I was intrigued by the distinction in Rowland’s article about where we stand on the simplicity-complexity scale, because I think I’m becoming increasingly simplistic in my views on how the churches should be responding to the questions about the place of homosexual Christians.

To me now, the key text is Acts 10: 44-48 where Peter and his fellow believers try to make sense of what God is doing apparently disregarding the rules about insiders and outsiders in the house of Cornelius. In essence Peter concludes that if our theology is unable to accomodate the fact that God is clearly gifting these people, then we’d better just back God on it and sort out our theology as best we can. What God is doing is more important than whether we can fit it into our categories. In that case it was “if God has clearly poured out the Holy Spirit on these people, we’d better back God and baptise them.” Now it is “if God has clearly given this homosexual person the gifts and graces for ministry, then we’d best back God and ordain them.” I’m not suggesting that other criteria be put aside; we still need to test their call, their gifting, and the integrity and fidelity with which they live their lives and conduct their relationships. But if God calls and gifts someone whose lover is the wrong gender, then either our understanding of God’s views on sexuality need reconsidering, or our views on whether God is actually involved in the calling and gifting need reconsidering.

Perhaps Archbishop Peter Jensen would stil think I’m wallowing in ‘complexity the other side of simplicity’, but I don’t know how much simpler it can get!

On another tack, Roland wrote: He (John Shelby Spong) translates the work of contemporary academics into everyday language quite brilliantly.

I’d agree that Spong is brilliant at translating some theology into everyday language, but I’m not sure how contemporary it is. As gracious and listenable as he is, Spong strikes me as someone whose theology fossilised back in the era when demythologisation was the latest thing. I don’t hear him grappling with any of the new angles that theology has taken in the last 20 years. I haven’t read his new book, but his last one, “Why Christianity must change or die” was his most disappointing to date. In it he seemed to me to be a classic old modernist, trying to pare Christian doctrine down to something he could finally be absolutely certain and secure about – something he could be fundamentalist about! Terry Lane, here in Australia, seems much the same, except that Lane has concluded that when you pare it down that much, there’s nothing left. So, as much as I like Spong on a number of subjects, I think his vision for the church and theology are a generation out of date, and I’ve yet to hear him say much that is going to connect with the sensibilities of the emerging generations.

Peace and hope,

Nathan

Related Articles:

• THE NEW EVANGELICALS: HOW CHRISTIANS ARE RETHINKING ABORTION AND GAY MARRIAGE
• Theologians, like parents, are invited to be humble as well as (frequently) ignorant…
• The Jesus Driven Life
• INCARNATION
• Virgin Birth: ‘God degraded Mary?’

This work, unless otherwise expressly stated, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 Australia License.