“As Night Follows Day? (Part 2)
David Phillips
January 28, 2010(Editor’s note: The following article was written by David Phillips, general secretary of the Church Society, the oldest evangelical organization in the Church of England. The article originally appeared in its entirety here . Part 1 is available here .)
But is it fair to argue that the acceptance of one will lead to the acceptance of the other? What grounds are there for asserting this?
That is a good question. It is good to see that Phillips does not see his introduction as giving grounds for believing that one follows the other. Not sure why he had his introduction…
First, there are the facts of history. There are now too many cases to ignore – national denominations which have embraced the ordination of women which then went on to embrace homosexual practice. The Evangelical Lutheran Church of the US is the most recent casualty which in August voted to permit sexual immorality amongst its clergy.”
There is no doubt that in liberalism has taken over churches by changing one thing and then another. Societies and communities do not always find change easy, so it usually happens in steps. The question is, does the history argument point to ordination of women leading to ordination of homosexuals or is the reality that when someone throws out the Bible they will work to make the church what they want it to be, one step at a time?
As it is, history tells us that one does not always lead to the other. There are too many examples for the comps to ignore that show patriarchal societies where homosexuality is accepted. There have been patriarchal churches where homosexuality has been an issue. There have also been egal denominations that have not confined the role of women who have stood firm against homosexuality.
History alone, especially when viewed completely, does not provide grounds for one leading to the other.
“Secondly, the shift seems inevitable because unbiblical innovation necessarily leads to division. When pretty much all of Christendom has been united in saying that the Bible says one thing and then people start arguing that it says something different there are bound to be some who disagree.”
Hmmm…Is this where Phillips is going to tell us we should not have abolished slavery…
“Some inevitably will feel unable to remain when a Church seeks to legitimize what they believe to be error. It is well known that more than 20 members of the General Synod left the Church of England after the 1992 decision to ordain women as priests. In total more than 500 clergy left, although some later returned and a few may have used it as an excuse to get out with compensation. There were not a few members of Church Society among them. What was left was therefore weaker and more liberal. The same things happened years ago in the US Episcopal Church. Indeed most of the protestant, reformed, evangelicals left a generation or more ago often turning to Presbyterianism. Things are different in the Church of England because it is our national and established church so fewer people have left over recent decades but the general point is valid, the ordination of women in the Church of England has weakened the ‘conservative’ voice. Furthermore, the women so appointed are more likely to be liberal because a woman who accepts the classical evangelical or Anglo-Catholic position is not going to seek such a role.”
So how did we go from talking about evidence for one leading to another to talking about disagreement? Because when someone believes in the ordination of women, conservatives leave and those who are left are more liberal and want to accept homosexuality. This certainly did not happen in the Presbyterian Church of Australia where the more ‘conservative’ stayed and the more ‘liberal’ left!
But how, when it happens, does this show one leads to the other? Phillips explanation would show that church splits lead to weaker churches. I agree! It would also suggest that it is the fault of the more conservative that leave! But none of this is evidence that one leads to the other!
“Thirdly, the pressure from outside the Church increases. My experience, and I think that of others too, is that it is often outsiders who spot the flaws in our cherished ideas. Media interviewers are particularly good at this. Some in the church have elaborate arguments as to why Scripture does not say what it appears, but interviewers cannot see how this differs from arguments about sexual conduct, they are quick to see the gaps and pounce. In contrast when we stick doggedly with what the Bible actually teaches they may think we are mad (though they don’t usually say so on air) but they also see that we are being consistent. Moreover, they can see that whatever else might be said Christians through history have held both issues to be wrong.”
Hmmm…this is a hard paragraph to follow. Phillips seems to be saying that those outside the church, such as the media, put pressure on us to move from one to the other. But – he also seems to be saying that if we don’t even start ordaining women, or homosexuals, then we are recognized as consistent with ourselves and with history and there is less pressure to change.
It should be noted that this is apparently Phillips experience…that he has stuck doggedly with what (he thinks) the Bible teaches, and people have not pressured him. But when has he experienced the pressure? Surely he did not start agreeing with the ordination of women and homosexual at some stage. This is the only way that this example of his could actually have been his experience as he claims. Hmmm?!?!
I must say that my experience (as I have also been a comp) is that people see that the comp view is not consistent with scripture and the Gospel of being one body in Jesus Christ. The media would not care if we were being consistent with hundreds of years of church history and practiced slavery. They would put pressure on us to stop! The media, in Australia at least, is very pro equal rights. They do apply pressure to the church to change already in areas where they recognize discrimination.
Phillips has failed to provide evidence for one leading to the other and his arguments to this stage have not been logical or consistent. The third installment is coming soon…perhaps he will finish well?
Related posts: