Oh when will you ever learn, oh when will you ever learn?

Got very cross today about some stuff on Anglican Mainstream encouraging people to withdraw from association with Tear Fund because they invited Archbishop Desmond Tutu to speak at arecent conference, and of course he does not have a very conservative position on gays.
Below is most of a post I put on Fulcrum in response to this


William Booth of Salvation Army fame was once challenged about accepting donations from parties trying to attach strings, in an "I'll scratch your back ... " type thing, but he replied,

"I'll take every penny and wash it clean with the tears of widows and orphans".

While we are not actually talking about money here, I feel that quotation might help the discussion, as I guess AM & reform (CT quoted someone from them saying he would be writing to Matthew Frost on this issue, straight after the conference) are wanting to imply that ++Tutu may be seeking to gain some kind of foothold in British Evangelicalism through association with TF. TF on their part have not to my knowledge said anything to indicate a shift in policy, they just want to work with anyone who shares their vision.
Presumably TF has signed the EA mission statement (or whatever) which is the same document that led to calls for Joel Edwards to stand down from the Equality commission on grounds of discrimination against gays. As the Americans say, go figure!

I think it is more likely that ++Tutu has seen the effect of TF's ministry on the ground and so responded to their invitation in good heart, because he shares their vision.

It's just modern day Donatism - not wanting to be "tainted" by association. I'm not an expert but I do recall some rather key reformers had somewhat dubious opinions of the Jews, but you don't hear about that so much. These are the same people I guess who have decided to stop reading anything at all by Steve Chalke or Roy Clements because on one issue they have divergent opinions.

If this now happens to ++Tutu it would be very sad. At New Wine last summer every toilet had a flyer put up in it inviting people to apply to go on a home-building project sponsored by ++Tutu - no one tore them down so I conclude that TF's opinion of the man is at least the prevalent one in charismatic evangelicalism.

People I have known who worked for Tear Fund on the ground were usually more concerned with avoiding getting shot or abducted than with what Bishops (or anyone else) happen to think about gays.

Baby don't change your mind

Papers and blogs full today of the "revelation" that Rowan Williams has two opinions about homosexuality, one private (theological) and another public (leader's).



He's certainly getting it in the neck but I think we probably knew throughout Lambeth and all that came before that he had either changed his mind or had decided to go with his perception of the right flow as leader of the church.



I still rate the bloke as a first class leader. In fact any (OK any mainstream Anglican) church leader who lets all their own theological convictions rule the way they lead a church would probably have to:-

• sack the Sunday school teachers for teaching fundamentalist approaches to Genesis 1-11


• sack the organist because they don't have the same approach to music in worship


• have a radically different baptism policy to the one currently in place.


• find a new job!

Now of course you'd have to be mad to go through those bullet points as a to do list for the week, but that's the kind of thing Rowan's critics seem to be asking of him. We all have to make compromises because (IMHO) church leadership is not a solo craft; we sail as a team and we have to take the approaches and opinions and feelings of other team members into account, even when we are the captain. That's why I say, don't knock teh bloke, pray for him - go on, right now

Women Bishops - bring it on!

I am in favour of women bishops; I am in favour of women priests and do not subscribe to Reform style "headship theology", (go here to read my take on all that) so it follows naturally that I support the consecration of women as bishops. Bishops are still priests (and deacons) - you do not surrender your letters of orders when you are consecrated (do you?)

I am not a liberal though. I have a high view of Scripture as the Word of God, don't have much time for a lot of of critical scholarship and function spiritually in a Charismatic Evangelical worldview. I'll happily admit to catholic tendencies, but not liberal, no siree!

I really hope that if nothing else, this summer's General Synod vote and Lambeth conference will be able to put to rest the idea that if you are in favour of women as priests and bishops you must also be in favour of the affirmation of homosexual physical relationships as biblically acceptable, and the ordination of active homosexuals.

There is a big difference. Being a woman is not a moral issue, but a matter of creation. No matter what you think about homosexuality, it is a question of morality - you either accept it as morally right or wrong. Someone's gender is not generally open to public discussion like that.

People who are more conservative than me and more liberal than me both say however that to support women's ordination will lead to a support for gay ordination (to be acceptable, instead of just done on the quiet.)


But I just don't think it follows. The conservatives will say, Oh well it's a slippery slope once you've let go of the authority of the Bible. I would say the liberals have let go of the authority of the Bible, even though you don't have to do that to arrive at a conclusion that women can be leaders.

The thing is, the person who invented the term "slippery slope" (Francis Schaeffer, for whom I otherwise have the greatest regard) lived up a mountain and saw things therefore from a mountain top perspective. I live in flat Essex, where things don't slip down, theologically or physically. That colours my approach, but what defines it is a marvellous book that was recommended by Bishop Graham Cray to the 2005 New Wine Leaders' Conference. It is Grove Booklet B16 "A Slippery Slope? the ordination of Women and Homosexual Practice - a case study in Biblical Interpretation" by RT France. Go here to order online.

The moment of it's recommendation sticks in my mind, as Charles Raven had just addressed the conference calling for support for Reform's campaigning against the church's (perceived) direction on these issues, treating them as a single matter. Bishop Graham stood up and said "it doesn't have to be like that". He also spoke favourably of Rowan Williams' orthodoxy. The conference were stunned, but in a good way.

I'll let you read the book (and check out Rosy Ashley's chapter in "the Call for Women Bishops") but basically the thing is that the interpretive processes that we use to come to a conclusion about women's ministry (and France leaves room for decisions either way on that) are not the same as those that are used in attempts to justify the inclusion of sexually active homosexuals in church leadership.

For me it is possible to conclude that women in leadership is a biblical thing; I can't say the same for homosexuals if they are in physical relationships, any more than I think it is alright for a straight priest to co-habit with a sexual partner if they are not married.

Church Politics

There's tons of stuff in the media at the moment about the Church of England, because the Lambeth conference is about to start and there are Bishops from all over the world all over the TV news and papers.

One in particular - Gene Robinson, whom the papers are calling the world's first openly gay bishop. He hasn't been invited to Lambeth, but is going anyway and will surely take every media opportunity to rub the noses of his opponents in the mess that we are all making of the Anglican Church.

I have my own strong opinions about the ethical prerequisites for Christian leadership, which we won't get into right now. Let's just say they are founded on a high valuing of Christian marriage. Thing is, I'm in a cleft stick, since my ecclesiology tells me that the validity of a sacramental ministry is not dependant on the nature of the minister providing it (Article 26, the 39 Articles of Religion) whereas my (I guess relatively conservative)Biblical approach to morality tells me that the ECUSA (i.e. US Anglicans) should not have elected Gene, (an out, active gay man) as a bishop, given the storm they must have known it would cause. So in fact it ought to have been just his electors, not Gene himself who were dis invited to the Lambeth conference.

The worst thing about all this mess is that it is just a distraction from the task of parish ministry which I should be getting on with instead of blogging away on here.

Stuff on Women Bishops to come later.