Oliver O’Donovan – A Role Model for Good Disagreement?

by

Oliver O’Donovan’s recent intervention in the debate on human sexuality is a striking example of good disagreement. From a more conservative position on the issue of same-sex relationships, he shows what it is to subject the ‘affirming’ stance to a rigorous yet sympathetic examination.

Angus Ritchie. ViaMedia. 1 June 2016

Share
Tweet
Share

4 thoughts on “Oliver O’Donovan – A Role Model for Good Disagreement?”

  1. Christianity is in the first instance a call to a relationship and a life of discipleship rather than a set of propositions. There are some beliefs which are so fundamental that the church should expect all its members to agree with them. These are found in the catechism. There are other subjects on which we disagree and know that some us are mistaken, But we can still worship together. The truth is out there but we do not know the whole of it

  2. “The via media of Anglicanism seeks to hold us together, across different theological traditions and understandings, for a common life of prayer and mission…” — Angus Ritchie

    “As I keep pointing out, statements like this merely ignore the fact that those who believe that Christianity is in some sense true and believe themselves to be Christians fundamentally disagree about some truths of Christianity…” — Phil Almond

    “’Good disagreement’ is always a via media between two dangerous extremes. At one extreme is the kind of argument that is simply polarising and point-scoring; a zero-sum game where I can only win if you are comprehensively refuted…” –Angus Ritchie

    “…One of these beliefs is right, the other is wrong. There is no present or future way in which they can be reconciled.” –Phil Almond

    “At the other extreme is the laziness of relativism, where you can have your truth and I can have mine. Though superficially “tolerant”, relativism in the end produces a closed mind. It insulates me from any meaningful challenge to my existing opinions. The Other may indeed be tolerated, but is not allowed to change ‘my truth’.

    “Good disagreement involves something more than this. To disagree well, we must embrace the possibility that the Other may have something to teach me. Their challenge to my existing beliefs is potentially a gift and not a threat.” — Angus Ritchie

    Canon Ritchie does recognise “that those who believe that Christianity is in some sense true and believe themselves to be Christians fundamentally disagree about some truths of Christianity.” He just seems not to believe that every disagreement about every Christian truth inhibits us from a common life of prayer and mission. — Bowman Walton

    “…some believe that we are all faced, from birth onwards, with the holy wrath and just condemnation of God. Others, whatever they believe about God and Man, do not believe that this is true. One of these beliefs is right, the other is wrong. There is no present or future way in which they can be reconciled.” — Phil Almond

    Should we not pray and feed the hungry with any Christians who recognise that sin sickens us and Christ heals us?

    http://biblehub.com/mark/9-40.htm

    • Bowman

      I am not sure what the purpose of your post is. You have set out parts of Canon Ritchie’s article alongside parts of my post. Is this to exhibit our diametrically opposed points of view? You have made a comment on what Canon Ritchie does recognise and you have concluded by asking (me) a question.

      Before going any further I would first ask Canon Ritchie and your good self: Do you agree with me that the statement I made ‘… we are all faced, from birth onwards, with the holy wrath and just condemnation of God’ (or, to use the wording of Article 9: ‘Original Sin….and therefore in every person born into this world, it deserveth God’s wrath and damnation’) is either right or wrong? (I am not asking at this stage whether it is right or wrong, just whether it must be either right or wrong). For instance, if it is true that the Fall is best described by medical metaphors rather than legal ones (your post on 29 September 2015), then my statement would be wrong, because ‘condemnation’ is a legal term. (In passing, could I please ask whether you are going to reply to my 17 February 2016 post on thread ‘“Equal marriage”: Is There A New Christian Ethic for Sex and Marriage?’)

      Phil Almond

  3. ‘The via media of Anglicanism seeks to hold us together, across different theological traditions and understandings, in a common life of prayer and mission. For such a project to succeed, we must learn how to receive one another, across those differences, as gifts from God – as we journey together into the goodness, beauty and truth of God’.

    As I keep pointing out, statements like this merely ignore the fact that those who believe that Christianity is in some sense true and believe themselves to be Christians fundamentally disagree about some truths of Christianity. For instance, some believe that we are all faced, from birth onwards, with the holy wrath and just condemnation of God. Others, whatever they believe about God and Man, do not believe that this is true. One of these beliefs is right, the other is wrong. There is no present or future way in which they can be reconciled.

    Phil Almond

Leave a comment