"Listening" and "Listening"
On another blog (Kendall Harmon's) a little fight has begun about whether or not the Global South is faithfully listening to gay and lesbian Anglicans as the various statements of the Church since Lambeth '98 have required. Below is my foray into the debate:
"As Inigo Montoya said to Vizzini at the Cliffs of Insanity, “You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means.”
There is an interesting debate emerging here and elsewhere about the imperative to “listen” in the midst of this debate on sexuality. To put it in the words of this blog, the reappraisers call us to actively listen to the experience of gay and lesbian Anglicans. By this they mean that the issue remains open. As long as we listen we may get the data that will change the position of the church in these matters.
“Yes”, the reasserters will say, “we will listen.” But they mean something slightly different. Listening does not mean that the issue is open. For many of them (not necessarily all, though) the issue has been decided by the scripture, the consensus fidelium through the ages, and ratified by Lambeth ’98. Listening connotes here a pastoral response within the boundaries of the received tradition.
Some might argue that this is “listening” in bad faith, that the whole concept of listening here requires believing that the question is open. But I do not think it necessarily follows.
As an example: a friend received a letter from a parishioner complaining about him being too Trinitarian. My friend listened respectfully and openly to the person’s difficulties with this doctrine. He did not, however, have to nullify the doctrine of the Trinity as a closed issue in order to listen to the parishioner.
Or how about this: I can openly listen to my old racist curmudgeon of an uncle, his fears and pains amid a changing world. I can even have a modicum of sympathy for him as a person in turmoil. But that is not to say that the return of Jim Crow is an open option.
Certainly there are some listening in bad faith on all various sides of this debate. Comes unfortunately with the fallen turf upon which the battle is joined. Our primary problem is not bad faith, but incommensurate understandings of what listening means here."
"As Inigo Montoya said to Vizzini at the Cliffs of Insanity, “You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means.”
There is an interesting debate emerging here and elsewhere about the imperative to “listen” in the midst of this debate on sexuality. To put it in the words of this blog, the reappraisers call us to actively listen to the experience of gay and lesbian Anglicans. By this they mean that the issue remains open. As long as we listen we may get the data that will change the position of the church in these matters.
“Yes”, the reasserters will say, “we will listen.” But they mean something slightly different. Listening does not mean that the issue is open. For many of them (not necessarily all, though) the issue has been decided by the scripture, the consensus fidelium through the ages, and ratified by Lambeth ’98. Listening connotes here a pastoral response within the boundaries of the received tradition.
Some might argue that this is “listening” in bad faith, that the whole concept of listening here requires believing that the question is open. But I do not think it necessarily follows.
As an example: a friend received a letter from a parishioner complaining about him being too Trinitarian. My friend listened respectfully and openly to the person’s difficulties with this doctrine. He did not, however, have to nullify the doctrine of the Trinity as a closed issue in order to listen to the parishioner.
Or how about this: I can openly listen to my old racist curmudgeon of an uncle, his fears and pains amid a changing world. I can even have a modicum of sympathy for him as a person in turmoil. But that is not to say that the return of Jim Crow is an open option.
Certainly there are some listening in bad faith on all various sides of this debate. Comes unfortunately with the fallen turf upon which the battle is joined. Our primary problem is not bad faith, but incommensurate understandings of what listening means here."
posted by peregrinator at 2:03 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home