A leading Southwark Evangelical clergyman and outspoken critic of recent actions by Conservative Evangelicals in that diocese and elsewhere has publicly stated his acceptance that same-sex relationships are “ethically possible” when they are “loving, committed and monogamous”.
In a recent post on the website of Fulcrum, the Open Evangelical group launched at the National Evangelical Anglican Congress in 2003, Canon Simon Butler describes himself as “pro-gay and listening”, and says that he now wants to argue the pro-gay case from within the Evangelical Anglican movement.
Butler says that there has to be “a degree of honesty in evangelicalism”, though he is aware that many other Evangelicals will disagree with his position. “I've thought, prayed and agonised about whether that immediately writes me out of the Evangelical Book of Life,” he comments, “and in all conscience I don’t think it does.” The Evangelical tradition, he says, is the one that “nourishes, supports and inspires him”, adding that Evangelical Anglicans have always been willing to argue their case in disputed matters.
Simon Butler is the Team Rector of the Sanderstead group of four parishes in Croydon, South London. In 2005, he was one of the signatories of a letter produced by those Evangelicals in Southwark who supported Bishop Tom Butler (no relation) in his action against the Revd Richard Coekin over the latter's involvement in irregular ordinations in Southwark. In a legal appeal, the bishop’s revocation of Coekin’s license was later ruled as unwarranted.
More recently, Butler wrote an article published in the Church of England Newspaper which was highly critical both of Coekin and of an unnamed “prominent Evangelical minister” in his own diocese for their attitude to the rest of the Church of England. “Conservative Evangelicals,” he wrote, “are so locked into their small world that they find it hard to acknowledge even the existence of other ways of being evangelical.” Fulcrum, he went on to say, represents the “evangelical centre”, but he suggested that too many who shared its views were afraid of standing up and declaring that the conservatives didn’t speak for them.
Go to the Fulcrum forum
Monday 8 January 2007
Leading Southwark Evangelical says same-sex relationships are "ethically possible"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Simon Butler has recorded his views on the Fulcrum forum as an individual and not representing anyone but himself.
Fulcrum's values in this matter are recorded clearly on their web site under 'What is the Evangelical Centre.
iii. Theology and Ethics.
1.In the much-contested area of sexual ethics this means that the proper context for sexual expression is the union of a man and a woman in marriage. We will participate in debates on issues in sexual ethics arising today in the life of the Church and we identify as key references the CofE document Issues in Human Sexuality and Resolution 1.10 of the 1998 Lambeth Conference and True Union (a document shared with the Anglican Primates' Meeting, Brazil 2003).
Revd Simon Butler agreed the wording of this post before it was published. His views are clearly not those of all supporters of Fulcrum.
In agreeing to this posting (and thanks to John for the courtesy of notifying me beforehand), I wouldn't want people to think that this issue is central to my thinking. I am convinced that sexuality is NOT a first-order issue in the Church and that, therefore, AM is mistaken for emphasising the viewpoint that the debate focuses around this issue. Rather, I take the view that this is an issue about which Christians can (and patently, do) disagree without the need to separate from each other. Unity in Christ is a first-order issue.
Simon,
I agree with you that this is something about which we should debate in communion.
Christ calls all people to be part of his body as they are. Now, it's also true that he doesn't expect us to stay as we are, but to move increasingly into his image. Yet what this means for each individual varies (depending on context, background, experiences, abilities etc..), so the church should always maintain a degree of generosity in what it 'expects' of people.
This is to say that we are each judged individually before our Lord and, thus, our judgements upon each other are, at best, seen 'in part'.
With this in mind, to break communion with someone over ethical behaviour which we determine to be 'wrong' is to act as judge and jury in God's place and ahead of God's time.
'We' (whichever side that is) may well be 'right' but the only path towards 'rightness' is through 'bearing with one another in Love'.
I'm sure that many AM readers will be concerned for 'biblical' ethics (and rightly so), but we should be careful that in seeking this aim we do not reject one 'for whom Christ died...' and who declares that 'Jesus is Lord'.
Tigger said: "to break communion with someone over ethical behaviour which we determine to be 'wrong' is to act as judge and jury in God's place and ahead of God's time."
Dear Tigger, No, I have heard several (usually liberal) Christians assert that, but it is obviously wrong. What if the "ethical issue" were murder or rape ?!!
Here are a couple of relevant references on judging other Christian's behaviour: John 20:23, 1Cor5:3-5
The bible teaches that homosexuality is wrong.
I have no objection to kneeling at the communion rail next to another sinner be they a thief, an adulterer, a homosexual or a lesbian. After all we are all sinners in one way or another.
However, I strongly object to a homosexual (or lesbian) priest perhaps in a civil union with another like-minded person administering communion and preaching from the pulpit.
This is hypocrisy gone mad.
Dave,
Interesting that you should quote from 1st Corinthians. Given the moral chaos and 'sin' present within that church, it's interesting that Paul addresses them thus:
'I always thank God for you because of his grace given you in Christ Jesus. For in him you have been enriched in every way—in all your speaking and in all your knowledge— because our testimony about Christ was confirmed in you. Therefore you do not lack any spiritual gift as you eagerly wait for our Lord Jesus Christ to be revealed. He will keep you strong to the end, so that you will be blameless on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. God, who has called you into fellowship with his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, is faithful.' (1 Cor 1:4-9 NIV).
Obviously HE was happy to remain in communion with them (and sexual sin was but ONE of their failures).
His comment in 1 Cor 5 re: one particular fellow within the congregation is certainly 'hard teaching', but we should be aware that this 'sanction' (whatever it might have actually 'looked like') came with Apostolic force (the group who were granted such 'authority' in your other quote from John 20), and certainly isn't an automatic mandate to go around excommunicating anyone with whom you have a particular grievance (whether moral or personal!).
Post a Comment