Martyn Percy’s non-sense poetry on sexuality
In anticipation of the Primate'south meeting in Jan, Martyn Percy, previously Main of Ripon Higher, Cuddesdon, at present Dean of Christchurch, Oxford, and Vice President of Modern Church building, has prepare out his proposals for what should be discussed and agreed. He sums up his approach as a plea for a poetic resolution, something that transcends the simply managerial, but is 'greater than the sum of its parts'.
Poetry takes a seemingly elementary word, term or expression…and turns this into a quite different language. Poems are tongues of desire; of longing, complaining and laughter. Poetry transforms ordinary words into new shapes and ideas that enhance our existences. It creates something new out of seemingly nothing. It finds wisdom and words of resolution where texts and tongues have failed before.
Just like an ecclesiastical Communion, a poem is greater than the sum of its parts. So as the Anglican Primates gather, may God grant them – and the church building that I love and long to come across so swell and intensify – exactly what information technology needs right at present: the true non-sense of poetry.
That sounds similar a laudable goal—and at times Martyn'due south piece is impressively poetic. Only we all know that some apparent non-sense is the most sublime kind of sense, whereas other poetry is, well, but nonsense. Where does Martyn's proposal fall in this?
Martyn starts by looking to the example of the Church of Scotland'southward recent decision to let presbyteries costless conscience on the question of appointing ministers in aforementioned-sex sexual relationships. He sees this as a possible way forward for the Church of England, but it does not go far enough, since information technology left in place the heterosexist norm that wedlock is between one man and one adult female, and aforementioned-sex unions are treated as deviations from this. Such evaluation conveniently ignores the fact that the decision was widely seen as a victory for liberalism, and passes over the crucial ecclesial issue: that the Church of Scotland is presbyterian and not episcopal. More fundamentally, Martyn either neglects or is ignorant of the key question in this debate. It is not 'Are same-sexual practice unions equivalent to union?' (a question on which different parties disagree to a fairly intractable extent) merely 'Is the question of aforementioned-sex unions and marriage ane on which we can practice conscience, or is information technology more fundamental than that?' 'Traditionals' would take the second selection; liberals the first. And in Scotland, there was no compromise in answering this question in the liberal direction. Just, for Martyn, that is not enough. Using the analogy of a eatery carte du jour (p 3), Martyn makes articulate that the but satisfactory position is that his view on same-sex unions must exist recognised as the norm, and that traditionalists become odd exceptions to this.
In passing, he as well draws parallels with the censor clause on women bishops (a parallel that doesn't really concur), and departure from canon law on liturgy and robing among evangelicals. Again, this proves a poor parallel, suggesting equally it does that the wearing of robes is equally important an issue every bit our theology of marriage, and neglecting to mention the deviation that matters doctrinally—the employ of the Roman Missal in Anglican churches.
This leads into the more than important question of what it means to be a national church. Rather than engage with the (circuitous and theological) issues of what it means to be a 'church established past police' in a post-Christendom context, we are offered a couple of lazy generalisations. To dissent from a position taken by the majority civilisation in liberal Great britain 'is a route-march towards a tribal church', which appears to assume an ecclesiology filleted of any sense of cultural distinctive or commitment to Christian discipleship. This in turn raises the thorny question of mission and growth: such a tribal church building is like 'a sad and unwelcoming eating place' from which 'The diners duly exit'. Martyn returns to this scenario a couple of pages later in summing up the trouble facing Justin Welby. 'A theologically bourgeois church is not an attractive suggestion to the emerging generation'; 'A non-inclusive church building is an evangelistic expressionless-duck.'
It is quite difficult to know how to respond to such ideologically-driven statements which are so far abroad from the evidence on the ground. Has Martyn never visited HTB churches in London? Or New Wine? Or whatever of the theologically conservative 'new' churches? Or black-led churches? Or ane of the other BAME churches in London? Or Hillsongs? Or the FIEC? I tin can only conclude that here he is singing to the choir—a choir out of bear upon with wider research on church growth in the context of changing civilization, and out of touch with large parts of the United kingdom church on the ground.
Martyn reminds us that 'the Scottish, Welsh and Irish Anglican churches have all been far more than positive and open-minded on the issue of same-sexual activity marriage and civil partnerships. Meanwhile, the Church of England – alone in Britain – has continued to travel in the contrary direction.' If anyone tin can point me to examples of thriving church building growth in the Church in Wales, I would be very interested to hear of it.
Instead, Martyn offers an insipid vision of a church building conformed to civilisation. 'A national church must cater for the whole palate of the population. That is what a wide church does.' The palate of the nation is hardly salivating over the idea of repentance, the kingdom of God, Jesus as the apotheosis of the very presence of the Holy One of State of israel, the cross as God'due south atoning piece of work of reconciling sinful humanity, and the horizon of eschatology equally the hope for humanity—then what does 'being a broad church' mean in this context? Given that the Church's differences with society on sexual ideals are tied in to each of these, how can this question be dismissed then casually?
Martyn continues to identify key questions—and then dismiss them with simplistic answers. 'At the heart of this is a debate over what is 'natural' and 'normal', and therefore part of God's created club.' Yep indeed—but the presence of 'gay giraffes' then obviates the need for any consideration of enquiry or reflection almost whether what is in the globe is what should exist. However the earth is tells u.s.a. how God intended the world to be. You would never guess that there have been hundreds of years of Christian fence almost natural theology, nor that there is a biblical theology of fallenness of the globe to be taken into business relationship.
Such simplification does not bode well for date of wider questions in the Anglican communion. Since when did anyone claim that 'The Church building of England counts 25 million members'? And what is Martyn'due south evidence that membership figures in other countries are just every bit unreliable? To take a non-existent assumption and projection it onto other cultures is a doubly unjustified presumption—specially for someone who doesn't announced to accept worked in the African church at any point. This could explicate the dismissal of African attitudes every bit a legacy of Victorian imperialism, instead of a Christian resistance to indigenous religious culture. In Uganda, sodomy was part of the king's exercise of ability over his subjects, and refusal to submit to this was a key cause of the execution of the Ugandan martyrs. Without an exploration of this, pronouncements about what African churches ought to be doing look rather like a new cultural imperialism.
Underlying such simplifications is an unquestioning confidence in the triumph of theological liberalism. 'The globe but spins in one direction. It doesn't stand withal. And information technology doesn't spin backwards.' In other words, my view will in the terminate prevail, so you lot had better all go on lath—and don't waste any time examining the arguments too closely. It reminds me of the purported words of Don Cupitt, founder of the Sea of Religion movement, who would sit on his desk at the starting time of a lecture form, ask who the evangelical Christians were, so tell them: 'One day, you will all be like me.' I wonder if he now recognises whatever turn of the tide?
If all of that is rather unhelpful, there is ane part of Martyn's argument which is distinctly unpleasant, and that is his personal attack on Justin Welby every bit a human being unfit to pb the Communion—indeed, probably unfit even to be ordained, since he is not sufficiently like Martyn himself.
The Archbishop, tin practice little to re-narrate his background – as a privileged white male; Etonian, upper-form; and related to titled people, who has piddling experience of powerlessness. Indeed, in terms of powerlessness, it is difficult to see how he can enter into it, allow alone cover it. His negotiations as a businessman in sensitive areas of Nigeria, whilst winning plaudits in the media, are not the same every bit the piece of work of reconciliation, and arguably non the right 'fit' for the church, where first-hand experiences of powerlessness are often important for shaping episcopal ministry. Indeed, whatever ordained ministry.
Yous would never approximate that this was written by a privileged, white male person, educated at public school, a single curacy in parish ministry, a Cambridge college clergyman, and now head of an aristocracy Oxford college. The hypocrisy of information technology is but outweighed past its acerbity. Neither would you approximate that the chief response nationally to Justin Welby's leadership has been the warm reception of his humanity and honesty. His contempo sermon at the Kid Bereavement Carol service was a model of vulnerable pastoral engagement—but I don't suppose Martyn Percy read it, since it took identify at that 'backward church' with 'no futurity amidst the emerging generation', HTB. I would love to read something one-half as engaging by Martyn himself.
And you lot would never gauge that this was written by someone who grew Ripon Higher, Cuddesdon very finer, not to the lowest degree by making some ruthless management decisions—or who vigorously opposed any move towards a shared syllabus for theological didactics, the one affair that ordination preparation actually needs. Commitment to unity, anyone?
Again, the level of discussion about sexuality has taken a big step down. If, as Martyn claims, 'all the noise comes from the shallow terminate', and then this is a very noisy piece indeed. My hope would exist that, any direction the futurity conversations have, they will move away from simplistic dismissal, personal set on, and manipulative power plays. I supposed that'southward not a bad affair to wish for in the coming year.
Follow me on Twitter @psephizo.Like my folio on Facebook.
Much of my piece of work is done on a freelance footing. If you lot have valued this mail, would y'all considerdonating £i.20 a month to support the production of this blog?
If you enjoyed this, do share it on social media (Facebook or Twitter) using the buttons on the left. Follow me on Twitter @psephizo. Similar my page on Facebook.
Much of my work is done on a freelance basis. If you lot accept valued this post, you can make a unmarried or repeat donation through PayPal:
For other ways to support this ministry, visit my Support page.
Comments policy: Good comments that engage with the content of the postal service, and share in respectful debate, can add together real value. Seek first to understand, so to be understood. Brand the most charitable construal of the views of others and seek to learn from their perspectives. Don't view debate every bit a disharmonize to win; address the argument rather than tackling the person.
Source: https://www.psephizo.com/sexuality-2/martyn-percys-non-sense-poetry-on-sexuality/
0 Response to "Martyn Percy’s non-sense poetry on sexuality"
Post a Comment