Oliver O'Donovan on 'Good News for Gay Christians'
Here is Oliver O'Donovan's last in his series on contemporary issues.
It asks a great question: in what sense is the gospel good news for gay christians?
9 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Phew –that was hard work reading –but yes does raise some interesting questions. I think that the crux comes somewhere around the point where he asks if the good news from and to the gay Christian is any different to any other Christian. On one level he says no it is not. And I guess that is my starting point. We are all spoken to about grace and forgiveness within Christ’s kingdom. But he also says there is differentiation because of different gifts and experiences. We have different things to offer. The questions I’m musing on are Will the Christian who has a homosexual orientation bring something different because of that orientation –or because of specific life experiences –bullying, frustration at unfulfilled passions, being part of a minority…and are those experiences different to others who have experienced them because he is gay. Secondly –what is the effect of the good news in a situation where someone disagrees on whether their current behaviour/lifestyle is sinful? And how then does the Church offer gospel good-news on that point?
Well: yes, this is the nub. What kind of disagreement is it? What is its true size and shape as an issue? O'Donovan's hope is that the ongoing commitment to discuss will, like successful radiotherapy, reduce the size of the cancer somewhat. He is not after merely a practical compromise, note.
This was an interesting paragraph: "There are no guarantees. There never are in the Christian life. But that is not a reason not to try. And seriously trying means being seriously patient. Anyone who thinks that resolutions can be reached in one leap without long mutual exploration, probing, challenge and clarification, has not yet understood the nature of the riddle that the ironic fairy of history has posed for us in our time."
Aren't there SOME guarantees? Will we not learn perhaps to see that the ironic fairy of history is the providential hand of God?
How would we make this work, particularly a questioning friendship, for people who are not academic theologians but have a pastoral responsibility to shepherd the flock of God? Any thoughts on how you would work this out in the life of a church family or can it only be carried on by individuals?
Will we not learn perhaps to see that the ironic fairy of history is the providential hand of God? Not this side of the end of history. The scroll of the riddle of the meaning of history is sealed and only the slain Lamb can open it. Hazarding the true meaning of any historical event can only be an approximation prior to the revelation of the end (or should I say the End, the Omega, the Last One, Christ?). I guess to that extent I agree with Pannenberg. However, that the end has been revealed in resurrection (but then hidden by ascension) means that we are not entirely at a loss. We know the centre from which every event will gain its meaning.
anonymous -I think that it is something that has to be pastorally led. In that sense I think Church discipline issues should be much more about is someone prepared to work with the body and the leadership on an issue -ready to listen and change their mind -rather than discipline because they have committed a specific sin
Michael if I may be permitted a statement of simple praise, rather than a proper response to your post:
Not being in England or plugged into the scene there I'd previously been ignorant of these "Sermons on the Subjects of the Day" (impertinent title!) on the web by Oliver O'Donovan. Rather than starting at the end I thought to start at the beginning, and have just finished "The Failure of the Liberal Paradigm", which is excellent. Thanks for providing the link.
Towards the end there is a small passage, Gays also pose existential questions. They interest themselves in the riddle of gay existence. Anexetastos bios abiotos, said Socrates; the life that is unexamined is intolerable to live. And much of the gay Angst is to do with the difficulty of raising questions in public that seem overwhelmingly pressing when they directly concern oneself...
which is relevant to a discussion in one of the threads you set running in November. There was much in the discussion on the controversy re homosexuality, and I weighed in from the perspective of the straight-but-single. No doubt the difficulty O'Donovan speaks of is especially strong for gay people, but it also applies to the single condition in our times, and I thought O'Donovan's account generally a good one of how something might (as you and others objected) not be a trump card or a source of authority ... but might still be an urgent matter, that would be perilous to ignore or to characterise badly. I was trying to push for something like this, but maybe not well.
I don't really want to re-open that thread, since more than enough was said at the time, myself not excepted. So let me just point at OO'D and use an American phrase: "what he said!"
9 comments:
Phew –that was hard work reading –but yes does raise some interesting questions. I think that the crux comes somewhere around the point where he asks if the good news from and to the gay Christian is any different to any other Christian. On one level he says no it is not. And I guess that is my starting point. We are all spoken to about grace and forgiveness within Christ’s kingdom. But he also says there is differentiation because of different gifts and experiences. We have different things to offer. The questions I’m musing on are
Will the Christian who has a homosexual orientation bring something different because of that orientation –or because of specific life experiences –bullying, frustration at unfulfilled passions, being part of a minority…and are those experiences different to others who have experienced them because he is gay.
Secondly –what is the effect of the good news in a situation where someone disagrees on whether their current behaviour/lifestyle is sinful? And how then does the Church offer gospel good-news on that point?
Well: yes, this is the nub. What kind of disagreement is it? What is its true size and shape as an issue? O'Donovan's hope is that the ongoing commitment to discuss will, like successful radiotherapy, reduce the size of the cancer somewhat. He is not after merely a practical compromise, note.
This was an interesting paragraph:
"There are no guarantees. There never are in the Christian life. But that is not a reason not to try. And seriously trying means being seriously patient. Anyone who thinks that resolutions can be reached in one leap without long mutual exploration, probing, challenge and clarification, has not yet understood the nature of the riddle that the ironic fairy of history has posed for us in our time."
Aren't there SOME guarantees? Will we not learn perhaps to see that the ironic fairy of history is the providential hand of God?
Hmm.
How would we make this work, particularly a questioning friendship, for people who are not academic theologians but have a pastoral responsibility to shepherd the flock of God? Any thoughts on how you would work this out in the life of a church family or can it only be carried on by individuals?
Will we not learn perhaps to see that the ironic fairy of history is the providential hand of God?
Not this side of the end of history. The scroll of the riddle of the meaning of history is sealed and only the slain Lamb can open it. Hazarding the true meaning of any historical event can only be an approximation prior to the revelation of the end (or should I say the End, the Omega, the Last One, Christ?). I guess to that extent I agree with Pannenberg. However, that the end has been revealed in resurrection (but then hidden by ascension) means that we are not entirely at a loss. We know the centre from which every event will gain its meaning.
Well it depends how dramatic an uncovering you think the resurrection is, doesn't it...? It is more than a hint, but it isn't a complete disclosure...
I was going to ask -but I think Michael has answered (though others may differ) -has the lamb already opened the scroll or has it already been opened
anonymous -I think that it is something that has to be pastorally led. In that sense I think Church discipline issues should be much more about is someone prepared to work with the body and the leadership on an issue -ready to listen and change their mind -rather than discipline because they have committed a specific sin
well, certainly the full true meaning of a given event is concealed: though we do have the knowledge of the key event/s that change everything...
The ironic fairy sounds very English, doesn't he/she?
Michael if I may be permitted a statement of simple praise, rather than a proper response to your post:
Not being in England or plugged into the scene there I'd previously been ignorant of these "Sermons on the Subjects of the Day" (impertinent title!) on the web by Oliver O'Donovan. Rather than starting at the end I thought to start at the beginning, and have just finished "The Failure of the Liberal Paradigm", which is excellent. Thanks for providing the link.
Towards the end there is a small passage, Gays also pose existential questions. They interest themselves in the riddle of gay existence. Anexetastos bios abiotos, said Socrates; the life that is unexamined is intolerable to live. And much of the gay Angst is to do with the difficulty of raising questions in public that seem overwhelmingly pressing when they directly concern oneself...
which is relevant to a discussion in one of the threads you set running in November. There was much in the discussion on the controversy re homosexuality, and I weighed in from the perspective of the straight-but-single. No doubt the difficulty O'Donovan speaks of is especially strong for gay people, but it also applies to the single condition in our times, and I thought O'Donovan's account generally a good one of how something might (as you and others objected) not be a trump card or a source of authority ... but might still be an urgent matter, that would be perilous to ignore or to characterise badly. I was trying to push for something like this, but maybe not well.
I don't really want to re-open that thread, since more than enough was said at the time, myself not excepted. So let me just point at OO'D and use an American phrase: "what he said!"
Post a Comment