership role in the church calls for abstinence from certain sexual behaviours, but I do know of heterosexual males in the church who have abstained from marriage because they felt this is what God is asking of them. Homosexuals talk about a plutonic love for each other; but what kind of love is it and is it right? Since becoming a Christian myself I have found an unexpected deep love for my brothers in Christ, but this doesn’t mean that I want to jump into bed with them. I have also found this same deep love for my sisters in Christ, but here I have to be a little more careful in that expression and be mindful that it doesn’t grow into uncontrolled lust. True, at least I have the luxury of a loving wife to satisfy my sexual needs. Warning, don’t read on if you are uncomfortable with sexually explicit language.

    ……

    [section edited out - the content was rather too much for this site - Dave]

    ……

    Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and love your neighbour as you love yourself. This is the greatest command. Of all the commands it is the hardest, I wonder why?

    Love and grace to you all in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ-their Lord and ours.
    Praise God.

    August 9th, 2006 at 12:13 am