Church defining

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.