Church Times - Jones queries conservative view on gays.
No. What I want to try to understand is what this bit means.
"Bishop Ipinmoye’s reiteration that he wished to remain a mission partner, in spite of Liverpool’s stance of being “on the way to a position similar to the Church’s attitude to pacifism on matters of homosexuality”."What it appears to say is ... well, 'in spite of' indicates, normally, that what follows is disagreed with by the speaker or the reported-speaker. So, what follows should be regarded as stating a position with which Bp Ip inmoye disagrees. Therefore, what Bp Ipinmoye seems to be saying is that -given his perspective, remember- that pacifism is unbiblical and a novelty to Christianity brought about by compromise with cultural trends. Of course, this is the reverse of the truth. Pacifism is almost universally recognised to be the more biblical position for Christians (it's the natural interpretation of Jesus's teaching) whereas the non-pacifist set of positions is the 'concession' to cultural and political 'realities'.
The irony is, of course, (assuming that the reporting is fair and I've interpreted it about right) that by accepting the (I assume) just war position the bishop is adopting a basic hermeneutic and ethical manoeuvre which he is presumably disallowing in the sexuality debate. Yes folks, that's right; I think that if you can justify bearing and using arms as a Christian, then you have done the basic ethical and hermeneutical work to accept homophile marriage.
The hard work is really for those who are more disposed to the NT and the Church's original approach to warfare. For those who have already agreed that 'hard reality' and/or the demands of justice sometimes trump ethical 'niceties', then the game is up. GAFCONs emperor has no clothes.
So I call on GAFCON members either to take a distinctly and unequivocal pacifist position, or to recognise homophile relationships as marriageable.
If you'd like to see what James Jones said, look here.
6 comments:
"what Bp Ipinmoye seems to be saying is that -given his perspective, remember- that pacifism is unbiblical and a novelty to Christianity brought about by compromise with cultural trends."
I assume you have his perspective from another source, since there was nothing indicating that that was his perspective in the source that you linked to.
Like you, I'm still mulling over the Bishop's central point, and I suspect at the moment that he's not drawing a fair comparison, but that it may be illuminating never the less if taken with a pinch of salt (to mix my metaphors horribly).
But to move on to the point you're drawing out. You are of course right in saying that pacifism appears to have been the earliest position of the church, with fully-developed just war theory being a later development linked to the adoption of Christianity as a state religion. In this respect, then a conservative position on homosexuality would be analogous to pacifism and a liberal position to just war. Therefore it would follow that anyone holding to a just war position has already agreed to certain hermeneutical and ethical moves that could be applied elsewhere.
Where I think your argument falls down is in showing that these same hermeneutical and ethical moves are being applied by liberals in approaching homosexuality. Despite James Jones' reference to the 6th commandment, it is clear that this is not understood by scripture (even other commandments) as prohibiting killing, even the killing of other believers, in all circumstances. Scripture interprets scripture is a time-hallowed hermeneutic principle. There are various passages that can be appealed to to suggest that warfare and the profession of a soldier are not seen as sinful. In short, although just war theory is a late development, there is considerable scriptural basis for the position that warfare may be justified in some circumstances. In the case of homosexuality, by contrast, you have to face the face that all direct references to homosexual practice in scripture are negative. There isn't even anything as ambiguous as Jesus' commendation of a Roman soldier as having great faith. You have to engage in far more radical hermeneutical and ethical moves to get to the liberal position on homosexuality than you have to to get to the just war position.
If you're looking for an analogous issue where Conservative Evangelicals tend to accept radical hermeneutical moves to justify an ethical position that would never have been accepted in the early church, I suggest you consider Usury.
Thanks Steve. I was trying to do the reading between the lines rather too quickly to follow. The main clue is in what I wrote "given his perspective, remember-"
That is: he's commenting on Bp James Jones' speeceh and the 'in spite of' indicates a disagreement at the point of issue. In this case it would indicate on the issue of homosexuality and I have taken his remark to mean that he sees a parallel between the 20th century 'tolerance' of pacifism (remember Article 37) and the tolerance of homophile 'marriage'. Admitedly this is a 'probable' interpretation based on what appear to be the most likely implications of what was reported (and recall I wrote "assuming that the reporting is fair and I've interpreted it about right").
However, my main point about the hermeneutic of GAFCON is about right, I judge: most members would probably say that the use of armed force with lethal consequences would be justified as a lesser of two perceived evil outcomes within the 'ethic' of the just war theory. I would be happy to discover By Ipinmoye actually didn't mean this. However, my main point about GAFCON etc would remain.
Thanks too to Mark. You characterise my position quite nicely in that first bit. You go further than I was going in the part about where the argument falls down. This is simply because I was not saying that this was/is the liberal position or argument (although in some cases it is, I think). I would (and I think have in other places) mentioned usury had the matter being commented on not already been about just war /pacifism.
I would agree that the difference between the Hebrew scriptures and the New Testament on the issue of acceptance of lethal force on the one hand and of homosexual behaviour on the other are different and that the NT seems at some points to echo the the HB wrt the latter. Nevertheless, that's a different set of concerns and arguments than the ones I'm alluding to. And of course it depends on what reasons are being given for the position.
I am of course being provocative ...
What I'm finding intriguing at the moment is Mennonites on these issues ...
As I understood it, what BOTH bishops were referring to was the fact that the church tolerates two moral standards.
Bishop James Jones used the example, and Bishop Ipinomoye was simply referring to the example that he used. And the example is that the Anglican Church has for some time tolerated people who hold opposing views of the morality of killing people in war, though not necessarily in other circumstances.
Bishop James Jones was suggesting that the double standard be extended from the sixth commandment to the seventh: that the church would tolerate people who hold opposing views on the morality of fornication with people of the same sex.
To abstract i8t a bit. Bishop Jones says that just as the church has room for people who belife that A is morally wrong and those who think that A is morally right, so we think that the church should have room for people who think that B is morally wrong and those that think that B is morally right.
Bishop Ipinomoye says that we don't like the principle of extending it from A to B, but we still want to be in relationship with you.
I don't think you can infer Bishop Ipinomoye's views on the morality of A from the example given, because he didn't originate the example, Bishop Jones did. And the point of his comment was not the morality of A, but the extention of toleration of ambiguity in the case of the morality of A to the case of the morality of B.
You may be right, Steve. And your reading is clearly part, probably a big part, of the issue. However, I can't quite get past that 'in spite of' and the likely context in no.37 of the 39 Articles. So I'm still inclined to think I may be right. But I'd be happy to see the fuller text when it is available and find that I'm wrong.
Post a Comment