Podcast: Orthodoxy and Ethics

Mere Fidelity

Mere Fidelity is back after a long summer break, with an episode on the subject of orthodoxy and ethics. We discuss the recent debates about the relationship between orthodoxy and sexual ethics and then talk briefly about the Nashville Statement.

You can also follow the podcast on iTunes, or using this RSS feed. Listen to past episodes on Soundcloud and on this page on my blog.

About Alastair Roberts

Alastair Roberts (PhD, Durham University) writes in the areas of biblical theology and ethics, but frequently trespasses beyond these bounds. He participates in the weekly Mere Fidelity podcast, blogs at Alastair’s Adversaria, and tweets at @zugzwanged.
This entry was posted in Culture, Ethics, Podcasts, Scripture, Sex and Sexuality, The Church, Theological. Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to Podcast: Orthodoxy and Ethics

  1. Geoff says:

    Very interesting, particularly who has signed and who hasn’t signed the Statement. There seems to be more, but not less than the geographic distance at play in the decisions. If the Atlantic Ocean shall lose its saltiness…
    1 “Hermeneutics:”
    Should hermeneutics (of the Statement) play a part in the decision to sign?
    Yes and no.
    Yes, as the Statement was produced from the well known crisis, milieu, within and without the church.
    Yes, as far as interpreting the statement, with the much neglected earlier canon of construction where the meaning, if plain from the words used, the plain meaning is to be given. That’s the problem for some- the meaning is far too plain.
    Yes as far as full biblical theology, so wonderfully evinced by Alastair is concerned. To me it that was excellent, which can not be gainsaid by any of the contributors. Anything else is flaccid and tangential. To me, there is no other hermeneutic to be applied, other than plain meaning, for Christians everywhere at all times. Well said Alastaire, a succinct summation.

    No:It is not to be interpreted by “tone” or the personality or politics of the drafters, nor the denomination, nor the geographic place, – logical fallacies -, nor by looking over shoulders to see how it might pan out. We couldn’t be any closer in time to understand the meaning. What the document says is plain. What it means is plain, not to be interpreted by the passage of time with hindsight. The Statement is of its time.

    2 “My position on this has been set out elsewhere.” This may reveal a sense of self importance, that all will be aware of this and have followed, will have the interest to find out. It is also a particular problem with internet. Not all writings are in one place nor stitched into one document. Not all church members will go looking through personal systematic theologies of the contributors.

    3 Is the Statement necessary, does it not come within the compass of the existing creeds?
    I’d contend that it is necessary as the subject matter of the Statement was not in the forefront of drafters of the creeds. It was not an issue at that time. It is now and it of concern for ordinary Christians , not just the leaders, movers and shakers. They wouldn’t automatically make a link. The Statement is more straighforward and understandable than the Trinity, though it is the Trinity that is Christianity.

    Christians are to advocate for the truth, without fear or favour. It is particularly so for leaders and teachers, with the warnings that echo down the centuries, from the dawn of time. It is of eternal significance.

    I am not a leader, have been on Church Councils, started Local Preachers training in the Methodist, Church preached there, but couldn’t continue in all conscience , as through study I was going against the underlying Arminian teaching, and couldn’t vow not to preach/teach against the church. Teachng.

    I’m now in a Church where the pastor has just retired after more than 35 years service. There are no denomination funds for a replacement. The church is numerically small and members have largely grown up together. The eldership is lay. They greatly appreciated being made aware of the Statement, feeling the force of cultural atmospheric pressure, in sexuality and gender matters. Yes the Statement is for all churches everywhere at all times.

    If I were a leader there is only one reason I’d consider not signing the Statement. Would none members, visitors, be swayed against attending meetings, losing an opportunity to hear the gospel

    But in some places in the UK it starts, not with homosexuality, but with the denial of penal substitution, as being an offence against the character of a God of love. He’d then be a cosmic child abuser. Three church members (long term) had fallen into admitted confusion, sown by the teaching of Steve Chalke, and used to strengthen their pro homosexual stance tried to persuade others. Recently they left after one loudly denounced the church shouting she was transgender. The elders do not have the knowledge, experience, or training to be effective pastorally . The leavers were, however, adamant in there position, have got all the usual argument from the internet, from the likes of Chalke and Rob Bell.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.