USER 1829 suggests that for a real debate to happen liberals must: 1.  Discard any arguments based upon experience.2.  Adopt a conservative hermaneutic. 3.  Prove from Scripture their case using a conservative hermaneutic. This seems to me deeply problematic.

(a) there is an assumption that everyone is a liberal or conservative, whereas in reality there are a lot of genuinely confused, searching, ambiguous people who find neither side's argument convincing;

(b) to suggest that the only way forward is for liberals is to adopt a conservative hermenutic - that's a bit like the underlying Roman Catholic response to ecumenism, ie. agree with us and then everything will be fine;

(c) many of us 'in the middle' do not find either conservative or liberal approaches to the scripture entirely convincing. Leaving aside the peurile shellfish prohibition argument, it still seems to me that many on both sides engage in a pick and choose approach which is shaped less by the scripture than by their pre-existing theology. As a child I was brought up in a 'bible believing' free church but as a teenager came to realise that I was brought up on a particular neo-Calvinist theology which read the scripture through the prism of theology rather than the other way around. An interesting thought experiment would be to give a Martian, or someone so isolated from society that they had never heard of Christianity, the Bible, and see what theology they read out of it - but unfortunately we cannot do this. I read with interest Bishop Tom Wright's paper on the Fulcrum site and could run with about 90% but again when he speaks of his amazement about the consistency of the message despite the diversity of forms, authorial contexts and intentions etc, I found myself again (as a non-theologian or biblical scholar) asking the question - is the consistent message there or does he see it because of his theological presumptions. Again, none of us can detach ourself from these or cultural context etc

(d) discard experience - how can we, if we are to grow. I grew up believing the majority of Anglicans were not 'real' Christians and that Catholics and Orthodox were beyond the pale - Pentecostals and charismatics were almost as bad. My views changed because I worked for a charity and this involved me speaking at a wide range of churches - one week I could be dancing in the aisles, the next genuflecting in front of the vicar's wife, just in case! Meeting some of these people (even some liberals) I found that they read the scriptures, prayed, believed deeply. My experience changed me.

The same applied to homosexuality. I had never really known a gay person until I was in my early 20s and I stood by a traditional view, even though at that time I had temporarily left the church. This was in the early 80s, long before the current controversies. Then a friend came to me and said she thought was gay. This was a bit of a surprise as she was also a leading member of her university CU. She had tried to have boyfriends but always knew something was different. One can argue about whether there is such a thing as a 'gay identity', but she certainly didn't choose to be gay and was a committed evangelical who could sign up to the required statements of faith etc. By the mid-80s she had entered a relationship (her only one) with another woman, and decided that she should tell her Baptist pastor. His response was the standard 'this is sinful and you should repent and give up the relationship' or leave. I suggested she try the big evangelical Anglican church in the area of south London where she lived, and she did for a while but once it became clear that she was gay the vicar approached here and said that she could not take communion - again, this was in the 1980s. So eventually she left and found a home in a more 'open' church, where the vicar was more accepting, but she has always felt like a fish out of water, a natural evangelical in all her thinking, except for this one issue. Since then she has lived a faithful, committed life with her partner not making an issue of her sexuality, just trying to live her life as normally as possible, worshipping, praying, heavily involved in charitable work. The consequence of all this was that I had to deal with a person not a category, and there was a contradiction between traditional understandings of morality and the reality of someone living a faithful committed life.

I know that if you are a fan of Anglican Mainstream you can come up with a story a day on the excesses of radical liberals or sexual activists, but it seems to me that there is a difference between faithful commitment and promiscuity.

I suppose in essence this is the dilemma the church currently faces (maybe has always faced), of how to reconcile scripture and the experiences we all accumulate through our lives, and in such circumstances to simply ignore experience is not possible for many of us.

I can see many problems with this proposal from a conservative viewpoint.  But I suspect for liberals the critical question will be 'How long are you willing to maintain the ban?"  The underlying issue isn't going to get solved anytime soon, and so once established the ban will likely become perpetual.  For liberals to convince conservatives on the underlying issue, they must:

1.  Discard any arguments based upon experience.

2.  Adopt a conservative hermaneutic.

3.  Prove from Scripture their case using a conservative hermaneutic.

The problem of course is that (2) makes (3) essentially impossible.  So the ban once enacted has no logical endpoint.  What then do you do with it?  What will it actually accomplish?

carl

Newington Unitarian Church decided it would only bless heterosexual couples and gay couples rather than host weddings because gay couples were unable to have weddings.

No, the sacrifice is made by the people concerned, not by Churches, and there should be no moratoria.

The creation story is just that; in evolutionary terms successful species have minorities that do not fit the main thrust and this is because a vast environmental change can suddenly change which is the successful variant. Higher social animals look after their minorities, and we are after all descended from the African ape, more a sociable chimp than a lonely Orang Utan. We should include our minorities within the family, within the human tribe.

Clare's proposal is totally unacceptable to orthodox Christians! We do not accept that homosexual and hetrosexual unions are moral equivalents ... this is simply liberal wishful thinking. Homosexual acts are not linked with the transmission of human life and are therefore basically disordered. The creation story concerns Adam & Eve, not Adam & Steve. Why should couples wishing to get married in church do without the grace of the sacrament of Holy Matrimony? Which both the Catholic & Orthodox Churches agree is one of the seven sacraments of the universal Church. You would do well to read some decent Catholic Theology, "Marriage & Sacrament:  A theology of Christian Marriage" by Michael G. Lawler (1993) for a start. He quotes an ancient definition of marriage:  "Marriage is a union of a man and a woman, embracing an undivided communion of life." (Instituta of the Emperor Justinian). Gay people may form stable, loving partnerships but these are not and cannot ever be marriages.  There can be no compromise on this issue ... if this battle is lost, then everything will be up for grabs in the Anglican Communion.

This strand is primarily addressed to those of us who believe on the compatibility of Christian faith and homosexual practice and who believe that loving and committed homosexual partnerships deserve the opportunity to benefit from the grace of public blessing and celebration.  (It’s not just me out there – there were one or two other fulcrum posters who believe this!)

 The Lambeth Conference has asked for a moratorium on same sex blessings.  This, for us, is a very big ask. However, sometimes in life one has to choose between the greater of two goods –so we have to consider whether blessings for gay people in church  is a greater good than trying to live together in a huge, diverse, Christian family which necessarily involves a degree of restraint and self sacrifice.  The trouble is, we are asking this sacrifice not necessarily of ourselves, but of a group within our churches who already have to be incredibly restrained and sacrificial to be there at all.  We make an agreement and ask someone else to pay the cheque.  (well, I didn’t actually make the agreement myself, not actually being a bishop quite yet, but you get the picture).

 How would we react if, for the sake of unity, we were asked not to bless the unions of black people because some people had qualms about it? (I know those of you who think homosexuality is incompatible with Christianity may dislike that comparison, but that is how we understand it, as a matter of justice and dignity).

 But then again, I really was persuaded by Rowan’s request for us all to consider loving, generous restraint.  Who is more my neighbour, my Christian gay friends or Christians who have real difficulties in understanding how one earth we can reconcile the two and believe we have forsaken something very central to following Jesus? Obviously, both are.

 So how to go forward?  This may sound completely barmy, but is a solution that keeps to the moratorium on gay blessings while not preventing gay people from benefitting from something that heterosexual people benefit from.  For those of us who, in good conscience, believe that it is unjust for gay people to be denied something that heterosexual people have and yet want to show willing to the spirit of the Lambeth conference, I propose a moratorium on all blessings  of committed, loving relationships – that is to say, a moratorium on weddings in church, to run concurrently with the moratorium on gay blessings.

 Gay and straight alike would still be able to undergo a civil registration or marriage –after all, getting married in church is a relatively modern phenomenon and not at all mandatory on Christians.  We would still all be able to pray for God’s blessing upon relationships, sing hymns, read the bible etc – but this would have to take place either before or after the actual blessing ceremony and in a non church venue.  And clergy attending wouldn’t be able to lead these prayers – it would have to be a lay led thing. (Just some Christians gathering together to say some prayers who may happen to be Anglican rather than a gathering of the Anglican church as such).

 Those clergy abiding by the double moratorium would be unable to officiate at weddings, so would have to make arrangements for weddings of those not abiding by the double moratorium to be covered by colleagues who did not share our convictions but nonetheless honoured our conscientious stand.

 This action would undeniably cause some pastoral distress, but it would be a distress laid equally on gay and straight alike, and not visited solely on a minority. And it would give us all opportunity to reflect upon what it must be like to be refused the opportunity to celebrate your love publicly in the context of ‘official’ Christian worship. It would call for huge amounts of restraint and self sacrifice, especially from those heterosexual couples for whom a church wedding would normally be a cherished part of their plans together.

 This is a serious suggestion. I may be posting it on the wrong forum perhaps?  What fora do Giles Fraser and his ilk frequent?