Indaba-do's and indaba-don'ts

I have been giving some thought to listening lately, which involves listening to my own thoughts, trying to discern my motivations, listening to God, quite challenging at times, no, perhaps always, and listening to others and not in that order - well, there is no order really, thinking doesn't usually involve order, praying might, but praying over a period of time, is usually quite a messy affair, or at least it is in my experience.

I think I have been taken aback somewhat by my feelings regarding reaction to my thoughts about marriage and how I define it. For some reason, I have always had problems spelling that word. I remember spelling it incorrectly every time I discussed it in an English essay once when I was an A level student. I always put the a and i the wrong way around. I still sometimes have to correct my spelling of the word 'marriage'. Putting the 'I' into marriage now is not about me being fully present in my marriage, I hope I am that - challenging as it is at times. I think putting the 'I' into the word now involves me taking some time to really learn to articulate carefully and with grace what I think marriage is.

On another blog, my views about marriage were regarded as narrow-minded and only worthy of ignoring. What I want to learn to do is listen whilst at the same time being true to what I think, without articulating anything other than an openness and I am finding it challenging.

I have been reading around a little in search of some help and I came across the following which I quote below. I know that my biggest failing is a fear that in my own mess-ups I might put a stumbling-block in someone's way to Jesus. In part this is a problem of ego, God can work around my mess-ups because he invites me to work with him but he doesn't rely on me. I have often been very struck by Paul's wanting to be all things to all people and at one time I think I used this as an excuse. I see that today's culture affirms freedom of choice and human rights but that we also need to concern ourselves moreover with our responsibilities to each other and God. Under pressure to do the most 'loving' thing I confuse love with tolerance: the 'great virtue' of our times. Caught up in cultural relativism, I think I am promoting happiness when I affirm freedom of choice but I know we do not always make the right choices.

...I also read...


     Though his primary concern was how to persuade people from diverse backgrounds to embrace the gospel of Jesus Christ (1 Cor 9:12, 23), Paul, nonetheless, embodies a principle common to all who would provide leadership to a community comprised of a multiplicitous collection of rigid truth claims and
behaviors. A leader must construct bridges both of understanding and of persuasion in such settings.

Paul, however, does not want to engage in matters that “don’t count.” For him the gospel was central, and he would not become involved with anything that would hinder the persuasive power of the gospel.

By implication, he shows something else foundational to effective leadership: core convictions. A leader must be proved to understand the views of others and to learn of them with a sensitive ear. In such a way, the power to persuade is enhanced. The leader, nevertheless, does not exercise a capacity to lead in a conviction vacuum. Just as in Paul’s example, listening to others does not inculcate a dismissal of what are core beliefs. David E. Garland correctly observes that Paul’s accommodation has nothing to do with watering down the gospel message, soft-pedaling its ethical demands, or compromising its absolute monotheism. Paul never modified the message of Christ crucified to make it less of a scandal to Jews or less foolish to Greeks. The preacher of the changeless gospel could adapt himself, however, to changing audiences in seeking their ultimate welfare, their salvation.  Themelios 33:2

So I can not live in a conviction vacuum and if someone can show me otherwise, I will listen, I really will but for now, I can not help but think that marriage is between a man and a woman. Is it really going to become so outrageous to think this? If I turn to the Church of England's teaching on Issues in Human Sexuality, I discover that Issues in Human Sexuality is a rather ambiguous statement of the Church's stance. It describes how homosexual relationships are not faithful to a God-given sexual expression but that those who feel called to this way of life should be accepted... (point 5.6). It concludes that sexually active homosexuals within the Church 'would be seen as placing that way of life in all respects on a par with heterosexual marriage' and it 'cannot accept such a parity and remain faithful to the insights which God has given it through Scripture, tradition and reasoned reflection on experience.' What it fails to do is lay out pastoral guidelines for churches working their way through these issues on the ground. Lambeth 1.10 sets a moratorium on the consecration of same-sex partnered clergy. However, it fails to give a clear ruling for other people in the church. This opens up debate about whether there should be a different set of expectations for clergy. Shouldn't all Christians seek to transform themselves into the same pattern of Christ-likeness, without a hierarchical ascendency of pre-requisites dependent on position in the church?

Does the Bible help?

Christians read the story of their lives within the overarching biblical meta-narrative but also live in a post-modern society which embraces a fluidity of meanings. As a consequence there is no consensus on homosexuality. Traditionalists regard those who affirm same-sex blessings, and church leaders in same-sex relationships, as supporting innovations which are scripturally disobedient. Lambeth 2008 lost 214 bishops to Gafcon because of a refusal by some to break bread with those amongst them who supported TEC's consecration of the homosexual priest Gene Robinson. Quite often Revisionists are accused of reading the Bible through a post-modern, culturally relativistic lens and traditionalists are accused of reading it through a lens also contaminated by culture, a lens infected by a type of sub-conscious homophobia.

If Biblical analysis leaves Christians in a spin, can philosophy, sociology or psychology help? I do not know. What about the ultimate idea that Reductio as absurdum, (if we applied Kant's categorical imperative to the dilemma) if homosexuality was thought good for everyone, everywhere, humankind would die out. Could it be that God has written the laws of marriage into the very fabric of existence even without the written word?

Ultimately, perhaps this will become a distinctive belief, this belief in marriage being between a woman and a man in the world and the church. I suppose what is difficult, is that other Christians share the same ideas as the world that marriage can be between members of the same sex. What I want to know is does that mean there is a different theology regarding what Christian marriage is. I think that marriage echoes the covenant between God and his children Israel in the Old Testament and Jesus and the Church in the New Testament. Sexual expression is for mutual comfort too, and not always pocreative, and is 'a good tied by God to his good gift of marriage' (Goddard, Homosexuality and The Church of England, p. 10) because it is something pleasing to God as two complementary humans become 'one flesh' and reflect God's perfect community of Father, Son and Holy spirit. Male and female together reflect the Godhead (Image dei). This pattern for relationships was established at our creation.

Reform have released their response today to the issues that have surfaced again as a result of the proposed equality laws. Their statement is reasonable, I think. Christian pontificating about marriage is often however about the ideal and married people are called too to inspect their conduct and wonder whether in their relationship they are loving each other as God would have them love each other. Heterosexuals also fail to embrace God's ordained sexual ethic.

So there you are, I navigate my way through the issues and ask for a little help from my friends.

See Thinking Anglicans for more on all of this