On why conservatives remain conservative
by Martin Davie, Justyn Terry and Chris Wright, CEEC.
The argument of Jayne Ozanne and the fourth possibility she overlooks.
In her article ‘Bishops’ Letters and the Case for the Defence – “Lunatic, Liar, or Lord”’ posted on the Via Media website on 22 October 2018, Jayne Ozanne refers to C S Lewis’ famous argument in Mere Christianity that the evidence that we possess about what Jesus was like means that the only options we have are to say that he was a liar, say that he was a lunatic, or accept him as Lord. She then suggests that in a similar way there are only three possible explanations as to why conservative bishops refuse to accept the legitimacy of accepting an ‘inclusive’ reading of Scripture that affirms the legitimacy of same sex sexual relationships.
The three possibilities are, she says,
‘(i) that they have either not heard or understood the fact that there are others who in all conscience believe that Holy Scripture can be read differently, and that their teaching is doing immeasurable harm. (ii) that they do not respect those who have a different understanding of Scripture, and therefore feel able to blank their differing views because they do not believe they are Christian views, and that those who suffer do so because of their sinful desires
Or (iii) that they are stubbornly sticking to their point of view because to do otherwise would mean having to admit that they are wrong and they would then need to recognise the immense damage they have inflicted on so many under their care.’
Ozanne invites alternative possibilities, and there is surely a fourth: that there are bishops and other Christians who take a traditional view of sexual ethics not for the reasons given, but because they have examined the ‘inclusive’ readings of Scripture with care, and do not find them persuasive.
Related Posts
Tags
Share This
