Martin's basic thesis is that the C of E's teaching on sexual ethics, which officially follows the "traditionalist" or evangelical understanding, should not be changed, because the revisionist arguments, which can be seen in detailed summary, are not convincing. Discuss. So last Saturday a meeting of evangelicals and revisionists was convened to respond to Martin's book. This was not officially part of the Shared Conversations process, but once we moved away from the more academic response to the material to small group discussion, we found that the methods used were similar to what will be found in the SC's around the country. I was there, and I can say a bit about it -- I can report what was said but not identify the speakers (apart from Martin Davie himself).

The meeting began with Martin introducing his book, and then followed three brief responses, from two academics and an LGBT activist. These speakers strongly disagreed with Martin's position. One retired Professor of Theology believed that the conservative evangelical position which Martin takes is "modernist" (ie not sufficiently guided by postmodern "hermeneutics of suspicion"), and that belief in the authority of the Bible has resulted in terrible abuses. Another was less overtly critical, admitting that the revisionists have to answer the charge that they have nothing to say that is different from secularists. However he felt that Martin had not taken into account the eschatological dimension -- since Jesus said that in heaven there will be no marriage, same sex relationships may mirror something of perfect relationships of the future. The third respondent was particularly annoyed at Martin's detailed treatment of the Sodom story in Genesis in which he shows that while the men of the town display gross lack of hospitality, the author portrays their unbridled homosexual desire as the most serious and final sign of their depravity, resulting in God's judgement. This interpretation was seen as evidence that conservative evangelicals don't care about poverty and injustice, an accusation that was repeated more than once during the day.

After this we went into small groups, which reflected the diversity of views, and the purpose of the group was not to discuss Scripture, but to share our "journey". There was then some discussion in larger groups about our response to Martin's material and the implications of the debate for the church, plenary, and summary comments. During the day I heard some interesting testimony from openly gay clergy and lay leaders. One wanted to marry as soon as possible but "couldn't afford it"; and was very candid that a strong reason for wanting to change the church's official teaching was in order to progress more easily up the ladder of ecclesiastical preferment. More than once it was affirmed how understanding and experience of divine love had grown as a result of the erotic aspect of close same sex relationship. At various points I was told that the view that people like myself hold (the historic, orthodox Christian doctrine on sex and marriage) was responsible for the misery and even suicide of many young people; that it made mission impossible, and that the imperative of "love" means that Jesus must be affirming of gay relationships.

It was noticeable that despite Martin Davie's attempt to keep the text of Scripture central, there was little appetite to discuss individual texts in the smaller or larger groups. There was agreement that Jesus and the Bible are central to our faith, but little common ground on issues of interpretation and authority. It was said more than once from the front that the future of the Church of England, even with "Good Disagreement" (as opposed to bitter personal attacks and legal wrangling) might require some kind of structural separation. There was no attempt to pretend that really evangelicals and liberals are not that far apart -- rather there was an admission made several times by different contributors that we have totally different understandings of the basics of faith.

Certainly the revisionists in my group were optimistic that the Church of England would not be able to resist the pressure of culture and of the swelling chorus of voices within its own ranks (most recently, the Dean of St Paul's) to affirm faithful same sex relationships and even marriage. One participant quoted Steve Chalke as saying that the important debate is now within the evangelical constituency, as more and more lay people and even clergy in Gospel-preaching churches either have become "accepting" or believe the issue to be second-order. The revisionist participants were magnanimous about what they saw as their inevitable victory, saying that just as provision had been made for opponents of women Bishops, so those who can't accept gay marriage in church would not be forced to do so by the church (if the State were to step in, well that would be a matter of justice and the rule of law).

At the beginning of the day we were told by a lead facilitator that in this dispute, people take entrenched positions, demonise the other and lob arguments back and forth. But when people get together and talk, "magic happens". For me, while the day was very useful and while listening to people with different views can be interesting and stretching, there was no magic in the personal encounters. I came away disturbed, perhaps because although Christ was present, so also were the invisible rulers which are seeking to lead astray through siren voices, to blind to the truth, to exercise control in the church and the nation. No-one really knows how this works, but it seems to me that Christ will not intervene to save his Church through polite conversations between people of radically different understandings of truth, but through a faithful remnant seeing the danger, committing to prayer, continuing to declare the Word even if "out of season" (unpopular), perhaps standing for committees and Synods, living a life of power, love and self-discipline.

END