Thinking Anglicans

Theo Hobson writes of “a man who decides he’s gay” leaving his wife. Does he really believe being gay or straight comes with an on/off switch? And are “sexual liberation, individualism, hedonism” limited to gay people? If I had a dime for every letter to a Dear Abby that starts off,”My fiance and I have been together for three years and have two kids, but he doesn’t want to commit to marriage…” I would be rich. In the States, at least, fiance has come to mean “my live-in with whom I am having sex [and babies]” – is this true… Read more »

Theo Hobson “It has led to the perpetuation of a rather flabby liberalism that speaks the language of self-help therapy and political correctness.”

Goodness me, I’m almost in total agreement with the man. I think we might go on to struggle with definitions of liberal Christianity and liberal religion. I’ve take the place of gays in ministry as a given, but this and the above quoted is not the main defining point of religious believing.

If Theo Hobson has a point, then it is tangential to the main point–discrimination. Discrimination creates victims, and victims are often helped by becoming a community in which self-esteem can be reaffirmed and reconstructed. I wonder if Hobson thinks that African -North American churches or First Nations congregations are also a “subculture”? As an aside, when I think of subculture the first image that comes to mind are men in pointy hats and capes. I can understand why Hobson bemoans the contribution of feminists. After all feminist theologians, for example, have laid the ground work in the struggle for self-definition… Read more »

Moving to Giles Fraser, and the ontology of being dead, one day, somehow, whoever we are: a bold article which I find refreshing and restorative in the face of just three funerals booked in for next week. One visit done today, another tomorrow, and then the third – and they will all be different, unique even; and none of them anything to do with the local Church community, and not much talk of God, or of immortality, thus far; though I have many times heard tell of Uncle Bob looking down from above. How ghastly that must be if that’s… Read more »

The answer to John Richardson seems to be, that God’s Righteousness isn’t a mere Justice, which may be as petty as anything…

” The gay issue separates the advocates of Christian freedom from the legalists. It is a crucial shibboleth. Those who appeal to holy rules against homosexuality should indeed be denounced as sub-Christian.” – Theo Hobson – Normally, I like what Theo Hobson has to say about the gay issue and the Church. And perhaps the most important sentence in this latest article is that which appears above. The fact that the Pauline would-be legalists are wrong – in their assumption that homosexuality, per se, is against the Law – is a known fact to Christian Gay people. However, some of… Read more »

I think it is actually fairly recently that liberal Christianity has focused on gay questions. Arguably it should be a broader preoccupation, though thought that was part of the thinking behind affirming catholicism. There are times when I thought liberalism does lose its focus and isn’t Sharp enough on science, evolution (without a doubt the most important of our species) and the similarly well established but to us no less (but surely no more) important literary criticism applied to the bible. The interesting thing is that,these are intellectual areas of human life whereas being inclusive and challenging unjust treatment are… Read more »

Giles Fraser is a (superficially) clever person who is actually very stupid. As always, it’s all about him. The fact – if it is a fact – that he (by his lights) has no personal interest in immortality or resurrection drives his entire theology. The fact that without some such belief it is impossible to justify divine goodness is completely beyond him. This is really, really low grade ‘liberal’ Christianity.

John Moles
Professor of Latin
Newcastle University.

Thank you Goran. That’s very helpful.

Thanks to GKS for the helpful translation corrections. Thanks also to Giles Fraser for getting me right back to Christian basics, and to William Temple. Alas, what has happened to Anglican thinking since Temple? J Richardson seems to have fallen completely into the false trap that punishment enacts any sort of justice, however much we still have recourse to punishment as a practical matter. After long, long, long years of hearing how godly punishment is on earth, with eternal punishment being even more godly, I demur. Punishment now seems to me, to be essentially a clear admission that redemption is… Read more »

Re Goran:
I would have said teleios is something like ‘complete’ rather than ‘mindful of the end’. And in the sense of complete as to its innate ‘end’ one might say perfect (or perfected?) – though I don’t much like ‘perfect’ as a translation here either.

Many valuable comments, especially those from Karen and Goran. However I am surprised no-one has picked up on Theo’s rejection of ‘accepting who you are’ and his belief that it is contradictory to any progress towards perfection/completeness. In my experience it is those (rare?) communities where you feel accepted as you are which most profoundly demonstrate Christian love. As a concept I have heard it from many spiritual sources, but the two which remain most clear are from a local Benedictine nun and from the introductory week of the year-long Ignatian retreat (on-line). Neither would seem to fit the description… Read more »

Many seem to understand “perfect” as punctiliously correct, rather than “brought to a completed state” or “finished” as in a work of art. Thus it is vitally important to “be what one is” and act in accord with the best that is in one. I recently cited the late Canon Richard Norris for his observation that ‘we will say to one who is to all appearances a man, “Be a man!” No one would dare or need say, “Be a cat” to a cat!’

Amanda G has it exactly right.

I – personally – find Hobson and Fraser both to be . . . media personalities. Nothing else. Of course they are going to say controversial things, take the eclectic stance; they do it for the same reason as the annoying hipsters we’ve all known (or, like me, been) at some point: to seem cool, cleverer than everybody else by not approving the crowd’s prevailing tastes, and, most importantly, to make everybody pay attention – which, in their case, means boosting readership. Both are clever enough to know how much word choice matters, so, their provocative statements and phrases can… Read more »

Sort of true, Erika, but that same GF has publicly stated that he won’t bless gay Christian partnerships. That surely should be a difficulty for you?? As for ‘effective communicators’, ‘yes’ also, but also ‘no’, because one can’t evade conscientious evaluation of the CONTENT of what they are communicating, in which, I reassert, GF is consistently low-grade. The point is more general (and it’s one which you yourself have frequently made): one shouldn’t, one really shouldn’t, evaluate contributions ONLY by whether the contributors belong to a particular ‘camp’.

John, I don’t find this difficult at all. You join an institution and you agree to abide by its rules. You may want to change the rules, you may campaign for the rules to be changed, but until they do, you abide by them. That’s a time honoured principle. I personally would not act like that in this case and I personally respect every priest who believes that in the case of same sex equality the time has come to put good theology and human rights before institutional politics. But that is a genuine difference of opinion and approach that… Read more »

The liberals in the Church of England have done, and do do very little consistently to support lgbt people in a practical, principled and again consistent way. In my experience over six decades this has been so; and those who talk the talk most, actually DO little or nothing, or go back on their word. The current archbishop of Canterbury must be the most outstanding contemporary example of this. And most diocesan bishops have knowingly ordained lesbian and gay people as ministers, but when those people need support, they turn their backs;and if necessary lie in public about it. and… Read more »