Is ‘Living in Love and Faith’ largely a failure?
by Andrew Goddard, Psephizo:
Andrew Goddard writes: This is the first of three articles exploring responses to Living in Love and Faith, particularly among evangelicals committed to the current teaching and discipline of the church. This piece engages with the recent detailed account and critique of LLF offered by Martin Davie arguing that his primary objection is that LLF fails because it was wrong to do what it set out to do. A second article will examine and reject the claim that LLF is designed in order to move the church to an “agree to differ” position. In contrast it will highlight how the resources help us to recognise where and why we disagree and in so doing also show the potential significance of our differences and their possible implications for our common life. A final article will offer ten questions that might help constructive engagement with the LLF resources.
Since its launch in November 2020, there have been a range of responses to the Living in Love and Faith (LLF) resources. These have included numerous comments on social media, more detailed blog posts on places such as Via Media, Psephizo, and The Possibility of Difference, and significant theological evaluations from people like Oliver O’Donovan, John Barton, Adrian Thatcher, and Diarmaid MacCulloch (these last 3 from Modern Church). I recently discussed the book in some detail with Jordan Hylden on The Living Church podcast…
…The publication in March by Latimer Trust of Martin Davie’s Living in Love and Faith: A Concise Introduction and Review and his more detailed and lengthier study in early April from Dictum Press (free PDF available here) means there is now a substantial critical evangelical response. These are based on papers Martin presented for the Church of England Evangelical Council (CEEC) when it discussed LLF in January. What follows is similarly based on a paper I then wrote for CEEC members in response. I am very aware that my perspective is shaped by my involvement for three years in producing the LLF materials and have joked with evangelical critics of it that they probably think I’m a victim of Stockholm Syndrome. Nevertheless, I think that while LLF is not perfect and that critiques of it need to be carefully weighed, some response to Martin’s review and an alternative perspective need to be offered.
See also:
Resourcing the resistance. Martin B Davie, Latimer Trust.
The editor writes: Two books by Martin Davie have recently been published to help us understand and engage with LLF and the issues it raises. He takes a much more critical view of LLF than Andrew Goddard. Davie says: “[…] Christians in the Western World today are faced with the choice of abandoning the traditional Christian worldview in favour of this new one, trying to find some sort of compromise position that enables them to remain Christian while abandoning the traditional Christian view of sexual morality and sexual identity, or being willing to continue to hold to a traditional, orthodox, Christian position and accept the consequences of so doing.” Davie concludes that LLF follows the second of these options which should not be acceptable to faithful Anglicans.
Please right-click links to open in a new window.
Related Posts
Tags
Share This
