Jesus’ presence at a wedding party initially seems unremarkable - he simply responded to an invitation. When the celebration was about to be cut short by the lack of wine, he was at first reluctant to help, saying “My time has not yet come”. But before long, an unfeasible amount of washing-water had been turned into fine drink in an act of generous, almost reckless liberality. An unplanned moment revealed him as an agent of his Father’s blessing.
Simon Harvey. 28 March 2014. St Mary's Islington website.
An interesting approach to the matter. However, being an ‘open’ evangelical should not in any way water down the essential biblical truths. We can be welcoming, whilst at the same time not compromising our core beliefs about human sexuality. I do hope this is not an indication that Fulcrum are in any way moving in a liberal direction on this matter.
Two comments, Peter, in response to your post.
First, I don’t think there is any reason for thinking that Fulcrum is moving in “a liberal direction on this matter”. The Newswatch has of course a wide range of reports, evangelical and non-evangelical, Anglican and non-Anglican, church and non-church, etc. and this is utterly right. In terms of Fulcrum membership there are a number of us (how many I have absolutely no idea) who support the acceptance of committed gay relationships, but at the moment the leadership would seem to be entirely conservative on this issue.
Second, this does however raise the issue of whether if Fulcrum is really to represent current open evangelical attitudes and beliefs there perhaps ought to be somebody on the leadership team who does represent that open and accepting viewpoint.
Third, your post makes the assumption that “essential biblical truths” and “core beliefs about human sexuality” are not a matter of debate and dispute. However, the plain fact is they are disputed, not only in the liberal parts of the church, but in the evangelical part too. This is born witness to by the fact that the two scriptural appendices in Pilling are by evangelicals, but come to very different conclusions on how we should interpret scripture with regard to this issue.
I note that Simon’s article from the St Mary, Islington, website has now gone up on the Fulcrum home page as an article, and so it will be interesting to see if it gathers further comment now it is in a more prominent position.
Yes, George, it does seem to be ‘good disagreement’ to avoid the appearance of helpless rage.
Do you think that a workable consensus might emerge from case-wise choices like this one?
Simon’s objection to ‘laboratory theology’ seems to be that, on one hand, it covers dilemmas of situations more simple than the ones he is likely to face in the street, and on the other, it does not anticipate the opportunities that also emerge in moments of change.
‘Haters gotta hate’ and some detractors will linger long on the spectacle of vicars trying to find their duty in rules with little traction on the ground. Yet might this not also be a moment when those less hostile see a thinking, compassionate clergy trying to find the best way forward?
Thanks, Bowman. Your second paragraph “Do you think that a workable consensus might emerge from case-wise choices like this one?” has certainly set me thinking. “Workable consensus” and “case-wise choices” could well help us forward, but probably only to a degree, since many are in no mood for any consensus and still try to maintain there is only one right view here – and when that is the case it is difficult to progress towards consensus.
A really helpful, thoughtful and down-to-earth mulling over of the practical dilemmas rasied by same-sex marriage. I’m glad that Simon decided to go out and join with the crowd, even if inevitably he has unanswered questions and hesitations about how we tackle this.