Andrew Goddard writes: What follows demonstrates a recent statement about PLF by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, is significantly misleading in relation to what the bishops have decided, what the church teaches on sexual ethics, who PLF is for, and what PLF offers. This development, contradicting and undermining past theological and legal advice as well as statements to General Synod, raises serious questions as to how and why such misrepresentations of the facts have been made and can only further damage trust in the PLF process and the Archbishop’s leadership.
In a short TikTok clip of a forthcoming interview with Alastair Campbell and Rory Stewart for The Rest is Politics, the Archbishop of Canterbury has revealed why the Prayers of Love and Faith introduced under his leadership are causing so much damage to the Church of England.
He was faced with a question alluding back to another interview with Campbell seven years ago. Then Archbishop Welby said he could not offer a “straight answer” about “Is gay sex sinful?” as “I know I haven’t got a good answer” and so he said in November 2017, “Yes. I am copping out because I am struggling with the issue”. Asked now if he had a better answer he replied “Yes I do” before joking that this was the sort of question Campbell would have been signalling to Blair to cut out of answering.
He then said
What the Archbishop of York and I, and the bishops, by a majority, by no means unanimous, and the church is deeply split over this. Where we’ve come to is to say that all sexual activity should be within a committed relationship and whether it’s straight or gay. In other words, we’re not giving up on the idea that sex is within marriage or civil partnership. We’ve put forward a proposal that where people have been through a civil partnership or a same-sex marriage, equal marriage under the 2014 Act, they should be able to come along to their local, to a church, and have a service of prayer and blessing for them in their lives together. So we accept that. Now, I think this is a long way from church same-sex marriage… (0:35-1:35)
In that one minute there are four statements which are either misleading or demonstrably false about where the church stands and what has happened in the PLF process.
First, it is true that the Archbishop of York and Archbishop Justin himself have already made statements along these lines about sexual ethics. The Archbishop of York famously did so immediately after the proposed prayers were published in an interview on Radio 4’s Sunday programme on 22nd January 2023.
Interviewer: Can we just clarify one point? Is it still church teaching that gay sex is a sin?
Archbishop of York: Well, what we are saying is that physical and sexual intimacy belongs in committed, stable, faithful relationships and therefore where we see a committed, stable, faithful relationship between two people of the same sex, we are now in a position where those people can be welcomed fully into the life of the Church, on their terms.
Interviewer: And given a blessing: you don’t bless sin, right? So you must be blessing something you believe to be good.
Archbishop of York: As I say, we believe that stable, faithful, committed, loving relationships are good. They are the place for physical intimacy…
In June 2023 Archbishop Welby said something similar to what he does in this new interview (see Martin Davie’s critique at the time):
I think we do need to be more open about the basic rules, the basic understanding of sexual morality within Christian thinking. Without sounding as though we are lecturing, but just to be unapologetic about saying . . . sexual activity should be within permanent, stable, and faithful relationships of marriage, as that is understood in each society.
The problem is that though the Archbishops have said this (and many bishops probably agree with them), the bishops have never formally, even by a majority, decided or said that the church’s teaching is that
all sexual activity should be within a committed relationship and whether it’s straight or gay. In other words we’re not giving up on the idea that sex is within marriage or civil partnership.
Here the Archbishop is (unless this is yet another case of the bishops deciding something but keeping it secret) quite simply wrong and misleading Alastair Campbell and the viewers of the interview about what the bishops he leads have decided and publicly said and done.
Secondly, and more seriously, we can be fairly sure there is no formal but secret episcopal agreement because the House of Bishops has in fact said something quite different. At the time of those previous statements by the Archbishops in the first half of 2023 there was a certain amount of unclarity as to what, as part of the PLF process, the bishops were going to say about the proper place for sex. It then however became clear that upholding the church’s teaching on marriage as they were committed to do meant there was a clear answer. This was not the “better answer” given by the Archbishop but the answer the bishops have repeatedly given in multiple statements over recent years through to the Pastoral Statement on Civil Partnerships in December 2019, in line with historic church teaching which is itself understood to be based on Scripture and the teaching of Jesus:
The Church of England teaches that “sexual intercourse, as an expression of faithful intimacy, properly belongs within marriage exclusively” (Marriage:a teaching document of the House of Bishops, 1999). Sexual relationships outside heterosexual marriage are regarded as falling short of God’s purposes for human beings (para 9).
So, in papers to the November 2023 General Synod (GS 2328) it was clearly stated as a result of discussion at the House of Bishops that
The Church’s doctrine remains as set out in Canon B 30 (Of Holy Matrimony); we have been clear that we have no intention of changing that doctrine. We also note that the Church’s teaching on sexual relations has been treated as being part of the Church’s doctrine of marriage. We are not proposing to change that teaching (para 13)
A theological rationale for PLF was set out in Annex H and the bishops noted that the theological basis for the prayers was that they were
a pastoral outworking for a time of uncertainty that respects the Church of England’s unchanged doctrine of marriage, including the aspects of that doctrine that are concerned with sexual intimacy. On that basis, we have concluded that making the PLF available for same-sex couples without there being an assumption as to their sexual relationships would not be contrary to the doctrine of the Church of England (para 15).
The bishops in setting out whether the prayers were legal (presumably based on some of the still unpublished legal advice) were clear that this judgment was based on the theological rationale. This included “that it is not intended to change the Church of England’s doctrine of marriage” and “that the Church’s teaching on sexual activity is regarded as part of that doctrine” (para 22).
And so, when the prayers were commended in December 2023, the Pastoral Guidance clearly stated on the very first page:
The Church of England teaches that Holy Matrimony is a lifelong covenant between one man and one woman, blessed by God in creation and pointing to the love between Christ and the Church; a way of life which Christ makes holy. It is within marriage that sexual intimacy finds its proper place.
This means that not only is it wrong to say that the House of Bishops has said what the Archbishop claimed, they have instead said something quite different. They have, in fact, made that different statement the theological rationale and legal basis for the PLF which frames the guidance that accompanies the prayers and which clergy should follow.
It cannot be the case that the bishops are “not giving up on the idea that sex is within marriage or civil partnership” because that has never been and still is not the church’s teaching. It also seems that, expressing the teaching in those terms, unless “marriage” is now also being stretched by the Archbishop to include same-sex couples, he is rather oddly saying that he and the bishops are only permitting same-sex couples in civil partnerships to be in a sexual relationship. This is despite the fact that, although clergy have for many years been permitted to enter same-sex civil partnerships, the bishops are still required to ensure those civil partnerships are non-sexual.
It is one thing to reject the church’s current teaching and engage in theological debate about an alternative. It is quite another to so directly misrepresent that teaching, which has in fact recently been reaffirmed, particularly if you are an Archbishop.
Who are the Prayers of Love and Faith for?
Thirdly, although not as clear or serious a misrepresentation of the Church of England’s position, it is also misleading to emphasise (particularly in the context of the statement about the church’s sexual ethic supposedly being focussed on marriage or civil partnership status) that the PLF proposal is “that where people have been through a civil partnership or a same-sex marriage, equal marriage under the 2014 Act” they can now come for a service. The bishops were again quite clear and emphatic in putting this proposal to Synod last November that
The material contained in the PLF Resource Section intentionally does not differentiate between couples who have and who have not entered into a civil same-sex marriage. That is because the PLF Resource Section is being offered for the purposes explained in the previous paragraph; they are not being offered to be used as a thanksgiving for marriage or a service of prayer and dedication after civil marriage and do not refer to, or take account of, a couple’s civil marital status (para 9)
It would appear that this point was of significance in the unpublished legal advice concerning whether or not using the prayers for couples in same-sex marriages was contrary to or indicative of departure from the church’s doctrine in an essential matter. We are told that “the legal advice we received set out both sides of the argument” (para 10) though not given the details of the two arguments and then:
In the light of the legal and theological advice we have received, we consider the following points to be significant. The PLF Resource Section does not treat those couples who have entered a same-sex civil marriage any differently from the way they treat a same-sex couple who are in a civil partnership or who have not acquired any formal civil status for their relationship. The use of the PLF Resource Section for a couple who have entered into a civil same-sex marriage does not therefore imply that their civil status is something that the Church considers distinguishes the couple from other same-sex couples who wish to dedicate their life together to God (para 11).
What do the Prayers of Love and Faith offer?
Fourthly, the Archbishop spoke of a couple in a legally recognised same-sex union being able
to come along to their local, to a church, and have a service of prayer and blessing for them in their lives together.
The correction from ‘their local’ to ‘a’ church was important as the decision to use the prayers is one made by the parish priest and nobody has a right to such a service in their local church. However, two ambiguities or worse remain.
First, at present there cannot be a service for the couple, only prayers within a regular service—and this is unlikely to change until mid-way through next year. Secondly, and more seriously, the argument that led to such “standalone services” being accepted at the July Synod was that they were really liturgically no different from what is now currently permitted in terms of the use of the prayers in regular services. In other words, any such service would be a Service of the Word or a service of Holy Communion, a form of service already authorised under Canon B2 for use in the church, and so not needing any further Synodical scrutiny or authorisation. To describe the service as in fact “a service of prayer and blessing for them” is therefore either false or is proof that the argument which was presented to Synod to justify introducing “standalone services” next year by commendation and not (as previously proposed and supported by the Archbishop by Canon B2) was duplicitous.
Conclusion
In summary, almost everything of substance that the Archbishop says about PLF in the quotation above (apart from “the church is deeply split over this”) is demonstrably either false or misleading unless the previous explanations and commitments offered by him and the bishops to General Synod are false or misleading.
The Archbishop’s interview gives the impression that the Church of England, with the agreement of the majority of bishops, now teaches that sexual relationships, including same-sex sexual relationships, are acceptable as long as the couple are in a committed relationship, either a civil partnership or a marriage. Furthermore, he claims that the Church of England will provide a service of prayer and blessing in church for couples in such relationships.
In fact, the theological argument presented by the bishops (and sight of the legal advice to bishops might demonstrate that this is also crucial for PLF’s legality) has been that any sexual relationship other than marriage between a man and a woman is contrary to the Church’s doctrine of marriage. Despite this, it has nevertheless been claimed by the majority of bishops that any committed same-sex couple (with or without a legal status) can be offered PLF as prayers within an existing authorised liturgy. This is even though it is also acknowledged that because their relationship may be sexual, such prayers are indicative of a departure from the church’s doctrine.
The Archbishop’s answer might have been “better” in the sense of probably being more appealing to Alastair Campbell. It is, however, in fact so highly misleading and inaccurate as to suggest a disturbing level of some combination of ignorance, misrepresentation, dishonesty and inaccuracy on the Archbishop’s part in his account of the church’s recent decisions, its doctrine, and its stated rationale for PLF.
Our dire situation as a church is bad enough as a result of having been so divided because of the direction set by the Archbishops and most of the bishops. The fact that there are such deep theological disagreements on these matters that need to be addressed cannot and must not be avoided. However, such significantly erroneous statements as these from no less than the Archbishop of Canterbury, unless swiftly followed by an apology and correction, can only add further to the widespread erosion of trust and growing sense of disbelief, betrayal, deception, anger and despair now felt across much of the Church of England in relation to both the PLF process and our archiepiscopal leadership.
Revd Dr Andrew Goddard is Assistant Minister, St James the Less, Pimlico, Tutor in Christian Ethics, Westminster Theological Centre (WTC) and Tutor in Ethics at Ridley Hall, Cambridge. He is a member of the Church of England Evangelical Council (CEEC) and was a member of the Co-Ordinating Group of LLF and the 2023 subgroup looking at Pastoral Guidance.
Buy me a Coffee
…prophets and priests alike,
all practice deceit.
They dress the wound of my people
as though it were not serious.
‘Peace, peace,’ they say,
when there is no peace.
Are they ashamed of their detestable conduct?
No, they have no shame at all;
they do not even know how to blush.
So they will fall among the fallen;
they will be brought down when I punish them,”
says the Lord.
This is what the Lord says:
“Stand at the crossroads and look;
ask for the ancient paths,
ask where the good way is, and walk in it,
and you will find rest for your souls.
Jeremiah 6.13-18
‘Outside of God’s purposes for human beings’ gets to the crux of matter.
Present day meanderings turn back on themselves, forming a cut-off, ox-bow – lake of stagnation of an exclusively human construct of the purpose humanity.
Presumably, God’s purposes are no longer relevant, to the AB’s or God has changed his mind under the weight of the pressure of the desire of western humanity, who know far better: bowing, deferring to its sovereignty.
Backward, Christian soldiers, fleeing from the fight,
With the cross of Jesus nearly out of sight.
Christ, our rightful Master, stands against the foe,
But forward into battle we are loathe to go.
Refrain:
Backward, Christian soldiers, fleeing from the fight,
With the cross of Jesus nearly out of sight.
Like a mighty tortoise moves the Church of God;
Brothers we are treading where we’ve always trod.
We are much divided, many bodies we,
Having many doctrines, not much charity.
Crowns and thorns may perish, kingdoms rise and wane,
But the Church of Jesus hidden does remain.
Gates of hell should never ’gainst the Church prevail;
We have Christ’s own promise, but think that it will fail.
Sit here then ye people, join our useless throng,
Blend with ours your voices in a feeble song.
Blessings, ease and comfort, ask from Christ the King;
With our modern thinking, we don’t do a thing.
Very apposite. But there are many local churches who are very different from this. The problem is with the leadership, and not with ministry on the ground.
Yes, at local level there is much good, faithful ministry offered by people of different theological traditions in parishes across the country. Week by week worship, preaching, sacraments and mission all go ahead. And in many places the enervating trauma over LLF goes entirely unnoticed, even in evangelical parishes. Local ministry is being let down by some of our leaders continuing focus on this issue – some bishops, some ‘evangelical’ and ‘liberal/progressive’ pressure groups, and some General Synod members.
I wonder how this episode will look to future generations in 100 or 200 years time. A really significant and decisive issue about the heart of the gospel, or a transitory one that consumed a lot of time and energy but is now past? No one can know.
Yes, but which ones are growing?
Wouldn’t be able to say across the whole country, but locally growth isn’t confined to one tradition; I guess (but it’s no more than that) it’s to do with the commitment, energy and loving faithfulness of the ministers.
There is a strong correlation between churches that are growing and churches that are faithful to the historic teaching on marriage, which is the teaching of Jesus.
Probably not as straightforward as that, and it may be a mistake to believe that the congregations are in lock step with their leaders:
https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2024/12-january/news/uk/htb-s-allies-alarmed-by-bid-to-resist-same-sex-blessings
Adam, this Church Times article is a pathetic piece of propaganda by the liberal editorial team.
‘The priest’s response was one of just six to a Church Times request for comment sent to more than 50 members of the clergy in charge of churches in the HTB network last week.’ Six people commented negatively! Ridiculous!
Ian
And that’s a problem, right, the Archbishop of Canterbury encouraging gay couples to go to their parish church for a blessing. It’s creating a Colorado baker scenario where the punters have been told they’re entitled to a service, but the service provider won’t provide that service to ay couples
Yes indeed. A complete set-up at the expense of both sides.
Cynically, I think this is indeed the purpose. They will set expectations for some gay couples that won’t be met, and will result in hurt but that is collateral damage. What they want is ideally is an activist driven campaign against a Vicar who wont do agree to do the prayers so that they can get public opinion firmly on the side of allowing blessings (which the media will keep calling ‘weddings’) and make traditionalists on this issue look like bigots. If the case is big enough and their is enough heat and fire they will discourage the conservative side. Its unpleasant.
Not true at all, Vicars opposed to same sex couple prayers don’t have to perform them any more than they have to perform services for divorced couples or Parishes that disagree have to have women priests
True – but having a traditionalist dragged through the press for refusing a photogenic same sex couple a ‘blessing’ would be useful in the war for public opinion & sympathy.
Paul
You’re theory would mean that Welby had thought about the impact of his words, which I doubt.
I also think that in all “gay V Christian” discrimination cases, the media tend to take the side of the Christians. More so in this case because they very clearly have the legal right to deny service, but Welby should not be lying about it in any case
Brilliant. Will use. Thank you
These are the days of Jeremiah
Speaking God’s word full of doom
And these are the days of the prophet Amos
filling the church full of gloom.
False prophets may speak of revival
Sing choruses saying all’s well
But we know the truth of our own generation
Our culture is going to hell.
That is a poor observation.
Don’t forget us Lay folk.
We dont have the threat of having our comfortable vicarages, pensions and stipends threatened, so have considerably more freedom to speak up without fear, – for that’s what it is for many dear and faithful clergy that have belatedly discovered that their enemy is not out there in society but among bishops, clergy and synod members who are without mercy in their ideological drive, doing their masters will (though perhaps unknowingly for some).
This very article (which I passed around) has finally woken up one of out Wardens, who has finally had enough, and indeed over the last two years we have found solid evangelical men have stepped up and joined our PCC. 3 years ago I was the only one willing to speak up regarding the disdain for the doctrines of the church and thus scripture more generally. Some were uneasy, but keeping their heads down having been told that unity was the most important theology – but now we are clearly at war, they too have decided that they really must pick a side. So mew we have a clear majority of around 80% who would rather stand on scripture than the shifting sands of bishops compromising with the world.
Then of these several are now stepping up to those anachronistic time sinks that are generally seen as a bit of waste of time – you know Deanery and diocesan synod. From my deanery there are now 5 firm evangelicals in the 9 spots for us humble Lay. Fir the first time in over a decade we voted down a woke proposal at Diocese last Saturday. Well the Lay did – the Clergy are behind the curve. But they (the evangelical ones) are becoming a little braver as they sense that they are not as alone as they have been told.
PCCs and such have considerable power – and in the absence of other leadership are stepping up.
credit: https://finestofthewheat.org/backward-christian-soldiers/
Thanks for reaffirming my conviction that ceasing to attend my local CofE church over a year ago was entirely the right decision. This is clear proof that it’s rotten at the core, and to think that the periphery can somehow continue unaffected conjures up images of ostriches and a certain building material. Nailing something to the door of Canturbury Cathedral would make for great social media if not spark outright reform.
This article made me feel awfully sad!
The words spoken by Archbishop Welby to Alistair Campbell do not sound like a theologian speaking at all. It is very muddled thinking. It sounds like someone whose allegiance is to the culture of the day, saying what pleases the person to whom he is speaking. It sort of gives the game away as to what is in the heart of the Archbishop.
I live in Australia but I do pray for the Church of England. May God have mercy.
Elisabeth Holland
Welby is not muddled at all.
Amongst other things, Justin Welby demonstrates in this interview his inability to speak in coherent sentences. I’m left wondering how well he is coping at present. I suspect he would be doing himself a favour if he were to retire sooner rather than later.
Sorry, Tim, your apologia doesn’t cut it. The Pope contradicted Catholic doctrine in Singapore and he doubled down on it afterwards. As for Welby, he knows what he’s doing: he is being intentionally ambiguous to create space for his innovations in doctrine.
Our Lord denounced evasive and misleading speech: ‘Let your yes be yes and your no be no. Anything else is from the devil.’
This was mesnt for Tim Evans above.
Sorry James, you miss my point, which is really about how public pronouncements by leaders are jumped on and analysed and criticised by others and that perhaps not giving interviews is sometimes the wisest course. Something similar happened to Rowan Williams many years ago when he made a very carefully argued and nuanced contribution to the debate about how English civil law and Islamic jurisprudence might relate, only to get slammed by right wing commentators for something he didn’t say. I’m not offering an apologia for anyone only suggesting that we should be less judgmental and rather more willing to accept that people make mistakes. After all, that’s something all of have in common and many of us have experience of how damaging it can be to be attacked by others who don’t know us. By the way, I don’t know how you can be as certain as you sound about the inner workings of the Archbishop’s mind and his motivations.
Tim:
If Welby ‘mis-spoke’, it is VERY easy to correct this: by issuing a corrective press release. When has ever done this?The ambiguity by him is quite intentional.
Did you notice yourself how long it took Welby to “apologise” for smearing the name of George Bell, even after Bell was effectively exonerated? – saying that Bell was ‘under a significant cloud’.
As for “inner workings of his mind and his motivations”, it is not hard at all after you have observed someone for ten years or more. The documentation is very thorough and you should check it yourself. Anglican Unscripted has a vast reference collection of Welby saying one thing to one group (e.g. African bishops), another thing to others (e.g. English LGBT activists). The Africans said they were done with him when these conflicts were revealed.
But the clincher is always what a person does. The fact that Welby knowingly OK’ed the appointment of two suffragan bishops (one a man, the other a woman) in same-sex partnerships, as well the appointment of a man in a same-sex ‘marriage’ (forbidden in the C of E) to be the head of the Crown Nominations Committee – the group that finds potential bishops for appointment! – tells you all you need to know about his thinking.
James, how do you know ++Justin is being intentionally ambiguous when you don’t know the whole context?
‘James’: would you send your last five lines (minus the final words) to the ABC? I feel that the more people write to him in such plain language with evidence as stated the better. This is two-tier Welby. Thank you.
James
From my pov I’d say Welby and Francis are both trying to push doctrine they know is not true as far as they can by tweaking it, rather like Victorian clergy trying to marry evolution with a literal 7 day creation. So some days they make it sound like they are really opposed to gay relationships and others they make it sound like the church no longer has a problem with gay relationships and it’s only a few extremists who are causing the problems
Welby is an intelligent man and it follows that he knows exactly what he is doing. The bumbling is designed to conceal his determination – visible in every action he has taken – to make the Church of England bless what the Bible calls mortal sin. It is apt that Welby let himself be interviewed by Alastair Campbell, Tony Blair’s amoral spin doctor.
Andrew Goddard’s painstaking and cool analyses of the flip-flopping of the Church of England’s bishops and archbishops over this matter are invaluable. The conclusions are, however, worth phrasing in language matching that which St Paul used against other heretics. There can be no compromise with Welby (2 Corinthians 6:14). The sooner the Church of England’s faithful shift from the language of grotesque misunderstanding to the language of spiritual battle against an infiltrating enemy, the better. Otherwise Jesus Christ will allow the CoE’s trundle toward a precipice to continue. The church should be leading the world uphill, not following it downhill.
Anton
I think it’s simpler than that.
I remember reading early on in Welbys tenure that he’d been picked because f his experience negotiating for his oil company in Africa and I remember him saying that the trick was to let each side think they are getting what they want. It’s astounding to me that such an attitude (which outside the church is called “lying”) can allow someone to even be a priest let alone an archbishop.
Justin Welby is giving the answer that will pacify the person asking the question. He rightly calculated that Alastair Campbell would be in favor of gay equality, but not knowledgeable enough about the situation to understand he was being lied to.
I think we are missing the major challenge here. ABC uses his platform to present a (misleading) narrative on one of the most widely listened to podcasts in the world. Andrew Goddard has presented a clear, truthful and transparent article that – sadly – will be read by relatively few.
Unless those seeking to defend historical orthodoxy are prepared to play the same media game as ABC, they will lose. Nicky Gumbel is possibly the only one with a platform / reach to gain an audience close to what ABC is capable of. Until that happens, it is whistling in the wind.
Conrad
He gets away with it because straight people want to believe gay people are treated well now and there aren’t enough gay people to counter that zeitgiest
Thanks for this, Andrew.
Some of the Archbishop’s comments are certainly worded very loosely and are confusing, but I’m reminded of similar criticisms made of the current Pope, interestingly enough, also over issues around gender and sexuality. He has made some equally loosely worded statements to the media and immediately been attacked. On the one hand by ‘conservatives’ who accuse him of selling out to western culture when he should be simply reasserting the never-changing teaching of the RC Church. And on the other by ‘progressives/liberals’ who think he is being too reticent and dragging his heels when he should promote the equality of women and men in the Church and support the rights of gay people.
Perhaps the lesson we should take is that such interviews are nearly always unwise because it’s very difficult to convey the fine nuances of discussion in a divided church when you know that everything you say will be assessed for consistency and accuracy. And adopting a more informal conversational or colloquial style in interviews such as this so easily leads to poorly expressed views that can be misunderstood. I’m sure it’s happened to us all.
How many of us would manage to always be consistent in front of a microphone in such a contested and complex area when we knew that every statement would be analysed afterwards? Unless, of course, we simplify it all down to easily repeatable statements that put us firmly on one side or the other which is not the Archbishop’s situation. Perhaps there is a case for cutting him a bit of slack now and then, which I’m sure all of us hope for when we say things that are poorly expressed.
On 3rd November last year Welby stated to a group of LGBT Christians that he was “totally and unequivocally committed to the goal of a radical new Christian inclusion that embraced LBTQIA+ people”:
https://anglican.ink/2023/11/04/the-archbishop-of-canterbury-meets-thirty-four-representatives-of-progressive-organisations/
Welby trades in ambiguity to push his cause because he stll hopes to keep the HTB network on side, but I think he is failing here.
Decisively.
Anton
But clearly he isn’t. He just lies when it suits him.
Unfortunately most denominations have a structure where it’s easier to be given positions of authority if you are willing to lie than if you are willing to tell the truth. You find more honest people cleaning the church than wearing the mitre.
Has LGBT made progress in the church since Welby became Archbishop?
Anton
If youre asking me, Id say no, but I haven’t been attending CofE (or been in England much) since 2019. If anything I’d say things have got worse.
Gay clergy in relationships are under far more suspicion and all of the other discriminatory practices are still there. A few predators have been uncovered and stopped, but by all accounts Welby has been actively hindering that effort too.
Is any part of Synod (or indeed the Church) actually against radical inclusion that embraces LGBTQIA+ people?
‘Is any part of Synod (or indeed the Church) actually against radical inclusion that embraces LGBTQIA+ people?’ When that is code for ‘changing the doctrine of the Church to include same-sex marriage’ (which it is) then yes.
When it actually means what the words mean—that all are invited to repent and believe the good news of Jesus and be born anew into his family—then no. Sadly, Justin’s words often now don’t mean what the words mean.
What if it means:
Really seeking to understand gay people, and creating Christian communities in which embody a gospel of grace rather than a harsh law, so it is demonstrably the case that gay Christians can no longer say “‘you have offered me no viable strategy for ordering my life”
‘What if it means:
Really seeking to understand gay people’ If so, then many, many evangelical churches have been doing that, and working with their gay members to understand what it means faithfully to follow the teaching of Jesus in this area.
Exactly AJB. But unfortunately in the end that ‘sort of reading’ suggests that we as evangelicals might need to take more responsibility for how we interpret scripture. Easier to stick to what we think is the ‘clear’ reading.
Put tongue back from in cheek! 🙂
Bruce, the reason why we take seriously the ‘clear’ reading is that, after about 50 years of exploring this, it is evident that the ‘clear’ reading is in fact correct.
The latest witness to this is the new book by Richard and Christopher Hays. In order to make their case, they have to deliberate ignore even the specific relevant texts. Richard Hays offers not a single argument to overturn his clear views from 30 years before.
In order to make their case, they actually have to ignore scripture.
Ian
How do you repent of something that is a natural part of human diversity, which you did not choose and cannot choose to change? And why should you when the ABC can’t even tell the truth?
First, no-one sensible is asking people to ‘repent of being gay’. The issue here is whether all our ‘natural’ desires are ones we should act on. If I am born with a ferocious temper, should I act on that? If I have an addictive personality, should I act on that? I had hoped we had got past the debate of whether, in a fallen world, I ought to be the way I actually am—but perhaps not.
No-one sensible? There’s quite a few who do seem to think this. I suppose it’s up to you if you want to declare them to be not sensible. I’d count amongst their number Rosaria Butterfield, Archbishop Ndukuba, James White, Christopher Yuan, Mike Davidson of Core Issues Trust, Archbishop Kaziimba etc.
“If so, then many, many evangelical churches have been doing that, and working with their gay members to understand what it means faithfully to follow the teaching of Jesus in this area.”
I shall look forward to their suggestions on updating and amending Issues in Human Sexuality. I shan’t be holding my breath though.
Adam, they have made plenty. You can find them on the Living Out website or in the many books they have published.
But that phrase – ‘radical new Christian inclusion’ – goes back to the fateful Synod of ?2017 when the ABC concluded by using the same form of words you just quote.
He said ‘…within scripture and Christian theology’. But both he and revisionists appear to have forgotten that extra phrase.
‘How many of us would manage to always be consistent in front of a microphone in such a contested and complex area when we knew that every statement would be analysed afterwards?’
Well, I have done it quite a lot, and never made these mistakes. The Catholic bishops manage just fine in England too. It is not that hard.
And it is the job of the ABC.
But I did say ‘always’. Most of us can manage it most of the time but we can all trip up sometimes, even on less highly charged topics. I would disagree that it’s not that hard for an Archbishop of Canterbury given the competing pressures on him from very vocal and assertive pressure groups in the Church each of which is analysing his words and wants him to agree with them and is willing to attack him if he doesn’t. Rowan Williams had the same problem and you won’t find anyone with a sharper mind than his. By contrast the RC bishops have a simple and uncontested line that they can repeat and know that no other bishop will disagree and there will be very little public criticism. Our Archbishops know that some fellow bishops (and many clergy and pressure groups) will write public letters and articles disagreeing with them, whatever they say. Yes, it’s his job to speak in public for the Church, but I doubt that any of us can quite put ourselves in his shoes, and none of us I’m sure would want to be in them. Let’s be a bit less keen to point out in public mistakes which others make – George Herbert: ‘Others’ sins I write in stone, mine I write in sand.’ (Or words to that effect.) Don’t we all want people to cut us a bit of slack when we use poorly chosen words, or would we rather live in a church where we’re quick to criticise and accuse others?
Quick to criticise? This nonsense has been rumbling on for two decades now. Also Welby bears a heavier responsibility as leader.
Well Andrew says it’s a forthcoming interview on the blog and he’s commenting on it now. That’s pretty quick in my world.
Rowan had a sharp mind—but that is not what is needed to be a good communicator.
These were not ‘poorly chosen words’. These were a deliberate attempt to push things in a direction that he actually decided 10 years ago, and has been working on behind the scenes since then.
That is correct. If Welby “chose poorly” in an interview, he can always tweet afterwards to correct the record.
But he doesn’t because he set out to create ambiguity in the first place.
Perhaps, and you may possibly be right; but it’s risky to so unequivocally ascribe motives to others and to do so in public. As we all know it can sometimes be hard enough to know what our own true motives are let alone those of other people. I have heard similar accusations of long term malevolent motives or dissembling made against some groups who are opposed to any moves towards SSM, but in my opinion it’s dangerous to go down that path. The breakdown of trust has been caused by actions on every side but it’s always so much easier to see it the other group rather than in ours.
Ian
It’s human to make mistakes, contradict yourself and be a poor judge of your own performance.
For example, from my perspective, you’ve been inconsistent and evasive on the fundamental question of whether there even are people who have immutable exclusive attraction to the same sex. But I’m sure from your perspective you’ve been crystal clear and consistent!
This is not that though, this is deliberate repeated deception from a corrupt individual. He knew he’d be asked this question beforehand. He also will have had the opportunity to correct any mistakes- it’s not a “gotcha” platform. He’s trying to tell the secular world that the CofE supports gay relationships and tell the church that they oppose gay relationships.
‘For example, from my perspective, you’ve been inconsistent and evasive on the fundamental question of whether there even are people who have immutable exclusive attraction to the same sex.’
No, I have been clear and consistent. But you repeatedly misread my comments, as I have pointed out time after time. There are people who experience exclusive attraction. Whether that is immutable is challenged by gay researchers on this. And what is not agreed is that this constitutes a defining part of who they are as human beings.
Bad old ‘pluriform truth’.
It seems to me there are two principle dangerous ideas behind the agenda to endorse same sex genital acts and constraining these to ‘marriage’ and/or stable, committed relationships.
First, similar to Augustine, Luther linked original sin and sexual drive. He believed that the fall, God implanted in Adam and Eve (and their progeny) an irresistible sexual desire that could only be fulfilled through sexual acts. He considered marital sex is a positive good in itself and not simply because it leads to procreation. Sex increases affection between spouses and promotes harmony in domestic life; and human flesh is not strong enough to endure the temptations of lust and pleasure, giving in to concupiscence. Marriage offers the solution for the problem of sexual desire as lust will be under control and confined to marriage.
In his treatise “The Estate of Marriage,” 1522, Luther considered a refusal to marry leads to wantonness; humanity was created to reproduce and multiply. Marriage serves the dual purpose of forestalling immorality and assuring the reproduction of the species. To abstain from sex or to engage in sex, outside of marriage, leads to fornication or secret sin (so much for Matthew 19:12).
Following St Paul, in his “Lectures on Romans,” Luther argued that if Christians cannot be continent, let them at least be chaste. If they must surrender to lust because of the weakness of the flesh, sex should take place in the state of marriage. Marriage is the solution to the problem of sexual desire; it keeps it under control and confined. Contrary to St Paul, sexual abstinence wasn’t the ideal and marriage the second best. For Luther, marriage is the only way to successfully manage concupiscence as human flesh is just not strong enough to endure the temptations of lust and pleasure (so much for the power of grace).
Second, in his 1530 treatise “On Marriage Matters,” Luther defined marriage as an external, worldly matter, subject to temporal authority – not spiritual authority. Luther critiqued the confusion of realms when “papists” seized marriage, a worldly matter, as their responsibility. In distinguishing between the temporal and spiritual realms. By referring marriage to the secular authority, Luther allocated the responsibilities for deciding on marriage issues to the state. The responsibility for deciding what constituted marriage was not under the governance of the Church and restrictions on marriage imposed by the ecclesial powers should be removed. For Luther, marriage was not a sacrament because it did not confer special grace, but it was an ideal state and everyone should marry, the earlier after puberty the better.
Enter modernism with the argument that “natural law” morality has to be historicised rather than assuming this reveals direct codes willed by God. If sexual attraction for people of the opposite sex is not the only form of sexual attraction, then following Luther’s reasoning regarding the impossibility of humans to control sexual drive as something instilled by God in creation, does this apply to homoerotic desires? And, since heterosexuality is no longer the only “natural” expression of human sexuality, does this mean that same-sex relations and desires should also find an outlet through marriage – a responsibility of the state and not the church?
And down the rabbit hole we all go!
Luther and Augustine were both addressing people in a culture that had an institutional church integrated into society. Most people therein are not transformed and *that* is why celibacy was not practical.
Need I remind you that the 1537 Consilium report by nine Cardinals on corruption in the Catholic church acknowledged that, for instance, many nunneries, which often acted as dumping grounds for unmarriageable women from society’s higher strata, had degenerated almost into whorehouses: “with regard to nuns under the care of conventual friars… public sacrilege occurs with the greatest scandal to all…” Renaissance literature casually takes clerical promiscuity for granted, and the archives of the Provveditori sopra Monasteri, a group of magistrates charged by the Venetian authorities with cleaning up the city’s convents, starting in the early 16th century, contain 20 volumes of trials for cohabitation of monks and nuns. Erasmus, who wished to reform the Roman Catholic church from within but, unlike Luther, never gave up on it, had written in 1528 that many convents were public brothels (Life and Letters of Erasmus, J.A. Froude, 1894, p.352); and Shakespeare, writing in living memory of English monasticism, used a wordplay by which ‘nunnery’ could mean ‘brothel’ in Hamlet’s words to Ophelia. That this situation had prevailed for centuries is shown in HC Lea’s book ‘An Historical Sketch of Sacerdotal Celibacy in the Christian Church’.
Now perhaps we can get back to the question of same-sex relations and the church.
But, Anton, you’ve not addressed the points made – other than hiding behind the sexual corruption of some monasteries and convents as a justification for Luther’s views.
Does that “prove” Luther’s central point that sexual desire is irresistible and needs to be contained in marriage? Add to this Luther’s opinion that marriage is the sole concern of the state, not the church. Put these two themes together, sprinkle them with a revision of natural law as matters of science and culture, not exclusively Divine revelation, and you have the progressive’s justification for same sex acts and same sex marriage.
Sexual desire is fairly irresistible – and it needs to be contained in marriage – unless you are transformed by Christ. Most people in institutional churches that have been integrated with society (rather than being counter-cultural) are not very transformed. That applies ib both Catholic and protestant institutional churches and is my reply to one of your implicit questions. I said this above but you seemed to miss it, so now I’m unpacking it more.
Marriage is certainly a concern of the State, since it needs to know who is married to whom in relation to inheritance laws ans adultery. It is also, obviously, an issue for the couple. I don’t think it matters much whether you have a church wedding or a civil ceremony. God hears the vows and he outranks the State. His criteria for what counts as a marriage can be inferred from Genesis 2:24, wherein it is defined operationally: man and woman live together in a relationship that is permanent, intimate, public and exclusive.
Anton/Happy Jack
Paul says if you are unable to control your sexual desire then you should marry.
That’s not the same as saying *nobody* or even most cannot control themselves. Demonstrably there are millions of celibate gay people in the world, including some cofe priests.
Yes Peter, although ‘marry’ in the Bible means man and woman.
@ Anton
The Catholic Church isn’t counter-cultural? You do know her teachings on sex, contraception, divorce and remarriage, and sane sex attraction?
Sexual desire, aided by the grace of God, is resistible; sanctification is an ongoing process of cooperating with these graces. Unlike Luther, I believe God is more powerful than Satan.
I’m simply pointing out the ‘seed tares’ Luther sowed that modernists are now cultivating – i.e., sexual desire cannot be resisted (so it’s unreasonable to expect this of people with same sex attraction) and marriage is a matter for the state (so let same sex attracted people marry and be sexually active to contain sin and encourage the good of their love).
Jack, I was talking about the mediaeval era. That was perfectly clear in context. If you make no effort to understand then there’s no point.
Your attempt to turn every thread to contraception or Luther is pathological. Secularism, of which SSM is an outworking, is an abuse of the freedom of thought that began to be won at the Reformation.
Where are you getting this idea that we can all be transformed by Christ and therefore celibacy is fine?
It’s nowhere in Scripture. Indeed, I’d suggest Scripture is fairly clearly against such a notion.
1 Timothy 5 – young widows are counselled to marry because if they don’t their sensual desires will overcome them and give opportunity for slander.
1 Corinthians 7 – Paul rejects the suggestion that couples ought to abstain from sex and suggests it’s dangerous to do so because of the temptations that arise from a lack of self-control. And he clearly believes there are people who cannot control themselves because he advises them to marry.
What Paul doesn’t say is that if you’re a sincere Christian, you will be transformed in Christ and therefore be able to live a celibate life.
The idea of celibacy from transformation in Christ comes both from his example and his teaching. Whereas Judaism taught that it was the first command of God to marry and have children, to fulfil the mandate of Gen 1.28, Jesus teaches that the first command of God is to witness to the kingdom, so that we might have spiritual children who are ‘born of God’ (John 1.13). Jesus was single since he was the bridegroom expected by Israel to whom he would be betrothed. It is no coincidence that Paul followed his example of singleness, and wished it for others.
Jesus also taught that singleness was our eschatological destiny; in the resurrection there is no ‘marrying or giving in marriage, for they will be like the angels’ (Matt 22.30). Marriage belongs to this age; singleness to the age to come. But of course in the resurrection of Jesus now, in history, not at the end of the age, the age to come has broken into this age—we live in a time of partially realised eschatology. The people of God in Jesus will therefore be a mixture of those who marry and have children, and those who are single and celibate.
The fathers knew this well, which is why they wrote so much on virginity. ‘You are now what we all will be’.
Your claim that this is ‘nowhere in scripture’ is stunning. This is all over the New Testament, and all over patristic thinking—so much so that many of the Fathers found sex repugnant and women to be temptresses.
I am a bit surprised that you can make this kind of claim.
A couple of quick points in response.
Universal celibacy in the next life does not translate into celibacy being fine and dandy for everyone in this life. Paul seems to be very clear about this. He likes celibacy personally, but is adamant that it is not a command, and worries about any attempt to turn into one. Hence, he counsels people to marry in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy. When Jesus is asked directly whether it is better not to marry, what does he say? Does he say everyone should be celibate and concentrate of getting their spiritual children? Does he say everyone can be celibate so don’t worry? No, he says that isn’t a command: “Not everyone can accept this word… The one who can accept this should accept it.”
Besides, the children in John 1 are not our “spiritual children” or the religious offspring of celibate Christians. They are, as the text says, “children of God” adopted by faith through His grace.
Anton
“Yes Peter, although ‘marry’ in the Bible means man and woman.”
We disagree on this
‘We disagree on this’. No, you are disagreeing with just about every reputable, liberal, critical scholar. There is no real doubt that is what scripture consistently teaches.
Ian
In my experience that’s not what the church of England teaches and indeed that’s a huge huge problem for gay people in the church (and women of my generation and younger). Single people are treated as inferior and often mentally deficient. They are often excluded from low level leadership roles and often an afterthought.
In 42 years of attending church pretty well weekly or more, I’ve never heard any preacher say that celibacy is more Godly or holy than being married, often the reverse! When I was single I got told several times that I was “selfish” for not marrying and producing more baby Christians.
Sometimes it feels to me like you’ve never been to a CofE church! Our experience is so different.
If celibacy was preferred by the church of England then why would they allow straight priests to marry?
‘Universal celibacy in the next life does not translate into celibacy being fine and dandy for everyone in this life.’
Adam, it is bizarre that you seem incapable of reading what I actually said. *some* will be single and celibate. Others (the majority) will marry and have children.
‘If celibacy was preferred by the church of England then why would they allow straight priests to marry?’
Peter, it is bizarre that you seem incapable of reading what I wrote. Where do I say celibacy is ‘preferred’?
Rejecting the celibacy of priests was a key part of the Reformation, and is expressly articulated in the 39 Articles.
You seem equally incapable Ian.
My point is not the no-one anywhere will ever manage to live a celibate life. What I am pushing back against is the inference that celibacy will not be a problem if you are a Christian (because of Christ’s transformative power in your life) whoever you are. Paul’s discussion about the wisdom of marrying in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy contradict such an inference. He very plainly thinks there are Christians for whom celibacy does not work, and is a terrible idea, and it’s not because Paul has some doubt in the power in the Christ.
‘celibacy will not be a problem if you are a Christian’ I am not sure who is claiming that, but I am not.
Not much about following Jesus is problem free. Why should we suppose it is?
I think Anton might be saying that (and possibly Happy Jack as well), which is why I asked.
Who is supposing following Christ is problem free? I’m not. At least not any more than St Paul, who from my reading is very clear in his warnings against imposing celibacy rules.
As a gay person who supports full equality for gay relationships, Justin Welby continues to shock and appaul me. I really dont understand how in the 21st century a major denomination can continue with such nakedly corrupt leadership.
Gay people, including myself, have experienced horrendous treatment at the hands of the church because they “don’t have a good answer”, but continued to push teaching they apparently knew to be false and, we now know, some were using that teaching to justify abuse of people in their care – most notably Mike Pilavachi and Jonathan Fletcher.
It is no wonder that so many Christians are either no longer a part of a church or have lost faith altogether when church leaders are openly admitting that they taught things they knew to be untrue that have literally devastated lives.
We keep endless apologies, but there’s zero sense anyone really understands what the apology is actually for and certainly no sense of repentance.
How can you expect gay people to sacrifice any hope of a relationship or family, when you guys can’t even tell the truth?
Thanks Peter—that is a very helpful comment.
You could ask Vaughan Roberts or Sam Allberry.
Anton
They are just some of the people who have molded huge parts of their lives around teaching that Justin Welby apparently is now saying isn’t true and, worse, that the bishops knew not to be true for years, perhaps even decades.
I have no idea to what extent Sam Allberry or Vaughn Roberts personally believe in Church of England teaching or how different their lives would be had the bishops been honest with them.
They may have families of their own. They may have joined churches more in keeping with their own beliefs…as I think Sam Allberry has now done. Either way I doubt they would have spent their lives working for a church that knew what it was teaching wasn’t true.
It is not that bishops ‘know it is not true’. It is that they have decided to abandon the teaching of Jesus that they have been appointed and paid to uphold, defend, and teach—but they have decided to continue to draw their stipends and live in their palaces regardless.
Evangelical Anglicans seem to think that this mess has come about by accident, and speak of it only as a tragedy. There is a deadly, coherent and continuing plot against the church by Satan, who is kept at bay simply by believers living out the scriptures regardless of personal cost. Contradicting the scriptures always gives the enemy a foothold. That people who take a large salary to run the Church of England are promoting heresy within it should make evangelical Anglicans feel deep, godly anger. This is indeed a tragedy, but tragedy does not motivate action. Righteous anger motivates action. Of the armour described in Ephesians 6, the offensive weapon is the sword of the Spirit – words, sharp uncompromising words, spoken in contexts that cause maximum embarrassment to the (arch)bishops. They are mostly bureaucrats who have few personal qualities of leadership, of the type willing use the power gained by virtue of their position to bully those who disagree with them, but who fold under concerted pressure.
Ian
According to this article Justin Welby said in response to “is gay sex a sin?” 7 years ago.
“I know I haven’t got a good answer”
Now his “better” answer is to say only hookups are a sin. But that’s not what his church teaches.
Seven years ago he (and presumably other bishops – by rumor many bishops) knew the church was wrong, but continued to push teaching they didn’t agree with even though it has a huge huge impact on gay lives, both inside and outside the church. This isn’t “is it a sin to do the Tesco shop after church?” this is something that’s still getting people beaten and even killed. Think of your wife and kids – for people like me this is the difference between having a family and not having a family.
Peter, you keep saying ‘he knew the Church was wrong’. He knew no such thing. He knew he didn’t believe the doctrine of the Church he leads.
Ian
What’s the difference between not believing something is true and believing it to be wrong?
When Welby first said he didnt have a good answer, I thought he meant that he believed the teaching of the church, but couldnt give a rational explanation for it (my personal opinion of most evangelicals on this issue!). Now it appears what he actually meant was that his lack of answer was because he knew the teaching to be wrong and couldn’t defend it.
You don’t need to, the C of E Synod and Welby have approved loving committed same sex relationships despite the opposition of many evangelicals, just reserved holy matrimony to opposite sex couples
‘C of E Synod and Welby have approved loving committed same sex relationships.’ They have done no such thing.
Of course they have, the prayers for same sex couples in C of E churches approve their relationship as Synod voted for. Just marriage was reserved for heterosexual couples in lifelong unions
Simon, I am baffled that you don’t appear to have read the material, even though it is summarised above.
It has been confirmed again and again that sexual intimacy belongs only in male-female marriage. Outside that it is sin, and should be met with a call to repentance. See the repeated affirmations that Andrew has listed above.
What you note Justin saying contradicts even the pastoral guidance that comes with the Prayers of Love and Faith! That is why the legal advice says they are indicative of a departure from doctrine.
These are basic and central facts in the paperwork. I am baffled as to why you don’t understand this.
In reality that is not true, otherwise C of E churches up and down the nation would not be holding prayers for same sex couples sexually active. After all it already holds services for divorced couples even if they committed sexual adultery with each other and heterosexual couples who had pre marital sex are still married in church
Aagh. It takes nothing more than cultural shift (mere cultural shift, not moral or beneficial cultural shift necessarily) to make the weak among us move in the direction of the culture.
Why listen? Plenty of people can see through this as weak succumbing to the culture. A ‘My culture right or wrong.’ stance.
Which is just what (I almost said: the Christians) have been saying for decades.
But it is obvious what is going on. It is the obvious thing – the variation of the message depending on one’s audience because of lack of conviction. Think of Bp Mullally’s assurance to the Press – yes, some will be sexually active. Think of the assurances to Peter Tatchell (not a professing Christian anyway, and whose organisation was involved in a sexual parody of the eucharist at the 1971 Festival of Light) outside Lambeth Palace – similar to Edmund telling the White W ‘Please – I’ve done the best I can to do what you asked.’. The charge has previously been made that message changes with audience – and if the audience is A Campbell and R Stewart the amount by which the message will change, and the direction it will change in, is predictable.
In other contexts, not so much this one, I have noted a flustered anxiety to appease Dionysus, Moloch et al. For, after all, D, M et al are well known to be figures of integrity. What would people say if we did not appease them?
I’m glad that I’m not the Archbishop (so should everyone else be!). But I find it hard to to think of him as deliberately choosing a deceitful line.
I wonder if this is that he’s totally focused on “unity”. Hence his voiced position of acting “politically” . Everything is playing second fiddle to that. His responses then necessarily revolve around a mess of pottage answers. “To be clear” will cause the whole house to fall. (faster than it is)
“Unity” is a good thing but unless built on “truth” a false gospel by default?
Otherwise… There has been much discussion on whether this is a first or second order issue. Whatever anyone thinks “theologically or biblically” the unrest is first order with bells on.
But he knows that making these comments will split the Church. He has been told countless times. So how can his concern be ‘unity’?
He changed his mind on this issue about 10 years ago. This has all the signs of being frustrated by actual processes and accountability, so he appears to have decided to unilaterally change the doctrine of the Church by his own fiat. Is that deceitful, or what?
I cannot think of any better explanation.
I do take your point Ian. I don’t think, in reality, he is pursuing unity…though he may believe this, Queen of Hearts style..”A word means what I choose it to mean”.
TBH I’m probably just struggling with accepting the facts on the ground. It’s painful to accept some conclusions.
Have you seen this… Bishop Snow has just popped up..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObhjmIkITGw
Ian H,
At 6 minutes in there is underlying Alastair Campbell spin mode to it: we don’t do God, God talk here.
As such, it is of a piece with Andrew Goddard’s article, as the polictical methodology of change is rolled out.
I think Justin believes that enough people have deferential respect for the office that they won’t challenge him.
There is also the need to show that you have changed things in (what will be) 13-14 years in office. It seems unthinkable (though it would not remotely be so to a Catholic or Reformed) to say – our stance now at the end of my office is precisely the same as it was at the start. The implication to most people is that you have therefore achieved nothing. What they mean is that you have not got closer to their own preferred scenario. But why on earth should you do that unless it is a good scenario that they prefer?
This is ill-founded. There is a presupposition that where we are now can never be the best place. But by the law of averages it has as much chance as any other location of being the best place.
In fact, a stance that has been unchanging for many centuries (and that is coherent with the thought system as a whole) is almost always going to be better than an innovation. The innovation would need to be around for millennia to match its predecessor. But in a neophiliac world it will not be, nothing like.
If change is so great intrinsically, whatever new status quo you introduce must also be subject to change, and so on for ever.
However, the Bible repeatedly exalts changelessness and stability; and, secondly, has little time for being tossed by the wind.
Ian
He hasn’t changed the doctrine of the church. He’s just lied about it to a large secular audience
Here is an argument that it is a first order matter:
http://www.john-stevens.com/2022/12/homosexuality-bible-demands-that-we.html
Not too long ago I was told no conservatives were arguing that sexual ethics was a first order issue (just gay marriage). So it’s nice to have an example of someone saying very explicitly: “…sexual sin disqualifies from the Kingdom of God is thus true of all sexual sin, whether heterosexual or homosexual.”
That said, John Stevens is quite wrong when he says the Bible consistently teaches that marriage was created for procreation of children and to model the relationship between Christ and the Church. Procreation starts in Genesis 1 (before marriage is instituted in Genesis 2) and with a command to multiply that is also given to the birds and the fish (who are definitely not married). Jesus doesn’t mention procreation in his discussion of marriage in Matthew or Mark. When Paul talks about whether you should get married in 1 Corinthians, procreation doesn’t get a mention there either. Nor does he say it is necessary to marry in order to model the Christ-Church relationship. He uses marriage as a metaphor to explain it, although he’s as much drawing on the picture of a wedding (excited bride dressed to the nines etc.) as anything else. Rather, and contrary to what John Stevens says, Paul is very concerned about the sexual health of people: it’s better to marry than burn with passion, young widows ought to marry to avoid scandalising the Church, and when married couples should not abstain from sex but rather have authority over each others bodies.
‘Procreation starts in Genesis 1 (before marriage is instituted in Genesis 2)’ Sorry, but is bizarre reasoning. Gen 2 is an exposition of Gen 1, not a following sequence. It is written with a different focus, in a different genre.
When God says ‘it is not good for the adam to be alone’ the reason is that he cannot fulfil the creation mandate to be fruitful and multiply alone. The two stories explain each other.
After reading Genesis 1, should we consider fish to be married?
‘After reading Genesis 1, should we consider fish to be married?’ No, because there is no corresponding account of the marriage of fish in Gen 2.
I do find it odd when you intermix serious engagement with this kind of facile nonsense. It is almost as if you have run out of argument!
Ian
It’s not good to be alone because God isn’t alone and humans are made in the image of God.
Marrying to procreate is Darwinian at best
Peter J, God is alone in the sense that God is one. Part of the mystery of creation ‘in the image of God’ is that we are sexed and God is not. God does not need Another in order to be fruitful; we do. It was not ‘good’ for the adam to be alone, since being alone meant that he could not fulfil God’s call on him to be fruitful.
Marrying to procreate isn’t Darwinian; it is the first commandment of God to humanity. The fact we have rejected this, expressed in plummeting birth rates, is leading very quickly to a chronic demographic crisis in the West.
No, Peter, your generation is the very first not to see procreation as verging on inevitable. Because it has lost the awe, and that is obviously a backward step.
Ian
I cant agree with any of that.
God is 3, not 1.
Genesis 2 explicitly says that relationships are so humans are not alone. It doesn’t say woman was made so she could have children. It says woman was made because it was not good for man to be alone.
We are nearing 8 billion humans.
People in the west have fewer children because relative wages have collapsed. My generation and younger are poorer than yours, not more evil. I say this understanding the irony that I do have kids and yet the CofE says I should ideally be single.
Peter, if you think God is 3, then you haven’t understood the importance of Deut 6.4, the nature of Second Temple monotheism, the grammar of the Book of Revelation, the debates in the early church, the meaning of ‘person’ in Greek, the ecumenical creeds (I believe in ONE God…), or the heresy of social trinitarianism (which is, in effect, polytheism).
The context of the man being alone is that it follows on from the command to be fruitful and multiply. And in Gen 5.1 ‘Adam knew Eve, and she conceived.’.
You don’t have children who are the offspring of you and your partner, since children can only be conceived by a man and a woman together.
So the fish didn’t need to be married to fulfil their creation mandate to be fruitful and multiply. Nor did the birds. Only mankind needed to be married? Except when we look around us we can plainly see people are quite capable of having children without being married. And inside the Church I’m unaware of anyone arguing that infertility might invalidate a marriage or be grounds for divorce.
Whilst it might suit you to believe that to be fruitful and multiply is not simply an act of creation, but an ongoing command that applies to us today as much as it did Adam, Abraham, Noah etc., it seems to quickly run into problems. Most significantly, Jesus and Paul appear to know nothing about it. Jesus when discussing the purpose of marriage (in a discussion that goes so far as to see someone suggest it would be better not to marry at all) makes no mention of a requirement to be fruitful and multiply. Paul discusses whether people should marry or not, puts forward reasons for Christians to marry, gives his views on what your priorities should be as a married couple. And at no point does he remind us to be having lots of children because there’s a command to be fruitful and multiply we’re supposed to be fulfilling.
I’d also point out that one of the other well-known discussions in Scripture of it not being good for man to be alone is in Ecclesiastes 4. But again, that’s framed very much as being a problem of (lack of) companionship – “pity the one who falls, and has no one to pick them up” – that you’re not being fruitful and multiplying doesn’t get a look in.
Ian
I believe in the trinity
I believe in God the Father maker of heaven and earth
And in his son, Jesus Christ our lord
I believe in the holy ghost
I believe that children are often a product of a loving lifelong relationship, but not the primary reason for it. If we were all made sterile tomorrow people would still fall in love and form relationships. It’s not an evil thing. It is our nature from our creator who is three in one.
Adam ‘So the fish didn’t need to be married to fulfil their creation mandate to be fruitful and multiply. Nor did the birds. Only mankind needed to be married?’
That is what the creation accounts indeed say. You are free to disagree.
Ian
Sorry but I don’t understand what you are trying to say. You think fish get married?
No, you clearly don’t. I can’t quite get my head around you thinking that I believe things that are plainly stupid. It’s a bit odd really. It is quite hard to have a meaningful conversation when you attribute such idiocy to me.
AJ Bell, it is very odd the way you go to ‘what people are saying’ and ignore what more important people have *already* said 2000 years ago.
I disagree that that’s what the creation accounts say. It’s an interpretation that you’re imposing on the accounts, but then to have to work around to fit with actual teaching and practice (we don’t allow divorce on grounds of infertility, we don’t object to deathbed marriages, we allow women to marry after the menopause, we object to polygamy etc. etc.), and that’s before we get to ignoring Jesus and Paul.
It is very difficult to lie consistently and convincingly. Welby probably knows that. His aim is not to communicate Gospel truth with grace but to sound acceptable to the culture. He knows the discerning know he is lying but calculates he can get away with it in this age because of the power he denies he has.
Maybe we should wait to see the whole interview, rather than trying to whip up as much hysteria as we can from an edited clip on TikTok. Just a thought.
And if people are going to bleat again about how upset they are about the erosion of trust and a feeling of anger, betrayal etc., it would be worth considering the actions and statements of their own camp rather than simply reaching once again for the well-worn stick used for beating the Bishops.
Yes, I’m all for considering the Bible.
I’d like to think we’d do more than consider it.
AJB, but waiting ‘to see the whole interview’ would be the sensible thing to do! It just might give ++Justin’s hearers part of the context needed to understand and interpret his whole ‘message’.
This looks like another example of taking only the ‘what is said’ of an utterance as the total of ‘what is meant’. Yet again, this is demonstrably NOT the way human communication works.
AJ
Not good enough. He’s the leader of an organization which says gay people are sinful for being in relationships. His job is to be a moral leader and he is deliberately behaving immorally.
It wouldn’t be acceptable for the Home Secretary to say in an interview that cannabis was legal in the UK. It’s not acceptable for the ABC to lie about cofe doctrine
I agree.
We are all sinful regardless of sexuality. Gay people are acting in a sinful way by having sexual relationships with the same sex. But yes, the leader of any church needs to be clear on their church’s understanding of such questions.
Personally, I’ve been done with Justin Welby as ABoC for a considerable time – measured in years. Of course we should still pray for Justin the man, but in continuing to give him much of our time and attention we will likely be neglecting what’s going on behind the scenes in regard to his impending replacement as Archpisbop. That issue is crucial – existential even – if there is to be any lingering chance of the church’s survival as a positive agent for Christ in England and the wider Anglican Communion. There’s already plenty of evidence that the eccentricities and insanities of wokeism (anti science nonsense, globalism, CRT, faux creation worship etc) are eclipsing plain biblical teaching and faithfulness as they spread rapidly across the church. Humanly speaking, things may already be irretrievable because a critical mass of rank stupidity among humans, once achieved is no longer responsive to reason (a bit like infection that is too far advanced for antibiotics to work). That’s something we’re seeing more widely in the Western world at present. God however can and does retrieve hopeless situations; and that’s why we Christians can always look forward in hope despite everything.
Clearly there must be a system of lining up and choosing a successor and there must be people already well into the business of doing it. When it came to Welby, whoever did it played a blinder – particularly on unsuspecting evangelicals who fell for a pretty cynical deception rather too easily. Remember that joyful love fest between Welby and Nicky Gumbel at the 2013 HTB leadership conference in the Albert Hall (it can still be seen on YouTube but you may need a bucket)? Talking of whom, what happened to the legal action that Gumbel and friends were going to take over the PLF and ‘no change in doctrine?
However putting the past behind us, as we must, and if the C of E is to be rescued from the disastrous trajectory which Welby and his liberal colleagues have engineered for it to follow, we need to know precisely the names of the people involved in the new appointment, their role in the process, and their views. Prayer for these people and fiercely pertinent representation to them might be a much better use of time and energy than continuing to pay attention to the subject and continuing antics of the last appointment. If their names and the processes involved are not a state secret, it would be good if that information were widely disseminated. If these things are obscured from the church’s members (and the Anglican Communion), that is wholly unacceptable. Whatever transpires, the coming appointment could not be more significant – either way – for the Church of England
If Welby was that liberal he would have allowed full same sex marriages in its churches
But there have been liberals through history, and history has not seen such a thing till yesterday. So no.
A central feature of Anglicanism; God’s word written; 39 Articles?
Here is a highly relevant article from 2020,on the matter, from Dr M. Earnhey:
https://anglicanconnection.com/gods-word-written-an-anglican-understanding-of-the-bible/
Of course, with the prevalence of humanistic philoshopy and postmodernism, what is central to a progressively and in perpetual motion of a perpetually moving target can not be captured in ‘the decisive moment’ in time to use a Cartier Bresson illustration, when looking through its fixed viewfinder.
BTW,
For emphasis, The linked article is Thinking Aglicanism in action with a deep historical trawl, including Hooker (or understanding of him) scholarly critiqued, and O’Donovan and Dariamud, quoted to contemporise , all with scholarly citations, authority referencing.
Well worth a read for all Thinking Anglicans who are relatively inclusive in their thought life.
A great read, thank you. Moore places a special emphasis on knowing Elizabethan thought as the formarive period of Anglicanism, and in that respect differs from a lot of English evangelical Anglicanism, which evinces little knowledge of 16th century thinking. The comments on Cranmer and the substantial presence in the Eucharist was particularly interesting for me to read.
Considering how frequently the leadership of the CofE likes to talk of “speaking truth to power”, this sort of deliberate ambiguity and obfuscation of truth is hypocritical at best, and ‘anti-Christ’ at worse. I fail to see how anyone can be taken in my this blatant and frustrating doublespeak, it’s genuinely frustrating to listen to.
Part of me (still) wants to like Welby, I think he’s been excellent when talking about money for instance, but there really is no getting away from the apocalyptic failure of leadership this whole process has revealed. Sure, the divisions were there long before Welby took up the office, but like ice on the mountainside forcing the cracks wider, this is causing the whole institution to fall apart.
There isn’t much to say that hasn’t already been said.
I will continue to hold the local CofE clergy to me in my prayers, and hope that they can navigate (or continue to navigate) these things faithfully. May our local church leaders take heed the words of Nikolaus Ludwig, Count von Zinzendorf:
“Preach the Gospel, die, and be forgotten.”
There’s been a lot of ambiguity and obfuscation of truth going around.
One of my favourites was the Alliance letter from July last year:
“We want to be clear. This proposition of a better way forwards is still honouring the spirit of the vote at February’s General Synod. It is not about rowing back from what was voted on.”
https://alliancecofe.org/letters/Letter%202%20Alliance%20Letter%2003%2007%2023.pdf
Have we seen anything from CEEC, EGGS, HTB, Living Out etc. in the last year that actually indicates they have any intention of honouring the Synod vote supporting PLF?
‘Have we seen anything from CEEC, EGGS, HTB, Living Out etc. in the last year that actually indicates they have any intention of honouring the Synod vote supporting PLF?’
The Synod vote included the commitment not to change the doctrine of marriage, and claimed that the PLF were not indicative of a departure from that doctrine. Bishops who have seen the legal advice tell us that the PLF do no such thing. So where does that leave us?
1.Have all Bishops been privvy to the legal advice?
2.If not, why not?
3. If the two ArchB’s have, is the conclusion that they are proceeding contrary, in opposition to it? In effect in unlawful, illegal, opposition to settled Church theology and doctrine/teaching?
This can be seen as more than a matter of mere indifference, but a one of rebellious self-detonating dynamite.
Ambiguity and obfuscation all round…
Ian
If I were on Synod I would point out that certain bishops are telling the media a very different story about what PLF is and I would suggest that if they want to lie (either to synod or to the media) then the priesthood isn’t for them. They are compounding damage done to gay people by the church by continuing to lie about issues relating to us.
Peter, I agree.
Whether they do or not does it matter given the rest of Synod by majority voted for PLF along with the Bishops and the Bishops and Synod alone have the final say on new C of E services?
What is ultra vires the Bishops remains so, and can not be validated by retrospective voting, even more so, if the houses have been misled, not fully informed, advised, which is to dishonour the offices and houses.
You write as if Synod has no lawyers.
Synod has lawyers, and they have said that the PLF are indicative of a change of doctrine, thus not legal. But we have not been shown that advice.
No they haven’t, only same sex marriage in church would be a change of doctrine. Just hardline evangelicals who refuse even prayers for same sex couples who lost the vote in Synod on that think otherwise and Synod have their own lawyers who affirmed PLF
Well, Mat,
What’s happened to you? This comment is like a fresh air departure from many of your previous ones.
Zinzendorf is quotable at other points, as well.
From the outset, I too, welcomed the installation of Welby, but his leadership, his theology, has been tragically made transparent by the forensic application, exposure, brought into the light of truth, and integrity.
He needs our prayers. Most of all, of the One true intercessor, our LORD God, Saviour, Shepherd, High Priest, Jesus, the Christ.
Haha, nothing has happened. I have been fairly consistent in my criticism of this whole process, going back years. However, I have also tried to avoid being too personal, and have preferred to pin the blame on the process and the system that allowed it, rather than naming specific leaders.
Even trying to be generous, I think he’s made the problem(s) worse. I think it’s hard to avoid that conclusion, and even those who still support him seem unsettled. Whether or not this was deliberate or accidental seems academic to me.
Spot on, Mat.
What I don’t understand in any of this PLF business is how the whole thing has been able to get this far. They are clearly indicative of a departure from the Church of England’s doctrine of marriage, and therefore clearly illegal. Why hasn’t there been a substantial challenge to them on that basis alone? Surely, there could be an actual legal challenge that would rule them out of order? Or am I missing something?
Richard
Because it’s never been illegal for a priest to bless a gay person and that’s all these blessings are.
No they are not. (1) No-one is obligated to accept the category ‘gay person’. (2) The individuals in question can be blessed without ever mentioning the topic ‘gay’. Yet the blessings would make that topic relevant. Hence it is not just a blessing of a random individual. And secondly there is discrimination, because some categories and topics can receive special blessing and others cannot.
It’s all a very long way from the New Testament, so why have anything to do with it?
Christopher
If gay people don’t exist then all they are doing is blessing straight people.
But they are not blessing the people, since they are blessing them in a particular context that wrongly assumes a duo of the same sex is a thing anthropologically to an extent that a trio (same sex or mixed sex) is not.
For ‘not blessing the people’ read ‘not merely blessing the people’.
Christopher
But again, if same sex relationships are impossible then all they are doing is blessing two people.
Same sex relationships are impossible? Of course they are possible, although you again use the vague word ‘relationships’ without defining the all important matter of whether these so-called relationships are quasi-sexual or non-sexual.
You are again showing your lack of ability to understand, so ought to be listening to those capable of understanding better. No-one said that these were impossible – they are not only possible but actual in both the quasi-sexual and the non-sexual case. My point was a different one: that you are forcing people to use a contested category ‘gay couples’, when there is no such innate quality as ‘gay’: this is by and large something that people become not are.
Peter – what does a priest blessing a person entail? Does the priest make the sign of the cross, say some magic words and throw some magic water at the person? Or what?
Jock
Im not a priest or a part of the CofE and I dont agree with the blessings so I dont think I’m best placed to answer that!
Peter, I’m sure you mean this sincerely, but this claim that ‘that’s all these blessings are’ is demonstrably untrue, and therefore one of the things that only serves to aggravate the situation. The Church of England’s own website states the following:
‘The Prayers of Love and Faith are offered as resources in praying with and for a same-sex couple who love one another and who wish to give thanks for and mark that love in faith before God. To celebrate in God’s presence the commitment two people have made to each other is an occasion for rejoicing. The texts are offered to express thanksgiving and hope, with prayer that those who are dedicating their life together to God may grow in faith, love and service as God’s blessing rests upon them.’
PLF drive a coach and horses through the Church’s doctrine of marriage and therefore, by extension, its entire sexual ethic. Or, to use another metaphor, they throw a hand grenade into the Church’s doctrinal and legal standards. They have clearly been written to try and argue that they don’t contradict that doctrine, but they fail in that because (1) the wording clearly shows otherwise; and (2) doctrine is upheld not only in words, but in actions, and the action of blessing a same-sex couple in an active sexual relationship contradicts the Church of England’s doctrine. Since PLF do not include an outright prohibition on use with people who are or may be in an active sexual relationship, it is safe to assume that they can (and probably have been) and will be used with people in such relationships.
All of which is to say that PLF completely upend the teaching of the Church of England and the Church catholic received from the beginning and taught until now. They not only contradict in their substance the teaching of Jesus that the Church has received, but they are an impediment to the new life given in him because they perpetrate what Dietrich Bonhoeffer so powerfully called cheap grace. I can put it no better than Bonhoeffer:
‘Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without the living, incarnate Jesus Christ…
Costly grace is the gospel which must be sought again and again, the gift which has to be asked for, the door at which one has to knock.
It is costly, because it calls to discipleship; it is grace, because it calls us to follow Jesus Christ. It is costly, because it costs people their lives; it is grace, because it thereby makes them live. It is costly, because it condemns sin; it is grace, because it justifies the sinner…
The expansion of Christianity and the increasing secularization of the church caused the awareness of costly grace to be gradually lost. The world was Christianized; grace became the common property of a Christian world.’
Richard
There’s nothing to suggest that the gay couple are sexually active, indeed, if they are following church teaching then they wont be.
A huge problem I have with (not just) the Church of England is, as a gay person, you may orient your life to be as close to what they teach as possible and still not be believed!
I guess if your theology is that relationships are purely there to create more humans then you wouldn’t understand why people might want a relationship without sex.
I think in reality a ‘same sex couple’ means same sex partners in a sexual relationship to just about everybody and his dog. Let’s not pretend otherwise. You accuse Welby of being deceitful.
The whole thing is clearly about ‘blessing’ same-sex sexual relationships.
PC1
If they are either priests or faithful to the teaching of the CofE then they will not be having sex. It’s really unfair to assume that every gay couple in the CofE is breaking the rules, because then why not just make the rule “you cannot be in a relationship, you have to live alone”?
So if there was an outright prohibition on people having sex, would PLF be ok?
Absurd, PLF is entirely in accordance with what the established church does. That is given it already marries divorced couples in its churches and indeed held a service of blessing for the King, now its Supreme Governor and Camilla in St George’s chapel Windsor after their civil marriage at the Guildhall despite their having committed adultery with each other
The theological, pastoral and societal issues at stake are entirely different between divorce and same sex relationships. For an informed discussion about the former in Mark, see this post by Ian: https://www.psephizo.com/biblical-studies/does-jesus-allow-divorce-for-any-reason-in-mark-10-video-discussion/
They aren’t, divorce is forbidden by Jesus except for spousal adultery yet the likes of Osborne and the King have remarried in church after committing adultery with their new spouses (certainly in the King’s case and it was suggested in Osborne’s case too)
The king wasn’t remarried in church
The King had a full service of blessing and prayers in St George’s Chapel Windsor much as PLF offers same sex couples prayers in a service even if they have their actual marriage in a registry office like the King did not church
Simon, did you approve of the king and ‘Osborne’ being remarried in church after adultery?
Or is this another example of the infallibility of the Church of England, which must not be questioned?
Read: ‘remarried/blessed and affirmed in his new path in a formal ceremony’.
Today, 16 October, the Church is remembering Nicholas Ridley, Bishop of London and Hugh Latimer, Bishop of Worcester who were both burnt at the stake on this day in 1555. This horrendous event happened in our country. Food for thought and prayer for all of us when airing our religious differences.
Yesterday the Church celebrated the life of Teresa of Avila, a ‘Teacher of the Faith’ and yet in the set second reading for Morning Prayer we read Paul’s words to Timothy ‘I permit no woman to teach’. How do we reconcile that one?
Very simply: by not proof texting or taking Paul out of context. Paul is urging that women should not use teaching as a way of violently taking control over others, and he clearly would not want men to do that either. Any of the literature on the text will make that clear. I explore it carefully in my Grove booklet:
https://grovebooks.co.uk/product/b-59-women-and-authority-the-key-biblical-texts-2011/
You really should read Andrew Bartlett’s ‘Men and Women in Christ’. Eyes will be opened.
Martin Snow’s YouTube piece to Diocesan Synods (St Alban’s in the first case – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObhjmIkITGw dated 14/10/24) does a good job of stating the current position re. standalone services incl. PLF, and the anticipated future position (though I note he says this ‘will happen’, rather than ‘we expect this will happen’).
ABC says in this TRIP interview TikTok clip that following a civil partnership or SS wedding, same-sex couples “should be able to come along to… a church and have a service of prayer and blessing for them in their lives together” – apparently anticipating the decision of next February’s Synod as a fait accompli. Without the context of the whole interview it’s hard to say whether he implies that a) this is already the case, b) this will definitely be the case after February’s Synod or c) this will likely be the case some time next year but nothing has yet been decided.
I really hope that he makes it clear that the truth is (c) – otherwise he seems to be giving the green light to SS couples to turn up at a church and request a (standalone) ‘service of prayer and blessing for them in their lives together’ with the expectation of being able to book one within weeks. If that’s the case, no doubt one of the first couples to be told ‘no’ will be soon on the front page of their local rag…
The Archbishop is of course entirely right. Synod voted by a majority for prayers for same sex couples married in English law in our established church and such prayers are already taking place in Parish churches up and down the country with the same sex couples in attendance.
Synod also voted by majority for experimental stand alone services for same sex couples in churches of our established church and such services are also beginning to take place too. Marriage may still be reserved for heterosexual couples in lifelong unions in C of E churches but quite rightly sex between same sex couples married in English law and having had prayers for their unions in C of E services is also the best way for same sex couples to commit their relationship to each other
Which bit of this statement is entirely right?
‘Where we’ve come to is to say that all sexual activity should be within a committed relationship and whether it’s straight or gay. In other words, we’re not giving up on the idea that sex is within marriage or civil partnership.’
Doesn’t seem to be what Synod voted on, or what the house of bishops agreed. It seems to either be a lie to Alistair Campbell, or it reveals that the house of bishops has been misleading synod with the repeated claims that doctrine is not being changed.
Nope, exactly what Synod voted for. Prayers for same sex couples in civil partnerships or civil marriages was what they supported and also experimental stand alone services for them. Sex by same sex Anglicans in civil partnerships is now entirely in accordance with C of E teaching even if marriage still reserved for heterosexual couples in C of E churches
You are gravely mistaken. That would have been a change to doctrine, which we are told has not changed. This has been very clear in all the documents and debates and votes.
And if you want me to join the dots for you:
B30.2: “The teaching of our Lord affirmed by the Church of England is expressed and maintained in the Form of Solemnization of Matrimony contained in The Book of Common Prayer.”
Book of Common Prayer relevent exerpts: “…join together this man and this woman in holy Matrimony…It was ordained for the procreation of children… was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication, that such persons as have not the gift of continency might marry, and keep themselves undefiled members of Christ’s body.”
It is not Church of England doctrine that any sexual relationships are fine within committed relationships, and this hasn’t been changed by synod, nor by Welby.
The C of E has not changed doctrine as marriage remains reserved to heterosexual couples ideally in lifelong unions
Is ‘doctrine’ not essentially the teaching of any given church? Welby and other leaders in the CoE are now teaching that sex between the same sex is appropriate (which in the context of Christianity means approved of by God) as long as it’s within a committed relationship. Perhaps the written code hasnt been amended, but the teaching certainly has.
Not quite right, on 2 counts.
1) Synod has voted to ask the HoB to consider introducing standalone services – on a trial basis – at some point in the future but these have not yet been authorised (though no doubt this will come next year).
2) Meanwhile sexual practice remans explicitly restricted to opposite-sex marriage – anything else ‘falls short’. What ABC says in this TikTok about sex being ok “in a committed relationship” ie within a SSM or a civil partnership (which must be what he means even if he doesn’t specify it) has not been agreed by the HoB (as Andrew’s article makes clear – indeed, the HoB has explicitly affirmed the opposite).
Francis
He said it in a podcast which has more listeners than the BBC. It’s a problem when a church leader lies so publicly about what his church believes and what gay people can expect from their parish church
One of the problems here is that in the world as it is now there is no way the CofE could reject same-sex marriage and still be the established church a year later. No party currently likely to be in government will accept a national church that won’t grant ‘gay equality’.
On the one hand, what is the use of being a national church that by accepting gay marriage would have effectively told their God to “Go jump – we know better….!!” On the other hand, are evangelicals in the CofE properly aware that managing to reject same-sex marriage will inevitably mean either disestablishment if you’re lucky, or a change that will force the church to accept same-sex marriage or else…??!!
The C of E can perfectly well offer prayer services for same sex couples married in civil law as now without full marriage while remaining established church. However yes no recognition at all for same sex Christian couples in their Parishes would not be acceptable for the established church
T1
“…yes no recognition at all for same sex Christian couples in their Parishes would not be acceptable for the established church.”
Reality I fear will be that “… Only full and equal recognition for same sex Christian couples in their Parishes will be acceptable to Parliament for the established church in the future, if it is to remain established in the state”. Parliament will be willing to wait some time yet for a change from the previous state of affairs – but if it becomes clear that there will be no change it is hard to see how they could then not act…..
Although I would hope the current safeguards would stand, I think you may be right, that in the future (say a few decades) when gay sexual relationships, whether committed or not, are viewed exactly the same way as male-female relationships by just about everyone in society at large, the state church will be officially required to change its practice and written doctrine in line with society at large concerning these issues. Time will tell but noone should be surprised if that happens in due course.
Oddly hasn’t happened when it comes to the ordination of women, despite society at large being very clear about the equality of the sexes.
There are women priests and bishops now in the C of E but the opt out for Parishes that disagree remain
Why? Same sex couples can get married in English law there is no requirement for them to get married in churches too and neither Starmer, Sunak, Badenoch or Jenrick have suggested imposing that. Prayers for same sex couples as Synod have approved are quite enough
Stephen ‘One of the problems here is that in the world as it is now there is no way the CofE could reject same-sex marriage and still be the established church a year later.’ That is simply not true. It is revisionist propaganda.
Ian
OK, I guess there are two ways – either the church gets bullied into accepting SSM after all, or Parliament changes the rules so that only people who believe in SSM are allowed to be in the CofE, so there will be a CofE of sorts but hardly really a Christian church. But the whole dynamic of ‘being an established church’ will not at present allow any long-term established church that rejects SSM……
Third option a major social and legal change in the position of homosexuality – possible but very unlikely. After all the ‘established church’ is an unbiblical idea, so it’s not like God will be supporting it – he must be out of patience with it by now…..
Parliament has no such right to dictate doctrine or practice to the C of E.
Ian
“By convention, Parliament does not legislate for the internal affairs of the Church of England without its consent (although it could technically do so)”.
This current issue could easily break the ‘convention’.
No, not easily. It would make the long-standing settlement between church and Parliament of 100 years unravel, and would likely lead to disestablishment.
Stephen
I dont think that’s the case at all.
Firstly if by some miracle there was a general election tomorrow and the Tories won back control, they wouldn’t push for greater equality in the CofE, especially under either of the two potential new leaders. Likewise, it’s unlikely they would be in power, but Reform and the DUP both actively oppose greater equality for LGBT people.
Secondly we are getting very close to a decade since David Cameron promised a ban on conversion therapy, yet it’s still happening, including in some CofE churches and I would imagine that it is more widespread in less mainstream religious groups. LGBT people are very very low down the priority list, even when the party of government is really committed to equality.
‘yet it’s still happening’
What is happening? Could you give me an example of something that would be outlawed by a ‘conversion therapy ban’ which is not currently illegal?
AJB,
They may be there, but not in an official capacity as instructed lawyers giving legal opinion, with a concomitant legal duty of care. And where there is a conflict of interest in any dual role it ought to be disclosed, resulting in standing down, self recuse.
There may be other qualified professionals but they are not there in their professional capacity, office holders.
As you well know, I trust.
What is ultra vires can not be subsequently validated by vote even more so when there is a breach of a legal duty of ‘care’ and not only that where there has been a misrepresentation to each of the Houses.
How far will this shameless decline and dishonor go? With an attempted, even if blatantly denied, unlawful de-facto change in doctrine.
Ian
In response to my ‘One of the problems here is that in the world as it is now there is no way the CofE could reject same-sex marriage and still be the established church a year later,’ you wrote “That is simply not true. It is revisionist propaganda.”
I assume you are suggesting that that idea is a scare tactic being used by those who want to revise the church’s teaching. My impression is rather that it is what they are truly scared of themselves – that if they don’t make this change they will lose what’s left of the former establishment; this is one of their leading motives. And unfortunately with current social attitudes they are probably right. The gap between the CofE and society will simply become unacceptably wide for continuance as the ‘national church’.
In what meaningful sense is the C of E ‘the national church’ when over 80% of Christians who attend church on a Sunday attend other churches?
Precisely. Though there remains the infrastructure: parish system, inestimable worth of buildings and heritage, one church per village. What could be bigger than that? Just transplant the souls there HTB style.
Ian
Not to mention that the CofE’s attendance is barely 2% of the population….
You do realise you’re rather making my point? The already unbiblical establishment (so why are evangelicals supporting it anyway?) has now reached a point somewhere between unreal and surreal. Get real – neither Church, nation, nor God himself needs the ‘established church’ which God never commanded in the first place, and the distortions that status creates, including the pressure to “… let the world around you squeeze you into its own mould” in matters like sexuality….
Far more once weddings, funerals and baptisms and Christmas and Easter attendance included. The C of E was set up precisely to be the established Church with the King as its head, that is its whole point. Nonconformist evangelical Baptists like you can opt out of it but it retains great benefit to the local community, especially in rural areas like mine where Catholics and evangelicals all come together in the one C of E church which as established and ancient church are the only churches of any denomination in the villages and hamlets it serves. Of course we could otherwise just go back to being the national church with the Pope at its head ie the Roman Catholic church which is the other alternative but I doubt evangelicals like you would like that much either!
T1
1) People who don’t take part in fellowship regularly but turn up for special events only are hardly serious church members! On the contrary they are clearly disregarding the admonition in Hebrews 10; 25 ….
2) “The C of E was set up precisely to be the established Church with the King as its head, that is its whole point”. So the CofE basically exists according to you so that the English monarch can be the church’s head? Even though being an established church of a nation is contradicting what the New Testament says should actually be the relationship of church and state? And therefore the existence of the CofE as an established church is major disobedience to the Christian God!! That sounds like a really good ‘whole point’ for the church to have……..
They are members of the established church and parishioners something as a Baptist you clearly have no interest in so please keep your nose out of C of E business! Yes the C of E was created to be the state church with the King as its head, that does not mean it runs the state, we are not a theocracy!
‘They are members of the established church and parishioners something as a Baptist you clearly have no interest in’ What an ignorant insult!
Many Baptist churches are doing a better job of sharing the good news of Jesus with the parishioners than the Anglican parish church.
Well it was true, Stephen Langton is utterly dismissive of the work of C of E Parish churches conducting weddings, funerals and baptisms etc for the wider community if they don’t go to church every Sunday.
If you want to be a Baptist evangelical fine but I don’t interfere in your churches and you shouldn’t try and interfere in C of E affairs either
Come back to me when the Baptist church bothers to start even one church in rural areas like mine too to rival the large numbers of C of E churches we have in our villages and hamlets serving the local community
I know of ‘new’ churches doing just that in Derbyshire. And look up the Ground Level network in Lincolnshire.
T1
We have a number of Anglicans who come to our Baptist church because they can’t get what they need in their local Anglican churches.
Ground level is based in Lincoln, come back to me when it has churches in every village and hamlet in Lincolnshire
Probably as they were always theologically Baptist not Anglican, just the C of E church was their nearest
If they had any intelligence at all, their theology would not miraculously correspond to an existing denomination in the first place. What you mean is largely their ethos or culture or heritage, not their theology. Quite different.
And, secondly, do you actually think that most people have studied enough to have worked out a theology?
Isn’t the mixing of Church background now pretty commonplace, at least in the CofE? Thinking of my own church (60-ish and growing in the liberal-ish catholic tradition) we have people who grew up Roman Catholic, URC, Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, and Eastern Orthodox.
Yes, it’s extremely common. And makes the whole idea of ‘an Anglican theology’ and similar even less likely and less sensical.
More percentage wise have C of E weddings, funerals and baptisms which being established church guarantees to all parishioners
Not so T1. Their local Anglican churches are more or less extinct although the building remains. They find some of our Baptist practices quite novel.
I know vicars who hold to traditional Christian views whose Bishops are telling (bullying) them that they will now HAVE to bless/pray for same sex relationships. What can they reply to said Bishops?
I suggest you tell the vicars to stop telling you fibs.
Fibs? The burden of proof is yours, even to prove a negative! And privvy to the parties and their communications.
TBF… As a retired vicar/team rector I’m surprised that any “vicar” doesn’t know their bishop has no such power. Indeed it’s a misuse of their office and can be told such. It would be bullying and would need calling out
I can believe that some are wary of doing so.
‘Go to hell.’
Graham
Well the Archbishop of Canterbury is saying he will refuse to give blessings to gay couples so if it’s OK for him then it must be OK for them to refuse also
thanks
https://dailysceptic.org/2024/10/17/why-isnt-the-archbishop-of-canterbury-coming-clean-to-alastair-campbell/ (referencing Andrew Goddard’s article)
‘In reality the expectation from those on both sides of the issue is that the services will in practice do all the things they are not technically allowed to do: they will be presented as services for the blessing of a same-sex marriage and be treated as such by all involved.’
There is this distinction between reality and practice because most congregants do not care that much about what the actual doctrine of the C of E is. They have become accustomed to the idea that theology is for academics, intellectuals.
It is suggested that the public perception is that Christianity is what the CoE is! Even the RC in that same perception is a different category.
Within my lifetime and as a hospital in-patient I was asked about my religion. The tick boxes included CoE and RC. As staff had no category box for my reply, ‘Christian’ they were somewhat flummoxed.
The in-patient question would have had a practical purpose though: which chaplain ought to come and see you.
Of course it would.
That is not my point.
It’s not equality if you have to be snuck in the back way and everyone pretend that your marriage isnt actually a marriage and the blessing wasnt actually for your relationship. No straight couple is treated like this
Celia V. Is now very advance in years. This ancient relative lives alone, but when one visits her one finds the phone never stops ringing. The callers all want to sell pills , insurance, potions etc. the big house is full of dubious people carrying out unnecessarily long repairs. Some have even taken up residence and seem to have taken it upon themselves to direct operations. The house is a mess but servants are everywhere poking around looking as if they know what they are doing. The garden is overgrown but the gardener looks busy. Mr. Bishop the butler spends most of his time leading troops of tourists. The rococo west wing is of special interest today.
Perhaps the best thing would be is to sneak miss Van Jellic out the back gate.
Man was falling from his top floor penthouse suite in a multi story block. As he was passing the second floor he was heard to say, ‘so far so good’.
“Fell a 100 floors? Did he live to tell the tale?”
“Yes, the people on the 99th floor, the people on the 98th floor…”
O, Man!
This illustration does not wax lyrical.
Nor is it in the musical score of David Bowie!
I was trying to allude to 2 Timothy 3.
I missed that completely, Steve.
Scripture is spot on. Fancy that, who would Adam and Eve it? That it, scripture; that God; speaks today!
The Bishops don’t recognise their own falling man speech reality in its denial of the accelerating descent.
Of course Man, here, has a universal application where a the numbered floors in a lift represent the direction of travel in the illustration.
Maybe , the apartment block, represents present day Babel.
I can think of two people who fell from buildings. Only one survived.
A tale of two religions? One full of splendour and eunuchs the other simple but captivating.
Yes Steve,
Saving Eutychus.
There is a book with that title, by Gary Millar + another, focusing on preaching.
But again, maybe, too specific; tower.
Well, to round off: Better to fall out of the CxE high rarky window than to be defenestrated from a palace by seemingly loyal flunkey.
Ah, Steve. Got it now. So slow am I with a complex parable of yours.
Ummm…!
I don’t think I’m utterly dismissive of the numbers involved via ‘rites of passage’ type events; but I think I’m realistic that when such events are being enacted for people who are essentially outsiders they aren’t a lotof use either….
Ive now listened to the interview and I feel it is even worse than expressed here.
I did have some sympathy as a human being for his traumatic childhood, as well as being sent to Eton. Those things don’t set you up well to have a good understanding of normal life.
Campbell asks him for his position on gay sex and he says that sex has to be in a marriage or civil partnership. This has not been the teaching of the church for the last decade. Many more people would be priests and many more people would be fully part of church communities if this was the recognized teaching. If it was widely accepted as the official church teaching then I would argue there would be far less abuse and discrimination against gay people in the church because there would not be the automatic assumption that gay people are all sexually active and all gay sex is prohibited.
He then went on to say that he refuses to bless gay people out of respect for Christians who think gay people should be executed and that there had to remain a place for such people in the church. This is just horrendous from my point of view and so de-humanizing to gay people.
In a few minutes of a much longer interview Welby manages to go against two long established teachings – one that gay people must not have sex, even in civil partnerships and two that gay people must be welcomed into the church and accepted as fellow believers. You cant do that and accept “gay people should all be executed” as a valid theology.
And what kind of moral teaching is this to gay people? The archbishop is not sure if you can have a relationship or not and hes also not sure if you shouldn’t just be executed on the spot?! An exaggeration on my part, but I do think that if Justin Welby cannot say that the death penality for homosexuality is wrong and unChristian then he should not be in any form of leadership.
Peter
Took me a while to track down the Welby interview.
1) The BIBLICAL position is and always has been (and so always will be!) that people are meant to love people and indeed that love/affection and its expression for same-sex people can and should be pretty intense – see David and Jonathan….
However it is also clear that sex has been created as a thing for men to do with women and same-sex sex – or rather a somewhat parodistic attempt at sex – by same-sex couples is always inappropriate and is disrespectful to both God and Humanity. Faithful Christians will trust God about this and will not do such sexual activity.
2) There are no ‘gay people’, at least not in the way that the gay movement understands it, of gayness being a similar situation to being black. God is not so cruel or inconsistent as to in effect make people something he has forbidden. And in fact ‘gayness’ is very unlike being black in the simple fact that the problem isn’t about something people ‘just are’, it’s about something people do and choose to do, namely the sexual acts. That puts ‘gay’ in an entirely different category to things like ethnic differences.
What ‘gay people’ in a sense ‘are’ is not a simple and morally neutral thing like skin colour, but is a matter of urges and desires and temptations to do the questionable acts. While it is true that ‘doing because urges and desires’ is a very wide category – in effect all ‘moral activity’ from the decidedly saintly to the decidedly satanic, ipso facto it is not possible to simply say “I have these urges, it must be OK to act them out”. Urges and desires are not necessarily and automatically good or appropriate. In Christian terms we have the bad and inappropriate desires as part of the general disruption of human life resulting from the ‘Fall’. When God has told us that a particular urge or desire, and the acts it leads to, are wrong, the Christian response is to repent and resist temptation in that area.
3) The death penalty – Anglican thinking in this area has always been defective because of the unbiblical link between church and state, a link also found with variations in other churches. Believing in such a link had the effect that ‘Christian’ states legally enforced Christian morality by secular punishments including the death penalty.
However, under the new covenant such ‘Christianised’ rather than truly Christian states are not meant to exist. The NT picture is of the Church itself as “God’s holy nation” on earth, operating internationally and independently of secular states. Christian faith is voluntary and our mission is not to impose superficial conformity on the world, but to call people out of the world and into the supranational Church. The Church has no authority to inflict death penalties itself, nor should it be expecting ‘the world’ to do it on the Church’s behalf. There is nevertheless a very real ‘death penalty’ which is part of the general fact that sin leads to spritual death – of being so opposed to God that as John says shortly after the famous John 3; 16, people choose darkness. Those who deliberately disobey God about ‘gay sex’ risk inflicting that kind of death penalty on themselves.
I am not surprised by Justin Welbys’ comments, I was at New Winne when he was interviewed by Paul Harcourt. not long after he became Archbishop. If I remember he said in answer to the question on SSM ‘One does not lightly overturn 2000 years of tradition.’ It stuck in my mind and my reaction was, ‘That means you will’ .
He hasn’t though. He’s just told a massive secular audience that he has