GAFCON (the Global Anglican Futures Conference) headlines
the issue before the Anglican Primates meeting this week by saying:
At stake is a basic church defining principle: will Christ
rule our life and witness through his Word, or will our life and witness be
conformed to the global ambitions of a secular culture?
There is the possibility of following biblical teaching on the
one side. There is the possibility of following
the norms of the society around us on the other side. We just have to choose which.
Or (GAFCON’s allusion is presumably to Romans 12.2) “do not
be conformed to this age but be transformed
by the renewing of your minds”; the word translated ‘con-formed’ has the route
‘sy-scheme’ so has the sense to re-model; the word translated ‘trans-form’ is
‘meta-morphosis’. Do we want to 'fit in' or 'be changed'?
But I wonder whether there are really many Christians out
there who set aside every social and scientific consensus in the world around
them where they detect any conflict with a specific New Testament text?
Perhaps some Amish, Brethern and creationist groups are
close to this? In part, they are recognised
for things like their attitude to the dress and role of women and their keeping
themselves apart from those who do not believe as they do. Most chiefly, they ought to be (and some are) recognised by
their forgiving, non-judgemental and pacifist manner.
Equally I wonder whether there are really many Christians
out there who set aside any New Testament teaching as soon as is seems to be
odds with what their early twentieth-century neighbours assume to be true?
Perhaps corrupt and worldly church leaders have always been
close to this? Nevertheless, I can’t
really think of any genuine Christian groups who reflect the sort of
competitive, consumerist, individualistic and licentious
strands which run through much of society as we find it around us.
So I do wonder about the polarity and simplicity of the GAFCON
headline. Perhaps the truth is that
almost every Christian is actually caught in a careful act of discernment to
which the headline doesn’t do justice?
There are well repeated arguments. What does the biblical imperative to love our neighbour say to
us about the process of wealth creation around us? What does equality and human right
legislation say to us about the New Testament’s apparent acceptance of
slavery?
There are less well recognised challenges. Where does something like
epi-eikies (first a Greek philosophical
term, then used in the Greek translation of the Old Testament read by the New
Testament writers, and then a New Testament term) take our practical
judgements?
What calls do we make when there are presenting issues of dispute
– about non-kosher meat or meat used in pagan sacrifice, about charging
interest on loans and releasing from debt, about remarriage after divorce, about
committed gay relationships?
Yes, some of the time it will seem clear to us that on the particular issue the people with whom we disagree do appear to have failed to take the New Testament perspective seriously enough.
But equally, some of the time it will be clear to us that they it is scientific or social discovery which haven't been taken seriously enough.
Either way, it probably isn’t much help hurling the term ‘fundamentalist’
at those who call these things one way or ‘revisionist’ when weighing the
arguments of those who call these things the other way.
A classic sixteenth century Anglican position has been that
of Richard Hooker who explored his first loyalty to scripture alongside his
sense that the ‘natural law’ is becoming clearer the longer human beings are attentive
to the world around them and who then looked to the guidance of the church when
these first two sources didn’t give a clear lead (sometimes over simplified as
having ‘scripture, reason and tradition’ on which to call).
A classic twenty-first century Anglican position is that
none of us have minds which are fully re-schemed, meta-morphosed, trans-formed
and re-newed. There are layers of self deception, unreflective
biblical literalism and secular assumption in there all the time alongside openness to God, Gospel-prompted priorities and society-inspired truths.
It may actually be that it is our willingness to live
together with those who fail like us which has been the most church defining thing
about us all along.
Meanwhile, the sun was on the back of the gravestones in St
Nicolas’ churchyard late in the afternoon yesterday.