Andrew Goddard writes: This article looks at who will be choosing the next Archbishop and how they get a seat on the Crown Nominations Commission (CNC). Although only one of the 17 names has been officially announced, another 5 can be identified. There are five different categories with different processes of selection in each and these are examined in turn before a conclusion notes some of the emerging features of the group of 17.
After exploring the choice of the Chair, two episcopal members, and the six central members, major questions are raised about the processes within Canterbury Diocese which will lead to the election of 3 CNC members. These relate to serious failures in, and a lack of public clarity and accountability for, the diocese’s Vacancy in See Committee (ViSC) and the implications of using the new Regulation concerning the running of the ViSC passed at the recent General Synod.
Eight questions are then raised to try to shed more light on how the 5 representatives of the wider Anglican Communion who will serve on the CNC have been chosen.
A longer version with further details and links is available as a PDF here.
The failure of the House of Bishops’ attempt to get Synodical support for proposed alterations to the decision-making processes of the Crown Nominations Commission (CNC) means that how the Archbishop of Canterbury is chosen remains unchanged. The nominee will still need to secure, in a secret ballot, the support of at least two-thirds of the 17 voting members of the Commission (ie 12 votes) with every member only having one vote.
There is, however, still much unknown as to who will do the choosing with only 6 names currently being clear from the 5 different constituent groupings that will comprise the CNC. There is even less clarity as to how two of these groupings – the 3 local representatives from Canterbury Diocese and the 5 representatives from the wider Anglican Communion – have been or will be constituted.
Chair of the Commission
The only name officially announced (and so listed on the relevant new web page about the membership) is Lord (Jonathan) Evans, a cross-bench peer and former Director General of MI5 who previously served as Chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life from 2018 to 2023. His appointment was made public on 16th December 2024 just over a month after Justin Welby’s resignation was announced on 12th November and within a fortnight of it being announced (on 4th December) that he would step down on 6th January 2025.
Two Church of England Episcopal Members
It appears that the Archbishop of York intends to take his seat on the Canterbury CNC rather than being considered by it as a possible candidate. There is currently an election under way for the other episcopal member. Nominations have just closed with a bishop whose see is in the Province of Canterbury and any retired bishop resident in the Province being eligible to stand. The whole House of Bishops (currently I believe 45 members) will then select a candidate with votes closing on 17th March and the count on the following day. It is unclear whether the names of candidates, their supporters and statements, and the voting figures will be released publicly at any stage of this process or whether, as stated in the press release about the process, all that will happen publicly is that “the episcopal member of the CNC for the See of Canterbury will be announced alongside the rest of the membership as soon as possible” after the count.
Six Central Members
Although not announced, it appears highly likely that 3 of the central members will be those who were elected by General Synod as part of a pair but whose pair is no longer a member of General Synod and so no longer serving on any CNCs. These 3 are:
- Ms Christina Baron (Bath & Wells)
- Mr Clive Scowen (London)
- The Revd Lis Goddard* (London)
The news yesterday that The Revd Canon Andrew Cornes is one of the ten clergy who “the National Safeguarding Team will now seek to bring disciplinary proceedings under the Clergy Discipline Measure against” in relation to the Makin Review and their knowledge about John Smyth means that
- The Revd Paul Benfield (Blackburn) will also serve on the Canterbury CNC.
The other 2 will be one of the members of the other 2 elected pairs:
- Miss Debbie Buggs (London) and Miss Prudence Dailey (Oxford)
- The Revd Claire Lording (Worcester) and The Revd Joanna Stobart (Bath & Wells)
The six central members will therefore comprise four women (two clergy and two lay) and two men (one clergy and one lay). If the new Regulations relating to the choice of CNC reps from Canterbury are implemented (see below) then there will, unprecedently, be no male priest from the province involved in selecting the Archbishop and, if a woman bishop is elected by the House, no ordained male at all from the province.
In addition, 5 of the 6 of the central members will be from Canterbury province (meaning only two representatives from York as the CNC Chair is also from the southern province). There will be 2 and possibly 3 (the same number as from Canterbury) members from London diocese and possibly 2 from Bath & Wells, thus potentially 5 of the 6 coming from just two dioceses. Broadly speaking 4 of the 6 are seen as theologically “conservative” (for example, they have opposed PLF).
The processes leading to the appointment of the other 8 members of the Commission are much less transparent and raise a number of serious concerns. Both of these constituencies are either new or significantly altered from the previous process for electing an Archbishop. This is because changes introduced in 2022 reduced the number of Canterbury representatives from the usual six to just three members and replaced a single Primate from the Anglican Communion with five representatives of the churches of the Anglican Communion.
Three Canterbury Members
As with all CNCs, these diocesan or local members are “elected by and from the Vacancy in See Committee” of the Diocese (SO 137(1)(d)). It is here that there appears to have been, and still remains, some considerable confusion and serious questions which need answering with no less than 3 different Vacancy in See Committees (ViSC) being in existence in the diocese since the vacancy was announced but with all of them potentially not compliant with the Regulation.
The 2021–2024 ViSC
A ViSC had been elected to serve until the end of 2024 and its membership was altered with the addition of 4 members nominated by the Archbishops’ Council in early December once there was known to be a vacancy (see the list of members as of 12th March and of 9th December).
What is particularly noteworthy about both these lists is the very high number of vacant seats. Two the six elected clergy seats and a majority (7) of the twelve elected lay seats were vacant both in March and in December. The number of vacancies (half the 18 elected members) signals a significant failure in due process as the Regulation relating to ViSC has provisions relating to filling vacancies that arise. This includes that they “must be filled within six months of the vacancy occurring” (Para 7(1)) and so these places should have been filled between becoming vacant (March 2024 or, more likely, some time before then) and the vacancy occurring in November. This would have entailed “a further election by the house of clergy and the house of laity of the diocesan synod, the members of each of which together constitute a single electorate” (Para 7(2)).
Despite it being known that the Archbishop was approaching his retirement (and consideration being given to adding nominated members) it appears no attention was given to fill these vacancies and follow the democratic process. The failure here meant that the ViSC in place when there was a vacancy announced would have had only 22 of its 31 members (35 if potential 4 nominated members included) and less than half its number of elected lay members so that the elected members were not 12 laity and 6 clergy as required but only 5 laity and 4 clergy, a significant shift in the balance between the two Houses.
Once the Archbishop announced his resignation there could not be changes made to elected members as “if a vacancy of the bishopric is announced before the vacancy on the Committee has been filled, the vacancy on the Committee…is to remain unfilled until the Committee has completed its consideration of the vacancy of the bishopric” (Para 7(3)). Despite this moratorium on changing the composition of the ViSC’s elected members, there was, following the vacancy being announced, the addition of 4 nominated members to the ViSC. It is not clear on what basis they were selected by whom (all were female laity from the Archdeaconries with vacancies among elected members but none of them stood for the 2025-2027 ViSC). The proportion of ex officio to elected was already 13 to 9 rather than 13 to 18 (as it should have been), another important imbalance, and with the addition of 4 nominated members the ViSC was only 1/3 elected rather than the majority elected that it should have been (even with nominated members included).
It seems clear that this ViSC, in place at the time of Archbishop Justin’s resignation being announced, should have been the body working on the vacancy given the Regulation (para 9(3), para 11 and para 12(2)) and practice in other dioceses and it would appear that this ViSC indeed met toward the end of last year (reportedly chaired by the Dean) and began its work. The Archbishops’ Appointment Secretary, Stephen Knott, informed Synod members on 20th January that “the Canterbury Diocese ‘Vacancy in See’ process commenced in December”.
The 2025–2027 ViSC
A new ViSC for 2025–2027 was also elected around this time (its membership is given here and there remain 6 lay and 1 clergy elected seats vacant and the 4 laywomen nominated to the old ViSC did not stand for election to it).
A newly elected ViSC for Canterbury
It has, however, recently become clear that, for some publicly unstated reason, neither the newly elected ViSC for 2025-2027, nor that in place when the vacancy was announced that would usually consider any vacancy that arose in 2021–2024, is being used. Instead, a totally new election is underway.
The diocesan web page on the ViSC (on a page updated on 14th February) gives a description of the new election process now underway and provides a link to the ViSC elected for 2025–2027. The web page reads:
Elections to the Vacancy in See Committee
Please note, this election is for the Committee which is involved in the selection of the 106th Archbishop of Canterbury only. The Committee for the 2025-2027 triennium has already been elected.
It appears that this change in plan only happened in late January given the letter to General Synod members of 20th January claiming that the process had already commenced in December. Those elected will it seems simply serve for the imminent CNC and then step back to be replaced by those originally elected for 2025-2027 (who would therefore serve if there was a vacancy in Dover during that period).
I understand that objections were raised as to the process by which the 2021-2024 ViSC elected members were originally chosen. This process was found to be incompatible with the Regulation at the time as it was stated that only members of Diocesan Synod were eligible to be elected to the ViSC. Indeed, all Canterbury ViSC elections since 2009 were similarly flawed, including therefore the ViSC relating to Justin Welby’s appointment. This would be a further process failure to add to that of not replacing casual vacancies. However, the Regulation states that “The proceedings of the Vacancy in See Committee of a diocese are not invalidated by a vacancy in the membership of the Committee or a defect in the qualification, election or appointment of any of its members” (para 17) so this problem would not seem to invalidate any proceedings of the 2021-2024 ViSC and therefore a new election does not appear to be required by the Regulation.
In addition, the election for the 2025-2027 ViSC apparently took place on the understanding that it would not be the body overseeing the current vacancy making it impossible to use that ViSC.
It is not clear on what authority this newly elected ViSC will be the key body in electing 3 members of the CNC although the Regulation does state that “where difficulties arise” the Archbishop (clearly here it would have to be the Archbishop of York) may “give whatever directions the archbishop considers appropriate for removing those difficulties” (para 16(1)(b)).
The process of this new election is now set out as follows:
The nomination process for the Vacancy in See Committee commenced on Monday 10 February and has been extended to conclude at 12 noon on Friday 28 February 2025. The elections will now run from Monday 10 March through to 12 noon on Monday 24 March followed by the vote count on Tuesday 25 March.
Originally (the current page with these new details was updated at 4:31PM on 21st February) the closing date was Monday 24th February with the elections running from Monday 3rd March through to Monday 17th March with the vote count on Tuesday 18th March. It is not clear who determined the need for or the extent of these date changes after the process had begun. Oxford diocese has, interestingly, done the same but given a two week not simply a four day extension in its ViSC nomination timescale.
A New Regulation for the New ViSC?
The other change to the webpage made on the 21st February appears to be the addition of a paragraph which states
During the recent General Synod sessions, the Vacancy in See Committees (Amendment) Regulation 2025 was approved and ratified. This Regulation makes important changes to the Vacancy in See Committees Regulation 2024 which is the legislation governing elections, nominations and the proceedings of Diocesan Vacancy in See committees.
This suggests the new Regulation is now being used (for the first time) to elect the ViSC and also for its election of the 3 CNC members. It needs to be recognised, however, that the Regulation both in its earlier form (which it appears was disregarded in a number of ways by Canterbury Diocese in relation to the original 2021-24 ViSC) and the new form does not have the legal force of a Measure or a Canon. It is simply an Act of Synod. This, like the earlier Acts of Convocation it effectively replaced, has ‘great moral force, as the considered judgment of the highest and ancient synod of the province’, but it does not create legally enforceable rights or duties.
Using the new Regulation would raise yet a further set of questions about the Canterbury process.
Firstly, the Regulation places new restrictions on who can be elected to the ViSC based on preventing two members sharing a “relevant connection” with the same worshipping community. This has the effect that anyone with such a “relevant connection” to any of the 13 ex officio members is, if the amended Regulation is being applied, since 14th February no longer eligible to stand for the ViSC and thus their nomination is likely to be declared null and void, perhaps even if submitted prior to the new Regulation taking effect.
Secondly, this means that the eligibility for nomination changed four days after nominations opened but this change is not clearly stated either on the website or the nomination form (which also continues to have the original closing date on it rather than the new one). Making such a change mid-process and particularly not then clearly announcing the nature of it raises important procedural concerns.
Thirdly, similar restrictions have been introduced to prevent elected CNC representatives having a “relevant connection” with each other. As with the restriction in electing to the ViSC and the further change below it is not clear how this would be implemented within the STV system of voting.
Fourthly, a new rule requires those elected by the ViSC to include (if nominations make this possible) the election of one clergywoman and one lay woman. Because, uniquely, Canterbury is only electing 3 members, when this new rule combines with the rule that at least half of CNC members must be lay, this means that no male clergyperson elected to the ViSC is now eligible to serve on the CNC. Although the rules have in the past excluded episcopal ViSC members from standing this is a major new, much more wide-ranging, discriminatory limitation on whom the ViSC can elect to represent them on CNC.
None of these new regulations were in force when the vacancy was announced or when the original ViSC began its work or when the nomination process for the current ViSC election began. There is also no clear explanation of these changes on the website relating to the ViSC election.
Finally, with the count now not occurring until 25th March this means that the hope in late January that “It is expected that the full membership of the Commission will be known by mid-March” will clearly not be realised. Even if the 3 CNC members are chosen immediately (so before the members have worked together on the diocese’s needs and begun to understand what will be involved in serving on CNC and who of their number might be being called to that role) this makes it highly likely that the names of the CNC members will not be able to be released for some time. After the election, the Archbishop’s Council will have to meet to elect a Chair and appoint a Secretary to the new ViSC. It will also take some time for the ViSC to produce a Statement of Needs from the diocese with it unlikely that it will be able to begin its work until April. This makes achieving the goal of having the first CNC in May much more challenging.
A further difficulty in relation to timing of the CNC meetings is the need to ensure the presence at them of members from the wider Communion. This final process of selecting no less than 5 CNC members is perhaps the most opaque, unaccountable, and undemocratic of all.
Five Communion Members
In the past, there was only 1 voting member representing the wider Communion (I was critical about the process last time) but there will now be 5 members who have apparently already been chosen but how they have been chosen remains far from clear. The process is particularly complex because (as with the new Regulation in relation to those elected to CNC by the ViSC) there have been introduced a range of requirements to ensure a diversity of representatives. There are at least the following eight areas where there is need for greater clarity.
Firstly, the 5 will each come from one of the 5 regions of the Anglican Communion. These are known to be Asia, the Americas, Africa, Europe, and Oceania but the exact provincial composition of each of these five regions does not appear to be in the public domain.
Secondly, the distribution of provinces—and even more the proportion of active Anglicans—is not obviously equitable across these regions.
Thirdly, the CNC Standing Order is clear that the five are to be “chosen by the Joint Standing Committee”. Its membership is public and again there are questions about its representativeness on a range of criteria (e.g. theological, geographic, the balance of Primates, bishops, clergy and laity).
Fourthly, according to the minutes of the Joint Standing Committee in November 2023 the five CNC members have been selected by an unidentified “group from the Standing Committee” with the actual role of the Standing Committee unclear.
Fifthly, the pool of possible names (as determined by the Standing Committee) can be identified from the current and previous ACC membership but the process of nominations (by the primates to the group making the final choice) remains shrouded in mystery.
Sixthly, there are effectively six different tests that need to be passed by the 5 names. It is not clear how meeting all these different constraints was secured in selecting names as there are multiple ways of proceeding. There were 2 (rather undefined) criteria added by the Standing Committee—one “youth representative” and “an indigenous person”—to the 4 required by the CNC Standing Orders:
- Geography (1 from each of 5 regions)
- Church Status (at least 1 Primate, 1 cleric, 1 lay person)
- Gender (at least 2 men and 2 women)
- Ethnicity (at least 3 GMH, a term only defined in the SO as “a reference to a person whose ethnicity is commonly referred to as “Global Majority Heritage”)
Seventhly, through this process both the President (Archbishop Justin until he stepped down) and Chair of the Standing Committee (Maggie Swinson) were members of the Church of England. It is not clear whether they recused themselves from the selection process or, if not, what role they played and how much influence or power they had in the choice of the 5 names that are meant to represent churches of the Communion other than the CofE.
Eighthly, the six criteria that need to be met may well produce a theologically unrepresentative group of 5 members. On the basis of worshipping Anglicans (and even if measured simply at the provincial level) it would be expected that 3 (60%) and probably 4 (80%) of the 5 would be more theologically conservative but Phil Groves has argued that “The brief given to the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion thus offers a bias that could result in a delegation more progressive than those from the Diocese of Canterbury or the Church of England”.
Although in one sense now academic if the 5 members have indeed already been chosen and informed of their role on the CNC, there is an urgent need for much greater accountability and transparency about how they have been chosen. Further information on these eight matters needs to be published, particularly given the clearly published processes for choosing other members and the significant number of CNC members involved (which is the second largest of all the five groupings constituting the CNC).
Conclusion
We only currently know the names of 6 of the 17 people who will serve on the Canterbury CNC but certain other aspects of the group are becoming clear. These include that there will be:
- 8 to 10 women of whom at least 3 (and potentially up to 6) are ordained, with 3 out of the 4 CofE priests involved being female;
- No male priest from the province of Canterbury and potentially no ordained male from the province if the House elect a woman bishop;
- Between 7 and 9 lay people;
- 10 people from the province of Canterbury and 2 (Archbishop and priest) from the province of York;
- 2 Primates (The Archbishop of York and a Communion Primate) and 1 CofE bishop and possibly 1 Communion bishop;
- Possibly as many members from the Diocese of London as from the Diocese of Canterbury; and
- 5 people from other Communion provinces outside the Church of England.
There is, however, still much that remains unknown. In particular, there are major questions and concerns about what has happened in Canterbury diocese and the imminent election of its 3 CNC members. These arise from confusion surrounding the ViSC and the possible impact of the new Regulation passed by General Synod. There is also very little clarity as to how the 5 members of the Communion have been selected.
Given that these two groups amount to almost half the 17 members, greater transparency and fuller explanations about the processes leading to their selection for this important role is really necessary, ideally before their names are made public.
Revd Dr Andrew Goddard is Assistant Minister, St James the Less, Pimlico, (where his wife *Lis Goddard is vicar) 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.
Whoever is chosen will be extremely unacceptable to many. That is the infernal genius of the LLF enterprise.
But unless a clean break is made from it, e.g. by appointing Bp Williams who would be very good, the chaos will just be ever-increasing. Please think, and that means eschewing the short term and seeing the big picture which is the only picture there is.
Christopher you write as if a new Archbishop can act like the President of the US and just issue some executive order that dictates what will happen. The Archbishop is not a dictator. Decisions about LLF have been made and will continue to be made by General Synod.
We hope the *next* archbishop will not be a dictator….
Whom were they made by? 50% of a body of which the other 50% voted the other way?
Christopher, I’m not really sure what point you are making. The voting figures varied, but clearly they were more than 50% in each case a vote went through. Bishop Paul Williams, who you mention, was very much in a minority within the House of Bishops, and one of only four Bishops altogether who wrote a letter railing against the decisions that had been taken. Either you accept that Synod is democratically elected to make decisions, or perhaps you need a Church, or indeed a country, where decisions are taken rather differently?
Andrew – I’m not clear what you are referring to here so wondering if you can clarify. Paul Williams was indeed one of the 4 bishops who voted against PLF when first presented to Synod in Feb 2023 but I am not aware of them writing any letter together at all let alone one “railing against the decisions that had been taken”. What did you have in mind?
The number of bishops voting against (and the number abstaining) has consistently increased since that first vote and is now about 1/3 of the House I believe with the majority support among Bishops falling from 32 to 10 at Synod.
As I’m sure you are aware, one of the key issues is whether a simple majority at Synod (which clearly has been secured in all 3 Houses, in all 3 Synod votes, albeit often quite narrowly in 2 of the Houses) is really sufficient given Canon B2 and the usual practice of requiring 2/3 majorities to change liturgy and ensure that it is widely viewed as consistent with doctrine.
Yes, you are right and I was confused. He was one of just four bishops who voted against in Feb 2023.
The letter I was referring to was an open letter. He was a signatory to that. Clearly there will be a move among Conservative Evangelicals to push him forward. No surprise there.
My points to Christopher about democracy still stand. The decisions taken so far have only needed a simple majority and that has been achieved.
I agree that a 2/3 majority for changes in doctrine are required.
Who are these ‘conservative evangelicals’ that you keep referring to?
My own interest is simply in having an ABC who is Anglican. Is that ‘conservative’? ‘Evangelical’? Why?
Andrew, what I might add to the above is the fear that many of us have concerning choosing a new Archbishop solely around a candidate’s views on LLF. To do that would be a disaster.
Alister McGrath wrote in the in Church Times last week “Where some would see diversity of beliefs as intrinsically incoherent and self-contradictory, a wise person recognises that we have to learn to see our world and frame our experiences from multiple perspectives rather than from within a single limiting perspective or controlling paradigm.”
There are many more important things within England and within the Church of England than LLF. To focus on that in this appointment will just add further speed to the death of a dying organisation.
The one thing Christopher Shell is correct about is trying to see the bigger picture. The picture is much bigger than LLF.
If you think that Alister McGrath thinks sexuality and marriage a ‘thing indifferent’ then you would be mistaken.
In fact, he would be careful to distinguish between differences that don’t make a difference, and differences that do. As would any serious theologian.
‘To focus on that in this appointment will just add further speed to the death of a dying organisation.’ Except that every denomination which has changed its doctrine of marriage is dying, and no denomination which is thriving has changes its doctrine of marriage.
So perhaps paying some attention to?
Changing the C of E doctrine of marriage to include same sex couples would have needed a 2/3 majority, prayers for same sex couples in services does not and the simple majority for it in Synod sufficed
They are claimed not to be prayers *for the couple*. So even you don’t understand what has been done…!
Surely no thinker of any sort would see diversity as a strength per se. It is more like a reading list where different people have had different insights, not like a principle where the more variety in thinking the better. In searching for the truth, to the extent that truth is attained it ends up being the *less* variety the better when breakthrough theories are attained.
Anyway variety includes 1 out of 10 at maths and 6 out of 10 and 10 out of 10. This is a variety of marks which of course are all equally good.
Ian if you seriously think that Justin was a dictator, as you seem to do, then the doctrine of marriage in the CofE would have changed. It hasn’t.
Andrew G, I have set out my views clearly elsewhere. Justin acted on many occasions autocratically behind the scenes. I am far from alone in experiencing that. He knew the most effective way to bring change was by stealth.
Ian
Are you saying that you think evangelicals would be very happy with a liberal (even lesbian?) ABC as long as she stuck to current Anglican teaching?
If the next ABC believes and upholds Anglican doctrine, why would any of us have any problem? I have a number of gay friends who live by the doctrine of the Church whom I would be very happy to see as ABC.
Can someone clarify for me if a brother and sister living, together or not, and clearly not in a sexual relationship (well, hopefully not), and certainly not civilly married, could receive such a blessing in church? Or a man and woman who were simply friends caring for the other, wanted this, is it available?
Excellent question Jack.
This is a question which A.J. Bell keeps asking. However, conservative evangelicals, who are only interested in sexual relationships, consistently refuse to answer.
Penny, who are these ‘conservative evangelicals’ you refer to?
Not heard of ‘reductio ad absurdum’, Penelope?
HJ,
As I understand it there was a concerted effort from conservative voices to change the prayers for covenanted friendship so that the answer to your question is an emphatic yes. Furthermore, a couple who are both married to other people would be free to enter a covenanted friendship and get a blessing for it, and enter more covenanted friendships with other friends, and at no point have to get permission from their spouse to do any of this.
What is so frustrating and sad has been to see the absolute refusal of those responsible for the changes to give an explanation for why they did this, or other conservatives to even acknowledge what happened. I don’t think I’d grasped quite how much they actually hate us, that even a provision explicitly for non-sexual relationships had to be sabotaged behind closed doors and they can more emphatically trivialize our lives. That they seem to be ashamed of what they did is small comfort.
Nobody is forcing you to go to any church. This isn’t the 16th century. If you don’t like its scriptures or their implications, just accept that you are not part of it.
To think Anton, only a year ago (well May to be precise) you were agreeing on here that you thought that committed same-sex relationships were (for example a civil partnership) are permitted but should not be sexual.
Now you’ve reversed that view.
Who would recognise my position from that description, AJB? Quote me my words and specify the thread, please.
Sure.
Seeking a Way Through LLF/PLF: Seeing the Forest Not Just the Trees – published on 9th May.
In that article (another of Andrew Goddard’s) he set out a summary of the church’s ethical teaching on this as he saw it:
1. No sex outside marriage between a man and a woman;
2. Committed same-sex relationships (for example a civil partnership) are permitted but they are not marriage and therefore should not be sexual;
3. Committed same-sex relationships should not claim to be marriage.
We had one of our arguments about how I think conservatives are always reluctant to actually say what they think gay people should do, and argued that Goddard’s three points are not what conservatives actually think or will defend.
When challenged that you would not give a direct answer, your response was: “Please see the first list of three points in Dr Goddard’s article, AJB. That is perfectly explicit and was long the church’s teaching, explicable on request by almost any vicar.”
Ian
Surely you know? Your comrades in the CEEC and the Alliance who constantly try to frustrate the will of Synod.
No, Penny, I don’t know, because this is used as a construction of your imagination as far as I can see.
I am not a ‘conservative evangelical’ and yet I am a member of both those groups. And there are many others like me, so that doesn’t really work.
And what is ‘the will of Synod’? As you know, Synod is split almost down the middle on what liberals claims are very modest proposals. There is of course one thing that Synod has reaffirmed time and again: that the doctrine of marriage according to the teaching of our Lord, that it is between one man and one woman, will not change.
Are you happy with that ‘mind of Synod’? Or are you determined to frustrate it?
AJB: it is untrue to suggest on the basis of that May 2024 thread and this present one that I have reversed my view, and I invite readers to verify this for themselves.
On that thread, you quoted Andrew Goddard’s essay and then added your own comment. Here is what you quoted (in inverted commas), followed by two sentences of your comment:
“The question now has to be answered as to the content of the Church of England’s sexual ethic and in particular what it says to those who identify as gay, lesbian or bisexual and how it assists them to live holy lives.” This is indeed an important question. Alas, both the Bishops and the ‘conservative’ factions have been working very hard to make sure it doesn’t get asked.
To which I responded:
It is untrue that the ‘conservative’ faction wishes to duck this question. Since the introduction of iniquitous ‘hate speech’ laws (exploited by the angry to claim that they are instead alarmed and upset) the conservatives have to frame their public replies not as a matter of moral right or wrong but as a matter of fidelity to the Bible or not. But the answer is loud and clear and the CoE has said it repeatedly in the fairly recent past. The fact is that those seeking change away from the Bible keep asking the question and keep infiltrating the church …
You then continued to say inaccurately that evangelicals didn’t give an answer, then when I explained that they had done and cited two evangelical men who had done (and who experienced same-sex attraction) you retreated to grumbling that evangelicals on the thread didn’t respond, and I then referred you to Andrew Goddard’s three points:
This is a restatement of the various past pastoral statements from bishops. These have clearly established and explained the position where the church’s ethical teaching and pastoral discipline in the light of its doctrine of marriage has included: 1. No sex outside marriage between a man and a woman; 2. Committed same-sex relationships (for example a civil partnership) are permitted but they are not marriage and therefore should not be sexual; 3. Committed same-sex relationships should not claim to be marriage.
I said what I meant. Goddard and myself are referring to civil partnerships recognised by the secular authorities. It has nothing to do with importing such ceremonies into the church, which would involve asking what was or wasn’t going on in somebody’s bedroom and taking their word for it – a ridiculous situation which the church should not let itself get into. So your accusation that I have done a U-turn is wholly untrue.
I’d add something that has occurred to me since last May, though: if this is a committed relationship (albeit nonsexual), what are its members committed to do and to avoid doing? I would appreciate your reply.
“Who are these ‘conservative evangelicals’ that you keep referring to?”
Ian you asked me this up the page. Please see Penny’s very clear answer.
It’s worth noting two other things.
Conservative Evangelicals are all about power. They stopped Jeffrey John becoming Bishop of Reading and have been wielding that same powerful stick ever since. Much evidence on this thread that you will try to do the same with the appointment of the next Archbishop.
Secondly the link between Smyth and the safeguarding scandal and power runs right through the conservative evangelical hierarchy. It should make us all wary of appointing anyone connected to that constituency just at the moment. And is I suspect one reason why you are asking your question Ian – at one level you wish to appear disconnected from that group,
Andrew, I have replied to Penny; it is evident that this label is a group existing in her imagination, but not much more.
Your comments about power and Smyth show the same thing. I had never even heard of him before 2017, and neither had many of my friends.
So I think I will need to treat your future comments about ‘conservative evangelicals’ as the rhetorical fiction that they are.
And I shall treat your denial of the existence of the constituency as continuing evidence of the power grab I identify here.
At least some of the members of the constituency are a little more honest in acknowledging their background.
Why would you do that? I have pointed out your claims here are simply factually wrong. You just lump together everyone you don’t like (mostly because they actually believe the doctrine of the C of E) and then stick the label ‘conservative evangelical’ on them.
It is a masterclass in othering.
Andrew Godsall,
The problem you lay at the door of conservative evangelicals is more accurately to be laid at the door of (1) a hierarchy, which typically acts to cover up rather than expose abuses in the lower tiers it administers (proof: the problem recurs with the Catholic hierarchy, which contains no ‘conservative evangelicals’); (2) public schoolmen, who inhabit what has memorably been described as “a primitive community of licensed bullies and pederasts” during their most impressionable years.
So to be clear Anton you think it’s quite wrong to say that you think (or ever thought) that Church teaching should be that committed same-sex relationships (for example a civil partnership) are permitted but should not be sexual. But also you definitely think that Church teaching should be that committed same-sex relationships (for example a civil partnership) are permitted but should not be sexual.
Round and round and round we go…
Adam, civil partnerships are a bit of a dead end or red herring. It was denied that they were backdoor gay marriage—yet siblings were prohibited (why??) and CPs were retrospectively recognised as gay marriage.
The idea that they could be maintained and non-sexual is asking us to see something with webbed feet, that quacks, without actually calling it a duck.
AJB: I continue to affirm points 1,2,3 in Andrew Goddard’s essay of May 9th, so my position has not changed. But those points are not the end of the story, are they? In considering whether a gay couple in a civil partnership claiming to be celibate should be admitted into communion, the church would be wise to ask them what they believe to be God’s view of any sexual activity between them, whether they held the same view when they contracted their civil partnership, and what in their own words they understand their committed relationship has committed them to doing and not doing.
I would wish to know *why* a gay couple had entered into a civil partnership
As I said, I realise that we have been proceeding in these discussions without considering what the partners in these ‘committed relationships’ should be committed to doing and not doing. That must now be clarified before I can comment further.
But Anton, you’re the one who’s saying this should be Church teaching. I have thought it was interesting, and opened my mind on the point, but I can’t help notice none of you are remotely serious about it and in practice prevaricate about whether it should be Church teaching or not. So in PLF debates instead of welcoming an opportunity to formalise the teaching with the prayers for covenanted friendship, it gets ignored in Synod, and sabotaged behind closed doors.
Ian, I thought you agreed with Wesley Hill that the Church should be looking at how gay people can form committed partnerships (without sex).
AJB,
If you are going to twist what I have said and then take issue with it, the result has nothing to do with me.
Twice now you have met with silence the request to specify what exactly is being committed to in a ‘committed relationship’ of this type and what is excluded.
I believe that the aim of the PLF prayers is to get a foot in the door by hook or by crook. The machinations of the movement to get these prayers into the CoE resemble nothing so much as a coiling serpent trying to squeeze the life out of the bride of Christ.
Anton, if this is the teaching you support and advocate, why do you need me to explain it to you? Shouldn’t you be explaining it to me?
Greg Coles has written a bit about it, so you could look at that and say it was a commitment to lifelong and exclusive relational intimacy, forming a new family and household, with physical intimacy but not sex. But again, this is what you’re advocating so it should be for you to say what you mean.
Ian
I am fascinated that you are refusing to identify as a conservative evangelical when you belong to councils and groups which are most definitely conservative and evangelical. And I would be surprised of other members refused to be so described. Or perhaps I wouldn’t; is this a new ploy to try to convince the gullible that conservative evangelicalism is the Anglican via media?
And no, I have no desire to frustrate the will of Synod.
AJB,
What makes you think I need you to explain the situation to me? As for my explaining it to you, I and others have done many times. Evidently you don’t want to understand and/or you wish to lure people into transgressing the falsely named hate speech laws. Your lobby might yet regret those laws as Islam rises in influence in Britain.
Thrice now you have met with silence the request to specify what exactly is being committed to in a ‘committed relationship’ of this type and what is excluded. Fourth time lucky?
Oh Anton, you’ve been asking (and are still asking) me to explain to you what a committed same-sex relationship such as a civil partnership would mean if it wasn’t sexual, despite this being a teaching that you say you affirm, and I’m the one who questions it. How do you affirm something that you say you don’t understand?
As fun as being gaslit always is on here, I have of course given you an answer. I pointed you towards Greg Coles’ writings on the topic and said I thought they’re committing to relational and physical intimacy, which is exclusive and lifelong, forming a new family and household. What do you think it means, given you affirm the teaching?
As for thinking there’s a trap to get you to transgress hate speech, that’s utterly absurd. How is unpacking the Church teaching on permitted civil partnerships going to trip into hate speech? Unless of course, none of this is what you actually believe at all. And what you say you affirm, and what you really think, and two wildly different things.
AJB, you are doing me a valuable service by forcing me to think more deeply about this situation, and for that I am grateful. I affirm that two persons of the same sex who have contracted a civil partnership and who are celibate and believe in Jesus Christ ought to be free to share communion. (I don’t think I have changed my position, but I don’t mind if you think I have.) The principal problem is how the church may know that they are celibate given the undoubted presence of a proportion of provocateurs who would not be truthful about their activity. Have you any suggestions?
“is this a new ploy to try to convince the gullible that conservative evangelicalism is the Anglican via media?”
Penny I think that’s exactly right. It is also a ploy to create distance from the many conservative evangelicals who are implicated by the Makin report, so that a Conservative Evangelical candidate might be acceptable as the next Archbishop.
It might be helpful if people who consider themselves conservative evangelicals and people who are against the conservative evangelical view actually define it. (In particular, how does it relate to fundamentalism and to cessationism?) On this blog it seems to be code simply for pro-PLF and anti-PLF.
It is not defined thus, but there has rarely been such a useful barometer.
Ian
I know multiple people in civil partnerships who do not have sex. I don’t have spy cameras in their rooms, but I do believe them.
I think perhaps this is partly that straight people struggle to understand life from gay perspective and maybe make sex into a bigger thing than it actually is for gay people?
The default assumptions that gay people are having sex outside of man-woman marriage and straight people aren’t drive a lot of the abuse of gay people in the church.
Richard Peers reported in a frank article on his blog that when people say that, they all know they are lying! So I am just taking the word of a gay man on this.
The situation with men and women is quite different. But if the relationship is non-sexual, why would it be exclusive? Friendships are not.
Who is anywhere assuming that ‘straight people are not’…?
Peter,
What *exactly* do you mean by abuse here?
Anton, keep asking that question.
A cornerstone of our opponents’ approach is to define that word extremely broadly and loosely.
Ian
You’re taking the word of one gay man, but not another?
Penelope: people regularly take the word of one straight man over another in court. They take motive into account.
Anton
And what are Richard’s and Pete’s motives?
Of course I can’t look into the heart of any individual, Penelope, but where one man has motive to lie and the other doesn’t, that is good reason to take into account.
Penelope Cowell Doe, perhaps if the ‘Prayers of Love and Faith’ were less ambiguous, not open to local variation, and were clear that homoerotic behaviour was not a part of a ‘Covenanted Friendship’, then one could answer this question.
As it is, from my reading of them, they are silent on what one is actually asking God to favour and protect. Rather, they present as a not to covert blessing in a quasi-liturgical service for undefined same sex ‘love’.
The inclusion of two of the recommended Old Testament readings are clear expressions of philia or agape Without this clarity they create the impression they include eros.
The overall impression is of a somewhat sham same sex ‘marriage’ that is not “holy” (set apart and morally pure) – a holiness reflected in the moral code of Scripture.
What’s the non-sexual homoerotic behaviour you’re worried about in the proposed covenanted friendships?
AJ Bell, as I’m sure you know, homoerotic behaviour is sexual behaviour between people of the same sex. Whereas, heteroerotic behaviour is sexual behaviour between a man and a woman.
“Covenanted friendships,” based on solely agape are non-sexual and blessing them cause me no trouble at all. Except one has to ask why one would need a quasi-formal, public liturgy to request God’s blessing on a friendship when a private, informal, and non-liturgical blessing would suffice?
The proposed covenanted friendships in PLF: “embody a type of relationship that is both committed and non-sexual, which is not exclusive, yet deeply meaningful, particular, and seeking to grow in holiness.”
It’s all there on page 2:
https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2023-12/prayers-of-love-and-faith.pdf
Why would anyone want this quasi-formal public liturgy for this form of friendship? Well, you’d have to ask those who pushed through the amendments that changed it to this. Alas, they don’t talk about what they did.
AJ Bell, no, I’m asking you.
What would you like the minister to seek God’s blessing for in a public, quasi-formal, Church of England liturgical service that apes a marriage ceremony?
The PLF represents a fudge, a trojan horse, to avoid addressing deeper issues.
To paraphrase the words of a recent pope:
Translation: secularisation and the lack of internal unity are two great problems for the Church and are there through the intrusion of demonic forces.
Ok Jack, I don’t mind repeating my thinking on this again.
If people really are gay, can’t change that, and celibacy is not something we can enforce as a rule, then where does that leave us? We could take a hedonistic approach – gay people have no risk of accidentally creating a life when they have sex, so have at it. That would be sharply at odds with Christian ethics on sex, and the dignity of the person. We could say, in the light of Ecclesiastes 4 for example, that it’s the intimacy of a faithful companion that really matters (Eve is created in Genesis 2 as a helper because it is not good for man to be alone) and look at the idea of covenanted friendships as same-sex marriages without sex. This already is how civil partnerships with clergy are seen. The experience of that has made me wary – no-one seems to believe that they aren’t having sex. It’s worth considering why that is. Do we think that marriage in reality requires it for true intimacy (rather than a throwback to medieval law on ensuring legitimacy of children)? If this is what we want, the Church ought to be able to formalise and recognise this in its liturgy. But if we don’t believe these relationships are what we say they are, we can’t go down that track with integrity. All of which leaves us with same-sex marriage – just like for straight people in the Church, if you’re not called to celibacy, you are right to marry.
Gay is not something that people are. (Inside or in essence.) It is something that they now are or have now become.
If that is the foundation for your thinking then it falls at the first hurdle.
Ways of proving this: (a) there are no ‘gay’ babies, and the idea is an unpleasant one: pleasant people do not hold it. (b) If gay were something that one ‘was’ there would be no correlations with particular family or societal circumstances, but not only are there several such correlations, their extent is also of a high percentage magnitude. (c) People ignore points a-b, meaning that they are not honest disputants and one is for that reason less inclined to listen to what they say.
Christopher
Although they’ve found no specific genetic marker in all practical ways orientation is innate and unchangeable for the vast majority of cases. Some people, mostly women, experience some changes in their attractions over time, but this isn’t chosen and cannot be manipulated.
If it were possible to change a person’s orientation by influence, why didn’t the Thatcher era political movement against gay people have any impact in reducing the number of gay people?
Same-sex attraction appears to be largely stable in men, but quite changeable in women.
But what bearing does that have on its morality? There are many things in people which seem immune to change; that in itself does not make them moral.
You just agreed with me, speaking as you do essentially about adults as though people were born as adults. Your only reference was to mid life, whereas when the topic is innateness it is the start of life that we are talking about.
(This is what I always say: the gay activism movement lives in a world of adults where children are notable by their scarcity. The real world is a world of families, multi age.)
Secondly you seem to be saying that babies (who are in fact non sexual) can be gay.
If you are saying that, you can understand why people want to be as far away from your movement as possible.
If you are not saying that, then you already agree with me that we are speaking about something attained not something innate.
Christopher
Remind us again how you attained straightness.
I will, when you remind us how many times you have failed to digest the answers previously given.
‘I refer the left-honourable lady to the reply which I gave some days ago, and also some weeks ago, and also some months ago, and also some years ago.’
You are right when you say you need to be reminded: it is a statement of your forgetfulness.
Christopher
Mea culpa. Since you weren’t a straight baby, I recollect you must have been groomed in your youth.
Your comment is at a high level of unpleasantness.
The urge to reproduce clearly does not exist, since evolution died out in a couple of generations, and the world failed to be populated.
“Gay is not something that people are. (Inside or in essence.) It is something that they now are or have now become.”
Ridiculous wordplay that betrays an inability to engage honestly in the discussion. Some people are gay. Some people are elderly. Some people are brunettes. Some people are qualified pharmacists. Some people are British citizens. Some people are Christians. The English language does not require us to add “now” into any of those statements.
The real point is whether you think the people we’re talking about can change. Why you think they’re gay, and how you think that happened, is secondary to the question at hand. And as you eventually admit when we get into these discussions, even you concede people cannot be expected to change their sexual orientation.
As to Ian’s point about the moral bearing. It’s not the only consideration, but it’s an important one. If it were the case that your orientation is a free and endlessly flexible choice like what colour shirt to wear, then the moral question becomes what orientation is right to choose for yourself? There’s not necessarily a great burden to bear when it comes to the choices made. It would largely be about the pain (or not) or social nonconformity (or not). If however orientation isn’t chosen, and you can’t choose to change it, then the moral question is obviously not what to choose (if there’s no choice, the question makes no sense). Rather it’s about what to do with the sexuality you have, and the whole question of what it means to live with integrity comes into the discussion.
If it’s not the only question, what else might we need to think about? Well, for starters questions about sexual ethics are not really about individuals. They’re about people relating to each other. So questions about what relationships same-sex marriage, are not about what a gay person can do, but about what relationship two gay people can form with each other (and the perspective of one partner is just as important and valid as the other). That’s why the rather gross comparisons we sometimes hear to adultery or, worse, child abuse are so disturbingly wrong: they betray a thinking that’s only concerned with who the man wants to have sex with and whether that’s permitted. They don’t consider seriously the dignity or life of the other person involved as key to the ethical answer and reduces that other person to a mere sexual outlet to be permitted or prohibited.
(1) To say ‘ridiculous’ is to say that whether people laugh at something (which they may do in order to dismiss a strong point out of hand so as to avoid facing up to it, or to gain approval from their peers because they see everything tribally/adversarially and not in terms of the quest for truth) is the key point. For those who operate in that way, it probably is.
(2) In reality, the understanding that ‘gay’ ranks with ‘elderly’ and not with ‘Chinese’ or ‘female’ is highly necessary because people are lying about this everywhere in society. This point does not matter to the present discussion, because you already agree on the obvious point that it ranks with ‘elderly’ rather than with ‘Chinese’ or ‘female’. So I hope you correct the many people who are wrong on this point.
And it is a very central point, so why are you not treating it as such?
(3) ‘The real point’, you say.
This is simultaneously incorrect in multiple ways:
-(a) The idea that there is somehow just one point only, and all the others don’t exist! I doubt it will be easy to convince anyone of that.
-(b) Are you hoping these others don’t exist so that you don’t have to address them?
-(c) The idea that you unilaterally can decide what ‘the real point’ is – what if others disagree about this?
(4) You are saying the question of origins is secondary and comparatively trivial – even to the extent that we can forbear from talking about it at all(!).
No way. It is obvious that that is far from being the case:
-In understanding anything, not only are origins a critical consideration,
-but possibly the main and the most all-encompassing one of all (as agreed by any medic or psychologist etc etc),
-and certainly one that can never be omitted.
(5) You say ‘concede’. Honest and truthful people never ‘admit’ or ‘concede’ because they don’t hide, nor hope for any particular conclusion above any other, in the first place. They just go with the evidence and say where they think it seems to point.
That is basic yet seems unfamiliar to you, which then raises questions about why you are assuming bias (bias out of selfish preference, to boot) is normal. What milieu does that suggest?
(6) Your binary ‘chosen’/’not chosen’ is false because there are obviously other alternatives – but one thing that is worrying is that point has often been made but you are speaking as though you have not digested it.
Other than endemic and pure choice, there are imposed surroundings like broken families that can strongly encourage an estranged reaction but not actually cause it. And secondly there are actual choices (like, to get involved with a molester) which later on seem on the surface to prevent further choices. The trick is to see that there are many choices in life, and the idea that there is only one time in a given life where a choice is made is a non-starter. So genuine choices at an earlier stage may lead to reduction of choices at a later.
(7) You use the category ‘a gay person’ when the point at issue is whether that category is robust in the first place. One cannot presuppose the contested point, but it is very convenient for people to try.
(8) Reducing the other person to a mere sexual outlet to be permitted or prohibited.
Yes – keeping the question at a theoretical level so that it is prevented from progressing to the practical. That is exactly what should happen with things that would be harmful if practised, and which secure people would not think of practising.
Indeed. The Archbishop is not Pope, whose sayings largely go for the Roman Catholic church’s doctrine worldwide, hence the Cardinals put so much emphasis on the conclave. The C of E however is governed by Synod ultimately with the Archbishop its leader but requiring Synod support to make changes
T1 – and long may it stay that way!
The more I think about it, the more I conclude that once candidates are selected as the eligible pool, lots should be cast – in both the Church of England and Catholic Church – for the appointment. It’s all too political these days – well, it always has been – but now its descended into an open civil war on social media.
Choice by lots is an admission that the Holy Spirit among churchmen is not to be relied upon. Which might be the case as I frankly doubt that many career hierarchs are holy men.
PROVERBS. 16 V 33
New International Version
The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD.
New Living Translation
We may throw the dice, but the LORD determines how they fall.
Hasn’t LLF masked and at the same time revealed the foundational theology/ doctrines of incumbents – the plimsoll line on the sea of faith of culture of the CoE?
No
Of course it has! That or a hypocritical attempt to maintain a false unity in the face of pressure.
The Greek word for salvation is soteria. It’s meaning goes beyond “forgiveness of sin” and is much wider in scope – “deliverance,” “restoration,” “freedom,” and “healing” – a restored communion between God and the human person.
How can God and man be restored by a Church that seeks a public blessing from God for sin?
Given nearly half, maybe even a majority of the CNC will be women then their is a strong possibility the next Archbishop of Canterbury will be a woman. About time too given it is over 10 years since Synod by the required 2/3 majority approved women bishops in the Church of England.
The Bishop of Chelmsford and the Bishop of Gloucester will therefore be strong female contenders, the former in particular given her emphasis on more support for Parish ministry. The Bishop of Newcastle will also be a contender given her emphasis on safeguarding. Chelmsford would be the most likely of the 3 being from the Catholic wing of the C of E and on the usual rotation a Catholic should be next Archbishop after Evangelical Welby.
The 2 male contenders leading the pack are the Bishop of Norwich, from the more Catholic wing and the Bishop of Leicester, from the Evangelical end. Again on the rotation basis Norwich the more likely of the 2
Thanks for the confirmation, T1.
Your welcome
Bookies odds here
https://www.olbg.com/news/next-archbishop-canterbury-betting-odds-dr-guli-francis-dehqani-leads-betting-odds-be-first-female-archbishop-canterbury-after-1400-years
‘Bookies odds…’??! What insight does that give us…?!
About as much insight as Christopher Shell saying who he thinks is suitable for the role.
Whilst bookies odds, like financial markets, can be insightful on some things – a large number of people giving careful consideration and being willing to stake some money on their opinion – that isn’t the case here. The bookmakers aren’t taking bets on this, and those aren’t “real” odds generated by a betting market. It seems to be the considered view of the writer Jake Ashton. That might be why Martyn Snow and Stephen Cottrell feature, but Paul Williams is nowhere in sight.
Plenty if they have inside information.
Whoever wrote that does not understand how odds work. He has translated the odds *on offer* into probabilities using the correct algorithm, but the probabilities sum to more than 100%! That is how bookies make their profit…
There are no odds on offer of course:
“*As bookmakers currently aren’t taking bets on this event, odds have been compiled as theoretical probability from an entertainment perspective only and come from an industry expert”
‘leading the pack’ = top of the gossip. I don’t think the gossip has any meaning at all.
What effect do you think the 5 members from outside England have on the decision?
Dear Andrew, I was thinking about you when I wrote my piece. I remember reading your 2012 article where you identified those on the standing Committee ‘of a more liberal theological persuasion’ backing Barry. You were so wrong! As a staffer at the ACO, I couldn’t tell you at the time, especially as I had conversations after the vote with members of the Standing Committee, just how wrong you were.
Two of those you identified as inevitably supporting Barry rang me at the ACO to ask if I could explain how on earth Barry was elected! They certainly had not voted for him. I did not ask either of them who they voted for, but one told me that they had voted for an African Primate.
On the other hand you were completely right about the African and Asian electors – they voted for Barry because they knew and trusted him. One African elector was staying in London that week and couldn’t stop from telling me how delighted he was. That person was very clear that they did not trust the African Primates.
Now I am far removed from any up to date information. I expect to get things wrong, except that I don’t think it is inevitable that the Communion Representatives will rule out a woman just because of her gender.
These calculations seemmore complicated than Einstein’s theory of relativity!
Andrew, BTW, I agree with you that the process for finding the Anglican Communion reps is opaque.
The problem is that we are not a church – we are a communion of churches and as soon as we have a constitution we no longer have a communion. It means the Anglican Communion doesn’t have a sensible way of providing the representatives for the CNC in any way that is representative of the communion. We just don’t have a mechanism. I think the way it was set up is flawed. It was intended to reduce colonialism, but think about it, the Church of England backed by the ABC virtually told the Anglican Communion that they had to participate in identifying the next ABC. Colonialism!
It gives legitimacy to the wrong idea that the C of E is special and that the ABC can have leadership in provinces outside England. I think the whole thing is flawed.
We need to remember that Michael Ramsey told us that the Church of England should never call herself mother church of the Communion – we are not.
Philip, why should be a Communion make the process opaque?
Why not have a process where representatives actually represent the different strengths of areas of the Communion? Unless someone wants to exercise power behind the scenes…?
It is (in my experience) those in the Communion themselves who call the C of E their mother. It is not a colonial imposition.
Different strengths of areas?
No process should be opaque. I don’t like this one.
The answers to your questions are long and complex. There is no way they can be fully answered even in a blog post. But I will have a go.
Five Anglican Communion reps on the CNC is a lot, but how can 5 represent the huge diversity of the Communion? So who can represent Africa? Well African Anglicanism is hugely diverse. You can range from Malawian and Ghanaian Anglo-Catholicism to the East African Revivalists. Some of those are radical feminists such as Esher Mombo of Kenya, others are non revivalists with more traditional views (some of them pro polygamy).
Nigerian and Ugandan church leaders call for the imprisonment of anyone suggesting toleration of gay people and then you have the leading Anglican human rights activist Alice Mogwe campaigning for LGBTQI+ rights to the general council of the UN.
Take any African Primate and they are on one side of an internal division in their own province. That is unless they have forcefully stamped out division – take the Church of Nigeria’s fury at Archbishop Josiah being appointed as Gen Sec of the ACO.
The divisions in the Anglican Communion are in every province, not between provinces. Who can even represent one province?
And that is just Africa.
There are 7 million members of the United Churches in the four churches of South Asia. They are Anglicans, but they are also Methodists, Presbyterians, Baptists, and even Brethren.
Then the Americas and Episcopalianism in the USA alongside the distinctive Canadian church with its significant indigenous membership linked with indigenous Anglicans around the world.
The Indigenous voice is small, but it is so precious. It is important that it has representation. Just look at what was achieved in Argentina with Anglicans leading the way for Indigenous rights which are now being destroyed.
The Christian Council of East Asia is a very dynamic expression of Anglicanism – which includes the conservative Province of South East Asia, but also a TEC diocese (Taiwan) and provinces who are aligned to TEC Like Philippines, Japan and Korea (with Bishops invited to General Convention).
We can have this diversity because we are a Communion and not a church. It is like Paul and his churches. We live an breath in the diversity of the Spirit. When there was division (and there always was division) he never referred the division to the Jerusalem Council – the Council was never the ‘mother’.
The majority of provinces are happy to participate in the complexity and diversity of a Communion. A minority want a Confessional (GAFCON) or a Conciliar (GSFA) Anglicanism. Even then they are not as one. (I do love it that the GSFA Wiki page features a photo from a GSFA event highlighting a Bishop who blesses gay unions and advocates for gay marriage).
How do you get 5 representatives from all that (holy) mess?
I suspect you are right that the narrative of the Church of England as ‘mother church’ has grown over the last 25 years and this is being repeated in the Communion. Chiwanga’s speech to ACC 11 in 1999 seems a world away, but there he was celebrating the ‘Anglican Turning Point’ where Michael Ramsey confidently declared the end of talk about any church being mother church (and he included PECUSA in that) and declared ourselves equal. He saw it as a theological truth.
The historical reality is that the institution of the C of E often attempted to block the formation of churches where they were not for the white colonialists – hence the C of E demanding that there not be an Anglican Church in Tanganyika. The C of E and the SEC were the first Anglican churches and so set an example of local ownership of the local church, but this is itself a challenge tot he notion of mother church. So the Church of Mexico was established as a break from the colonialist Roman Catholic Church by Mexicans.
By the way I continue to be horrified by the book Living in Love and Faith.
It seeks to establish that the C of E is the mother church. It argues that the British Empire and the Anglican Communion were one. Bizarrely, it does so by saying that Bp Samuel Ajayi Crowther was the only non-white diocesan bishop in the Empire prior to 1912. Of course this is false. He was not a diocesan and his allocated area was outside the Empire – in region where CMS could put him without upsetting the C of E. LLF the book writes five non-white bishops out of our history to ensure that we are clear that the C of E is the mother church. I call that racism. Writing African and African American bishops out of history.
I have noted how the idea of mother church has become dominant through Justin’s time and very much was the narrative of Josiah Fearon. It is a far more complex story.
Oh and ‘those in the Communion’ happens to include the Church of England. We are ‘those in the Communion’. We are a province of the Communion.
Phil thanks for some much needed realism here
Philip, thanks for pointing out the complexity. But one thing I think we might agree on: if we end up with a majority of western-style liberals in the five, that will clearly *not* be representative!
I don’t think there is anything that is ‘representative’ – it is impossible to have representation in 5 people.
If we have a majority of western style anything it is not representative. a majority of western style conservatives is equally dreadful.
I wanted to focus on one thing in my article – I kept hearing on the BBC and other news outlets that the Anglican Communion Representatives would mean that a woman could not be ABC. That was my focus.
I realise there is another big question being asked but that was nto the one I was hearing.
So then ask yourself about what is ‘western-style’?
When Kivengere ordained women he saw it as the inevitable working out of his commitment to Scripture and the awakening of the Holy Spirit through The Revival. He was opposed by conservative complementarians, for example the then Bishop of Central Tanganyika. (remember he was banned from preaching for his dangerous views on women by CMS Australia Missionaries). He strived for the empowerment of women. However, it did not make him a ‘western-style’ liberal. He was seeing Christ transform culture, just like his great friend Desmond Tutu. You get them wrong if you think they are western stye liberals or conservatives.
The indigenous representative is likely to have strong views on the bankruptcy of Western understandings of our relationship with the natural world and may sound like Greta Thunberg, but walk and live with them and you will find that they have very distinct differences rooted in their cultural engagement with Scripture. They will find western liberals jarring and may find common cause with evangelicals such as the writings of John V Taylor and the wonderful Nick Drayson. But they are integrated in churches such as Canada, TEC, Brazil and ANZP. Ask the your question in one way and they may sound like western liberals, ask in a different way and they will not.
Some of them say that North American indigenous culture spoke of gender as a social construct and some speak of about 5 genders in their cultures, none of which relate to LGBTI or Q. You may hear of ‘Two Spirited’ and you may see a 2 added to the LGBTIQ list and that ‘2’ might relate to 3 of the genders where there are people with ‘two spirits’. For some the social construct gives room for differentiation between biological sex and gender identification that is a challenge to western liberals and western conservatives alike. They may sound like western style liberals, but they will be well aware of the difference.
On the whole Anglican Provinces have tended to elect representatives to the ACC who are willing to continue in partnership with provinces with women in leadership (despite the dire warnings of 1978 and 1988) even if they have not gone down that route. Their ACC reps have then often voted for people from provinces with women bishops to represent them on the Standing Committee.
A common reaction has then come from commentators – Andrew one of them (which is why I pointed out his error on Barry) – who have then said this is a fix and it is not representative. However, when you are there – and I spent long hours of joyful friendship with the last Nigerian Archbishop to be on the ACC – they know who they want to represent them, and it is rarely a GAFCON of GSFA conservative.
Among the Tanzanian bishops (the province that adopted me) there is deep mistrust of the conservatives that once ruled them (the ones who barred Kivengere from preaching) and openness to fruitful partnership with TEC. They all agree with you on sexuality, but speak to them in Kiswahili and hear what they say to each other and you will find they are not western style conservatives and I don’t believe they would block a woman Archbishop of Canterbury, but they are still not Western style liberals.
Perhaps we can agree that a well intentioned attempt at decolonialisation has not been thought through. It would not be the first time and will not be the last.
At this point we need to trust and pray. My prayer is that God works in a flawed system and the loving presence of people from outside this church enable the others to focus on who is being called to what is an impossible task.
All this diversity is important to note.
But I also note that the vast majority of the Communion uphold the catholic consensus on marriage, that Scripture tells us it is between one man and one woman.
On that question, if the five do not have a majority of that view, then on the divisive issue of the day they will not be representative.
Kivengere was friends with what Abp Tutu then was, not with what he became.
Ian
You wrote earlier that you wanted an Anglican. Do you want someone who holds up all of Lambeth 1.10 or only the part about opposing same sex marriages? The problem is pretty well none of the churches in the communion have upheld the whole thing!
The whole thing. Many have.
Philip thank you very much for your helpful insights in your comments here.
On the point about the Anglican Communion reps being part of the CNC, I suspect there are some who want the ACC to get on with discussing their paper about the future of the Communion, and especially the relationship of Canterbury to the Communion as suggested in that paper. If things go in the direction that the IASCUFO paper envisages – and I think that is a huge if actually – then I’m not sure about the significance of having the reps around. Things are moving.
The speculation of names is revealing in itself, as is how people talk about it and what it says about what they think we ought to be looking for in the next Archbishop.
The most consistent names raised appear to be:
Bishop Guli Francis-Dehqani of Chelmsford – the frontrunner for those who want a woman (somewhat unfairly as she has proper qualifications beyond her sex).
Bishop Paul Williams of Southwell & Nottingham – the champion of those who want to use this as a way to block LLF.
Bishop Graham Usher of Norwich – the most obvious of the anglo-catholics for those who believe in alternating traditions.
This of course assumes they’d all actually want to go to Canterbury, which feels like quite a big assumption. What is striking is that these contenders have a couple of things in common. They’re all in their late 50s (so are amongst the youngest of the diocesan bishops) and they’ve all got several years under their belt heading up their dioceses. Francis-Dehqani been there for 4 years, Usher for almost 6, and Williams for 10. The gossips are therefore presuming that we’ll be seeking someone who will expect to be Archbishop for a decade or more, and that we’ll want someone who we’ve seen in senior leadership for some time and kindof know what we’re getting.
But… that tends to push people towards raising the stakes and making it all about LLF: you’ve got all their speeches, writings, and votes on LLF/PLF to pore over, and the fear of having the ‘wrong’ choice in place for 10 years. If that preoccupies you might people turn to someone who abstained on standalone PLF services like the Bishop Mark Tanner of Chester – another bishop in his mid-50s with four years in his diocese. Or… do people relax the assumptions and opt for someone who’d be expected to have a shorter time before retiring, such as Bishop Richard Jackson of Hereford, or Bishop Philip Mountstephen of Winchester? Or someone new to the episcopacy like Bishop Michael Volland of Birmingham? Welby himself was a surprise when elected.
And that’s all assuming we’re only looking inside the Church of England itself, rather than the wider communion. And if you want to avoid deadlock because the LLF/PLF of all bishops is too divisive then going for someone who wasn’t in the House of Bishops to have a voting record looks like the route out.
And all of this serves to remind us that looking at the next Archbishop as another battle in the war of LLF/PLF is a really bad, really myopic, idea.
Tracing cause and effect: theological causation is indispensable.
How can Bishop Graham Usher be “the most obvious of the anglo-catholics for those who believe in alternating traditions”. when he signed an open letter supporting the use of the Prayers of Love and Faith? – a letter also signed by Bishop Guli Francis-Dehqani.
And its not about their views on LLF/PLF – I’d say it’s more about one’s theological approach as reflected in those views.
Since when was anglo-catholicism defined by opposition to PLF?
Well I do struggle with what “Anglo-Catholicism” is in the Church of England these days. I once believed it aimed to restore and preserve theological, liturgical and devotional expressions of church life from the early and mediaeval Church. So you really mean Anglo-liberal-Catholics who accept liberal theology. I doubt there are many Anglo-traditional-Catholics left now and one suspects the days of more orthodox evangelicals are numbered too.
Many, even most of the conservative Anglo Catholics in the Church of England eg the Forward in Faith crowd, left for the Roman Catholic or Orthodox churches after the ordination of women and women bishops were approved by 2/3 majority by Synod. So most Anglo Catholics that remain in the C of E are liberal.
However most conservative evangelicals still remain in the C of E as they are more concerned by same sex marriage than women priests and Synod has still not voted for same sex marriage in its churches despite LLF
T1 – yes, and the reasons behind their exodus ended prospects of true Christian unity in a universal Church.
Until the Roman Catholic church allows women priests and bishops yes liberal Catholics will not join it. Though Pope Francis has now said prayers for same sex couples can be held in RC churches as long as not full marriages, similar to PLF in the C of E.
Evangelicals would of course never join the Roman Catholic church anyway as they don’t believe in church hierarchy and the emphasis on Mass and certainly don’t believe the Pope and his cardinals should have authority over their churches
T1 “Though Pope Francis has now said prayers for same sex couples can be held in RC churches as long as not full marriages, similar to PLF in the C of E.”
No, he hasn’t. There can be quick, impromptu, informal blessings of individuals – not unions – to receive the grace of Christ, offered privately outside of Church premises and services. Not the same at all.
So as you say the Pope has approved Roman Catholic priests blessing same sex couples, just as the C of E has approved prayers for same sex couples but neither have approved actual marriages of same sex couples in churches or even stand alone services of blessing and prayer yet (Synod only approved experimental such services)
T1 – Did I not make this clear?
A “couple” is not blessed, It is individuals in an impromptu fashion. These are not liturgical acts or ceremonies, but a simple act which symbolises a protective disposition towards a person. The Pope has clarified this on more than one occasion.
I mean what I say, anglo-catholics. If you’re someone who thinks the next Archbishop ought to from that end of the tradition, then I would suggest Bishop Usher of Norwich is the most likely choice. If not him, which anglo-catholic bishop do you think it would be? Archbishop Stephen Cottrell of York has ruled himself out (in case there was any doubt). Bishop Philip North of Blackburn is probably too new to being a diocesan bishop to be considered, and comes with a lot of additional baggage. Bishop Martin Warner of Chichester or Bishop Michael Ipgrave of Lichfield? I doubt it. I don’t see a chance for Bishop Stephen Conway of Lincoln, and choosing someone like Bishop David Walker of Manchester would send some people over the edge.
The edge? He would be 68 on entering office.
Hello AJ Bell,
You said that Philip North has ‘a lot of additional baggage’. To what do you refer? (I ask you to clarify since if someone was talking about my character I would hope that they would do so in a very clear and substantiated way).
It is as you say ‘more’ about that. The main point is the overall theology/outlook and its internal consistency and holiness and dependence on culture, or lack of it. This is very important indeed.
Whereas LLF (a key manifestation of this) despite what you say is also very important indeed as a consideration. The two are inextricably intertwined, and we can see which one is bigger. But even when there are two very big things, one is still smaller. (Absolute size-level not to be confused wiht relative size-level.)
Stunning amount of this confusion lies at Justin’s door. Firstly his ill thought out Canterbury CNC changes which were his alone, although it has to be said he got them through General Synod. Secondly the apparent utter failure of the Diocese of Canterbury to keep its V-in-C committee properly populated. You couldn’t make it up. At least some CNC members (of the more tribal kind) will no longer participate in the Canterbury CNC. By the way, Andrew Cornes was never going to be a member, as to exclude his pair Paul Benfield would have meant there would have been no member of the Northern Province on the CNC. That has been agreed before Makin published, I understand. Andrew Goddard notes this. At least ++Ebor will now join the CNC, thereby ruling himself out as a candidate, although it appears some gamblers have not spotted this on the way to the betting shop.
Thanks for pointing that out. I had thought that you were a fan of Justin’s…!
I hear that HM the King has a preference for the Dean of Windsor as a caretaker for the next few years.
If so, that would be a very good idea.
Yes, indeed.
The King is a very smart man.
It’s very noticeable how quickly and how frequently the choice of a new Archbishop becomes subsumed into the discussion about same sex relationships and LLF. It’s almost as if that and that alone is a mark of orthodoxy and fitness for office. As noted above, there are other more significant and more long term issues that should occupy our minds and hearts and prayers. None of us knows if the current debates over sexuality are a long term concern that will still divide the church in 50 or 100 years time or will fade away with time and leave us (or at least our successors) wondering why so much time, anguish, unpleasant vitriol and hostility was unnecessarily consumed by them. Time has a powerful way of changing the nature of debates and resolving differences so we would be well served by dialing down the rhetoric over sexuality and allowing other factors to take the lead in our prayerful discernment. How tragic if any party/pressure group imposed a veto on the church.
So whether next Archbishop supported the LLF prayers or opposed them should be put on the back burner – we need to be a people of prayer in working with whoever is elected knowing that they, like us, are frail, fallible and yet wondrously upheld by the presence of God. Let’s get beyond the acrimonious and, frankly, nasty judgementalism we have seen in recent years.
Commendable sentiments, Tim, but a strategy of “peace in our time” rarely works when matters of real substance and principle are at stake. Imagine if King Antiochus had not been resisted.
Yes, but in the Church of England other larger and more significant issues of real substance are lived with and have been for many years. So the question is, why has this specific issue been raised above more important ones which are ignored and differing views are permitted?
Leave LLF in, and its tendency or trajectory is to strangle. How can that tendency ever change?
Tim, because it concerns fundamental questions about the nature of man and our relationship with God, our understanding of sin and redemption, and how we understand Scripture about these issues.
A Christian anthropology understands man in the light of God’s Word. We see what He did “in the beginning” by looking to His creative. Jesus did just this with regard to marriage and sex . He took us back to the this beginning before the Fall and He gave us the paradigm for truth about the human person and about human sexuality.
Man created in the “image of God” prior to “male and female.” We are not fully defined by our sexuality. Our fundamental identity is that of a creature of God and, by his grace, His children. This is how to read Galatians 3:27-28: “there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” – a passage so often misused. When we “put on Christ” we become a new creation and transcend temporal distinctions – but in what sense? And it is this that is crucial. We are not to use our earthly bodies in whatever manner we choose. We must identify the true meaning of our sexual relativity and complimentarily, and put human sexuality “in its place” as part of our earthly nature as revealed “in the beginning.” Basically, it’s how, as a Christian, our human drives should be ordered and directed – our “flesh” in Scriptural terms.
As I said, fundamental and basic questions which I think go above and beyond past and current differences.
“sexual relativity and complementarity” … always get that one wrong!
But I didn’t suggest that issues around sexuality were insignificant or didn’t relate to wider theological themes, only that there are others that are even more significant/fundamental and that, at least in the Church of England, we live with differences over them. So why do we only focus on same sex relationships? What’s really going on here?
Because we don’t have differences on sexual licence. Just one party is looking at what people would like to do and the other one is looking at the big picture and the long term consequences of following that road. Therefore there is no contradiction, because 2 different questions are being asked in the first place, and the first party has not studied any of the relevant literature and/or seems to come to ‘conclusions’ (which by a remarkable coincidence mirror their society….) before ever studying.
Because you are, to all appearances, presenting yourself as an arbiter of what is large and small. And (secondly) without stating the principle whereby you determine what is large and small. And (thirdly) without acknowledging that there will certainly be disagreement on which things are large and small – which brings us back to square one.
Another person (e.g. Jesus) could come (or could already have come) and say ‘This is large not small’, and because you have not stated *why you think it to be on the small side, you would have to allow their opinion to weigh the same as yours.
Christopher S, Jesus hasn’t “left” …. His body is His Church, and the Spirit of truth will guide His people. It’s up to us whether we listen.
HJ your point amounts to introducing the concept of the Holy Spirit. Jesus was only an example, but that he has come does not imply that he has gone.
More bullsh!t Christopher.
To suggest that Jonathan Tallon, David Runcorn, Helen King, A.J. Bell, Andrew Godsall, and I (and many others) haven’t studied the literature is both untruthful and insulting. But then you are no stranger to lies and insults if they suit your ideology.
When I write ‘Jesus was only an example’ I am referring to nothing more than my recent use of the phrase ‘e.g. Jesus’.
PCD your language is very unpleasant.
I prefer unpleasant language to unpleasant prejudices.
Yes. PCD. Even granted (for the sake of argument) your questionable premise that there has been any such, it is clearly an either/or situation, isn’t it? Having neither would be totally impossible.
Oh, wow! Sincere Christians who want to commit to one another, even if you think they are sorely mistaken, compared to the abomination of the desolation in Scripture and the one who forced countless Jews to apostatise. Imagine indeed.
Lorenzo, Sure Antiochus is a stand-out villain. He sought cultural uniformity by embracing and imposing pagan practices on the Jews to achieve social and economic stability and peace. The result was infighting and a cultural civil war amongst the Jews bringing chaos. If his ideas had been resisted early on the harm caused may have been avoided. The anti-Christ spirit is always with us. The central message of 1 and 2 Maccabees is that faithfulness and obedience to God is the ground on which to rely upon and stand – not political intrigue or compromise.
Tim, yes, I would agree with you that the conversation quickly collapses into LLF.
However, it is worth noting that in some ways the question of LLF is the sine qua non for other issues. Every church which has changed its doctrine of marriage has accelerated in decline; every church in England which is currently growing has continued in the catholic apostolic view of marriage. (I use ‘church’ here to mean denomination, but it is also almost completely true of local churches.)
So if we want the C of E to move away from decline, division, and demoralisation that it is currently in, there is only one way in relation to LLF…
It is necessary to state that there is a reason that this inevitable correlation happens, and that it is the power sapping, Samson-like, that takes place with compromise.
Except LLF is not same sex marriage is it. Indeed the fact the Bishops and Synod did not endorse full same sex marriages in C of E churches but only prayers for same sex couples in services is why Jayne Ozanne, who pushed for same sex marriage in the C of E, left it for the Methodist church which does now perform same sex marriages in its churches
LLF may not be same sex marriage but PLF use guile to conceal what they really represent.
Guile that is inherent in the vows, as practiced, and is condoned, embraced, as intellectual and cultural sophistication.
And how will that be practiced in the installation of the next ABoC?
Guile – “dolos” meaning “deceit,” “cunning,” or “bait.”
Wise – phronimoi meaning “prudent,” “wise,” or “shrewd.”
Pope Francis has called those taking the former path, “a varnished putrefaction … the life of someone who is corrupt (who) Jesus calls hypocrites.”
HJ,
Guile is the elephant in the room, or the snake in the grass, as Genesis puts it: cunning, crafty, masked vows.
PLF was voted for by clear majority of Synod, the Church of England is established church of a nation where same sex marriage is legal. It cannot remain established church while dismissing any recognition for same sex couples married in English law who want prayers for their relationship in their Parish church even if they cannot get married in the Parish church like heterosexual couples can
Why not?
An Established Church isn’t the same thing as secular law and order and the regulation of civil marriage.
It is to the extent a Labour or Labour and Liberal Democrat government could have legislated in Parliament to disestablish the Church of England if it had refused to offer any recognition of married same sex couples who wanted to get married in their C of E Parish church and PLF had been voted down by Synod
So it’s the “Church of Keir Starmer and the Labour Party”?
Well to be fair certainly most of the senior C of E Bishops are the episcopal wing of the Labour Party as indeed are many of its clergy now even if most of its congregation are still the Tory party at prayer
And there you have it.
But I didn’t suggest that issues around sexuality were insignificant or didn’t relate to wider theological themes, only that there are others that are even more significant/ fundamental and that, at least in the Church of England, we live with differences over them. So why do we only focus on same sex relationships and accept other even more first order differences? What’s really going on here?
What are the ‘accepted’ ‘first order’ differences that you are thinking of?
Well, why do we focus on sexuality so repetitively and exhaustively at the moment? I’m not saying it doesn’t matter or that there isn’t profound disagreement and nor am I arguing for SSM. Some examples of other areas we disagree on in the Church of England: election, atonement, heaven and hell, the Trinity, the full inclusion of women in all orders of ordained ministry, sacramental theology. They all affect ecclesiology but we stay in the same church nevertheless. I remain in communion with those with whom I disagree over all of these. That’s the reality of the Church of England, uncomfortable as it sometimes is. Or to put it differently, that’s the kind of ecclesiology we already espouse and bear witness to every time we kneel to receive Holy Communion and every time a priest presides at Holy Communion.
So what is going on here alongside/behind the theological dispute?
Do you think there are no other first order issues about which there is disagreement in the Church of England?
There are doubtless other first order disagreements in the church but that simply sets us further back without taking us a whit further forward. The existence of others does not affect or compromise the importance of this particular one.
Why are people always going on about ‘sexuality’? For two reasons. Number one, that is where the goalposts have been moved (not to say inverted by 180 degrees) to the greatest extent. Number two, it is human nature to want the rules to be different on that particular one, which makes one especially cautious when others claim the issues are controversial (this is why people tell the old Moses joke: Good news, I got the list down to ten; bad news, adultery’s still in) – in fact the entire history of this wretched debate may be summarised as people doing anything to make the Christians say that two men sleeping sexually together is ok. That’s what it’s all about.
To add a third point, sexual behaviour is always highly ranked in importance by Jesus and Paul when they (Jesus) choose particular commandments to list or (Paul) particular vices to put in a list. This is not surprising and is common sense, since this category of sin causes so much devastation, as we are always reading.
Of course, a fourth point is that would-be circle-squaring discussions are by their very nature interminable and every-increasing, because resolution is by their nature not an option (hence one should not undertake them in the first place, nor expend those very precious commodities of time and money) – which is why I used the word ‘strangle’.
‘ever-increasing’
Yes, it’s tragic that the LLF debates have come to stand as proxies for other conflicts and this has led to the crude sterotyping of others as ‘fundamentalists’, ‘ConEvos’, ‘liberals’, & even ‘not really Christian,’ etc.
I am not arguing for SSM but only that both those who are 100% convinced of the case against and those who are 100% in favour of SSM might consider three factors.
First, churches (especially protestant ones) have a long and sad track record of splitting over issues that their leaders deem to be absolute because they are over a non-negotiable theological principle, usually something the Bible teaches unequivocally. But behind them are often issues of power, authority, money and personal conflicts.
Secondly, it’s impossible at the time of the argument/ split to know if the issue will still be important many years later. Some will be, some won’t but the leaders have to present them as eternally important. That’s just how it is and none of us can claim to be certain about the future or even what we may think in 10 years’ time. In this case it may be that the sexuality issue is still as contentious in 2075, but we simply don’t know. If it isn’t, my guess is that something else will have taken its place to justify division because we (the correct) need another group (the heretics) to contrast ourselves with.
And thirdly, the debate within the evangelical world is quite different to 50 years ago in tone, language and theological emphasis. Different ways of reading Scripture, the role of other intellectual disciplines, surrounding cultures have all played a part in this change. Without a recognised central human authority evangelicalism is inherently unstable; it now has a wide a range of views within it, and many people’s views have changed along the way, even if our own haven’t. On that basis I think it’s very likely that the intra-evangelical debate will continue to develop.
All of which suggests (but does not ‘prove’ since we’re not in the realm of certainty) that it might be unwise to be absolutely, ‘100%, it can never change, certain’ about this issue, even though we’d all find that much more comforting and it helps the formation of strong group attachments to know for certain our group/ church is in the right and is on God’s side.
Which brings me back to the next Archbishop: s/he cannot be any more certain than the rest of us so if they claim to be we should be wary; let’s live with that uncertainty and not allow this issue it to be the most important one when we pray for a wise choice by the CNC and please let’s not block someone who is clearly able and faithful because we disagree with them about this, whichever view we take.
The distinct issue of which churches are growing or declining and why is very complex and I would be reluctant to attribute very much to their attitude to same sex relationships, if only because it’s hardly ever mentioned in most of the parishes I know. Pretty much all parishes I suspect have people with differing views except the very conservative ones. And all denominations including black Pentecostals, Baptists & diaspora African ones are now having to face the same debate as the Church of England. I would also observe that the churches (of all denominations) which are growing are nearly all led by male clergy; is there a causal link and should we therefore cease ordaining women, which is another first order issue?
Apologies – this is a lot longer than I’d intended!
There you go: “Without a recognised central human authority evangelicalism [I’d say Protestantism more generally] is inherently unstable; it now has a wide a range of views within it, and many people’s views have changed along the way … “
What’s a development of teaching based on a greater understanding of Scripture, and what’s a rupture entailing a break with the past? How much weight should be given to modernist sociological currents? To the theological, political, and cultural modernists and revolutionaries? Is this “gymnasium of confusion” really Christianity?
Yes, I agree, it’s Protestantism overall not just evangelicalism that doesn’t have a recognised central authority. Whether that’s a weakness or a strength is debatable – and we tend to think our church has it right, whatever church that happens to be. Of course, they’re all historically contingent and their current forms are the outcome of myriad factors rather than a planned process. They all change and adapt, but some are less willing to admit that than others. Protestants who want to avoid admitting change sometimes refer to ‘the unchanging gospel’ which is presented in differing cultural clothes. Roman Catholics who want to avoid admitting change have recourse to the curia and the historical claims of Petrine authority. But to those outside each tribe those claims look very weak.
Not really true, the fastest growth of any Christian denomination globally is the Pentecostal church and many Pentecostal churches have female clergy. Although Pentecostals do not perform marriages or prayers for same sex couples.
With the current safeguarding issues the Roman Catholic church and Baptist churches and Church of England have had (as well as some independent and Pentecostal churches) with male clergy who have sexually abused women and children and teenagers some women and parents of young children also feel safer with a woman priest now
You write as though the Pentecostal church were one denomination. You mean stream. It is probably over 1000 denominations, leaving aside charismaticised older denominations.
Christopher: careful with the numbers! It is often claimed (triumphantly by Catholics) that there are tens of thousands of protestant denominations. The basis of this wildly incorrect claim is presumably the World Christian Encyclopedia originally compiled by David Barrett in 1982, stating that there were 25,000 Christian denominations. Its second edition (Oxford Univ Press, 2001) refers to 33000+ total Christian denominations, but it defines the word ‘denomination’ as an organised Christian group within a specific country. That is an eccentric use of the word, for denominations run across national borders. As there are several hundred countries (and as smaller denominations are not represented in all of them) we should divide the figure of 25,000 by about 100. This gives a few hundred genuine denominations, consistent with the list recorded in Wikipedia.
Thanks. That’s very interesting – is the growth in female led Pentecostal churches in specific countries or with particular national or ethnic groups?
And I’d agree that sometimes people feel safer with women clergy because so few have been involved in safeguarding/abuse scandals or their cover up. I’ve also heard it said as well that women clergy often have a different less authoritarian and more collaborative style of leadership than men. Do you think that’s the case?
Yes, that is how he got to 33,000 whereas I estimated only 1,000. Pentecostal and Evangelical, because of their concern for truth, will not compromise on it, and hence one more denomination. Just think in terms of the Church worldwide and there will be no issue.
Christopher: I believe there should be not one denomination but none. I agree with Alan Kempson’s oft-expressed view here that the scriptural church comprises a congregatin in each location, governed by an internal council of male elders, and with nobody above them other than Jesus Christ once the founding apostolos had moved on. That is why I take a congregational view of church today; a nearby Anglican congregation is simply the best near me.
Yes, we are on much the same page there. The emphasis on charismatic giftings predates the emphasis on leadership hierarchies, however (as it generally does sociologically).
And vows? Masked or views made clear?
Ah, yes. The miradors of perspectivism of Himalayan heights of western postmodernism in Gagging of God.
Transfigured humanism occluding the transfiguration of Christ.
Ah yes.
Vows.
Akin to court witness testimony under oath? Where opinion/view is to be excluded.
Vows, a charade to be continued or bearing a false witness: perjury?
Tim,
Are vows, as a false witness, matters of indifference?
Is the CoE an edifice built on false witnesses?
Thanks, Geoff, but I don’t quite understand your question as I didn’t refer to vows at all.
Tim,
My later comments follow on from your comment at 3.30 pm 27th., above, where you commented at length on range of ‘views’.
The CoE doctrine is set out and available.
The vows are to be a public subscription to authorised doctrine not a false declaration as a false witness.
I could not in all conscience proceed with local preacher training in the Methodist church, as after study, I could not vow not to preach/teach anything that would not conform to its teaching.
So I ask again, is bearing a false witness in public declarations of vows a matter of indifference in the CoE?
Why wasn’t it deemed false witness when we changed to allow the ordination of women? Or eased our attitude to divorce and remarriage? Or allowed contraception? Why isn’t it a problem for those who question infant baptism? Or debate the real presence in the Eucharist?
Thanks for the clarification. But I still don’t see why you disagree with me – clergy take vows on ordination and, presumably, take them seriously and in good faith and I’m not challenging that at all. Nor am I making the case for any change in current teaching. My point is quite different: that we might be wise to admit that in Protestant churches which lack a recognised central human authority and which all claim to be based on the Bible there are bound to be ongoing and sometimes intractable disputes about how to read the text in relation to many issues. And some of those disputes will be found to be of permanent significance and some won’t. E.g. we can compare the Confessing Church’s stand in Germany in the 1930s as opposed to Spurgeon’s stand against the Baptist Union in the 1880s.
Tim, the current disputes on sexuality are nothing at all to do with how to read the text. There are, on any topic, many reasons to discuss the Greek wording, but there is not the slightest reason to dispute that two men or two women sleeping together sexually is outlawed strongly, universally, and understandably so in thought-context.
Wishful thinking, of course, is not a reason. Nor is one’s culture.
Tim, you seem to be thinking that church leaders rather than scholars decide these things.
Scholars don’t decide anything. Unless they are also church leaders [sic].
Yes, more’s the pity. Which is why they are in the hole that they are in. When it came to the cathollics, then for example the future Pope Benedict could combine with John Paul on the catechism. When it came to the Windsor report, Tom Wright could do input. Do you think people seek Christian office because it is the only way that they can be movers and shakers above their station?
‘Catholics’
The Windsor Report didn’t decide anything. It was responding to decisions which had already been taken by The Lambeth Conference – a gathering of ‘Church leaders’.
Tom Wright was hardly approaching the matter as just a scholar as he was Bishop of Durham by that stage. He was also hardly unbiased. Everyone knew about his conservative stance on human sexuality.
The Windsor Report simply identified the lines of division which everyone already knew.
What is described as a Christian stance is not ‘conservative’, just Christian. How else is one to define Christian? What it was as against its original competitors? What it was in the shape of its texts? What it was in the shape of its founder[s]? What it has been in the shape of its international membership? What it has been in the shape of its historic presence? There’s nothing ‘conservative’ about any of that. Just ‘Christian’.
Christopher you are blinkered by your own bias. You are describing an interpretation of Christian. You only need to read Philip Groves’ excellent description of the way things actually are around the Communion to realise that interpretations of what it means to be Christian vary quite widely.
You don’t actually address the point about how things were decided in this case. Church leaders and Lambeth 1.10: a resolution that no Province abides by and which is therefore redundant.
Andrew
Yes, not only was Wright a bishop he is also, notoriously, a conservative scholar.
One could hardly call him disinterested.
Christianity has never been univocal since Paul quarrelled with James and Peter.
Firstly, it is biased to expect interpretations of ‘Christian’ to be broader than interpretations of ‘Stoic’ or ‘Manichean’.
Does the word mean anything at all? Words without content cannot be used.
Secondly, people will broaden the definition deliberately because they want to be regarded as being on board.
Thirdly, however broad the definition (and no reason has been given for it to be broad), failing to be in line with Jesus or going diametrically opposite to the NT will obviously be ruled out.
Fourth, you think a mere assertion of a different interpretation has credibility. I also assert that Jainism means the worship of everyone called Jane. Is there no quality control for such assertions?
Fifth, in a contrary world full of 8 billion people, it is obvious that many interpretations will arise of all kinds of things. You treat this as significant. How is it? It would be 10000 more remarkable if none did.
Sixth, does it occur to you that interpretations may be demonstrably wrong?
Seventh, does it occur to you that 99.999% of the possible interpretations of anything at all are, logically, bound to be wrong?
Tom Wright is a very fine scholar, but the first word that springs to mind is ‘independent minded’/’original’ and the second is ‘holistic’/’big-picture’. As to conservative, why does he always find himself saying different things to those who have gone before? Conservative would be John Piper (again, a good thinker), one of his main combatants. And of course, words like that describe ideologies, and any scholar spends their entire life opposing those, in the name of scholarly integrity.
Christopher you are just making vast general points as usual.
Read Philip Groves’ rather *specific* points about how this *specific* issue is interpreted across the Anglican Communion.
It may be a wild stab in the dark, but would divergent ”interpretations” happen to correlate with congenial societies?
And is that compounded by their correlating with congenial times in history?
And all that before we wonder about the eccentricity of according prime place to something called ‘the Anglican Communion’ rather than anything more comprehensive, or to the scholarly community, or to Jesus….
I’m not giving it prime place at all – it just happens to be the context the next Archbishop of Canterbury will operate in.
So once again, it’s important to be specific rather than general. You are under no obligation to be part of the Anglican Communion if it isn’t what helps you.
Interesting that you seem to think Wright can’t be both a very fine scholar and conservative.
Yet another inference by Penelope that does not logically derive from anything I wrote.
Does she ever fail to include one such? It is clearly a ploy and therefore dishonest.
I have repeatedly written that commentaries are the peak of NT scholarship and they (the peak standard; note that there are far more than 100 really full length university NT commentaries on particular NT books in existence) come mostly from evangelicals, a few from Vatican II Catholics too. It is hard to find any from liberals, who tend to populate wordprocessor publishers, though Victor Paul Furnish on II Corinthians is an exception.
Philip Groves (ed.) we sold 2 copies when it first came out. The other 2 copies are still sitting on the shelves 16.5 years later, amid a total collapse in Anglican interest (/respect) in a shop with large and diverse. variable footfall. The opposite of the days of ARCIC and of Vatican II.
However, to repeat (ad infinitum) ‘conservative’ is an ideological position, and a huge generalisation, when scholars by definition have ideology as their enemy.
Wright being characterised mostly by his originality (a neutral trait but one shared with all leading thinkers), any stereotyped classification would be firstly a backward step (away from specificity) and secondly inaccurate.
Politically, conservative, presented as it is as being some kind of package deal (so much for choice and eclecticism then – I thought ‘choice’ was supposed to be the bee’s knees) means believing in fat cats (er – no), despoiling nature (er – no), guns (no way), babies being better dead than alive (oh – kay), and happy fun families (well – duh), and the idea that things that have been held true by most people in most places may well indeed be, given that our own age is not exceptional in wisdom and is well below average in family stability (well – duh). The word is, therefore, a very odd mixture indeed.
This is the procrustean bed approach that has a blank look when someone fails to fit the stereotype, even such an odd stereotype as that. Usually the same people will use the odd terms ‘right wing’ and ‘left wing’ and then bear a puzzled look when a generalisation on such an extreme level as that fails to add up in practice.
I meant ‘alive than dead’.
Thanks, Christopher. I just observe that as a matter of fact there are different ways of using Scripture in relation to these issues. Within the evangelical tradition alone there is variety and even among ‘conservatives’ the situation isn’t the same as it was in the 1970s. We may wish it to be otherwise but it’s not – equally diligent, intelligent and prayerful people read things differently. It simply isn’t true that one interpretation is the only option so we have to find a way to navigate that reality which we cannot deny but may regret.
You’ve just taken three comments to illustrate my point.
Yes, conservative is an ideological position. So is liberal, radical, fascist, neocon, communist etc.
Scholars, like all people, have biases.
Sometimes their work, partially, overcomes their prior commitments, at others, their prior commitments influence the direction of their thoughts and conclusions.
Wright is a fine, though flawed, scholar. He is also socially and ecclesially conservative.
Tim, I have rarely seen so many errors in one short comment. The textual opinions of those who do not know Greek are worthless; the opinions of those who do not know either Greek or first century Jewish culture are worth less.
When you say there is difference of opinion, what do you mean? There are 50-100 subpoints let us say? We are expected to take you seriously when you generalise about all of these as though they were one.
Third, you are speaking as though conclusions come early in the process, whereas they either come at the very end or not at all (judgment reserved). It is ideologies, not conclusions, that are voiced preemptively and early on.
Fourth, it is not the case that scholars disagree to any unexpected degree – in fact, they rule out the vast majority of options almost from the start, and the rest of the discussion is just about fine detail.
Fifth, whether we are talking texts or sociology, the evidential tide is overwhelmingly in one direction. Not only by number of issues but by percentage differences too. The fact that you speak in generalities without citing specifics is telling. But the generalities you voice are very untrue to start with.
Can we restrict ourselves to discussion of specifics from now on? Generalities are used to hide from specifics.
As for ‘equally diligent, intelligent and prayerful’, where is your evidence for that? Are you speaking in faith, or in hope?
Thanks Ian,
Another uncertainty is how the preferred candidate is decided should 2 from the same parish be nominated.
Responding specifically to the issues relating to the Canterbury Vacancy in See Committee (‘ViSC’) highlighted in Andrew’s informative article, the debate at General Synod on 14 February on the proposed amendments to the Vacancy in See Committees Regulation, with some of the unintended (or unappreciated) consequences mentioned in speeches, especially if new paragraph 6A was approved, showed the need for a revision stage when they could be given further, unhurried, consideration, with the regulation not being proposed for final approval in the same group of sessions, especially with the debate on 14 February being conducted under pressure of time (initially the speech limit was 3 minutes, later reduced to 2 minutes).
It was a pity therefore, not only in hindsight, that the motion to adjourn the debate on the Amendment Regulation, proposed immediately after lunch on the Friday by Thomas Seville, was not carried. It is also unfortunate, too, that there was no paragraph in the Amendment Regulation providing for the changes not to come into effect before the elections for the 2028-2030 triennium – seemingly contrary to what the House of Bishops were told in paper HB(24)30 (the precursor to the Amendment Regulation) as presented by the Bishop of London to the special meeting of the House of Bishops in Oxford in September:
“The imbalance of Vacancy in See Committees (ViSC), which can make them unrepresentative should also be addressed. Whilst there is not time to change the Regulation before the next triennium of ViSCs being elected, it is proposed that this should still be addressed for the longer term.” [Para 13(a) of HB(24)30].
There was no mention of this in the Explanatory Notes, GS2239X, issued by the Legal Office. In the event, and absent a delayed commencement provision, the Chair of the debate, the Bishop of Dover, told Synod that the 2025 Regulation, amending the 2024 ViSC Regulation, “comes into force immediately.” Some of the implications of this are addressed by Andrew Goddard in his article and are still to be fully worked out.
The amendment proposed by the Revd Jonathan Jee to leave out the controversial new paragraph 6A (which restricts membership of the ViSC to one person from any worshipping community), while carried in the Houses of Clergy (75 votes to 64) and Laity (82 votes to 79), only fell as the result of the House of Bishops voting 14-7 to reject it. If just 4 of the majority had voted the other way, Jee’s amendment would have been passed. This also raises a question regarding the views of the other 24 bishops with voting rights, who either were not present or did not record a vote or abstention. (Those voting to retain para 6A were the Archbishop of York and the bishops of London, Chelmsford, Derby, Gloucester, Leeds, Lichfield, Norwich, Portsmouth, Sodor & Man, Dover, Armed Forces, Stepney and Birkenhead; the seven voting for the Jee amendment to leave out para 6A were the bishops of Blackburn, Europe, Rochester, Sheffield, Islington, Lancaster and Beverley.)
Looking from outside as a Baptist, there are serious questions about why the church needs a figure like the Archbishop of Canterbury in the first place.
Biblically the ‘episkopoi’ are not ‘regional CEO’ figures – the word is simply a synonym for ‘presbyter/elder’. In Acts 20 Paul summons the elders of Ephesus to meet him in Miletus, and in v28 we read
“28 Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God,[c] which he obtained with his own blood.[d]”
And that word ‘overseers’ used of the elders is in Greek ‘episkopous/bishops’. Elsewhere either ‘elders’ or ‘bishops’ are mentioned, but not in the same passage as if they were distinct grades, rather again as alternative words for the same office.
For various reasons there had been a trend towards the CEO model over the early centuries, but the idea only became firm in the 4th Century nationalised Roman Imperial church which developed a ‘top down’ church government model paralleling the secular government.
In the early Church the apostles clearly had a special place and at least until the NT was readily available there was value in the chain of ‘laying on of hands’ by which leaders were approved. But clearly in the long term this could not be seen as an automatic ‘magic’ guaranteeing orthodoxy. The Reformation was among other things a rejection of such a ‘magic’ apostolic succession because it was clear that the ‘apostolic succession’ of the Papacy in the RC church had failed to keep to apostolic teaching and had become a self-serving claim of authority for leaders to boss others around; and in the modern world Anglicanism sees bishops clearly technically in that line of apostolic succession yet also clearly denying the teaching of the actual original apostles as contained in the NT.
In the modern world ‘apostolic authority’ is mediated through the Bible which is the ‘touchstone’ by which all later developments are to be tested. (I’ll not for now go into details of how that works).
I tend to the view that with the Bible as the apostolic authority, the most convenient form of Church government will be independent congregations or relatively small groups, but not ‘exclusive-minded’, and with a locally plural ‘eldership/episcopate’; any wider organisation should probably be temporary in nature, using elected delegates. In absence of actual apostles in the original fform of direct witnesses of Jesus, we need to be careful of setting up single leaders who may come to dominate in an unhealthy way.
As I think most readers here know, I’m fundamentally opposed to national/established churches as an undesirable confusion of Church and World, and it seems to be one of the problems in choosing the AoC that ‘the world’ in the form of the state and its laws may be getting an excessive say. The election of leaders is for the Church itself, and for a Church separate from the world and so under minimum pressures to conform to the world.
Given the whole process is going to leave the church without an ABC for many months (perhaps even a year), why was it so important that Welby be allowed to stay on until his 69th birthday?
I think the church might do well without any Archbisop of Canterbury. It might do even better without an Archbishop of York.
I don’t think there was any significance in that. There were some dreary arrangements to be made before he could actually resign. What I do think (perhaps know) is that he had been planning to give plenty of notice of his retirement and that that notice was scheduled to coincide with his 69th birthday – before events overtook him. It was suggested to me that the CNC calendar already had the Canterbury dates in it for 2025. While commenting, if I may, there is no possibility of the Canterbury CNC nominating a successor who is not fully bought into the LLF process. It has been developed with General Synod approval and most see the stand-alone service development as hardly seismic (churches are already using the liturgy in this way by reinterpreting the definition of a stand-alone service). Of course we shall have to see the final composition of the CNC, as Andrew Goddard has said, but it is highly unlikely that liberal catholics on the commission will not have the numbers to frustrate such a nomination. I am not hopeful for the Canterbury CNC being able to make a nomination. Sorry.
I think you have a good point, Anthony. My first comment here was that whoever was appointed would upset many. Ely and Carlisle illustrate that the division is insuperable, potentially. At a time when further such embarrassment was the last thing that would have been wanted, it became unavoidable re Durham, when the stakes were higher. But the stakes are highest (and the sense that the Spirit led consensus is all important strongest) for Canterbury. So we might logically expect more of the same but in spades.
Christopher, thanks for your comments above but I think you may have missed the point I was trying to make, perhaps I expressed it poorly. (By the way, I don’t refer to those who do or do not know Greek and/or the culture of the ancient world.) As a matter of fact today very able, learned and faithful Christian readers of the Bible disagree on this issue, as they do on many others, E.g. There was a recent review of Hays’ book on this blog – we may disagree with Hays but no one would dispute he was an expert in the field. Anyway, if the arguments of one group or another were so totally convincing, in the way that say a mathematical proof might be convincing, we wouldn’t be in this predicament. It is worth, I think, pausing to consider the fact that the arguments one person or group finds totally convincing so that no other option is even remotely possible now or at any point in the future, fail to convince another group who read the same texts. Why? I think it’s unlikely to be solely because of ignorance, willful disobedience, stupidity or refusal to face the facts. This happens on other topics too (e.g. warfare, armaments) and has happened throughout the history of the church. So the repetitious restating of one view as has happened again and again in this ‘debate’ is highly unlikely to resolve anything in the short term. There’s an excellent essay about this by Rowan Williams in which he discusses the possession and use of nuclear weapons in The Cambridge Companion to Ethics, but I’m afraid I can’t remember the editor.
In what way is the Bible attitude to homosexual practice different from the Bible attitude to stealing or lying?
All are strongly prohibited. All are universally prohibited. All, when it comes to listing sins, are among the first to be named.
So – what is the difference?
One difference could be that sexual sin wounds people for longer and more deeply than the pthers.
You addressed almost none of my points, yet they were points that exposed holes in your argument.
Richard Hays is surely a scholar of nuance, nto someone to have polarised ‘yea’ or ‘nay’ views like the more simple minded.
The word ‘views’ means nothing anyway. Only the evidence on which things are based means something.
He has written much on the topic, and we prioritise (a) that which was written when he was at his peak — in fact, when he was not near death, (b) that which was written unaided (and, further, who can oppose his own son too harshly?), (c) that which was written before suffering serious illness, (d) that which addressed the main issues – for which see Gagnon’s analysis. This is a short joint book in a world with many thorough books covering the same material more thoroughly and in greater depth.
Why do you mention the Hayses’ book? Is it because that is the one that has received publicity? It is not so much ‘How many other books are you aware of?’ but how up to speed are you with the arguments? By speaking only of conclusions – and then in a very generalisaed way – you will always be at a disadvantage against those who speak of the arguments on which any conclusions would have to be based.
Christopher, who is ‘we’ in ‘we prioritise’ in your second last paragraph? And *why are your (a), (b) and (c) criteria *priorities?
And, just as a matter of interest, are *you ‘up to speed’ (your last paragraph) when you discuss language use?
In your 4 March 9:58am comment to Tim you write: ‘The textual opinions of those who do not know Greek are worthless; the opinions of those who do not know either Greek or first century Jewish culture are worth less.’ What of those who *claim to ‘know Greek’ (interesting concept in itself!) and yet show little/no understanding of linguistics (how language works in communication)?
Tim, thank you for the way you comment here. Always sensible and appreciated.
But I’m not trying to persuade you of an argument, nor am I arguing for SSM. Everyone claims their ‘view’. I’m just suggesting that we all have to take into account the fact that people do use the Bible in good faith in different ways, and the fact that very few people seem to find others’ arguments against their views persuasive however often they are repeated. If the case on either side was as totally watertight and unequivocal as is sometimes argued then it would be more persuasive, but it isn’t. I’m only observing what is been the case, I’m not trying to persuade you of anything or prove you’re wrong or criticise you.
‘We’ means anyone who applies self evident principles. If you are saying any of those listed is not self evident, then which and why?
You bring almost every conversation to linguistics? Why specifically linguistics every time? How would you think about someone bringing every conversation to sociobiology, psychology, or anthropology? But that too is equally possible and relevant.
I don’t know how well I am supposed to know Greek. It is the one common denominator of the 7 Oxbridge university prizes I won, and I got top honours in the language modules of my first degree, with the New Testament papers getting the best marks in my second. But that was many decades ago, since when I have written and read much.
Tim – your latest comment almost exceeds the one for which I said I had scarcely seen so many dubious claims in one short comment. As follows:
(1) ‘Everyone claims their view’:
-In other words they state an assertion or unsupported position, without giving evidence to back it up.
-And secondly they don’t see that the concept ‘view’ is meaningless because it covers everything from research conclusion to selfish preference!
-And thirdly they show no understanding of the fact that any view has to come at the end of a process of thinking and research, least of all at the start of it.
-And fourthly they think that anyone at all can have a significant ”view” on topics whether they have researched them or not! …with no prioritising of those who have researched over those who have not. Unbelievable.
(2) You write ‘in good faith’. You have absolutely no idea whether it is in good faith or not (it may be just conforming to society, which most are largely incapable of not doing; it may be pleasing their peers; it may be not having the intelligence to think any differently from the things you have been told. And so on.).
(3) You say that different groups do not find others persuasive. So the evidence is polarised, is it?
Every scholar knows that it is impossible for evidence to be polarised. Evidence is as it is, and secondly normal distribution will never produce peaks at the poles – usually the very reverse is true.
So if we have polarisation, that is generally proof that not much thinking is going on, but a lot of ideology instead. Which, being ideology, does not deserve to be listened to.
(4) You are saying that no case has been persuasive, whereas in fact it is only for a tiny window of history that one case has not been a foregone conclusion! And by complete coincidence (?) the idea that there is a debate to be had here has come at exactly the same time as the relevant social change.
Are you saying that our own age/society (which even now is in a global minority and a smaller Christian minority) is the only one? Or the only one that matters? Or just the only one you know much about?
A ton of questions raised by a small comment.
Christopher, congratulations on your ‘knowing Greek’. Very impressive, and you have ‘written and read much’ since those accomplishments as well. I guess it could be quite humbling finding oneself at a loss in a conversation with a six-year-old Greek-speaking child, or maybe you have also accomplished that?
Christopher, on linguistics, if you won’t believe me, maybe you will believe Douglas Moo? I have just happened to read his paper from the 2014 ETS annual meeting for something else. He titled it, ‘We Still Don’t Get It : Evangelicals and Bible Translation Fifty Years After James Barr’. Moo laid out ‘three basic and generally agreed upon linguistic principles that have too often been ignored in modern Bible translation’. In our context here I wouldn’t distinguish between ‘biblical interpretation’ and ‘Bible translation’ and I would refine the second of Moo’s ‘principles’ a bit, but my point is that now, 10 years after Moo and 60 years after Barr, we find the same principles being ignored in silly statements about language. Do we still not ‘Get It’?
So, if Ian doesn’t object, can I keep on pointing out ‘silly statements about language’.
You not only can but must, but it is fruitless to point them out when you could simply correct them outright which would be a positive step.
However – I am not sure I disagreed with you in the first place on those basic linguistic principles, did I?
Anthony
I think the church has got itself in a huge mess with factionalism. A significant chunk of the church would oppose anyone who supported LLF and a significant chunk would oppose LLF, but then also almost everyone would oppose someone who said different things to different groups, like Welby did.
It also seems to me it’s going to have to be a man because you can’t claim to still be supporting the people with male bishops only theology if the ABC is a woman. But equally you can’t say you are supporting the people with full gender equality theology if you say the ABC can never be a woman.
It’s also the liberals “turn” but most evangelicals feel like Welby wasn’t a true evangelical so that’s a problem.
Most of the church seems turned off by the “hide it under the carpet” MBA types, but that’s all of the current Bishops.
I think it’s a horrendous task to find a new one even if the CNC all act in good faith
Well, although I don’t have high hopes for the Canterbury CNC, I don’t think even this commission will pander to the traditional Catholics and male headship evangelicals re priesthood. That ship sailed some time ago, and there is coherent provision, whether ++Cantuar is male or female. But LLF is more of a moving target. Any hint of theological or other opposition to LLF (‘not in my diocese’), will essentially rule a candidate out. But the politics are yet to be played out. +Chartres was considered for Canterbury (don’t think he wanted it) but in those days there were no interviews so all the world was a candidate. I was not on that CNC. The question posed to me in a somewhat unstructured, informal consultation was ‘how would it play for him as a candidate for Canterbury if he was to announce that for the good of the Church of England he would henceforth ordain women as priests?’ This was on the basis that up until then, for the sake of the diocese of London, he only ordained women as deacons. Candidates for Canterbury will this time need to be asked whether, for the sake of the Church of England, they will put their full weight behind LLF (especially if they have hitherto been ambivalent), recognising that doctrinal revision down the road won’t be something only they can deliver on. We are in the realms of realpolitik and ecclesiology here, not dogmatic theology.
That is an interesting reflection, Anthony. But I am not convinced that the question ‘Do you actually believe the doctrine of Christ as the Church has received it?’ and ‘Will you uphold your ordination vows?’ can be dismissed as ‘realpolitik’. I think they are about theology—and basic integrity.
Ian
But almost anyone could say “yes” to that because there’s so much disagreement on what that actually means.
I think if Welby has taught the church one thing it’s weasel words and deliberate sematic vagueness doesn’t work.
This isn’t just an issue for the CofE, but all churches – a vast amount of hurt has been caused because church leaders wont be explicit, especially when it comes to how they expect gay people to live their lives.
Anton, I’m finding our little rapprochement encouraging as well. I’m taking my reply to your question down here as the thread further up became too difficult to navigate. Sorry it’s taken a while, but I don’t like to post here on Sundays.
I don’t have very well developed suggestions about the questions you raise on covenanted partnerships, as I haven’t yet been persuaded that they are the answer, but I offer some sketchy initial thoughts:
If you want to police the communion rail, I think you have to seriously consider how this is part of a wider policy/position. Are you singling out same-sex partnerships for some different policing that you wouldn’t have for anything else? Is that consistent with just about everyone saying for the last 30-odd years that we’re not talking about a particularly different or worse sin here? If instead you are having a hierarchy of sin, you’ll have to define and justify it. For my part, I’m not keen on policing the communion rail like that in general (Christ came to heal the sick), and for me the key test is participation in the liturgy – are you baptised, do you recite the creed, pray the confession etc..
I’m not sure we have a problem of provocateurs. What’s become apparent to me over the years of this debate is that there’s very few who live in obedience to an ethical Church teaching that they disagree with. There’s a view that runs right through the Church from the most traditionalist to the most liberal, that your personal view of what God is saying on a topic should trump any principled adherence to Church discipline, and what discipline there is a very earthy secular thing about threats, jobs, and money. That was quite shocking to me when I first realised it, given that I and a good number of my friends who deal with this issue ourselves had been obedient to a teaching we thought was in error. If we want a more disciplined Church it’s not going to be singled out on this issue.
So what do I think is necessary? I think you have to define what is meant by celibacy in this context. If you want to persuade people, you have to be clear about what you’re persuading them of. Where is the line, and theologically why are we drawing it there? The way some people talk about this topic, you get the impression that they think that certain sexual practices are forbidden for everyone and that implicitly bans sex between same-sex partners (because that’s the only or main sexual practice they believe occurs), so depending on what you think this isn’t necessarily an answer strictly limited to same-sex partners. What about physical intimacy that isn’t sex? This is particularly important if you want to police this: what are you policing?
I’ll take the definition of celibacy in a gay relationship from Leviticus, which commands man not to lie with man as with woman. That means with intent to orgasm, which is quite specific enough.
You’ll notice that I said above I *didn’t* want to police the communion rail – where I wrote about “asking what was or wasn’t going on in somebody’s bedroom and taking their word for it – a ridiculous situation which the church should not let itself get into”. As for provocateurs – both sides know very well that SSM advocates will not stop until they have achieved their aim of same-sex church wedding ceremonies, regardless of what they say in conversation (or liturgy).
The solution for advocates of church SSM is simple: instead of trying to take over churches that for 2000 years have based their view of what God finds acceptable and unacceptable on scripture, start your own. Set up a denomination that is committed from the outset to performing gay weddings. If you want the apostolic succession, ask Paul Bayes to lay hands on you. See how it performs – how many people it converts relative to ‘conservative evangelical’ congregations, how many safeguarding scandals it generates per head of congregants, etc. In that way you could convince others that you are not really chasing after the worldly assets and influence of the church. There is the Metropolitan Community Church, I believe; how is it doing?
Anton
A problem is that unless there is a clear definition of what does and does not count as sex then no gay person knows what is actually permissible or not and it becomes a prohibition on even thinking about being in a relationship or showing any affection for the same sex.
God thought it was clear enough. So presumably anybody who thinks it isn’t is playing games with God. On your head be it.
Anton
When did God define if, for example, kissing or holding hands counted as sex? I know some Christians say even identifying as “gay” is effectively counted as having gay sex since it is “identifying with sin”
God thought it was clear enough. So presumably anybody who thinks it isn’t is playing games with God. On your head be it.
Peter, by such questions you are just trying to see how much you can get away with rather than how much you can please God.
Which is a self centred view at root, and obviously no good can come of it.
You are also, incidentally, prioritising things tiny in the scheme of things – all because your own short term priorities are being blown up out of all proportion – which is not the way the world actually is.
Peter
Well for starters I’d say that any displays of physical affection acceptable between parent and child or between brothers should not be a problem. It is sadly the case that a ‘moral panic’ about homosexuality in the late Victorian/early Edwardian period did have the effect of making men reluctant to show physical afffection to avoid being seen as ‘queer’ and being caught up in the scandals around Oscar Wilde for example. It didn’t help that film and drama couldn’t show actual sex and would show other male-on-male intimacy implying it was ‘queer’ and so rendering it suspect when it might have been acceptable at an earlier period.
I personally would find considerable male intimacy acceptable and these days am constrained more by autistic shyness than worries about the morality of hugging and kissing!
On the other hand, can’t see how anal or oral sex can be acceptable even in ‘straight’ terms…..
I consider myself a cinephile and I’ve yet to see a film which would lose very much artistically if sex scenes were deleted from it (whether hetero or homo). Most films would be improved.
My point was that when in the past it was illegal to show the actual gay sex they would show other acts of displaying affection in ways that implied they were bad. This confused people’s perceptions.
Stephen
It’s not up to you or me though.
It’s the CofE who is pushing “teaching” that is vague and ill defined.
Peter
Yes both ‘sides’ of the CofE on this are being vague. But it is the liberal side which seems to be vague to evade obvious meanings of scripture….
My Hebrew is pretty basic but I’d love to know where Leviticus mentions ‘orgasm’.
What do you take “man shall not lie with man as with woman” to mean?
Anton, sorry, but that’s not what it says!
In more detail, Leviticus 18:22 is “*You* must not lie with a male as with a woman”, to a presumed male audience. Leviticus 20:13 is “If a man lies with a man as with a woman, both of them… must… be put to death”. Are you drawing a distinction between the two different Hebrew words for ‘man’ in Leviticus 20:13? How then would you explain that the author, claiming to speak on behalf of God, requires both of them to be executed? That implies it is a consensual act, does it not?
There’s the subtle distinction that the author is clearly not writing to all humans.
Im not suggesting deliberate deception on your part, but there is a subtle difference that you edited out.
Regarding Leviticus 18:22, please clarify how you subdivide the audience. Until you do, you are not providing enough information to make your exegesis explicit.
Regarding Leviticus 20:13, two males who lie with each other like man with woman are to be put to death in ancient Israel. If this were male-on-male rape then God would not put the innocent party to death, so this is a consensual act – and notice that both are to be put to death regardless of which does what – and regardless of what Leviticus 18:22 means.
Or to an audience of men who lie with women.
AJB: The law is for all Israelites, and while the application of Lev 18:22 *might* be limited in the way you sggest, the application of Lev 20:13 wasn’t.
Adam, the history of reception shows that this text was understood to be universal, and formed the basis of Jewish rejection of all forms of same-sex sex, an ethical stance which Jesus and Paul accepted (Jesus implicitly, Paul explicitly) and which formed the basis of the consistent Christian sexual ethic from the Fathers onwards.
As long as we make sure we keep turning a blind eye to what the historical argument actually is. St Paul says he’s talking about men who’ve “abandoned natural relations with women” – i.e. they had relations, and then they gave them up. St John Chrysostom in his 4th homily on Romans makes this abundantly clear: no one being talked about can say that he was hindered of legitimate intercourse or had no means to fulfil their desire.
Adam, you appear to be ignoring the shape of Paul’s argument, and the parallels we find in Philo and other Jewish sources.
Paul is not writing biography; he is doing theology. In this context, ‘natural’ means ‘the world as God created and intended it to be.’ That is clear from the flow of his argument, from his claim that God has revealed his nature ‘in the things that have been made’.
Note that he also says ‘Although they knew God…’ He is not claiming here that these people are lapsed Jews!! This is the story of humanity in the biblical narrative.
Paul is saying that same-sex sex rejects the human bodily form that God created, ‘male and female in his image’.
The literature is pretty clear on this, from all sides. See for example the work of Bill Loader (who is liberal on this issue):
It is very possible that Paul knew of views which claimed some people had what we would call a homosexual orientation, though we cannot know for sure and certainly should not read our modern theories back into his world. If he did, it is more likely that, like other Jews, he would have rejected them out of hand….He would have stood more strongly under the influence of Jewish creation tradition which declares human beings male and female, to which may well even be alluding in 1.26-27, and so seen same-sex sexual acts by people…as flouting divine order (William Loader, The New Testament on Sexuality pp 323–4).
Or E P Sanders (who was also a liberal):
Homosexual activity was a subject on which there was a severe clash between Greco-Roman and Jewish views. Christianity, which accepted many aspects of Greco-Roman culture, in this case accepted the Jewish view so completely that the ways in which most of the people in the Roman Empire regarded homosexuality were obliterated, though now have been recovered by ancient historians…
Diaspora Jews had made sexual immorality and especially homosexual activity a major distinction between themselves and gentiles, and Paul repeated Diaspora Jewish vice lists. I see no reason to focus on homosexual acts as the one point of Paul’s vice lists [in 1 Cor 6.9] that must be maintained today.
As we read the conclusion of the chapter, I should remind readers of Paul’s own view of homosexual activities in Romans 1, where both males and females who have homosexual intercourse are condemned: ‘those who practice such things’ (the long list of vices, but the emphasis is on idolatry and homosexual conduct) ‘deserve to die’ (1.31). This passage does not depend on the term ‘soft’, but is completely in agreement with Philo and other Diaspora Jews. (E P Sanders Paul: The Apostle’s Life, Letters and Thought pp 344, 373).
I think you can find Philo’s arguments, including his arguments about nature, in Spec Leg 3.37–42, and in On Abraham 135–136.
But let’s look at what Philo actually says in the writings you point to. In Special Laws he’s very clear that he’s talking about pederasty “the love of boys”. He seems to be most concerned with the fashion – having their hair curled and wearing eye-liner – and this degree of effeminacy in his view warrants killing the boys on the spot. His criticism of the men is that they are failing to have lots of children, and that if everyone followed their example, the cities would be depopulated. In On Abraham, the worry that if we’re not careful everyone will start having gay sex is repeated, except this time we get the explanation that what Philo thinks is going on is men who have uncontrollable (or at least uncontrolled) sex drives. He doesn’t see a minority sexual orientation, and instead argues that this is a pattern of gluttony, drinking, affairs with women, and eventually spills over into affairs with men. He then worries that these men end up with “the disease of females” (whatever that is).
I’m afraid I don’t see the relevance of fretting about out of control sex drives, worrying that if we allow same-sex relationships everyone will start having lots of random gay sex and won’t be able to stop, or pondering how quickly you should put to death the victims of child abuse. But I suppose you can see why some scholars would argue, that if you think people like Paul in Scripture are reflecting similar views to those held by Philo, then what gets cited as a warning about loving and consensual relationships between two adult men (or women) are really warnings against pederasty, child abuse, and straight men who are out of control or believe that their affairs with other men don’t count.
Thanks. I am very happy to look at Philo—and note that Paul uses similar terminology but doesn’t echo all of Philo’s arguments. Paul does not argue for killing offenders; except for the possible meaning of malakoi he doesn’t make a deal of effeminacy. And of course he clearly avoids the terms for pederasty in 1 Cor 6.9.
But, as I said, what he does echo is the meaning of the term ‘nature’, referring to the creation narrative. That is why I thought it odd that you attributed a different meaning for the word to Paul.
And his theological method is looking at the creation narrative as framing his anthropology, not a modern situation ethic, which Paul also does. That is why I think E P Sanders, Luke Timothy Johnson, Bill Loader, and many others, are quite clear about what Paul’s view is and how it would apply today if we took it as our guide.
Where do you think they have all gone wrong?
It’s worth considering Philo’s view of nature, and what it means to violate it. It’s quite stark that he has a massive problem with people having the wrong haircuts and fashion choices. The problem with gay sex is that it’s a gateway to boys getting their hair curled and wearing eye liner? If that’s the theological anthropology we’re being asked to adopt (and St Paul had some strong views on hair) then why aren’t we asking ourselves how short can a woman have her hair before it’s a sinful violation of God’s natural order? What about when she wears trousers?
But isn’t this a bit of false debate Ian?
When we read Philo it’s plain that he has no concept of sexual orientation. He’s a very clear example of someone who sees homosexual behaviour as being an overflowing of lust (your sexual desire spills over from women to men), corrupting the others (the boys become irredeemably effeminate), and is a dangerous trap that everyone could fall into (hence his repeated worry that we might all start having gay sex and the cities become depopulated). As far as he’s concerned the men he’s talking about could and should be having conventional manly marriages to women where they would be happy and sexually fulfilled.
When modern scholars, yourself included, are asked about this, you’re all adamant that you don’t share this view. You think it’s wrong to suggest you don’t believe in sexual orientation, or think that it is a minor or trivial consideration. I presume therefore that you don’t attach those views to Scripture, and therefore to St Paul’s writings. So what are we talking about?
Penelope,
For where Leviticus mentions (male) orgasm, try chapter 15 verse 16.
AJBell and PeterJ
Might be wrong but it looks like you are both going with the idea gay people have that God actually creates gay people – that it would have been part of God’s original creative plan that men should do ‘gay sex’ together.
No, God has declared gay sex sinful and would surely not be so cruel and inconsistent as to make people who have to be sinful. As with other sins, the fact that people have such urges and desires, and are indeed effectively enslaved to their desires, is part of the disorder resulting from sin. When humans think and act as if they know better than God, things get disjointed and the desire for gay sex is, like desires to steal or kill, part off the disjointedness.
Sometimes, and also sometimes the reshaping of people happens at an early formative age, normally as the result of familial sin, which itself is inherited….
And, of course, sexuality is the fruit of physical and psychological development. No-one is ‘born’ straight or gay; no-one is born knowing there are two sexes!
https://www.psephizo.com/sexuality-2/are-we-born-straight-or-gay/
Umm – one of the things that has come ffrom my own recent encounter with ‘trans’ issues is the realisation that the human world is ‘fallen’ and imperfect and that perhaps Christians are not giving adequate thought to that and its implications. Grove booklet on the meaning of the Fall perhaps??