Debating the Church and same-sex marriage
On Fri 3rd September, at two.10 pm, I had a telephone call from a number I did non recognise. When I answered, it turned out to exist from a BBC researcher request if I would appear on BBC1 on Sunday morning for a fence about the Church of England and same-sex union, in the light of the coming vote taking identify in the Church in Wales. I have been preaching in different churches, covering for vacancies, but information technology simply happened that this Sunday I did not have a commitment. As I have said elsewhere, when someone makes a media request similar this, the outset thing to say is 'Yes'; two days' notice is fairly standard for this sort of thing, even though it was on national boob tube.
You tin sentry the give-and-take on BBC iPlayer hither, starting at 25 minutes in, merely I accept as well captured it and put it on my YouTube channel and embedded it beneath. I offering a few reflections on the give-and-take.
Andrew Foreshew-Cain made a brusk opening annotate, arguing that this was most 'welcome' and most 'strengthening marriage'. In debate, these ii ideas are easy to accost, and I picked upward immediately on the fact that this wasn't about strengthening marriage so much equally completely redefining it. And, of course, 'welcome' does not automatically include shaping what nosotros do to fit the claims and assumptions made by those we seek to welcome.
When I was invited to speak, I began by enumerating the points I wanted to make. I have learnt that this makes it harder for a presenter to cut me off earlier I have made all the comments that I program to!
My first signal was to annotation that our current approach in society is a novelty, and is the result of some central changes in the way we remember near our bodies, sex, and relationships. I take noticed that the debate ofttimes starts with the assumption that belief in same-sex activity marriage is obvious, natural, and is the final end goal for our thinking about relationships. A piffling bit of cultural and historical awareness, though, shows that, in comparison with nearly cultures in most of history, we are very odd; I also desire to bespeak out that we accept faced very rapid changes in attitudes, and changes are likely to continue in 1 direction or another. I noticed that Andrew nodded his agreement on this indicate.
My second bespeak was that the C of E is rooted in the 1662 BCP and the 39 Articles; if we are to modify our doctrine of marriage then we volition need to redefine the C of East. I went on to make the point I have made previously in various places, that there is a stiff consensus of what the Bible says, and to innovate modify we do (as Francis Spufford does with honesty) need simply to say that, on this, the Bible is wrong. Andrew seemed to agree with the first of these two, but shook his head on the second.
Delyth'southward opening comment was interesting, because she herself introduced the linguistic communication of 'contradictory views' in relation to the recent Methodist motion—and I think she is right!
I felt that David Bennett's contribution was outstanding, and I did feel a little every bit though I was playing a supporting part to his contribution! As a gay man himself, he was able to talk nigh the 3 problems of valuing gay relationships and making LGBTQ+ people experience welcomed, merely alongside that offering a critique of our sex activity-obsessed civilisation, and talking from personal experience about the costly commitment that Jesus calls united states all to in the life of discipleship. These points are vital in the discussion, merely I recall they can only be made in this kind of public forum with integrity and credibility by someone, similar David, who has had to confront the bug personal themselves.
Andrew was invited to respond on the question of sectionalisation in the Church, and he claimed that 'division is already there', and that as an autonomous church building nosotros should 'do what is correct in our ain context and setting'. I recollect that is an odd fashion of understanding ourselves to exist part of the 'one, holy, catholic and apostolic' church building as we claim to be, and the language of 'autonomy' has been prominent in the comments from the Episcopal Church in America.
Andrew then characterised David's position as a 'personal choice', rather than recognising the claims of discipleship and theology as being communal. He made the false claim that 'the majority in the Church of England' believe we should change, picked up from Jayne Ozanne'southward faulty survey. (Some people asked me why I didn't pick up on that; my judgement was that it was besides detailed a betoken, and at that place were more important problems to accost in the short time.) Andrew then criticised David for making it 'all well-nigh sex', since 'marriage is nigh and then many other things'. Just that is a disingenuous point; if the question of sex was not central, then we would non exist talking near same-sex marriage, but well-nigh celibate same-sex partnerships!
I wanted to respond to Andrew, so tried to attract the attending of the presenters. I was asked nearly the Church of England's function as a land church, which I responded to by correcting common misunderstandings of what that ways. I and so wanted to make cardinal points well-nigh division and mission. On the outset, I picked up Delyth's own language of assertive contradictory things; I don't think anyone outside the Church finds the idea of believing contradictory things at the same time at all convincing!
On mission, I drew my points from the recent article by David Goodhew, in which he notes the reject of many established churches, only the growth in England of 'new' churches of various sorts—near of whom are very clear that they believe marriage is between one man and 1 woman.
I besides wanted to say something about the gospel—what information technology is that we take to offer people. 'It is not about making the Christian faith plastic and fit the civilization—which later on all has inverse so rapidly'.
Sean then picked up the point virtually contradiction with Delyth, and I am not certain that I found her reply convincing! The thought that questions of sexuality are 'periphery' is incoherent; if it is not central, then why engage in such a divisive debate? And why has the anteroom for change been so vociferous?
For anyone who might exist involved in media discussion of whatsoever kind, four technical points. First, I had been mulling over what needed to be said for the two days running up to it, and (every bit is my addiction) had honed and written down some key 'sound bite' phrases, and had them in front of me. On any media, you are given very little time, and it is vital to have a memorable summary to hand.
Secondly, David and I know each other well, and then we had a conversation the day before, and agreed that he would talk more personally, and I would talk more about the institutional issues, and I recall that worked well as complementary approaches.
Thirdly, in a give-and-take it is vital to listen carefully to what others are proverb, and pick upwards on a respond to the words they are using. I particularly aimed to do that in response to Delyth's comments; I was surprised that she was so open about the contradictions that the Methodists had agreed to, but I simply played her language back to her.
I actually thought I was sitting too about the camera; I had adjusted this to match presenters earlier in the programme, only should have sat back more to match the other three in my discussion.
Overall, the presenters handled the process very fairly, and in fact I recall gave more time to David and myself than to Andrew and Dyleth. The structured nature of a Zoom give-and-take actually worked well, since it is not possible for unlike people to interrupt or talk over each other.
The comments from viewers had been carefully selected, and I thought were fair. Some matched quite well the points David and I had fabricated.
If yous would similar to explore the question of what the biblical texts say, yous might be interested in my Grove booklet,Aforementioned Sexual practice Unions: the cardinal biblical texts which is available post-complimentary in the UK and as a PDF ebook.
For more than about how to exist effective on radio and goggle box, see my previous article.
If you enjoyed this, do share information technology on social media (Facebook or Twitter) using the buttons on the left. Follow me on Twitter @psephizo. Like my page on Facebook.
Much of my work is done on a freelance basis. If you have valued this mail service, you can brand a single or echo donation through PayPal:
Comments policy: Good comments that appoint with the content of the post, and share in respectful contend, can add real value. Seek start to understand, and so to be understood. Make the most charitable construal of the views of others and seek to larn from their perspectives. Don't view fence as a conflict to win; address the argument rather than tackling the person.
Source: https://www.psephizo.com/sexuality-2/debating-the-church-and-same-sex-marriage/
0 Response to "Debating the Church and same-sex marriage"
Postar um comentário