Tim Wyatt is an interesting and often astute commentator on things Church of England. Ten days ago he expanded an article he had written in the New Statesman, setting out the challenges facing whoever will be appointed next Archbishop of Canterbury, in a much longer piece on his substack.
Tim has interviewed a number of people, and thus in principle drawn on a range of opinion. He makes some important points—but my sense is that there is more to be said, and what has been said needs to be put into a different context.
My first concern would be to completely reframe the terms of the discussion. Tim entitles his longer piece ‘Make or Break’, as though the future of the C of E depends entirely on this appointment. He couches the opening conversation in more modest terms:
In just a few weeks (we don’t know the precise dates) the CNC will reconvene for a third time to begin selecting the winner. What state is the Church of England in? What should the priorities for the new archbishop be? What is in their in-tray, and what should be in there instead?
But he ends the article (spoiler alert!) with a much more dramatic summary, which is in keeping with his New Statesman article:
Pulled in these different directions, the Church is in need of a leader with a clear sense of where it’s headed. Make the right choice, and there may still be a way back for the church, albeit to a smaller and humbler version of what it once was. But choose the wrong shepherd, and the flock may be lost for good.
It seems to me that the most important thing whoever is appointed needs to do first is reject this kind of ‘saviour’ complex. There is plenty of evidence around that leadership makes a big difference to organisations, and that having the right leader in place can be very good, and the wrong leader can do a lot of damage—which can last a long time. But this kind of language is deeply unhelpful, for three reasons.
First, it puts too much pressure on one person, and sets up unrealistic expectations. I think it actually is infantilising, and suggests that we all need to look to this person to ‘solve all our problems.’ We don’t.
Secondly, it really is setting the new ABC up to fail. The C of E is not organised like a business, with direct lines of power and command, but is more like a coalition of different organisations, not least because (for example) all the dioceses, in the form of their DBFs, are separate legal entities, and even Synod, the Archbishops’ Council, and the Church Commissioners are constituted in entirely different ways legally. (Thereby hangs both a strength and a serious weakness of the C of E.) Besides, too many in the C of E are too independently minded (at least in some regards), so getting clergy to all do the same thing is proverbially like herding cats, and the evidence is that the House of Bishops has been no different in recent years.
Thirdly, and more seriously, this is simply not how the C of E understands its own ministry theologically. Bishops are supposed to be ‘first amongst equals’ within their clergy, rather than a separate caste of ministry, and the archbishop is supposed to be the ‘first amongst equals’ within the House of Bishops. We are repeatedly struggling with a failure to take this theological issue seriously in our ministry; there has been, at every level, too much of the ‘first’ and not enough of the ‘equal’.
The issue at stake here is the use of power; my sense, from ground level, is that this issue is key to the renewal of the C of E. Some of Tim’s discussion partners agree, though he puts their comments in a slightly different context. Jill Duff, the bishop of Lancaster, comments that the next ABC needs to be ‘be more of a team player and collaborative’, and Alison Coulter emphasises this:
For whoever comes in, I very much hope they will be a collaborative leader who works with a team, works well in a consultative way. There’s a sort of tension between having someone who’s a good leader—a clear leader will make decisions, move forward, is credible, especially to the rest of the world, both nationally and globally—but also to someone who’s willing to work collaboratively, relationally, and to really understand that they’re part of the body of Christ, not just not themselves. Actually it’s Jesus, that’s the head of the church, not the Archbishop for Canterbury.
At one level, I would hope that this is so obvious that it does not need to be said. But the evidence is that it clearly does.
Tim’s comments (and quotations) on the sexuality debate were very interesting—though missing something important.
He is right to note that there is a sense in which everyone feels they have lost: ‘Conservatives are despondent…And yet the liberals are just as glum.’ His quotation from an anonymous ‘pro-blessings bishop’ was fascinating:
PLF will come to an end in February, is my reading. We’ll take what we’ve got in terms of the prayers that we have, and people will be imaginative with how they use it. It won’t go further than that. I think you could say the progressives will have lost.
Will it be the end of it? No. Will the debate continue? Yes. Will it dominate Synod? No. I think a lot of the push for it was Justin’s famous quote about radical new inclusion. Of course, Justin is now gone. So, the basis for that radical new inclusion from the top is no longer there.
And Helen King, ‘a leading pro-PLF figure on the synod’, said something similar:
I would love something to happen in February. I think something will happen in February, but it won’t be something that satisfies everyone who wants a more inclusive church. I think the best we’ll get is free-standing services. I’m not even sure we’ll get that, but clearly clergy being allowed to be in same-sex marriages is something that’s not going to happen in February. No-one comes out of this feeling that there’s any sort of victory. Maybe that’s right, that the model of victory and defeat is the wrong model perhaps.
Tim makes further observations about the politics and practicalities of the debate, noting that, on the one hand, the question is not going to simply disappear, but on the other, it would never make much difference to the public at large anyway:
Either way, I share the sociologist Woodhead’s view that even if the church does find a way to get to gay marriage, it won’t make much difference to the public at large or for attendance on Sundays. Most people, gay or straight, have no interest in getting married in church anyway these days, and few will care if and when the national church finally catches up to what has been the settled legal position for over a decade already.
This reality completely undercuts the claims that this is a ‘mission imperative’ and that it is about ‘being inclusive’. But Tim appears to miss two issues, one of which he has engaged with previously, but the other not.
The main missing bit is that the Church of England actually has a very well developed and settled position on marriage and sexuality. To regular readers, I might sound like a bore or a broken record, but how can any discussion about sexuality omit this? Without it, the descriptions of the debate sound like a very wearying game of ecclesiastical tug-of-war between two political positions. But that simply is not the case.
For the last 15 years at least (and perhaps more), the argument has not been about ‘what the Church believes’, but about whether there are good grounds to change what has been the settled view of the C of E (and incidentally of the church catholic in every time, every culture, every tradition, and every branch) for as long as it has existed.
If you are in any doubt about this, please look up Canon B30, the marriage liturgy (preferably in the BCP, but even modern liturgy will do), and also Canon A5 which tells you why Canon B30 says what it does. And then check Canon C26 which tells us that clergy need to uphold this in their lives, and then check out the Ordination liturgy, in which all clergy, at every level, make a public vow saying not only that they believe this teaching of marriage as being a lifelong union between one and and one woman because of God’s creation intention, but also that they will uphold and teach this.
The idea that clergy, including bishops, can agree this is the official position of the C of E without believing it themselves is Humpty Dumpty nonsense, and in reality makes no sense to people looking in from the outside. But this reality is missing from many of the discussions of the C of E and sexuality, including in Tim’s piece. When push comes to shove, I only have one criterion for who should be the next ABC: someone who actually believes the doctrine of the Church. The question is: can one be found in the current House? (The answer is actually ‘yes’!)
This leads to the second omission here (though Tim has referred to it previously): the level of dishonesty operating amongst bishops seeking to bring change, and the resultant collapse of trust. For an up-to-the-minute example, see the statement by Stephen Cottrell earlier this week setting out the programme leading to the final discussion on PLF due in February 2026.
Living in Love and Faith has been a long journey towards becoming a more welcoming church, where every person in God’s creation can truly flourish. I know that there remain deep and often painful differences about the path ahead, but I pray for this new season of LLF and remain hopeful that the General Synod next year may bring us closer to agreement.
No, Stephen, LLF has not been about ‘becoming a more welcoming church’, it has been about backdoor schemes to change the doctrine of the Church, which you yourself don’t appear to believe. And I just don’t believe that you ‘remain hopeful’ that it might bring us ‘closer to agreement’, not least because you yourself said only two months ago that we are no closer to agreement after all this discussion.
My serious hope is that, actually having done some of the theological work which should have happened right at the beginning, we can in February put behind us the incoherent, damaging, divisive, and dishonest process that has been LLF.
The last of my three issues trailed in my heading is money. Tim covers this quite well, and notes the way the debate has shifted:
The current era was very different—increasingly dioceses were making bids to SMMIB for huge £10m+ grants not to plant one church or launch one initiative, but for a diocese-wide renewal project which tied together everything from rural ministry to youth work. Who could be opposed to the national church lavishly funding from its central coffers a diocese’s own ideas for how to build God’s kingdom?
The claim by Save the Parish that Commissioners’ money is being withheld from parishes is not convincing, and I covered the discussion at Synod on this previously here.
As I mentioned in my speech in the debate, it is somewhat ironic that the bishops in the debate wanted to talk about financial management, whilst the Director of Finance, Carl Hughes, wanted to talk about spiritual health. Carl is right: whatever the financial challenges we face, these are symptoms of the spiritual state of the Church. Mature disciples see giving as part of their discipleship, and across the C of E giving still remains low.
But this paradox runs parallel to the other issue in Tim’s piece: should the next archbishop seek primarily to look outward to the nation, or inward to the Church? Can an archbishop speak with credibility to the nation when Church attendance is so low? Tim cites the argument of Linda Woodhead, that we should look to the Nordic model, where the church has an official role, even though almost no-one attends week to week.
Why should the church care what its adherents believe about the Bible or God, as long as they see the church as their own and turn up for weddings?
The simple answer is: because we are not the National Trust. I confess I find this kind of ‘vision’ for the Church spiritually bankrupt—and, again, it contradicts what the C of E actually believes about itself.
Article XIX Of the Church
THE visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ’s ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.
This means that all the debate about our place in the nation and our own spiritual health is, at bottom, a false dichotomy. We can only speak to the nation if we are in a state of good spiritual health. And much of the ‘speaking’ actually happens at the local level, when local congregations are captured by a vision of the love and grace of God which calls all to repent and believe, and find their place in the community of faith.
And very few people seems to be noticing how much the C of E itself is changing. Congregations with a passion to share faith and invite others are growing, whilst those that do not are shrinking. This is very hard to measure overall, but my sense is that the overall shaped of the C of E is very different now from what it was even five years ago.
I would like to end where I began: the way the debate about the next ABC is framed. Tim started his shorter New Statesman piece with this observation:
For nine long months the Church of England has been, in the words of Matthew 9:36, “harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd”. In a deliberately quiet ceremony at Lambeth Palace in January, the 105th archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, laid down his crozier, the historic bishop’s staff modelled on a shepherd’s crook. Ever since, the marble throne of St Augustine in Canterbury Cathedral has lain vacant and the national Church, overshadowed by an abuse scandal, left leaderless.
I have to say that, neither in the local church, nor in Synod, nor even in the (ironically apostrophised) Archbishops’ Council, have we actually missed having an archbishop. Things have actually got along fine. It raises the question whether we actually need another archbishop—which also touches on the question of why we continue to have so many bishops in a small church.
But perhaps it points us to the truth, as Alison Coulter reminded us: it is Jesus, not any bishop, who is the leader of the Church. He is the shepherd, and we have not been without him over the last nine months. The most important thing for the next archbishop is to keep that front and centre.
Buy me a Coffee
Ian,
Thank you as ever for your thoughtful analysis. You have captured much of the discussion that goes on regularly in my hearing, and I would guess in many congregations. I support what you are saying.
Jonathan T
Thank you!
There does appear to be quite a yawning chasm between what is being said on the ground, and what is happening in the media.
What you say under the heading of “First concern,” ie about power: this is so so true.
Thanks. But odd it does not feature that much in discussion…
I think your penultimate paragraph says it all.
“I have to say that, neither in the local church, nor in Synod, nor even in the (ironically apostrophised) Archbishops’ Council, have we actually missed having an archbishop. Things have actually got along fine. It raises the question whether we actually need another archbishop—which also touches on the question of why we continue to have so many bishops in a small church.“
I wouldn’t know how to find the data, but I’d love to know what the regular Sunday attendance was in, say, 1900 and how many clergy and bishops we had then. I suspect the ratio of clergy to worshippers has fallen substantially and the ratio of bishops to worshippers has fallen enormously since then. As an accountant, I understand the business case for amalgamating parishes (if I had four factories, each at 25% productivity, I know what I’d do), even if I’m not sure that mission benefits. But then, maybe the CofE needs to retrench before it can grow. If so, why on earth don’t we amalgamate dioceses? We could have suffragans to help minister across much larger dioceses and much-reduced, more efficient administration.
I’m rather in favour of a Pope Leo figure, who is able to bring spiritual insight into a robust and realistic understanding of our national and international issues. I just hope the CNC don’t select a woman: not because I don’t believe in women bishops, but because the vastly larger global south Anglicans do not. I do wish we could split Canterbury from international figurehead. And yes to everything in this article.
I agree: I think appointing a woman would be the final end of the Communion (if that has not already happened).
I think appointing Jill Duff would be a positive step and Global Anglicanism would like her. Her perspective is just right, and highly intelligent – it also sees a way out of this mess (unity *through* mission) which some of us have been saying for years.
Not a diocesan bishop so not qualified.
Aside: is that a formal requirement? (Not that I think Bishop Duff would be a wise choice). Whilst it’s (extremely) unlikely we’d see a candidate chosen from outside the diocesan bishops, is it actually legally prevented?
Of course the Dean of Windsor might be considered this time, but he was a diocesan previously…
I don’t think it is a formal requirement.
The Dean of Windsor is a fascinating suggestion!
Former principal of Ridley Hall, part of the Liturgical Commission, chair of the Faith and Order Commission, and in his day the youngest diocesan bishop in the CofE. And at 66 would only be there for a few years. So worth considering?
Of course all usual caveats apply: his public record is one thing, those who actually know him will have their own views and insights, and is a man who stepped away from the episcopacy to be Dean of Windsor even open to the idea?
Ahh I thought being a diocesan was a formal requirement but I can’t find a reference to that now. I agree that Jill would not be a wise choice. There are quite a number of bishops who are basically Baptist in ecclesiology and that is not a good basis for being Archbishop.
Christopher Cocksworth is pretty solidly anglican and probably entirely safe, if not, perhaps, very exciting….but maybe that’s what we need for a few years.
Not so. Appointing a suffragan would be highly unusual, but not out of order.
Just not qualified, and in any event wouldn’t get the votes IMHO.
That is a dismissive reply without content or substance. Your argument is circular and assigns infallibility to a fallible process.
Leaders need to be inspiring, and had this denomination appointed more inspiring leaders then they would be in a better place.
Although there are more good candidates than for many years, albeit not among the diocesans with the exception of Southwell etc (the cupboard was especially bare in 1980 and 1990, and bareish in 2012 because Tom Wright ruled himself out and there was a move against John Sentamu, whose own subsequent move or shift was alarming), the Religion Media Centre recent discussion rightly noted that this appointment is quite different from those of earlier years because there are scarcely any possible consensus candidates. As a consensus candidate only Chelmsford and Bath/Wells might scrape through, but a leader should be appointed for the positives they have to offer. Ignoring the international, historic and even foundational dimensions leaves you with almost no dimensions left, aside from the small and inward looking vision of being true to the dear old (or jolly old) ‘Anglican’ regiment and keeping the other regiments (who were not battering on the doors to come in) out. That the regiments are only regiments because they are components of army is forgotten or is treated as being beside the point. The apologetics for elevating the inward looking and local above the cosmic and eternal and mission oriented I would like to see.
The Dean of Windsor is an interesting possible candidate, and has been mentioned elsewhere, including by me! The King wouldn’t want to lose him, but he would have his support! The issue would be that he could only give three years, and might therefore be seen as an interim ABC. That might be good however. We don’t know if the Canterbury CNC has met for its important third meeting, but if it has not done so it will meet this week. Prayers are needed.
If Bp Cocksworth can be appointed at his age, so can Bp Tomlin or Bp Watson at theirs. And in each case to much benefit.
I doubt the King knows sufficient numbers of clerics to a sufficient degree, which is why he has always been so sold on those whom he does know – e.g., Harry Williams and Bp Chartres. And now Bp Cocksworth.
Royals are not allowed out much unsupervised, and who they meet is tightly circumscribed. Vide A Royal Night Out and Roman Holiday (and Prince William’s battered banger on wedding day). None of us envies this at all.
Happily on this occasion he has fixed on a good egg.
Who cares what they think? They have their own Archbishops, the Archbishop of Canterbury is a mere symbolic head of the Anglican Communion only. He leads the C of E though and after recent sex scandals the English people would probably be more confident in a female Archbishop to sort them out. I agree though just rotate the symbolic head of the Anglican Communion between the leader of each Anglican province going forward, as Prince William has said he will rotate head of the Commonwealth amongst Commonwealth heads of state when he is King
I too commend the article. We need plain speaking.
I commend, too, Danny Kruger’s recent speech in the (empty) House of Commons:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auajsLABn24
Yes, not having a ABC does not seem to have affected the workings of the Cof E in any great way except for state and ceremonial occasions perhaps?
No, it does not.
This had not occurred to me with clarity until I actual wrote those words!
but you could probably say the same about numerous ‘heads’. If the PM went off for 6 months with no replacement, would the country grind to a halt? – no. Doesnt mean it’s good not to have a PM.
But the C of E is not like the Government in that sense.
I’d actually disagree with your example. Government decision making would grind to a halt without a PM in place, hence when Boris Johnson was hospitalised for Covid we saw Dominic Raab step up from being Deputy PM to Acting PM.
The Archbishop of York effectively is de facto Archbishop of Canterbury until the new appointment
look up Canon B30, the marriage liturgy… and also Canon A5 which tells you why Canon B30 says what it does. And then check Canon C26 which tells us that clergy need to uphold this in their lives, and then check out the Ordination liturgy, in which all clergy, at every level, make a public vow saying not only that they believe this teaching of marriage as being a lifelong union between one and and one woman because of God’s creation intention, but also that they will uphold and teach this. The idea that clergy, including bishops, can agree this is the official position of the C of E without believing it themselves is Humpty Dumpty nonsense…
The Church of England has got itself into this position because doctrine must not only be stated but enforced. This would once have been easy, merely by not selecting ordinands who disbelieve it. Today, though, people who believe major heresy by the standards of Holy Scripture passed into doctrine (Canons B30 and A5) have reached the level of Archbishop in the Church of England. It is never too late for enforcement if you have Jesus Christ on your side, however.
The deepest question for a new Cantuar is: Why is God permitting this decline? Only by seeking the answer to that question might the decline be reversed.
‘…Why is God permitting this decline?…’
If I were forced to offer one single reason, it would be that far too many congregations are not hearing effective preaching. Seven minute feel-good pep talks about how we’re feeling, how we must love everyone, and how we must save the planet are neither presentations of the gospel nor nourishing spiritual food.
Yes. That could turn things around in a short time. Abp Donald Coggan ‘got it’, and tried his best to start such an initiative from the very start. The Cornhill course devised by Christopher Ash inculcates the most superb preaching skills.
The answer is at our fingertips, and moreover it is free. Just take it.
Yes, I would agree. But that is in turn a reflection of the clergy, and that is a reflection of selection and training.
oh i dont know. How youre feeling often determines your behaviour, good or bad. Love thy neighbour is the 2nd greatest commandment according to Jesus (though not many obey). Looking after the creation was God’s original mandate to mankind. I see no evidence that has changed.
All seem pretty important to me, and seemingly to God.
Sad to say, enforcement was attempted in 1850 and was thwarted by the CofE at its highest level of authority. A couple of decades before he put the famous nonsense into the mouth of Humpty Dumpty, Lewis Carrol wrote a book under his own name on the Goram case and that must have been where he got the idea. The Church Courts had been asked to adjudicate on the dispute between Goram and his bishop over whether or not the prayer book taught baptismal regeneration. The Court of Arches found in favour of the Bishop: to the consternation of the Evangelicals, it asserted that the prayer book did indeed teach baptismal regeneration. Goram, however, appealed to the supreme governor; the Privy Council considered the case and found in his favour, to the consternation of the Anglo Catholics. But the PC added a rider. In declaring that Goram was not teaching anything contrary or repugnant to the prayer book by denying baptismal regeneration, they were not saying that those who taught baptismal regeneration were teaching anything contrary or repugnant to the prayer book. Effectively they had decreed that it is impossible to know what Anglican doctrinal formularies mean. Since then “liberty of interpretation” has reigned supreme and doctrinal discipline has been impossible.
Andrew, I think you are right at one level.
The courts are not the right place for this, however. And I think that the law might take a different view now.
But questions of ‘do I actually believe the vows that I publicly affirmed’ is surely a different level of denial?
the PC added a rider. In declaring that Goram was not teaching anything contrary or repugnant to the prayer book by denying baptismal regeneration, they were not saying that those who taught baptismal regeneration were teaching anything contrary or repugnant to the prayer book.
That is not necessarily an incoherent rider. The Privy Council might simply have been saying that the prayer book was silent on the matter. There are plenty of questions which the Articles do not consider but which Holy Scripture does. What then?
Regarding baptismal regeneration specifically, it cannot be considered in isolation from the matter of infant baptism, which I presume Goram did not want to challenge.
I’m not convinced Gorham’s case is being fairly represented here. From the Reformation onwards there was a well-established Anglican strand that did not equate baptism with automatic regeneration: Jewel, Davenant, Ussher, and arguably Hooker. The point is not that baptism fails to regenerate, but that its grace is not conveyed mechanically without faith—precisely as Article XXV says: “in such only as worthily receive the same they have a wholesome effect or operation.”
The Prayer Book’s “this child is regenerate” was widely read as charitable presumption, not metaphysical guarantee. Otherwise we’d have to accept that the elect sometimes show no marks of election, or that the regenerate can de-regenerate themselves.
What actually happened is that a High Church bishop tried to collapse Anglican breadth into a single reading. The Privy Council overturned him—not to unleash doctrinal anarchy, but to uphold an older, coexisting interpretation within Anglicanism.
That makes it a poor analogy for LLF and church discipline, which concern a novel broadening of doctrine rather than a dispute over which of two historic Anglican positions is authentic.
Thanks Thomas—that is helpful.
Clergy are not required to subscribe each of the 39 Articles individually and that has been the case for many years. That has been covered in these comments many many times.
I fail to see how you can subscribe as a whole without subscribing to indivudual articles. The Declaration speaks of assent to the Thirty-nine Articles in their general truth—but how can you assent to their general truth without engaging their specific statements? To assent in general while ignoring the particulars empties the declaration of meaning.
Canon A2 explicitly affirms that the Articles are agreeable to God’s word: subscribing to A2 is already a form of subscription to the Articles themselves. Canon A5 goes further, locating the Church of England’s doctrine in the Articles (alongside the Prayer Book and Ordinal). How can one subscribe to the doctrine of the Church if one denies or sidesteps the Articles in which that doctrine is found?
And as for the wording “may assent,” this is not a discretionary “may or may not,” but a permissive legal form—granting that clergy are allowed to assent, not implying that assent is optional.
Whilst de facto there may be a lack of church discipline on this, de jure the Church still asserts the Thirty-nine Articles, and expects clergy to subscribe unto them as the source of Anglican doctrine, teaching, and authority. I would argue that this is in itself a bad thing; de facto should follow de jure, or charges of hypocrasy are possible. You can argue otherwise, but you’ve never made a persuasive case against the de jure position.
Thanks Thomas but it has been made perfectly clear in various documents which I quite from below
“In 1968, a report on Subscription and Assent to the 39 Articles was produced by the Archbishops’ Commission on Christian Doctrine. Focusing in particular on the approach to Scripture set out in the Articles, it called for the then current Declaration of Assent to
be changed, so that it would ‘not tie down the person using it to acceptance of every one of the Articles’, and would leave open ‘The possibility of fresh understandings of Christian truth’, while also leaving room ‘for an appeal to the Articles as a norm within Anglican theology’
“In response, in 1975, a new form of Declaration of Assent came into force in the Church of England.317 The preface states of the Church of England that:
It professes the faith uniquely revealed in the Holy Scriptures and set forth in the catholic creeds, which faith the Church is called upon to proclaim afresh in each generation. Led by the Holy Spirit, it has borne witness to Christian truth in its historic formularies, the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, the Book of Common Prayer and the Ordering of Bishops, Priests and Deacons.
In response, the person being ordained or licensed affirms their loyalty to ‘this inheritance of faith as your inspiration and guidance under God in bringing the grace and truth of Christ to this generation and making Him known to those in your care, and declares their belief in, this inheritance of faith.’
Opinions around the Church of England differ about the implications of this form of the Declaration for appeal to the Articles in disagreements like ours.”
Thanks for the reply Andrew, but a number of points:
Reports to the archbishops are not doctrine, they are reports. They may or may not be correct or true.
You sidestep my main point: the Declaration of Assent has changed, but the doctrine of the Church has not. It is found in the Thirty-nine Articles which, as Canon A2 states, “are agreeable to the Word of God and may be assented unto with a good conscience by all members of the Church of England.”
You can’t assent to the Articles in general while rejecting them in particular. To assent “in general” already presupposes that the particulars are consistent with that general truth. Otherwise the phrase is meaningless. A body of doctrine is only true in general if its component statements are true in particular—if the parts don’t hold, neither does the whole.
The wording of Canon A2—“may be assented unto with a good conscience”—is not a license to withhold assent. It is a reassurance that assent is possible, safe, and consonant with Scripture. If it were meant permissively (“may or may not”), the canon would be pointless. Its function is declarative: the Church affirms the Articles are agreeable to God’s Word, therefore assent to them is required and cannot be treated as optional.
Whatever the form of the Declaration may say, the Articles remain binding under Canon A2. They may not bind the individual conscience in every private opinion, but they do bind the teaching of the Church and therefore the ministry of its clergy. In other words, a minister cannot set them aside in preaching or doctrine, even if they struggle with them personally.
Well we will have to disagree Thomas. The doctrine of the Church has changed and will change again.
I was specifically told by both Registrar and Bishop at my ordination 38 years ago that I was making a general assent to the 39 articles as being historical formularies. I am still certain of that view that I made. But history has moved on even further now than it had when those Articles were first formulated. They are very political in tone, and lack, in some cases, any sense of love or care for the unity of the wider Church.
I don’t subscribe to all of them. I never have and I doubt I ever will. And that was made clear by me when I was ordained – even by Graham Leonard.
Andrew, your claim doesn’t make any sense at all.
Canon A5 is absolutely clear: the doctrine of the C of E is found in the 39 Articles, the BCP and the Ordinal.
Your ordination vows are absolutely clear: you affirmed that you believed the doctrine of the Church, and that you would teach it.
Thomas, it is not in any question that ‘assent in general’ is meaningless, and in fact worse than meaningless, since it does not even attempt to clarify, so is clearly a dodge out of the way. The said dodge holds both truth and honesty in no regard at all. (As, separately, does the relevant swearing.)
One can assent that something is an historic formulary – but who on earth was it that either did deny that or could deny that?
Thanks Andrew. I think this shows precisely the tension I was pointing to. Whatever a registrar or bishop may have said informally at an ordination, and however lightly subscription may have been treated in practice, the canons themselves never changed. Canon A2 still affirms that the Articles are agreeable to the Word of God; Canon A5 still locates the doctrine of the Church in them, alongside the Prayer Book and the Ordinal.
That’s why I don’t think it works to say “the doctrine of the Church has changed.” The practice of the Church has shifted, certainly, and discipline has been neglected. But the canons are the legal and doctrinal standard, and they have not been repealed.
If clergy openly reject Articles while the canons still bind us to them, that only underlines the problem: it isn’t that the doctrine has changed, but that it is being ignored.
You all seem to be missing several points.
Firstly let’s look at Canon A5
The doctrine of the Church of England is grounded in the Holy Scriptures, and in such teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church as are agreeable to the said Scriptures.
In particular such doctrine is to be found in the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, The Book of Common Prayer, and the Ordinal.
None of that is being denied. Nothing in that Canon insists that everybody agrees with all of the Articles.
Secondly, biblical scholarship has altered our approach to scripture a great deal since the 17th century. The Articles don’t begin to take any of that in to account. That is why the 1968 report on Doctrine spoke of ‘The possibility of fresh understandings of Christian truth’, while also leaving room ‘for an appeal to the Articles as a norm within Anglican theology’
Thirdly, that 1968 report wasn’t just written for fun. It actually had the effect of changing the Declaration of Assent in 1975. That change would not have happened without debate and agreement in General Synod. I’ve posted the Declaration and response above. As the report, that was agreed, made clear, the Declaration and our assent to it does ‘not tie down the person using it to acceptance of every one of the Articles’, and would leave open ‘The possibility of fresh understandings of Christian truth’, while also leaving room ‘for an appeal to the Articles as a norm within Anglican theology’. You might not like that General Synod obviously agreed to that, but it obviously did so.
Fourthly, I’ve worked pretty closely with bishops and a couple of Registrars. They don’t say that kind of thing informally. It’s too risky for them to do so.
Dear Andrew,
I don’t think I’m talking past you here—I think you’re avoiding my point.
First: I was referring to Canon A2, not A5 (which Ian introduced). A2 speaks directly to the Thirty-nine Articles being assented to. It does not offer partial assent—it is clear and authoritative. A5 then broadens the scope to include the other historic formularies, and it is there that we are assured the Articles “are agreeable to the said Scriptures.” You claim “None of that is being denied. Nothing in that Canon insists that everybody agrees with all of the Articles.” But A2 does insist precisely that.
Second: your point about biblical scholarship is irrelevant to the question at hand.
Third: changing the form of assent in 1975 did not change the doctrine itself. General Synod softened the declaration, but the doctrine (to which clergy are bound at ordination) remained unchanged in the canons.
Fourth: bishops and legal advisers have been wrong many times before. Their word is not the measure of doctrine; the canons are.
Ok Thomas let’s look at what A2 says:
The Thirty-nine Articles are agreeable to the Word of God and may be assented unto with a good conscience by all members of the Church of England.
I don’t say they are disagreeable to the Word of God. And the Canon is clear that they MAY be assented to. It doesn’t say that they HAVE to be subscribed in every detail. A2 doesn’t insist on anything. You are quite wrong there.
The development of doctrine and our understanding of scripture are totally connected. We know much more about scripture and how to interpret it than we did in the 17th C.
I’m not claiming that General Synod changed doctrine in 1975. What I am claiming is the relevant point that you keep missing. General Synod made it clear that the Declaration and our assent to it does ‘not tie down the person using it to acceptance of every one of the Articles’, and would leave open ‘The possibility of fresh understandings of Christian truth’, while also leaving room ‘for an appeal to the Articles as a norm within Anglican theology’. That is quite clear. That doesn’t require any change of doctrine. It just requires common sense when it comes to something that was written around 400 years ago in a very tense politico religious climate.
Bishops and legal advisers interpret the Canons. That is precisely why we have a Registrar. I don’t know if you are a Canon Lawyer or not, but I do know that I was advised by someone who is when I was ordained.
You seem to be something of a fundamentalist when it comes to the Articles and the Canons. I always find this amusing among Evangelicals who quite happily ignore the Canons about liturgical dress, and preside at services in a T shirt and jeans. That might not be your style but it is certainly the style of some.
I hope this helps. I doubt we will end up agreeing but it is good to discuss the matter with you.
Andrew, thank you for your reply.
I am not a canon lawyer, but I do take the canons I have sworn to obey seriously. Other opinions may exist, but the text of the canons remains decisive.
On A2: you are misreading the “may.” Linguistically, “may” here is a deontic modal—permission, not indifference. It reassures that assent can be made with a good conscience because the Articles are agreeable to God’s Word. It does not function as an epistemic “may or may not.” Generally, under the principle of surplusage (or effectiveness), you cannot interpret a statute or canon in a way that renders it meaningless. If may meant “optional,” Canon A2 would add nothing at all. The only reading that gives the canon force is that assent is lawful and safe because the Articles are true to Scripture. Practically, the canon therefore functions to assure clergy and laity that the Articles can be embraced fully and faithfully. If they were merely optional, the Church would have no doctrinal anchor at all.
On the Declaration: Synod may or may not have intended the change of wording in 1975 to soften things, but that is beside the point. I am not talking about the Declaration. The doctrine was left unchanged, because it lies in the canons—and you do not promise to teach the Declaration in your ordination vows, but the doctrine of the Church as found in the Articles, the Prayer Book, and the Ordinal.
On bishops and registrars: they may interpret, but they do not create doctrine. Doctrine is where the canons place it, and unless those canons are amended, the Articles remain binding.
Thanks Thomas.
I understand what you are saying, but I disagree with your interpretation. I am not a fundamentalist when it comes to scripture and far less when it comes to the Articles and Canons. They are very much secondary sources.
Whatever our interpretation, it is clear that in 1975 the General Synod was clear that subscribing all of the Articles was not required. But it was also clear that people were quite free so to do. Clearly 50 years later you and I represent both sides of the decision that GS came to.
Out of interest, were the 39:Articles the subject of any teaching when you were at theological college? They were not when I was at Cuddesdon nearly 40 years ago.
Thomas, it is quite obvious that in your debate the point about ‘may’ was ignored; all separate points elided into a single attitude as though they were all the same as each other; and relativism espoused as though one ‘interpretation’ is as good as another. Quite a few errors made in response to what you said.
I think it is certainly right and obvious that the 39 articles are written from the emphases and understandings of a particular time, as are the creeds. But that is a point-by-point issue, not one about which one can generalise. All the more reason to rejoice primarily in the foundational documents and thought available to us in scripture studies.
The point about ‘may’ in Canon A2 is that it is a small word doing a lot of work BUT it fits entirely with what General Synod decided in 1975. The formula does ‘not tie down the person using it to acceptance of every one of the Articles’, and would leave open ‘The possibility of fresh understandings of Christian truth’, while also leaving room ‘for an appeal to the Articles as a norm within Anglican theology’.
Yes, perfectly right!
Back in 2013 I wrote this as one of the first entries on my blog – and it is still relevant. The ONLY thing that will save the Church of England is for it to give up its addiction to its precious ‘establishment’ and become a free church in England serving only one master, God. Give up the juggling act of trying to serve two masters, God and the nation – Jesus himself told us that the ‘two masters’ thing doesn’t work
https://stevesfreechurchblog.wordpress.com/2013/01/31/gollum-and-the-ring-of-power/
Note that Article XIX ‘Of the Church’ does not mention establishment – but it does mention preaching the pure word of God, and I fear if the church preaches establishment it is not ‘preaching the pure word’ because the NT rather clearly indicates a different way to do relationships with the surrounding world….
“Article XIX Of the Church
THE visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ’s ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.”
Helen King’s use of ‘inclusive’ is dishonest as well as being a cliche.
(1) ‘Inclusive’ is known not to be an intransitive word.
(2) It is known that it is actually impossible for it to be intransitive because there is more than one way to be inclusive and more than one thing that can be included.
(3) The fact that there are millions of each demonstrates just how dishonest this intransitive usage is.
(4) As well as being a cliche, i.e. thought that is not fresh, when academics are capable of fresh thought.
(5) When there are intransitive usages of this eccentric nature, the object is being hidden and unmentioned.
(6) If people were honest they would mention it.
(7) Including one highly visible and fashionable group, which amounts to 5% of the population, is not the same as inclusion per se. Inclusion per se would cover all categories and 100% of the population.
(8) Speaking merely of inclusion means – for example – that sin is included with righteousness, unrepentance with repentance, zero with full marks. It’s all one. No wonder the terminology had to be so vague!
(9) That presumably means that there is tolerance of everything, i.e. nothing really matters, and there are no standards. *That* is the message?
(10) We are not likely to give airtime to vagueness when it is possible to be specific.
(11) ‘Inclusion’ is only one of the words that is used in this dishonest intransitive way. I list and discuss many of them in WATTTC? ‘Progressive’ is another. Everyone regards different things as *being* progress. And everyone is in favour of excluding the opposite of that which they are in favour of including. That does not stop some pillorying others as ‘exclusive’ and ‘regressive’.
Professor King is a fine scholar.
Confusing (and confused?) linguistic claims again Christopher? (tsk, tsk). Are you referring to the same WATTTC ‘claiming’: Nouns refer to concrete objects; but when we come to verbs, who is to say how ‘literally’ accurate a given verb is?
Apologies, didn’t like the wedge brackets. “Nouns refer to concrete objects; but when we come to verbs, who is to say how ‘literally’ accurate a given verb is?” was a quotation.
In other words: one can generally be accurate in use of non-abstract nouns to a greater extent than one can be in use of verbs. Also, one can simply point at the object that a noun refers to; it is rarely that easy when it comes to actions and movement.
Christopher, why am I not surprised that you have now shifted your argument. And in doing that, you, yet again, show you are using an argument about language without seemingly understanding how language works.
Why are you now talking about “*non-abstract* nouns” (my emphasis)? Why not about “non-abstract verbs”? Your use of “accurate” and “can simply point to” are the basic problems. Please read up on some semantics and pragmatics if you are going to use linguistic arguments…*please*! Maybe even John Sanders _Theology in the Flesh_.
Bruce, even an elementary knowledge of language will remind you that when a stance is presented more fully, it will expose potential holes in its less full rendition. Summaries leave things out; the person who made the summary understood those things, but not everything can be written at adequate length of 1000s of words. Whenever we summarise, we generalise, and whenever we generalise, we are to that extent inaccurate. But not inaccurate in our conceptions, only in the partial and limited way in which they have so far been expressed.
I was only in the book making the obvious point, a la early Wittgenstein, that there are many things that correspond one to one object to word (e.g. the word ‘box’ and a box, the word ‘handle’ and a handle). But these will largely be things and their nouns. What here is simple in the case of nouns/things is more complex in the case of actions/verbs. You can scarcely deny that, do you?
Thanks Christopher. But, please, think a bit more about how language actually works.
You say it is an ‘obvious point, … that there are many things that correspond one to one object to word’. Yet the two examples you gave do not really support your claim. We can only know what ‘box’ and ‘handle’ are referring to *in context*. *That* is the obvious point. And the one that you obscured in what you wrote in WATTTC when you talked about the difference between ‘nouns’ and ‘verbs’. To support your claim linguistically you would need to find words that don’t function as either (for English, that requires more thought than you seem to have given it 🙂 ). And I seem to remember a Two Ronnies sketch that involved ‘four candles’. Just maybe your correspondence theory of meaning isn’t adequate, and especially if you use only individual words?
And the first argument in your response seems to ignore that *all* communication using language is underdetermined. So it isn’t a matter of adding more words to a ‘summary’. As I keep saying, please read something in pragmatics since Paul Grice.
Bruce, you speak of my ‘correspondence theory of meaning’. When everything I have written is according to the theory (reality) that the degree of correspondence varies massively along a sliding scale. It could equally therefore be called a lack-of-correspondence theory. It is neither. It is a degrees-of-correspondence theory, and so far as that goes, it is self evident.
Christopher, please show us how the word ‘box’, apart from context, is a noun and corresponds to ‘a box’. Or tell us what the object ‘a handle’ looks like apart from context.
The general answer is that communication does indeed happen because greater than 90% of people would describe the same object ‘box’ by the same name.
Which is not coincidence.
Nor is it context dependent, since the single word sentence ‘box!’ in the presence of the said item would be accurate and successful communication.
Nor, indeed, can a sentence be the locus of meaning (as indeed it is) without its component words FIRST having sufficiently fixed meanings of their own, albeit they will sometimes have more than one meaning, as the dictionary amply shows.
Thanks for showing, Christopher, that you maybe haven’t understood what I have been saying about how language seems to work.
You say: ‘Nor is it context dependent, since the single word sentence ‘box!’ in the presence of the said item would be accurate and successful communication.’
Here, you simply contradict yourself —
(1) you claim ‘communication’ is not ‘context dependent’. (I’m inferring! your ‘it’ refers to ‘communication’);
(2) you claim that that communication (‘box!’) ‘would be accurate and successful’;
(3) you say this communication takes place ‘in the presence of the said item’.
But, Christopher, (3) is context!!! So the crucial! factor for (2) and hence a contradiction of (1).
Good luck with finding a ‘sufficiently fixed meaning’ for ‘it’ in any dictionary. Maybe dictionaries are not that essential for understanding and interpreting texts and communication owes a lot more to inference on the part of the hearer/reader.
Further, Christopher, if someone says ‘box!’ to two other people all standing inside a squarish area with fences around it (i.e. a sort of ‘container’) what is the ‘accurate’ and ‘successful’ act of communication then? Or maybe they are telling them to ‘box up their belongings because the bout is over’?
You can get more and more intricate – and on an already half-relevant matter – and you will not be inaccurate in doing so. But every communication ever done could be subjected to the same scrutiny, and no-one would ever get anywhere. But the general point being made remains both true and obvious.
The ‘general point’ I am making, Christopher, is that when you have argued from your understanding about language and how it works, even using words like ‘intransitive’, ‘noun’, ‘verb’, ‘literal’, ‘metaphor’, ‘context’, you often show that you could learn from what linguists have been working on for some time. Glad you see this as ‘both true and obvious’ 🙂
PS Along with William Fisher (below) I would also like to see what you regard as ‘natural processes’ and how this helps your claim, again, about ‘inaccuracy’ (language??).
No, the thing I said was ‘both true and obvious’ was my comparison of nouns and verbs. ‘The general point being made’ by me.
Your general hope is that language can be accurate to reality. Since reality is infinitely intricate, language can only ever do its imperfect best; and however well it does, there will still be things to nitpick.
To appoint the Bishop of Chelmsford would be to appoint one who undersigned the following:
‘We look forward to guidance being issued without delay that includes the removal of all restrictions on clergy entering same sex civil marriages.’.
As leader of the/a Church of Jesus Christ?
To appoint the Bishop of London would be to appoint one who told the (salivating?) media that some of the unmarried relationships to be blessed ‘would be sexual’.
Both are papabile and will, based on my experience, be candidates for serious consideration. That is not to say that either has necessarily been shortlisted for interview. You seen to be engaged in some wishful thinking here, and clearly cannot see the direction of travel of the House of Bishops.
The direction of travel of the house of bishops is, clearly, a totem or golden calf of such greatness that we should all tremble in its presence.
They never, ever go in any direction other than the right one.
I am not familiar as some are with the internal mechanics and maneuverings’ of the C of E
As a general observation of the article I wonder what folks understand of “Christ as the head of the Church”
What implications and ramifications does that have
for us?
For me initially Christ is Redeemer. When God redeemed Isreal
He undertook not only to deliver them from bondage but to bring them into Rest and bountiful riches, to give them a Name and a Light [of truth] amongst the Nations
Redemption, as is much of what the Gospel full meaning is, has been jettisoned by many churches for the sake of Humanism and liberalism [in the sense of “no rules and no boundaries”]; this, when God from the beginning set bounds and boundaries, and continued to do so.
If we claim that Christ is our head then we plead and urge Him to redeem His church to deliver us from its bondages and corruptions, that we may be a pure Bride, the Joy of the whole earth, a glorious testimony to His redeeming love.
If Paul is considered as a model of Leadership or Oversight his concern was to be true and constant to stand firm for the defense of the Gospel for which he and his Saviour laid down their lives. The full gospel needs to be a focus of the church and it’s ministry
Not till He completes the redemption of the church and earth, their ills and corruptions, will the church and earth have peace.
The church is not the saviour of the world it cannot build a better world.
If one but requires its leaders to “pay their vows” the promises laid down by its ordinances and formularies then one does need indeed pay its vows for God is a vowing God who sets great store on those vows that a man makes
Ecclesiastes 5:4-6, the Bible instructs, “When you vow a vow to God, do not delay paying it, for he has no pleasure in fools. Pay what you vow. It is better that you should not vow than that you should vow and not pay. Let not your mouth lead you into sin, and do not say before the messenger that it was a mistake. Why should God be angry at your voice and destroy the work of your hands?”. This passage explains that God is displeased with those who make vows but fail to fulfill them, and He may become angry, leading to the destruction of their efforts.
Saying your vow was a mistake to a messenger is a form of deception and can lead to sin
“The main missing bit is that the Church of England actually has a very well developed and settled position on marriage and sexuality.”
Nonsense. If it really was so very well developed we’d never have written Issues in Human Sexuality (or its follow ups), or had such a problem with it that Synod united in junking it.
If the definition of underdeveloped were ‘not incorporating the norms of contemporary culture’, then everything, even the fullest thought, would classify as ‘underdevelope’d within a few years.
Who is meant to have said that’s the definition of underdeveloped?
Nobody, obvs. But if contemporary culture is considered intrinsically relevant, then that creates a problem and an illusion, because then there is nothing that will not need updating (informationally, not doctrinally) every few years. That is not a reflection of the lack of thought that had already gone into it, nor of its level of excellence, but merely of the passing of time.
IHS simply explains the clear position of the church, the doctrine isn’t found in IHS it’s found in the prayer book, the ordinal and the 39 articles.
IHS was a flawed document by 2025 standards and uses some outdated vocabulary. Its removal hasn’t changed the doctrine or the expectations on ministers as they are found in the aforementioned prayer book. It’s removal was achieved because all sides of the debate have agreed that guidelines for clergy conduct satisfy the same standard.
So how come there’s been such a furious rejection of covenanted friendships (the part of PLF that had a lot of revisions) given that would seem to be totally consistent with guidelines for clergy conduct?
If IHS was simply an explanation of the clear position of the Church of England, how come so many immediately rejected it and embraced the ex-gay movement instead? Were they rejected the ordinal, prayer book and articles?
Not so Adam, the failure to screen ordinands properly meant that a rising number of heretics began challenging settled doctrine.
Who are you thinking of? People who trivialise baptism? Or won’t read from Ecclesiasticus or Judith? Or those who teach a gospel that starts with God’s wrath rather His love for the world?
Have you read Ecclesiasticus? “He who loves his son will whip him often… If you play with your child, he will grieve you; do not laugh with him, or you will have sorrow with him… give him no freedom in his youth… make his yoke heavy” (ch. 30). Also, “a man’s wickedness is better than a woman’s goodness” (42:14), a verse I like to quote to Catholic and Eastern Orthodox women.
Doesn’t Article 6 tell us that we regard that as an “example of life and instruction of manners”? Or is that a doctrine we are surprisingly free to disregard?
A bad example!
It’s not scripture, we are free to pick and choose what bits we teach, read and take as an example.
There are a large number of clergy who disregard their ordination vows made before the church and before God. They have publicly committed themselves to use only the liturgies approved by the Church of England and to use the Bible readings set out in the lectionary, with the permitted variations. But then refuse to do so. It is the same issue of integrity as applies to those who do not support the teaching of the church. Do you think they should also be screened?
“They have publicly committed themselves to use only the liturgies approved by the Church of England and to use the Bible readings set out in the lectionary, with the permitted variations. But then refuse to do so”
When? Specifically: ” use the Bible readings set out in the lectionary, with the permitted variations.”
Adam, the claim of ‘settled’ can hardly be contested, not least because the liturgy has hardly changed, and the principle is that modern liturgies are mere alternatives to the BCP which continues to define our position.
The question then is the ‘well developed’ bit. The 1999 paper contributed to the officially, but I also have shelves full of books on the ‘orthodox’ position of marriage.
IHS was controversial from the day it was published; I remember debating it in theological college. It only became the touchstone because liberals wanted to push the boundaries, and this was the most convenient way of preventing that in practice.
Settled? We’ve gone from killing gay people, to jailing them, to saying they should just get into opposite-sex marriages, to saying they can be turned straight, to saying it’s ok to have the orientation but keep quiet, to saying the orientation is ok and we should comfortable about sharing that but you have a rule of celibacy, to saying that maybe you can have a partner but don’t have sex, etc. etc..
Maybe just don’t go to church? Then you can do what you like in our wonderful modern society and nobody will mind.
Modern evangelism in action…?
Yes. Many are called but few are chosen.
Could you point me to the place in Anglican doctrine which says we should kill gay people? I must have missed that.
thanks
The Buggery Act and its eventual successor the Sodomy Act, which got this country executing gay men, simply took the position of the Church courts and transferred them into secular courts.
Regardless of English law, was God wrong to command that in ancient Israel?
Sorry Adam–where was this expressed in Anglican doctrine?
If we’re playing that game then perhaps you could first point me towards the doctrine on homosexuality. I can’t seem to find it in Articles, BCP, or Ordinal, but maybe I overlooked it. Or is it somewhere else? It must be there if the position is well-developed, right?
There is nothing in the Articles or BCP rejecting LLF and PLF, marriage remains reserved to heterosexual couples only after the Synod vote anyway
Adam
Whatever the Church of England has said from time to time the *Christian* position is rather clearly settled in the NT which in turn affirms the OT teaching – ‘gay sex’ is inappropriate and those who place faith in the Biblical God do not do it. I’ll say more on that shortly.
The historic mess you then describe arises from a separate point in which the CofE has persistently disregarded New Testament teaching by having a state or ‘established’ church which was initially compulsory on the basis of birth in England rather than humanly speaking voluntary on the basis of spiritual rebirth through faith. This disregard of scripture and the attempt to give Jesus exactly the ‘kingdom of/from this world’ which he had disclaimed before Pilate has led and continues to lead to all kinds of problems and contradictions over a far wider area than sexuality. At the beginning kings thinking they were serving God by having a so-called ‘Christian country’ attempted to force the Christian theological and moral standards by law and so criminalised (among other forms of ‘dissent’) homosexuality.
As the established status weakened through time but the CofE refused to give up the unbiblical ‘established’ status, all kinds of muddled ideas arose. Part of the problem being that the dynamics of an ‘established’ religion tend to produce a lot of nominal members who identify as ‘Christian’ but haven’t truly been born again. In the end the dynamics are almost reversed so that to maintain the (increasingly nominal) established status the rather mixed and muddled church will seek to compromise its original beliefs and standards (and again not just over sexuality) in the attempt to retain its claim to represent the nation. That’s the position we – well actually you Anglicans, given that I’m an Anabaptist anyway – are now in.
I’ll let you all mull that over before coming back with a ‘part two’ expounding the biblical position in more detail….
The rise and fall of the ex-gay movement is due to the CofE being an established Church? Are you sure about that?
Adam
“The rise and fall of the ex-gay movement is due to the CofE being an established Church? Are you sure about that?”
Had to think a bit about that one. Answer I think is that since establishment skews and distorts almost everything, that will have had a role in both the rise and the fall of the ‘ex-gay’ thing. But ‘a role’ rather than ‘THE main role’.
Do you support establishment yourself?
You’re claiming that establishment distorts everything, and therefore anything you don’t like can be attributed to it with no further thought or working out. That’s not a very falsifiable theory.
Adam
NOT what I said….
Believing in/practising ‘establishment’ distorts not everything but almost everything.
The point is that plausible as it is that God ‘must want’ Christian states enforcing his will, actually the NT doesn’t teach that at all. On the contrary it teaches a rather different idea in which it is the Church itself whch is God’s holy nation on earth, operating as an international/supranational ‘diaspora’ of citizens of the kingdom of heaven throughout the world. Not seeking to superficially ‘Christianise’ secular nations, but rather calling people out of their secular nation into God’s “kingdom not of this world”.
Trying to do the ‘Christian country’ thing distorts that vision in all kinds of areas including approaches to sexuality. The ‘ex-gay’ movement was not a simply biblical approach but a bit of a muddle with a ‘this-worldly’ element to confuse things….
“there may still be a way back for the church, albeit to a smaller and humbler version of what it once was”
Humbler? Really? Give me strength if that’s the case. I would gently suggest the CofE for a while has been humble on the national stage to point of being craven. We have been endowed with extraordinary gifts – a national network of property, a large fund of monies, a seat in the legislature, and a prime speaking slot for the great national moments. We can use them (Matthew 25). Whilst we perhaps can only speak to the nation when we’re in good spiritual health, we ought to consider to what extent we really speak to nation about spiritual health. It always strikes me that I’m told this is meant to be a great atheist age, given the historic decline of “organised religion”, but the public in general are increasingly open about having a spiritual side or interest. Is the door actually ajar?
“Bishops are supposed to be ‘first amongst equals’ within their clergy”
A somewhat partial view of the theology I’d suggest. After all the Historic Episcopate is one quarter of the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral…
“‘Conservatives are despondent…And yet the liberals are just as glum.’… the argument has not been about ‘what the Church believes’, but about whether there are good grounds to change what has been the settled view of the C of E”
The argument has not been about that at all, which is a big part of the problem, and why everyone is so glum and despondent. The LLF debate was actually about how to maintain unity whilst we disagreed about the Church believes. There was no attempt to forge a new doctrine or consensus on the underlying issue itself. Hence, when the Bishops produced their theological workings it was all about Church unity, not human sexuality.
“This reality completely undercuts the claims that this is a ‘mission imperative’”
Only if you’ve been living in the fantasy that a shift in this would unleash a flood of people back to the Church. I’ve never heard anyone suggest that. Rather, the missional imperative is that the old formulas are running into trouble: if most gay people who walked through the church door were in casual relationships, and there was little realistic possibility of anything that looked like lifelong permanent commitment, then telling them to be single might be challenging but didn’t throw up really difficult dilemmas (and historically that was rarely the actual advice – what we did was try to get them straight, which was disastrous, and is now very discredited). That might always have been a bit of a delusion, but now if you’re telling gay people to be single, you have to confront that you’re telling to get a divorce, leave the family home, work out what to do with their kids etc.. And explaining this to everyone else has become far more challenging too. That’s the missional problem: the inadequacies that it always had (as I would see it) are being laid bare, and the Church has no good answers. That’s presumably a really serious problem if you’re going to try and pretend that adherence to this is the key spiritual litmus test and a serious source of heresy.
Adam, just to pick up one of your points:
‘The LLF debate was actually about how to maintain unity whilst we disagreed about the Church believes.’
No, I don’t think that is the case at all. No-one has seriously questioned what the doctrine of the Church is and was.
What was debated was how to manage the fact that many people in the Church did not believe its own doctrine, and the reasons for that.
The people in the Church are the Church. Isn’t that what we draw from Article 19?
‘Only if you’ve been living in the fantasy that a shift in this would unleash a flood of people back to the Church.’
And yet that is what we have heard repeatedly in the debates in Synod and elsewhere. That is the assumption behind Stephen’s comment early this week!!
When Cottrell said LLF was a “journey towards becoming a more welcoming church”? That’s quite a stretch to say that’s him predicting a flood of new congregants.
‘more welcoming’ means seeing more people come to church. It is the language he has consistently used.
So you say. But I’d suggest it just means being more welcoming.
Maybe not telling people to get divorced and break up their families would be more welcoming. Just a thought.
Which people?
That is a theoretical problem, but where is it happening?
The church has no authority to tell anybody to do anything. What it can legitimately do is tell people that, as well as believing in Jesus Christ, they must eventually commit to being repentant for things the Bible condemns and be sincere about trying to abstain from them, or else leave. Outside the church they are free to live as they please.
It has been said: Don’t join a club if you don’t like the rules. One reply to that is: “We like the club apart from some of the rules, so let’s get those changed.” The trouble is that in the case of the church the rules are set by God.
So what are the rules for gay people, and where are you getting your views of what rules God set from? What is it we in particular are to be repentant for?
You know the answer to that as well as I do. Stop trying to entrap me with our iniquitous falsely so-called hate speech laws.
To abstain from gay sexual relationships.
So why are covenanted friendships such a problem?
They are, as has been said 100s of times, positive through and through. Have you seen them treated as such? Where?
If 2 people are somehow saying they are a dyad or a duet, that is where the problem starts. Not only do people have many simultaneous friends and associations, but the only place 2 appears in nature is in pregnancy/childbirth, which is never not 1male+1female.
Christopher Shell:
“If 2 people are somehow saying they are a dyad or a duet, that is where the problem starts.”
Gosh, what a problem!
“…the only place 2 appears in nature is in pregnancy/childbirth…”
Always provided, of course, that we discount 2 eyes, 2 ears, 2 nostrils, 2 arms, 2 hands, 2 legs, 2 feet, 2 nipples, 2 auricles and 2 ventricles, 2 testicles, 2 kidneys…
Problem in the sense of inaccuracy (and of false step in the argument inevitably leading to other inaccuracies).
Replace ‘the only time 2 appears in nature’ with ‘the only time 2 appears in natural processes’.
Christopher Shell:
Wherein lies the inaccuracy?
Kindly define a natural process for us.
Semantics and hair splitting are clearly more important than the most basic essence of life on earth.
At a slight tangent to this never-ending and repetitive topic there’s a moving article in today’s Church Times about the friendship that developed between the late Lord Tebbit and the Dean of St Edmundsbury Cathedral. Lord Tebbit was firmly and at times caustically opposed to same sex relationships and the Dean was in a same-sex partnership but over the course of time they came to a deep and affectionate friendship and Lord Tebbit returned to regular worship after previously avowing atheism. He asked the Dean to take his wife’s funeral. Neither changed their mind or accepted the other’s view on sexuality but friendship deepened into respect. Of course, that approach does not resolve the issue of what the Church teaches about relationships, marriage and sexuality, or the nature of the clergy’s commitment to teach the faith, but it does give alternative approach to the ‘we can’t be in the same ecclesiastical space and receive Holy Communion with those we disagree with’ that some have adopted as a marker of orthodoxy. And it does suggest (but not prove definitively) that differences over sexuality do not always have to be at the centre of our faith or relationships within the church. We might all do well to heed that alternative perspective.
It is not necessarily a matter of changing ‘mind’. Affirming that one is in a same-sex partnership is highly culturally contingent, and no-one would have done that in the first place outside the last couple of generations in the west. So it was not a mental choice but a cultural conforming. People think they agree with a particular position, but if you examine their positions, those positions only exist at all in their own specific cultural context. They are just conforming, like most people do.
Christopher, I think you may have missed my point, which was that the article gave a moving example of people worshipping together as friends whilst continuing to disagree profoundly on as aspect of Christian teaching. I hope you find it moving, too. Koinonia can be maintained across the difference. Without knowing the individuals very well I’m simply not in a position to definitively judge what was cultural conformity in this case or in Lord Tebbit’s attitude.
I think there should be caution here. ‘Profound disagreement’ often refers to strength of feeling. But feeling is irrelevant when it comes to truth. If one loves someone one will want them to be in the truth. Worship will bring them closer to truth, yes. Bypassing truth as a priority and aim would be wrong, as would assuming that diplomacy is of intrinsic worth or that issues of substance matter less than touchy-feely issues of relationship.
On cultural conformity, you misunderstand my point. Which was that same-sex partnerships are not a thing apart from in a minority of cultures, so whenever they appear in precisely those cultures where they are fashionable, they are an instance of cultural conformity.
Emotional intelligence is something that helps us approach the truth more profoundly. What Tim has read, and what I know of that situation, is to be commended because it shows a depth of emotional intelligence and therefore a greater degree of truth than is possible without that factor. It is a moving testimony. The truth will set you free. But what you so often offer Christopher is half the truth because it lacks emotional intelligence.
Christopher
You keep repeating this view, which you, as a scholar, must know is ahistorical nonsense. Whether they are like the same-sex marriages celebrated in contemporary western culture is another question entirely. Other sex marriage in the Global North is, indeed, nothing like marriage in other cultures or in earlier periods in the west and on south west Asia.
The view I repeat is a different one: that legions of societies get by without it, and it never occurs to them; those whom it does occur to are just unimaginatively acting by the dictates of their own society, possibly having little knowledge of any other.
To save time, Tim, the idea seems to be (which I am sure neither of us agrees with) that if you ever want to know which stance is better, it is invariably the one that speaks about relationships and feelings.
That saved everybody a lot of analysis and reading.
Christopher, I didn’t mention touchy-feely emotions, or commend avoiding the truth, nor did I claim that profound disagreement refers to strength of feelings. Nor was I trying to claim which stance was correct. Only that to hear of people who are able to disagree in the long term and yet remain together in worship as friends is significant and may (only may, not definitely) be a pointer to discovering that the kingdom is among us. Every congregation I have been apart of, including conservative evangelical ones, has such examples over a range of topics e.g they politics, ethics, doctrine, authority. You may be certain about making assessments about cultural conformity but I’m not without more detailed and personal information.
It never occurred to me not to do things together as friends with anyone. Far from being remarkable or moving, it is default, 101, baseline. After all, the alternative is to be enemies or (worse) indifferent. There is no progress on that commonsense stance, though there can be progress in terms of how rich a relationship can become. And progress in truth.
A relationship is one thing, a grasp of what’s factually true or accurate is another, and they don’t overlap much. Because they don’t overlap, one can never replace the other, and the two are never alternatives, nor is either negotiable or optional.
“A relationship is one thing, a grasp of what’s factually true or accurate is another, and they don’t overlap much.”
Quite the contrary. The overlap is essential. Human relationships enable us to grasp what is actually true rather than just true in theory.
Do they Andrew? Sharing sexual climax with someone bonds you to them regardless of whether they are the right partner for you.
Anthony, what on earth has that got to do with the point being made? Are you another evangelical obsessed with sex? Give it a break, please..
I’m obsessed with keeping the church pure. Others are obsessed with sex. Everybody knows that this subthread is about smuggling gay sexual relationships into the CoE.
Anthony I wonder if you have read the Church Times article or Tim’s post about it. Let me remind you what he said to Christopher who also seemed to miss the point.
“ I think you may have missed my point, which was that the article gave a moving example of people worshipping together as friends whilst continuing to disagree profoundly on as aspect of Christian teaching. I hope you find it moving, too. Koinonia can be maintained across the difference”
Anthony, it is perfectly obvious that the entire charade of this lobby movement is to smuggle GSMs in. That is what it is all about, whereas what Christianity is all about is the transforming gospel. This only needs to be said because all pervasive culture makes the populace generally unaware of the clear outlines of what is happening.
Two people being friends with each other is not a story. Christians set out to be friends with all in the first place. Two people being friends with those who disagree with them? There are millions of topics, and because there are so many, each friendship pairing disagrees about some things.
However, following animal instincts is not a ‘position’ held, just a thing that people do if unrestrained. They did not arrive at it by ratiocination. So there is no rational disagreement here in the first place.
The story is highlighted by some because they want to be accepted at the table despite their unwillingness to turn from sin, and would also prefer not to have to do the brainwork that would be needed in order to justify their sin verbally or in debate. (Many act first, think later or think not at all.) A story that suggestively illustrates that will therefore be popular with them. The story suggests this (acceptance of sin, or of this sin) should be universalised. That is precisely what they want, so they advertise the story.
Human interest stories are much used, and are selective, therefore biased, therefore of no worth as data. One could equally use human stories leading to a different conclusion. It just depends which story is selected. Those who select (and also, on a much larger scale, omit) based on their preferred outcome should obviously not be listened to. Specific human interest stories are just as slippery and malleable in what they imply for the very varied population at large as are the liberals’ preferred flexible modes of thought in general, such as situation ethics. Being so delightfully malleable, these remarkably often end up with the ‘conclusion’ that their proponents would have preferred in the first place.
GSRs not GSMs.
I did read it, Andrew. There are plenty of decent gay chaps and I am friends with one or two. Some might even speak words of prayer. But it is not possible to be transformed by Christ unless one repudiates what His scriptures denounce.
Both the obsessions are legitimate and necessary, since degree of emphasis corresponds to degree of importance.
Anthony, as I said at the beginning, my comment was at a tangent to the thread. I wasn’t smuggling anything in, simply referring to an example of 2 people who could disagree profoundly but remain in fellowship and become friends. It offers a different approach to those who claim that we cannot share holy communion with or accept the ministry of a priest or bishop we disagree with.
It depends about what, of course.
(Matthew 5:13–15).
Reading the article’s survey of the Church of England’s current disputes over sexuality, money, and the direction a new archbishop might set, I was struck by how they illustrate what I see as three paths Christian churches can take in response to cultural crisis.
The “Save the Parish” movement reflects what I call the “Way of Preservation.” Their instinct is to safeguard what has long been in existence. To keep the parish system alive as a witness of stability in a changing world. There is wisdom in this. A parish is not just a structure. It is a spiritual ecology of worship, care, and community. Yet preservation risks turning inward, caring for the “city’s” existing citizens but struggling to welcome newcomers.
The SMMIB advocates and reformers embody aspects of a “Way of Authority.” They see renewal coming through strategic action, resource reallocation, and bold new projects that reshape the church’s public presence. This has its place. Visibility matters, and the Church must not hide its light. The danger, as the article states, is that authority can slip into centralisation, where control outweighs service and money becomes more divisive than unifying.
Then there are voices in the piece and the hopeful testimonies of young people drawn in through TikTok that remind me of the “Way of Engagement.” Their witness is about open gates – prayer, fasting, conversation, and welcome. They highlight that revival, if it comes, will be through the Spirit working in encounters, not just through strategies or funding formulas.
But, what this article really reveals is not just three rival camps, but the shadow sides of each path – preservation that risks irrelevance, authority that risks domination, engagement that risks dilution. These are not only strategic dilemmas but theological ones. Salt can lose its savour, light can be hidden under a bushel, and a city can close its gates.
The article itself frames the Church of England’s crisis in terms of money, strategy, and management. Beneath those disputes lies a deeper theological vacuum. If the new Archbishop does not re-ground the Church in a coherent theological vision, no amount of funding formulas or organisational tinkering will heal the fractures.
On sexuality: the issue isn’t simply whether to allow blessings or not, but what the Church actually believes about creation, the body, covenant, and holiness. Without a theological core, every compromise looks like expediency.
On money: the debate over parish versus projects is really a question of ecclesiology. What is the Church? Is it primarily the local parish gathered around Word and Sacrament, or can it be re-imagined as networks, projects, and experiments? Again, theology must lead, or resources will simply follow power.
On decline: the question is not only sociological (“how do we get people back into church?”) but theological (“what is the Church’s mission in a post-Christian culture?”).
This is where my reflections on the Three Paths dovetail with the article – authority, preservation, engagement. These choices are not just tactical but deeply theological. A leader who understands can help the Church discern which path is called for in this time, in this place, rather than lurching between pragmatism and panic.
Maybe the real test for the new Archbishop is not whether they can “fix” the C of E’s problems, but whether they can articulate a theological narrative that explains why Christians are here at all – salt, light, city – and how those metaphors shape our presence in a weary, secular culture.
Salt, light, city: these are not management metaphors but theological truths. If the Church can recover them, it may yet find its voice again.
Perhaps not just an irreverent aside; at the recent State Banquet held during Trump’s visitation, while there were many representatives of Mammon present, not a single representative of God was bidden to the feast! On previous such occasions ++Canterbury has offered grace before the meal. Was there no substitute considered worthy? (Or was the chief guest’s obvious disapproval of clerical opposition the reason for such absence?
Gosh, what an interesting observation, and what a good question.
PS please use both names when posting.
Well, the Supreme Governor of the Church of England was hosting it…
It is interesting that Andrew Brown’s good analysis in yesterday’s Church Times understands the appointment of Justin Welby to have had much to do with his being the only (?) interviewed candidate to take stemming numerical decline seriously.
Numbers are souls. The other candidates did not?
I have sympathy with the Bishop of Chelmsford’s questioning of growth programmes and especially managerialism, as opposed to St David of Wales’s ‘Be joyful, keep the faith, and do the little things well.’, which she approves.
But actually we can scarcely forget the correlation between the most effective Christians and those who strategised and thus, by means of strategising and prior preparation, made excellent use of their time on this earth. St Paul, John Wesley, John Stott, Martyn Lloyd Jones, Derek Prince, Bill Bright, Michael Green and those less full of years like Charlie Kirk too. (I think Chesterton, Lewis prioritised quite brilliantly as opposed to always being actually goal-oriented or strategic. There is of course an overlap between the two approaches.)
That is before we ever get to the fact that no-one whose heart is in the right place could look at the low percentage of committed Christians in this part of the world and be anything other than passionately part of a movement to bring others in. Worst is to waste the time that one could be doing just that in by giving speeches about why numbers are ‘not’ an issue. That time will never come back, and it was misused. I once heard a member of the Church of Wales say e4ffectively: far be it from me to affirm anything connected with evangelism. Such attitudes are self fulfilling and infectious, and as Jesus said there is a good leaven and a bad leaven – it is amazing how quickly each of them spreads.
How was Charlie Kirk a most effective Christian?
He wasn’t. He was a white supremacist and a misogynist. It’s quite appalling that his terrible death is being rhetoricised as martyrdom.
That’s simply name-calling and an example of the cancer that is destroying civilised discourse. The violence of these words easily slip over into physical violence.
Indeed. As we have seen in violence perpetrated nu the far right in the USA and the UK.
Study the way he maximised his time, see what he achieved nationally and internationally in his 13 adult years, and then come back to me.
A problem was caused by positive discrimination, not least a problem of injustice, and sometimes a problem of danger. He says he does not want to be at the mercy of those who are in post because of positive discrimination (which of us does?) and that somehow makes him a sexist and racist? Everyone knows well that if there had not been unfair positive discrimination then its inevitable repercussions could not follow.
There would be no need for positive discrimination if there had not been negative discrimination in the first place.
Do read Jim Wallis’ book The false white Gospel, Christopher. It might, one can only hope, help you understand where White supremacy and misogyny really are at in the United States – a rather frightening country to belong in at present.
Two wrongs make a right, then.
?
That’s too simplistic for such a situation. It’s more like when a craft has been steered in the wrong direction, then a new course, also wrong, is needed to get back on track.
Or maybe, as you prefer things like maths that you perceive to be factual, two negatives make a positive.
Definitely worth reading the book I mention.
He was a college dropout. The black women he criticised as DEI hires were more educated and better qualified than he. His rise was a case study in white privilege – a mediocre white man became moderately famous by weaponising racism, misogyny and advocating violence against his political enemies.
And re his comments about black airline pilots, the truth is that for a black woman or man to get such a role in the US, they would need to be more qualified than a white person, such is the endemic racism.
As if any airline could really employ any pilots who were not fully qualified to fly.
Andrew, what’s the evidence for that? What is clear in the US is that different ethnic groups have wildly different educational outcomes, and that will certainly show up in appointments to eg airline pilots.
But the highest attainers are not whites; they are Asia. And the lowest attainers are not blacks; they are Hispanics. It is not a black and white issue…
Hence ridiculous to make comments about black pilots….
I understand his comments were about how affirmative action appointments undermine confidence all round. I think he was right on that.
No – he made those comments because politically everyone was always saying ‘black black black’. It was they that started it; don’t shoot the messenger. I have no idea what ‘black’ means, anyway; it is certainly not an accurate description; it is, however, simultaneously inaccurate, polarising, and superficial. By continuing to treat this designation as default or remotely well-analysed, anyone will find it difficult to find a debate partner.
Whining that United Airlines having a scholarship programme for pilot training made you racist is a reasonable position? Seriously?
“simultaneously inaccurate, polarising, and superficial.”
Sounds like a very pertinent description of the man you and Ian are trying to make a martyr of Christopher?
Ian if you seriously think that the US isn’t systemically racist then I’m not sure which planet you are living on.
https://www.humanrightscareers.com/issues/examples-of-systemic-racism/
Among the main points that are being made against him are that he helped restore a level playing field wherein protected groups such as women and darker pigmentations – who were treated differently in that so very many would offer only praise and never criticism – were spoken truly about, the truth being that identity politics, gender, colour are all irrelevant here and we judge on a case by case basis. Most good people are race and gender blind when it comes to moral judgment, and it is still puzzling why the others have not moved on from superficial – as though unable to see anything deeper. Talking with liberals a high proportion of conversations degenerate into race this, gender that, and the same conversation just gets repeated at the expense of any other ever beginning.
Certainly the premise that formal education equals education is a non starter. Self education and reading can achieve everything that lectures can, books and internet are available to all. Many universities brainwash socially. They prevent 18 year olds seizing maturity and thus hamper their development. He read 10 books a month or something, and how did he get to the point of being so effective in debate and winning over so many? Even in a postmodern relativistic campus environment they were convinced in droves. None of us could come close to that.
The killings of innocent young men or women in their prime is a prime cause of repentance and church growth – Christ Acts 2, Stephen. It lays bare how low a society has sunk.
Christopher your comment here explains so helpfully how readily you and others were so easily taken in by Iwerne.
Aha, I see the connection.
Christopher
I’m very sorry to prolong this but I can’t address your response when it doesn’t actually respond to the point I made about the phrase ‘normal people’. Indeed, your response doesn’t seem to make much sense at all.
He celebrated George Floyd’s death, said that wives should submit to their husbands, said that if his 10 year old daughter were raped she would have to bear her rapist’s child, said that Biden should be executed and that he would attend public executions. He was also fairly thick – not that this disqualifies him from sainthood – but his views and actions do. His beliefs were appalling.
A litany of wrong thinking:
1. Most wives’ ideal scenario is precisely that they have a husband worthy of such respect that they adore serving them, just as he mutually serves her to an even greater degree by laying down his life for her in the Ephesians model. Romance is either a bad thing or a good thing involving mutual service. Why on earth did they marry them if they had no romantic plans? Husbands of that quality will not come off the production line (will not exist) if they are allowed sex before marriage, only if they are denied it.
2. George Floyd? 10 points. He was a serial criminal who pointed his gun at a pregnant mother’s belly, I believe; he was intoxicated, had recent methamphetamine use, and his heart was in a bad way. All this would make him unable to breathe properly. To restrain someone so that they cannot get away (which is the whole point) then it may well be that even the minimum necessary restraint will still cause them to be unable to breathe properly. They are someone who cannot breathe healthily at the best of times, and they will scarcely breathe better at a time when they have to be restrained from causing harm. Taking the knee is worship and social contagion. BLM was a scam which some people became very rich from. In the normal ‘false via media’ way, social engineers will see how far they can take the mick by exalting as dubious a candidate as possible in the hope that the planned subsequent compromise at half-way (leaving still an extreme position and a gain for them) will ensue. But the main point is that you are leaving out 90% of the salient points, and if you do *that* you can ‘conclude’ more or less anything. By complete coincidence, the points that you *do* include are slavishly conformist to the imposed narrative and exhibit no independence of thought.
3. The rapist’s child is presumably a ‘child of Satan’ in the Damien manner.
The solution to one horror is to make two horrors, the second of which (the one planned by you) is to kill the innocent.
The main point is that when children are properly brought up like the Kirk children, it is vanishingly unlikely that they would be find themselves in the secularist circumstances that more often surround such ugly events.
4. Many Christian civilisations have agreed to capital punishment. This one is not Christian but agrees to it, though its executive does not. The UK took leave of capital punishment at the same time it took leave of God – not a coincidence. Not that I agree with CP – and in this I seem to agree with Erika Kirk. I can see its strengths: it is an acted parable making the perpetrator understand the gravity and precise nature of what was done, and how it affected all friends and relations. *Perhaps* a highly publicised once-for-all execution of TR could be an effective line in the sand. CK as often was, in his statements and views, too young to be all that critical of his all pervasive culture of guns and Americanism, manifest destiny. Biden will certainly have caused more total harm than most who are executed, so in terms of justice if they deserve it he deserves it more. But do either? Yes – no doubt we all do – but is there not a better way of grace and forgiveness as per Erika Kirk?
5. Thick – no, an autodidact who won more debates in cleverer places than anyone in living memory. A quick mind and a researcher who read 100 books a year within his highly organised frantic 18-hours-a-day schedule. The kind of learning that is being spoken about is that crammed into 4 years, but in 13 years he obviously learned more than one would in 4. Bill Montgomery advised him to do ministry not college – history has proven this the right choice – and otherwise he would have done college. No-one who does college is thick.
?
The self-motivated tend to end up the cleverest.
6. When we have someone who had many stances on many subjects, the idea that 100% of his views, actions, and beliefs were in the same category as each other is an incredibly generalised idea held by someone who has not learnt that accuracy and precision is all and does not seem to want to.
To repeat DC_Draino on x:
When G Floyd died, BLM organised riots nationwide that killed 25-40, injured, 900 cops, and caused $90bn in damages.
When C Kirk died, prayer vigils were organised and funds raised for his widow and children.
We are not the same.
The crucial point about some create, some only destroy (which is incestuous or [technical term] parasitic on prior creation) has been repeatedly made. Of course the debate is not between the creators and the destroyers (the latter do not step up to debate anyway, for reasons one can guess). The destroyers never thought they were correct, because they never did the reasoning thing at all – they just followed basic instincts of individual pleasure and preference.
And thus, the reason why there are coincidentally two sides to media debates – whereas in proper debate there is just the common cause of evidence-seeking and truth-seeking, and any number of positions held – is that there are precisely two large contingents: the truth seekers and the selfish ends seekers. No equivalence there.
We are not the same.
The best illustration appears frequently on the internet. Cologne Cathedral (examples could be multiplied) took 600 years to build, in an age with far fewer advantages. These days, one gets church burning. Which a toddler could do, and which psychological toddlers do do.
People have never gauged sufficiently the harm of secularism, instead treated it as their default, rejecting Christianity as a national or international path. Which is why they were seduced by those who cared so little, and undermined parents and families so much, that they put harmful pornography one click away from children and from adults. Examples could be multiplied. The coalescence of Christianity and national life seen in last night’s vigil is good while the other path is evil.
$2bn in damages, not ‘$90bn in damages’.
Christopher
1) Kirk was not speaking of the mutual submission taught in Ephesians but of wives submitting to husbands unilaterally – a position of harmful and abusive patriarchy.
2) Floyd may have been a criminal. That does not justify his murder by a police officer kneeling on his neck.
3) you miss the point. Kirk said that if his 10 year old daughter was raped he would make her carry the foetus to term. Pregnancy amd birth are extremely dangerous for ten year old children. And it is complete nonsense to argue that well brought up children don’t get abused and taped. They do, as the history of the Magdalene Laundries attests.
4) the point is not the morality of the death penalty but the utterly abhorrent view that an innocent and successful former president should be executed; and the evil belief that public executions should return.
5) Kirk may have claimed to have read a lot of books, but he clearly read neither widely nor deeply. He could show off in front of a few college kids, but was routed at the Cambridge Union. In any case, even had he been the most accomplished orator in the 21st century that would not have made his views less rebarbative. His death does not redeem his life.
But the answers to these points were in many cases already there in my original answer.
1. It is not a serious position to say he denied Ephesians on the husband’s role. As a Bible believer he affirmed it. And you can see how happy his wife and family were in him – which is the inevitable (but in today’s secular world rare) result of using the Christian pattern for homes. What is the context you are quoting? You are saying he denied Ephesians?
And what are the bad results of his husbanding and fathering you are pointing at? Because, boy, there are many such bad results once the secular model is adopted and the Christian one rejected. Are you complaining about them?
2. The whole point was to look at more angles on the accuracy of the word ‘murder’ and the factors involved in the killing. It is not that he may have been a criminal but that he was one. And on multiple occasions. Of the factors I listed you left out practically all. Presumably because your stance could cope with practically none.
3. I don’t think he would ‘make her’, I think she would want to. Normal undamaged people do not want to harm their own children, let alone kill them, which is unspeakably ugly.
You inaccurately said I posed an all-or-nothing about upbringing. Reading what I wrote that can be seen to be inaccurate as well as an unlikely thing to do. Good upbringing greatly improves things, improves how many good things are in your life and how many bad things are not. Treating bad things as normal is part of the problem, and becomes self fulfilling. Good upbringing brings a massive percentage improvement in chances. Not only are 0% and 100% not the only percentages that exist, they are the least likely of all to be instantiated. Another thing that is ugly is speaking of precious children in ugly terms, like the cleric also did who said he hoped something about Prince George.
4. Agreed with the provisoes already stated with which you did not interact.
5. If he claimed to read books he did not read, he was a liar. Was he?
To win university debates is to defeat the most intelligent. It is therefore odd to sniff at that.
Also when you watch, what on earth has it to do with ‘oratory’? Facts, stats, logic. ‘Oratory’ will not help you with those.
Penelope CD, you wrote of Charlie Kirk that “He celebrated George Floyd’s death, said that wives should submit to their husbands, said that if his 10 year old daughter were raped she would have to bear her rapist’s child, said that Biden should be executed and that he would attend public executions.” Because hostile summaries by others are often not fully accurate, may I have the relevant references to his own words, please?
I’d add that Paul wrote in Ephesians 5 that wives should submit to their husbands. The deal is that the husband has to be prepared to sacrifice himself – in life, and even if necessary (in defence) unto death, for her and their family. There is legitimate discussion over the meaning of ‘submit’, but do you deny the validity of these scriptures?
Christopher
I will not respond to your points. You say nothing new and this thread is about the future ABC.
Anthony
As I said, Kirk was speaking not of mutual submission but of women submitting to men. Quite different.
As for his repellent views, just Google his name.
What astonishes me about Christopher is how he seems to love evidence – or at least the idea of it – yet he ignores all kinds of evidence when it suits. The way that the President of the USA and his supporters – of which Charlie Kirk was a very serious one – spouts all kinds of nonsense without a shred of evidence is really troubling. But it doesn’t seem to trouble Christopher at all..
At least the widow of Charlie Kirk wants to follow the teaching of Jesus about forgiving our enemies rather than shooting them down, which is what Trump and perhaps Christopher seem to support.
That is not only wrong but 180 degrees wrong. If you look earlier in the thread you will see twice that I support Erika Kirk and fail to support Trump on forgiveness. As does Christianity.
Nor should one launch into a detailed analysis of Trump’s policies or approach where he is tangential to the thread. I am extremely happy that the White House is filled with Christians and to all intents and purposes Christian preachers. When you think of the awful worldviews their predecessors held, there is relief and rejoicing at this. Many including Charlie Kirk and me were not keen on Donald Trump’s character. Presidency can be bought only with money and visibility, and I am glad at least that while he is there he is giving a Christian message, has been latterly influenced undoubtedly by the Christians around him – an ongoing process – and saw fit to describe the UK in the recent royal banquet as the land of ‘Shakespeare, Dickens, Tolkien, Lewis’. Meloni’s attachment to the inklings is also positive. Their brilliant thought is the answer to much, yet those who have not yet read them are still floundering unnecessarily.
Charlie Kirk was not initially enthusiastic to support Trump personally. As he found in his life, a positive approach to each individual with whom he had dealings worked wonders and made sense. Trump included. To hear Trump talking it is clear that Kirk was the father figure to him rather than vice versa.
One aspect of marital mutual submission is the part where the wife submits to the husband. There would be no ‘submisison’ to be ‘mutual’ about otherwise.
It is the direct opposite of always looking out for one’s own ends.
It is also romantic.
You just ignored the point about his affirming husband submission, and also did not quote what he said.
As to the idea that men and women are interchangeable, the less interchangeable they are the better, and the more bases they will cover, and the more there will actually be something to be attracted to when people embark on engagement and marriage.
Christopher you rant and waffle in equal measure and at great length. What is more it is always without concise expression so that is often impossible to follow what you are saying, even if you are aware of it yourself – which you sometimes seem not to be.
A good all-purpose reply for those unable to understand or debate specifics.
Penelope CD,
You claimed he said those things. It is up to you to give the references. I presume you had higher standards in your thesis?
That Donald Trump broadcast the obvious fact that whatever causes a sudden huge rise in autism must be something newly present/increased at the time of the rise is positive. It is amazing how many just ignore that. According to scientific comment, his diagnosis was inadequate and skewed. But not inaccurate as far as it went.
Trump made unevidenced claims about links between Tylenol – paracetamol here – taken by pregnant women. Unevidenced. Christopher you say you like evidence ….
https://www.bmj.com/content/390/bmj.r2004
Like evidence? What is that supposed to mean? Have you met thinkers who do not like evidence?
As I understood, there is an accepted correlation but this drops out at a relatively early stage when it comes to testing for causation. (The line between correlation and causation is not hard and fast, simply because causation is not infrequently not a simple A-causes-B, but part of a more complex web. Also, correlation is our best evidence when we begin searching for causes. And time-specific correlation is even better.)
According to the link you gave, Trump’s claims were moderate: namely ‘could contribute’. With which all may agree.
Not only were his claims moderate, but the response was tempered in three separate ways. Of these ways, all three were vague and undefined:
‘no *clear* evidence’; ‘*direct* relation’; ‘*prudent* use’.
To which we add vested interests.
Scientifically, I have no idea of the truth of the matter. The ACOG could have been firmer in their wording had that been justified.
I believe that *moderate* use at time of *fever* was said in the Trump announcement to be fine and also to prevent harm.
Nuance on all sides, in fact.
The ACOG are very firm in their wording.
Steven Fleischman, president of the college, said, “The claim is not backed by the full body of scientific evidence and dangerously simplifies the many and complex causes of neurologic challenges in children.
“Studies that have been conducted in the past show no clear evidence that proves a direct relation between the prudent use of acetaminophen during any trimester and fetal developmental problems.”
Note the phrase ‘full body of scientific evidence’
Christopher
You claim to care for precious lives in the womb. But many many will be harmed if women do not take paracetamol to reduce fever.
Your comment about Christians in the White House is risible. Jesus wouldn’t recognise one of them as His follower. Especially the rapist and paedophile in chief. Biden, on the other hand, is a Christian.
Anthony
I think you’re confusing the quality of PhD research and the trifling demands for evidence on a blog thread. Kirk is all over social media. I’m sure you can fond his rantings quite easily.
Christopher as you are such a fan of Trump and given that he is so obviously wonderful at stopping wars, maybe he should be invited to stop the Anglican war. Maybe he could just be the Archbishop in his spare time, and Mayor of London on Saturdays?
PCD excels herself .
Pain relief specifically in fever during pregnancy, apart from to an excessive extent, is exactly what my comments had affirmed, not denied. The exact reverse. Moreover it was what the Trump administration affirmed, as you know.
AG somehow thinks I am a fan of Trump when I specifically said only that I was not and tried to distinguish between the pros and cons of his being in power.
The idea that he is good at stopping wars? Has anyone seen much evidence of that? His success rate seems low. At least he is a dove not a hawk.
Your recent remarks show what the problem is. You start with the idea of two stereotyped polarised positions and think that anyone who does not occupy position A has to occupy position B. This involves ignoring the evidence of what is written. Once you realise that the possible number of configured nuanced positions is infinite, and once you realise that the evidence for what people think lies in what they have said rather than in stereotypes, a conversation can at least begin.
Christopher your inability to understand when sarcasm and irony are being used, added to your usual inability to follow an argument is staggering. Good grief……
Penelop CD,
I have a doctorate myself, and I would not say anything on a blog about a third party that I could not back up with a reference on demand. You may have lower standards.
So if the sarcastic/ironic answer (not a contribution to debate anyway) has transpired, the substantial answer that addresses the points is still awaited.
Christopher I don’t know what is so hard to understand about the phrase ‘full body of scientific evidence’ in the ACOG statement. Read it again and I’m sure that even you will grasp it eventfully.
Which is why I have *already* sided, as usual, with the science – see above.
The phrase you quoted is at the high end of general, not to say airy.
I also noted (which you did not comment on) that both ACOG and the Trump administration tempered their position statements with qualifications: 3 qualifications in the case of ACOG.
It is simple to apply the rule that there are not just 2 polarised positions and that if I disagree with any configuration it is not true that I must believe the exact opposite in every respect, since there are infinite possible configurations of belief on a given topic. Your errors in understanding seem so often to stem from believing that there are just 2 possible positions and no more, and moreover that those 2 are each other’s opposite! Not a likely state of affairs.
“Your errors in understanding seem so often to stem from believing that there are just 2 possible positions and no more, and moreover that those 2 are each other’s opposite! Not a likely state of affairs.”
Every body who believes that will make errors. There are never just 2 possible positions, and I have always said that. Which is exactly why your own black and white statements about same sex attracted people and their relationships don’t stand up to any scrutiny.
Anthony
I can back it up. I just have better things to do than provide links to statements which are all over social media. I’m also surprised you think I would lie about something so easily accessible.
Penelope CD,
You have no right to claim that he said those things if you are not prepared to give the references on request. I did not accuse you of being a liar. Lazy and discourteous is a better description of your refusal.
AG, the errors proliferate like the sand of the sea:
(1) If I were putting about anything black-and-white I would be touting percentages of 0% and 100%. Any percentages in the middle of these (i.e., real life percentages) are what is actually found.
(2) Note that we are talking many different arenas of studies, not just one. Into comparative association to STIs, promiscuity, drugtaking, broken homes, earlier death, liberal culture, university education, urban dwelling, hormonal input, later birth positions – the list is endless.
(3) You do not bring forward any percentages of your own, and yet somehow think you are in a position to harry those who do. Everyone can spot the flaw in that.
(4) How would you know what is correct if you have not researched such issues? You wouldn’t. So we wait till you have.
(5) Normal people associate ‘same sex people and their relationships’ with friendship, and are happier in the process.
(6) You persist in thinking studies and percentages that have been researched and discovered are mine or somehow associated with me personally, even though it is obvious that I am never the researcher in question. They are the common property of all: you, me, everyone included.
(7) You repeat these same errors even when they are brought to your attention so many times.
Anthony
You find me discourteous. I find you impertinent. So far, we are equal.
Christopher
It’s a bit pointless citing evidence and studies and statistics, and then opening a sentence with ‘normal people’ …
You’re wrong, because it depends what the particular sentence is. Your assumption to date is that all sentences are equivalent in this respect. They cannot remotely be.
I am only saying that friendship is commoner (and consequently more of a default assumption) than two men going to bed together.
Penelope CD,
You said I accused you of lying when I said no such thing, as any reader can confirm. I simply asked you to provide references for what you claim Charlie Kirk said.
But, if you summarised him as inaccurately as you summarised me…
Christopher
You simply don’t get it, do you?
No scholar should begin a sentence with the phrase ‘normal people’.
Christopher you *only* operate in binary terms. You speak of goodies and baddies, as if you were still in the playground. You speak of normal and abnormal. You speak of scholars and those who are not.
And worst of all, you demonstrate time and time again that you have absolutely zero awareness of your own biases. For someone who claims to be a scholar, all of this is very worrying.
PCD unable to progress beyond the previous position, having not digested, incorporated and addressed the answer already given. AG reduced to general points unrelated to the present case.
Thanks HJ your comments are most welcome .
My feelings are that the article question seems to be
a stirring of the pot to keep it and everyone on the boil.
Your thoughts are quite apposite.
Happy Jack’s thoughts are always apposite!
The above would be a large caveat against appointing anyone who minimised growth – as opposed to managerialism. I do not think minimising of growth is sustainable or – on reflection – a loving or Christian principle.
I also read an uninformed summary that made the main point about one bishop – and several other bishops fall in the same category – that they had signed neither the Jan 2023 document The Church of England’s doctrine of marriage nor Nov 2023’s A Statement from 44 bishops on LLF. If *not* signing two random letters (a signal achievement…) makes one automatically a strong candidate for promotion to the top post, then most of us must be in with a shout too.
Some sensible points in this article. The Archbishop of Canterbury is not Pope, what they say does not go automatically for even Anglicans in England, Synod has to approve it first, let alone the wider Anglican Communion where he is first amongst equals. Yet as a church with Bishops of apostolic succession the Church of England does still need a new Archbishop.
I hope they will be humble, less political and more Parish focused and support Save the Parish’s efforts for more of the vast assets and investments held by Church Commissioners to go to local Parish churches not grand schemes. PLF has been largely settled, Synod voted for it in all 3 houses but also to keep marriage for opposite sex couples for life.
On the Nordic churches it is of course only the Danish Lutheran church which still remains established, with the King its official head as the King here is Supreme Governor of our national C of E church. It is not an exact mirror between them, though both have women priests and bishops now but differ on same sex marriage, the Church of Denmark now performs same sex marriages, the Church of England only now has prayers for same sex couples within services. Both do however still perform marriages, funerals and baptisms for any parishioners who want them
Thanks for this reflection on Tim Wyatt’s article. If I may add a single sentence it would be that we should hope and pray that our next archbishop will be a man or woman who can avoid the saviour complex by continually living themselves from the gift of Christ and pointing us all to that gift, individually, as a church and as a nation.
We need a new archbishop because that’s how the C of E is constituted and we’re an episcopal church.
And we don’t help if we try to reduce the authority that they have. They are not ‘first among equals’, even in the house of Bishops, though they don’t have direct authority in any diocese except Canterbury and virtually none in the wider AC. At ordination all deacons and priests swear obedience to their bishop (not total obedience as we’re not Roman Catholics). But bishops don’t swear obedience to their clergy in return . There’s an imbalance of power based on difference of office. Hierarchy is inescapable and no one should be ordained unless they are aware of it and willing to accept it. I don’t want my bishop to be ‘first among equals’ – that’s confusing office with identity in Christ.
Finally, whilst they will undoubtedly exercise leadership I’m reminded of Rowan Williams’ wisdom when he commented that people want ‘strong leadership’, but only if they agree with the lead that is given. So whoever is appointed by the King we must not use any disagreement we may have with them as an excuse to criticise them from the start. Rather, let’s all exercise a degree of self control in what we speak and write. Continual criticism and negative media interviews don’t help.
Indeed. Boxer of Animal Farm couldn’t have put it better.
We must ALL work harder and obey better.
We need a new William Laud.
The man who persecuted entirely peaceable Puritans – probably the most dedicated Christians in the land – who merely wished to worship using their own liturgies and prayers. (In the 1630s the Puritans had no thought of going political.) The man who deliberately entered at least one cathedral at the moment the choir was singing “fling open the gates and let the king of glory in”!
I presume that is sarcasm. But I think you miss the point. There’s a vital difference between acknowledging appropriate authority in a relationship between equal adults, and dangerous authoritarianism. The latter can take many forms, and no theological tradition or church structure is free from it so we need to be on our guard.
Well, Tim, you got the reference. Satire rather than sarcasm.
I’m surprised at the level of obsequiousness toward ecclesiastical offices in an established church that you are urging. Most Christians in Britain are not even Anglicans, and we do not live in the world of Downton Abbey and the old English public school and class system.
Respect has to be earned by obedience to the doctrine (of marriage, the sanctity of life, sexual purity and all other doctrines), by being a true missionary and a faithful preacher of the Word. It cannot be commanded by flushing purple and titles.
And actually, a bishop who swore loyalty to his fellow clergy is actually a good idea.
Learn the lesson of Boxer.
James, you miss the point though. I was referring to C of E clergy who at ordination and every subsequent appointment make public oaths of obedience to their bishop C of E clergy only minister as deacons and priests in any C of E parish or other context with the authority given by the bishop. That’s simply how it is. No one is forced to seek ordination but , if they do, that’s part of the deal. Other churches run things differently and that’s fine for them and in any case there’s no single biblical way to order a church or exercise authority. It’s not obsequiousness or a throwback to Downton Abbey and has nothing to do with class, and as with so much theological and ecclesiastical terminology its meaning changes over time but the relationship between a priest and their bishop needs a structure which is recognised and accepted on both sides.
How do flying bishops fit into that system?
Tim,
You’re still advocating hierarchicalism and the the false doctrine that local clergy somehow derive their ministry and spiritual authority from their Lord Bishop – as some ‘catholic Anglicans’ believe. But evangelicals have never believed this. They see episcopacy as a trans-local arrangement not for the ‘esse’ of the church (as Roman Catholics believe) but for its ‘bene esse’ – to make it function better than it would otherwise, largely through providing a layer of extra-parochial discipline when conflicts arise. Senior presbyters, if you like, not a tertium quid of ministry unknown in the New Testament.
But for this to happen, bishops have to match the descriptors I mentioned above. In my experience, few bishops have been outstanding theologians or teachers, even fewer have been notable evangelists and missionaries. Indeed, the very idea of being an evangelist or missionary is horrifying to most bishops, especially in Muslim dominated places like London and Blackburn.
C of E bishops today are essentially middle managers who lack any insight about England’s need for the Gospel or how to evangelise the nation. Most churchgoers sense this, if inarticulately, and bishops don’t feature much in their thoughts or prayers.
Look at the utterly abject failure of the Bishop of Derby to support in any way the sacked Anglican Chaplain Dr Bernard Randall, and tell me with a straight face that brings credit to the epsicopacy.
Look at the way Stephen Cottrell furthered the transgender madness of ‘Mermaids’ in Chelmsford and attacked a faithful vicar, and tell me that is what a bishop should do.
Look at the way John Sentamu ridiculed evangelicals in the General Synod calling for the centrality of the Bible in the Church’s life, or the way Sentamu brushed aside his safeguarding failures, and tell me that deserves respect.
What distinguishes the Church of England, as opposed to evangelical Baptist or Presbyterian or Pentecostal or Methodist or independent churches for instance however is its leadership by Archbishops and bishops of apostolic succession.
What then distinguishes the Church of England from the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches is having the King as its Supreme Governor and services of the Book of Common Prayer or services derived from that
Does not the extant culture of the CoE militate against the Good News only found in Jesus? There is no other Name (person) by which may be saved.
Culture eats strategy for breakfast. How might the extant culture be described, defined?
Is it fit for purpose?
How might Jesus judge it? Revelation anyone?
Is there a unified, collective vision?
A reformed magisterium as it were.
Catechism restored, perhaps?
Who or what is front and centre? Of culture inside and outside, overt and covert, visible and invisible, belief and unbelief, of the Church of Jesus Christ?
Is assimilation to be welcomed?
Jim Wallis and Charlie Kirk are two sides of the same “reprobate silver” coin
Both at times declared to be evangelical christians are, I think, just cultural christians combining political and Christian idealism and as such agitate to influence people, especially christians, to pick a side in much the same way that Blog influencers do.
Rachele Bitecofer wrote that Kirk was “the prototype of a generation of right-wing internet entrepreneurs who figured out that the surest way to build power, attention, and money otherwise off limits to them, is not by governing, legislating, or even persuading – it’s by manufacturing outrage …..
that in the modern right-wing economy, conflict is the only currency that matters.”
The irony, she believes, is that Kirk himself wasn’t ever especially ideological “He didn’t have the intellectual rigour of a William F Buckley or even the crude charisma of a Trump. What he had was instinct. He understood that in the modern right-wing economy, conflict is the only currency that matters.”
independent.co.uk alex hannafordon on charlie kirk (toggle f9 to read)
As Jesus said “my kingdom is not of this world
else would my servants would fight…. But now my kingdom is from another place.”
It is imperative as Paul exhorts, first of all, that we earnestly seek God’s face and pray for our “kings” that we might live peaceable lives; Whether it be Bishop, committee or Synod that He might “open the eyes of their understanding” in mercy and grace.
NET Bible
The “king’s” heart is in the hand of the LORD like channels of water; he turns it wherever he wants.
Charlie Kirk obeyed Christ’s command: he did not fight except with words. He advocated debate rather than physical conflict, and if he was a genuine Christian (a question about which many are too quick to write) then he would have been wielding the sword of the Holy Spirit.
Rachel Bitecofer evidently thinks it is fine to undermine Western society quietly and bit by bit, but push back energetically and you are out of order. Look at this paragraph from her Wikipedia biographic al entry to see that she has a degree in ‘political science’ (a phrase that is an insult to biochemists and physicists), was not even able to make an academic career of that, and has never had a proper job in her life:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Bitecofer#Early_life_and_career
James, thanks for continuing to respond. Of course we all want bishops and priests who are faithful and passionate about the mission of the church. But I don’t think you’re really answering my point which is simply to outline what the situation actually is in the C of E, not how some might like it to be. Clergy cannot minister except with the authority of their bishop. That’s part of what it means to be in an episcopal church and that’s what’s recognised at ordination. You may not like hierarchy but it’s there and we can’t choose to ignore it if we want to be in the C of E. I assume all clergy make those ordination vows in good faith. Simultaneously authority is dispersed so that parish clergy, church wardens, PCCs, congregations, synods, all have some within the authority of the bishop. Sadly some parish clergy, of all theological traditions, do try to behave in an authoritarian way and use their limited authority to demand obedience but the structures are there in part to protect congregations from such behaviour.
What about flying bishops?
The vicar at the Church (of England) where I worship is refusing to pay parish share to a bishop who advocates SSSCM (same-sex so-called marriage) and is therefore himself in clear breach of the XXXIX Articles through his failure to uphold holy scripture. The arrangement in this parish is such that ths bishop cannot kick out the vicar unless he commits adultery with a parishioner, is caught stealing from the collection plate, etc. That relation was much the norm pre-war, although the bureaucratic mentality in the hierarchy has progressively reduced it. I therefore do not agree with your assertion as to what the situation in the CoE actually is.
“therefore himself in clear breach of the XXXIX Articles through his failure to uphold holy scripture”
Obviously not true.
Prove it.
Some of us look to the Scriptures and make a few observations:
– far from embracing celibacy as a rule, Scripture cautions against seeing it in that light at all. Therefore suggesting it as a rule for some of the faithful (e.g. gay people) rather than part of calling (e.g. for Bishops or priests or nuns) looks misguided at best.
(Matthew 12, Matthew 19, Matthew 23, 1 Corinthians 7, 1 Timothy 5, 1 Peter 2, 1 John 4)
– marriage is shown as a natural consequence of, and channel for, sexual desire. Attempts to cast it primarily as a cosmic metaphor are out of step with most discussion of marriage, and needless to say out of character with how God gives instruction to his people.
(Genesis 2, Ecclesiastes 4, 1 Corinthians 7)
– the Biblical expectations of marriage in the New Testament in particular places emphasis on equality and mutual respect (Paul’s discussion of both spouses having authority over each other’s body is quite revolutionary). Women are not to be used by men for social or religious convenience.
(1 Corinthians 6)
– the key question is not about what is permitted. It is about what we should do. This is why Jesus fulfills the law, and this is why he so often turns around the Pharisees’ questions about whether something is permitted
(Mark 2, Romans 13)
So if you accept that gay people exist (that is to say there are people who are gay and cannot become straight) then you end up either arguing for a celibacy rule when Scripture warns against that, pushing gay people into straight marriages no matter how incongruous that is with the vision of respect in marriage we see in Scripture, or arguing that gay marriage is the appropriate way to channel same-sex sexual desire just like straight marriage is the way to channel opposite-sex sexual desire. Consequently saying that a bishop who advocates for same-sex marriage is failing to uphold scripture is obviously not true.
You ignore Leviticus 18 and Romans 1, however.
AB sees there as being only two options: there are ‘people who are gay’ and there are not ‘people who are gay’. There are obviously more options. There are not ‘people’ tout court at all, as though our entire long life were synchronic not diachronic (he seems to talk as though everyone were in their 30s, whereas only a minority is).
There are babies who are asexual, children likewise, teenagers who are unsettled as yet, then there are people who have gone through life circumstances and been affected by these in their identity as it has now become (as opposed to their essence or genetics). None of these ‘is gay’ as such, and only the final category of the four ‘is’ ever ‘gay’ at all (for a portion of their lives, but not in essence).
AB’s biblical presentation was notable for leaving out so much of the most centrally relevant biblical material of all, while also importing historically eccentric contemporary presuppositions into an alien biblical world.
Well, Anthony if you insist we can add to the argument that men who are married to women don’t have a free pass to sleep with other men (despite the Greco-Roman cultural expectations that this was fine). I don’t think it’s especially relevant to our discussions, but that’s ok.
They don’t have a free pass to sleep with anyone other than their wives, but if you want to add irrelevancies the weather is nice today.
You brought up Leviticus and Romans 1…
Do you consider them irrelevant to God’s view of gay sexuality?
Christopher Shell:
As usual, a lot of verbiage to obfuscate simple facts, viz. that just as the majority of people are heterosexual (“straight” in colloquial parlance), i.e. their sexual attractions are consistently to (some) people of the opposite sex, so a small minority of people are homosexual (“gay” in colloquial parlance), i.e. their sexual attractions are consistently to people of the same sex, and that even if change of sexual orientation is not impossible, it is – in adult males, at any rate – decidedly the exception, not the rule.
Acknowledgement of that reality does not necessitate denying that babies and young children are asexual, or that sexuality during the teenage years is often fluid, nor does it imply the pretence that everyone is in their 30s, so I don’t know why you keep on raising those irrelevancies.
Well Anthony, Leviticus 18 and Romans 1 are talking about men who sleep with and are married to women (and in Romans 1 the equivalent women) and saying that they are wrong to also sleep with men: Leviticus says do not lie with a male as with a woman, and Romans warns against abandoning the natural relations they already have. If you read St John Chrysostom on this he’s very clear, and in fact it’s central to the argument he advances in his homily on Romans, that the people being talked about do not have an excuse of being denied legitimate intercourse. The inference of that is that if there is a group being so denied, then they are different to who is being talked about here, and we have to look elsewhere in Scripture to guide us when it comes to their questions.
I cannot see any textual evidence to support your claim.
And it is entirely absent from Paul’s citation of Leviticus 20.13 in 1 Cor 6.9 and 1 Tim 1.10.
Nonsense, Adam. Leviticus 18 says that man must not lie with man as with woman – meaning for sexual gratification. It is twisting the scripture to suggest that this applies only to men who *do* lie down with women.
Part of Romans 1 reads “since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.” How can you apply this verse to distinguish homosexual relations from bisexual ones?
In our brave new culture nobody will censure you for having sex with whoever you want. If you don’t like what the Bible has to say, just don’t go to church.
People are precious souls. Ergo, it is obvious that they should go to church and not be advised that it is fine not to. However, given that they go to church, they should also realise the seriousness of it, that it is not all a game. We do not pick and choose based on selfish desire, since we are creatures who should be in awe of the creation and creator.
Christopher, I am merely suggesting that heretics who refuse to change their mind after being fully informed not go to church.
Repenting is a much preferable suggestion.
Well Ian, in 1 Corinthians 6 the “men who have sex with men” are put in a list alongside the sexually immoral. St Paul later in the passage makes clear what he’s referring to with sexually immoral – sleeping with prostitutes, and making the point that simply being ‘free’ because of the Gospel is not a licence to sleep with prostitutes. I think that adds weight to my interpretation that the men who have sex with men here are doing so in addition to being married, not instead of it. Paul is closing down adultery loopholes. And in general, I don’t think you can take these sin lists without taking a good steer from Romans 13 where Paul explains why “Love your neighbour as yourself” is a summary of the commandments: it’s because love does no harm to a neighbour. Engaging in gay sex whilst married does harm, just as more standard adultery does harm – it’s a betrayal of your partner. But who is the neighbour being harmed with two gay people entering into a relationship and marriage with each other? My reading seems (to me at least) to be coherent. I can’t see it with yours.
Hang on, Adam: are you claiming that if I say ‘Don’t commit adultery, and don’t have male-male sex’, that because I have put those two things together, I must be referring to the same thing?
That is not very persuasive logic. It is really well established, including by gay and pro-gay scholars, and Paul and all other first century Jews (including Jesus) rejected male-male sex whatever its form—and did so on the basis of God’s creation of humanity as male and female.
It is strange that we have to go over this really well-established point *yet again*. Would you like a list of quotations?
Adam, NT scholars would not give that the time of day, because
(1) you have ignored their extensive labours as though the thoughts of nonexperts matter more than those of experts, and short thoughts more than detailed analyses;
(2) they agree that the Leviticus vocabulary in 1 Cor 6 is crucial to interpretation;
(3) your thoughts began by omitting reference to the main texts;
(4) you refer to your own theory that married men are addressed here -as though weight could be ‘added’ to that – but that is obviously only the case if it had weight in the first place;
(5) The idea that something can be interpreted by what it stands next to in the list means that -for example- listing theft and lying together makes them interpretable by reference to each other. But if that is the best attempt at an argument (one also deployed, or similar, by Matthew Vines), there cannot be too many weighty available possible arguments;
(6) If there are to be only a few items in the list, it is far likelier that he will choose more general terms and minimal overlaps;
(7) The idea that the very general term pornoi refers *only* to those who sleep with prostitutes is not justified by the word’s meaning or by the text or by common sense. An illustration by its nature does not exhaust all possibilities, and may exhaust only a minority of them.
Ian, if the view is that there’s nothing really to discuss because God created male and female, then shouldn’t we follow through the logic on that? It’s an argument that homosexuality is either not real or real but trivial. And therefore we should strongly encourage people who are gay to stop that, change their orientation, and embrace heterosexual marriages (just like their straight counterparts). The problem is you all shy away from that when confronted with it, and no wonder when we remember the disastrous failure that was the ex-gay movement, and it’s implosion over a decade ago.
Such things implode depending on the degree of pressure from cultural norms. Cultural norms vary whereas you are treating them as a constant.
Authority in a diocese doesn’t flow like a fountain from a bishop. Bishops do not dispense all graces and gifts, although some imagine this. Such a Cyprianic, monarchical idea has no basis in the New Testament where ‘episkopos’ and ‘presbyteros’ are really synonyms. Bishops are essentially senior presbyters who are appointed to exercise trans-parochial oversight. In this they deserve respect but not fawning or unquestioning obedience. Being a bishop doesn’t make you a better preacher, teacher or leader – the Holy Spirit is not so bound. Bishops are bound to the laws and canons of the Church and to the teaching of the Gospel. Where bishops like Lane, Cottrell and Sentamu have failed to uphold that doctrine and have acted badly toward their fellow clergy, they have forfeited respect. The same with people like Dakin who alienated many clergy and ran up a huge bill on NDAs.
If we followed your counsel of obedience and subservience, Tim, these abuses would never have been known.
James, please do me the courtesy of reading what I have actually written and respond to that. Nowhere do I state that all graces flow from a bishop, or that we should be subservient, and I clearly state that there is dispersed authority involving lay people as well. So I cannot be advocating a Cyprian-style episcopacy. In fact, in my experience of some provinces of the AC evangelical bishops can be amongst the most authoritarian in the exercise of episcopacy. However in the C of E it is simply the case that clergy only minister with the licence or permission of their bishop. I don’t claim that’s the way ministry was organised or validated in the various strands of NT evidence, (insofar as it can be discerned) but it is how things have developed in the C of E. So perhaps your argument is not so much with me than with the Church? And I assume that ordination vows are taken seriously all round. So I’m not defending those who teach otherwise or ignore Canon Law.
I suggest that we now conclude this part of the thread and move on.
Tim, you have entirely missed my point that bishops like Lane, Sentamu, Dakin and Cottrell have seriously failed their fellow clergy and have acted in a high handed and inperious way – and you want to make bishops inmune from criticism. This has NEVER been how the Church of England has conducted its ways.
You have also ignored the fact that the bishops – basically a self-selected clique – act in lockstep (look how they are completely out of step with the great majority of Anglicans on Brexit) and are seeking a backdoor way of changing the doctrine of marriage, undermining the position of General Synod.
This you completely miss the fact that ordination vows are to uphold the doctrine of the Church – not to undermine it. Clerical obedience is “in all things right and lawful” – not “My Lord Bishop – right or wrong!”
You want to exempt them from criticism. Just like Boxer in “Animal Farm”. “I must work harder.”
I suggest you consider these facts in the light of the Gospel.
As Christians, we are all called to come under authority. Discernment is needed when coming under those who seek to exercise spiritual as opposed to heirarchal and or managerial authority, even collective authority.
What are the primary metrics or parameters for such discernment for Christian fellowship, leading and following?
If I were a young family man, a graduate of, say, Oak Hill, I’m unsure that I could come under the spiritual authority of many bishops, let alone the direction of theological travel of the CoE. I know of one such person who came away, after speaking to a couple of bishops and discerning their theology.
It is doubtful that any Archbishop could turn the ship around in one generation.
They cannot turn it around at all if there is zero backtracking.
I cannot possibly let pass unremarked a recent suggestion from
The LibDem Conference that all social media Posts should come with
an Health Warning, much like those on tobacco products.
Perhaps Galatians 5:15 with a damaged heart and a bee photo.
Chrysostom in his Homily In the style of the Proverbs suggest observing
small creatures like the bee says,
“Do you not see how the bee dies upon the sting? By that animal God instructs us not to grieve our neighbours. For we ourselves receive death first. For by striking them perhaps we have irritated and pained them for a little time, but we ourselves shall not live any longer, even as that animal will not”.
At the very least our own hearts are damaged and weakened, perhaps irreparably something dies “.
Maybe others might have other suggestions of a homespun folk
Wisdom or a new modern proverb.
Shalom.
Discernment in Proverbs in parallel.
https://www.gotquestions.org/Proverbs-26-4-5.html
Was not Jesus the exemplar in the exercise of this discernment?
Our hearts are deceitful above all things, which makes discernment even more necessary in its exercise, rather than no discernment at all.
Our hearts are idol factories. Who or what contends for for our hearts? Above, and as a displacement, a replacement, for our Triune God in Christ Jesus, the great knower and revealer of hearts.
Thanks Geoff, I do agree with the sentiments of your proffered article
and that debate is often required to establish what is truth.
However, I think that we all to often forget is the wisdom of Him who is Wisdom itself.
Matt.5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
5:45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven:
The foolish woman pulls down her own house.
We all to often forget that God’s house must be a House of Prayer for all people. The good the bad and the ugly.
One cannot often debate or argue folks into the Kingdom as Paul found in Athens.
There is a more excellent way.
Mat 7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it
It was said of the prophet Daniel that the “wisdom of the gods is in him”.
and that “he was of an excellent spirit”.
In our “looking”we need to search for the road less travelled.
Shalom.
The announcement may be imminent if sufficient agreement can have been found among the 17.
The composition of the 17 is potentially Machiavellian. The world’s agenda that diversity is not diverse at all but comes down to gender and pigmentation (the world’s own obsessions, which Gal 3.28 long ago rendered healthily secondary) has been swallowed in a backward step. The other thing it comes down to is position on LLF. LLF is a black hole that eats up everything else in sight, so that those concerned with it end up thinking of little else. The discussion of Religion Media Centre (or was it Holy Smoke?) put things at 8 ”progressive” vs 4 ”traditionalist” (we only support things ”because” they are old) – a strange ‘balance’ but stranger was the fact that it was not commented on. It was ensured by the way Abp Welby set up the fiendishly complicated rules for the composition of the CNC – so that liberals would have the majority without anyone being able to work that out or analyse it easily because of the sheer deliberate and possibly Macchiavellian complexity.
It is expected to come down to one vote, and that the vote of (e.g.) the Ghanaian Professor or another of the Anglican Communion representatives.
The interviews are perfectly likely to swing things, and indeed did so last time.
I do not expect the Bishop of Bath and Wells or of Salisbury to be appointed. For any male to be appointed (and Bp Harries has now joined himself to the number that seem almost to be saying that the worst available woman choice is better than the best available man choice) they would need to be absolutely outstanding rather than Hobson’s choice.
The other thing we should note is that people are referring to a ‘list’ which in fact is non existent (e.g. Andrew Graystone on Holy Smoke). The wholly imaginary list has the contents the media would like it to have. Rachel Treweek is highlighted by Cathy Newman because that is the choice she and her worldview and culture would prefer.
The media’s lists (which are imaginary) have intended to be self fulfilling prophecies, and may well become so.
After all, look how many political leaders and church leaders the media have brought down recently – and how the frequency of this is accelerating.
Outrage would ensue if the media lists were barking up the wrong tree – as they did with the Pope and have sometimes done with the Archbishop.
Also note that media presence alone puts an individual on ‘the list’ – Bp Hudson-Wilkin.
Also note that this happens especially when an individual is black or female or (best of all) both. This is their system of morality.
Also note that a plea that one is not intending to stand as a candidate is no impediment in this. See what RHW said in January.
You see many, many examples of dishonesty above.
(The bullying and sidelining of those who can actually attract numbers -conservative evangelicals, who must not under any circumstances be allowed more than a bishop or two, and then grudgingly- by those -more elite- who largely cannot is also seen in the predictable recent conclusions that the Bishops of Ebbsfleet and Beverley have a preposterously large number of parishes and travelling to do. It is the former group whom the Anglican Communion (less its haemorrhaging portion) recognise as being in tune with them. But what is that when you can be in tune with your surrounding culture which has proven so beneficial for family life and Christian character…?
As to turn-and-turn-about conservative/liberal, liberals *as a body* scarcely even existed before Honest To God; they were obstructive in the latter 1970s without providing anything better; and what have they achieved creatively? The liberal impetus is to merge somewhat into culture, which had predictable effects in a short space of time on the Methodists, URC, and many episcopals.)
I’m delighted to see that various contributors have written an interesting book reflecting on new teaching about sex and marriage. Delighted that John Inge, former chaplain at Harrow no less, is one of the editors and writes about the change in our understanding of the NT texts. Perhaps you already stock this one Christopher?
https://canterburypress.hymnsam.co.uk/books/9781786226693/created-for-love
Why does being a Chaplain at Harrow qualify someone? The title is confused, since it appears to collapse love into sex, so that is not an auspicious start.
Ah I think someone said that Conservative Evangelicals wouldn’t even bother to read it. Your response seems to confirm that Ian.
Talk about judging a book by its cover …..
The collapsing of ‘love’ into ‘sex’ (‘love is love’; ‘alas, alas, that ever love was sin’) is firstly unintelligent, secondly culture-bound (conformist, and conformist to a particularly cynical trend), and thirdly philistine. Fourthly, it is deaf to the making of this point many times in the past. But above all, it is lacking in awe and sense of the sacred.
One of the editors, Theo Hobson, according to his latest Tablet piece, wants virtually a free for all in Anglican sexual ethics. His stunning justification for such a shallow move from sacred to mundane is that people (in his circles, which it goes without saying are privileged) are acting thus anyway, so….
A singular piece of ‘reasoning’, but unfortunately not a singularly good one.
From what I know of the other writers, there will be broad agreement on that kind of thing. It’s very Not The Nine O’Clock News.
These are the people (rather than the saints and apostles) who are now claiming their path (rather than that of the saints and apostles) is better than any alternative.
Rather as though an entire culture or world had sought out spiritual enlightenment earnestly, and then had a brainwave – ‘I know, let’s just conform to our animal natures!’.
Wisdom.
Again, a very unscholarly approach. You condemn the whole book without bothering to read any of it. You judge it by a title that was no doubt chosen by the publisher rather than the authors. Your claim to be some kind of scholar is very sketchy indeed. And so we must take everything you say with a pinch of salt.
Andrew, you have repeatedly been asked to say your own scholarly credentials that would enable you to be in a position to judge the scholarship of others.
The book will not be taken seriously because so many scholarly articles and commentaries have already been written at a higher level than this.
Advances are made in scholarship.
Because of the intricate attention per-word that the New Testament has already been subjected to, they are harder to make in New Testament than elsewhere.
If they were made, they would involve a change in conclusion. Millions of such changes are possible for any given issue. The vast majority of these do not coincidentally overlap with the prevailing culture. The odds of their doing so are long. Departures in stated belief (heresies etc) however almost always overlap with the prevailing culture.
Ergo, when proposed changes overlap with the prevailing culture, we know why, and therefore it becomes hard to take them seriously.
It is made even more difficult to take them seriously when they involve upending texts, and making not merely changes but large changes.
Those odds are then multiplied by the problem of having individuals other than leading scholars make the calls and exclude leading scholars.
That is before we come to the chapters on other than biblical material.
I am sure the NT writers are grateful for being told that they really meant something quite different to what they said, but simultaneously puzzled by the identity of the challengers and why they should be expected to take them seriously.
Christopher you are hilarious.
I have given my qualifications here before. Graduate and postgraduate work in Theology.
But more basic than that, YOU are making comments about a book you have not even read. That is unscholarly.
Come back when you have read it.
I don’t mean that – I mean why is the less qualified trying to sit above the more? I have read much from this stable and much of it is impressionistic and word processed. But you will not find NT students reading books on that level when they can spend their time reading commentaries and articles. A bit like an adult would not read the Beano. And they will also be suspicious for the reasons already stated which you did not address. I have previously tried critically annotating books from that stable by C Bell, A Davison (since risen to much better things), and so on, but every page has annotations and it is not worth it.
What you have not given is any justification for your puzzling elevation of these authors above those who are more qualified in the area.
Come back when you have read the book Christopher.
I certainly think all the authors in the book are more qualified to write on the matter than you are.
Perhaps you would do us the favour of outlining the change in ‘our’ understanding of the NT texts?
Anthony I’m somewhat surprised by your question. You must surely be aware of the developments in understanding the clobber texts as well as wider understanding of the implications of the whole Christian message?
The book is worth a read. The chapters are not over long and I’m not going to summarise. Read the book. John Inge is a real scholar, and knows the field of this debate from every angle. When John speaks he knows of what he speaks and of the burning fire of God’s love.
Andrew, I am not convinced there have been any ‘developments’ in understanding these texts. There have been claims of such, but almost all mainstream liberal critical scholars have rejected such claims as wishful thinking.
I have started reading the book; it is incredibly poor.
John Inge might have some scholarly credentials, but as I have pointed out elsewhere, his thinking on this is poor and incoherent.
Glad we can disagree Ian. That’s part of the basis of what it is to be Anglican
Andrew G, I am not clear why there is any virtue in disagreeing on matters of fact. No serious liberal scholar has been persuaded by these attempts to re-read the key texts. And the key text of all remains the creation account, humanity made male and female in the image of God, which is the consistent basis for marriage and sexual intimacy.
If there is agreement on nothing (which is equivalent to an absence of principle and to the tolerance that DL Sayers called ‘despair’), then that has the wonderful effect of allowing all positions however preposterous a place at the table. Sorted.
Andrew,
Shall we discuss the Levitical (‘clobber’) verses, then, and you can use the extra knowledge you have gained from reading this book to opposwe my position?
Anthony if you want to treat all of the Levitical verses on every subject as something you want to abide exactly by now then please go ahead. I don’t treat Leviticus that way.
Why would one discuss OT verses before NT? Shouldn’t it be the other way round?
As for ‘clobber’ verses, there is no such thing of course, as is probably realised. There are just verses. ‘Clobber verses’ are just the awkward ones that people would prefer to ward off before they appear.
Leviticus (18:22) describes man lying with man as with woman as toevah.
Do you take “man lying with man as with woman” as meaning for sexual gratification?
If you believe that this verse applies only to men who do lie with women, does it concern you that you are taking issue with an interpretive tradition upheld in Judaism for a thousand years and the in Christianity for two thousand?
What do you believe toevah means?
Do you accept that this is the opinion of God?
D you agree that this verse is one of several practices that are described as common among the Canaanites and for which Israel is being permitted to drive them out of Canaan?
It’s only an interpretative tradition because it first coheres with the factors such as you mentioned.
So Anthony you do abide by every word of Leviticus? Yes or no …..
No faithful Christian who takes the Bible as their final authority ‘abides by every word’ of any book—because of the basic truth that no scripture was written *to* us, even though it was all written *for* us.
‘Abiding by every word’ is not the test of the authority of Scripture; it is a test of whether you are a pre-modern subsistence farmer in a Bronze Age agrarian economy.
Do I abide by every word of Leviticus? If you clarify what you mean by ‘abide’ then I shall give a response that includes the Yes or No you request. I do not *keep* every word in Leviticus, because the sacrificial system specified there ran only during the era from Sinai to the Crucifixion. But do you believe that God no longer views man lying with man as with woman as toevah? Or do you believe that, at the Crucifixion, God changed the way he is willing to deal with people who come to regard their actions as toevah?
Anthony I think this article from a Rabbi provides a better way of considering the meaning of toevah both in the passage you indicate and the wider context.
I’m sure you will think differently, and if so, then we will need to disagree. Disagreement is allowed.
Hit send too soon. Here is the link
https://outreach.faith/2023/07/rabbi-danya-ruttenberg-the-clobber-verses-used-against-lgbtq-people-are-open-to-a-diversity-of-interpretations/
I am aware that toevah is applied to a variety of things in the Old Testament not all of which are dreadful; and therefore that it has a range of meanings. Which meaning is intended in Leviticus 18:22 is made clear by two factors skated over by Danya Ruttenberg:
* the fact that this action warrants the death penalty according to a verse two chapters further on (so it is regarded by the Levitical author as very serious).
* the fact that this sexual action appears in a list of actions – all but one sexual – for which the Israelites are told the Canaanites are being driven out (so it is not about idolatry).
You are as free to continue to duck the questions I put to you above as I am to disagree with you. I merely point out your failure to reply.
So you think it’s an action that still deserves the death penalty? And if not, why has that changed?
Do you think God was wrong to decree it in ancient Israel?
As I have said before, I think that part of Leviticus is a misrepresentation of the true nature of God as shown to us by Jesus Christ.
Will you answer my question?
Andrew, presumably you therefore think that Scripture is not ‘God’s word written’, and you do think it is both important and necessary to expound the NT in a way which contradicts the OT?
Scripture takes the view that all things it categorises as wrongful are worthy of death and it is only by God’s mercy that the penalty is delayed some years. But it is a bit much of you to repeat a demand for an answer after the number of my questions you have deliberately avoided above.
What is the primary relevance of Leviticus at all, given that Paul
(a) supersedes
(b) is founded on
Leviticus?
The task for Andrew is to exegete Romans and 1 Corinthians. At the least, this includes tapping the wisdom of those best qualified who already have done and continue to do so.
Christopher: Leviticus is more explicit about the acts involved, and for genuine believers it discloses God’s opinion of those acts. God’s opinion isn’t going to change because of the Crucifixion – what changes is how God deals with people. That is why I prefer to discuss Leviticus with those who take different views. But if you wish to ask Andrew some questions in parallel about Romans and Corinthians, I would welcome it.
Goodness it gets tedious saying the same thing over and over again on this site when the same people ask the same questions over and over again. Especially when I believe what the great majority of Christians all over the world believe.
Yes, scripture contains God’s written word.
Yes, you have to interpret it, and use some parts of scripture to interpret others.
Yes, humans were involved in its transmission and therefore it is subject to all kinds of human traits. Hyperbole, simile, literary emphases, lost in translation etc etc.
Yes, you always have to ask ‘what did they believe then that made them express themselves in the way that they did?’
Yes, the fullness of God was disclosed in Jesus Christ and yes he modified what was written in the Hebrew Scriptures.
Yes, the worst kind of human abuse involves putting vulnerable people to death who don’t conform to what some think of as the norm.
Yes, all this needs saying again and saying again….
Yes, this is Orthodox Christian belief….
“Scripture takes the view that all things it categorises as wrongful are worthy of death and it is only by God’s mercy that the penalty is delayed some years”
That is the complete opposite of the Gospel. That God is a monster.
If that is what Ian actually believes then he needs to be clear or else condemn it for what it is – appalling.
Andrew, you have no sense of the horror of sin. It is so terrible that it took the death of God’s son, no less, to atone for. The gospel is the good news that this has taken place and that in Christ we can experience the love that God has for his Son and the commitment that he has to redeeming his creation, rather than what we deserve for our sins. (John the Baptist told people to “flee from the wrath that is to come.”)
One sin, propagating, was enough to wreck this world.
You were Exeter’s teacher, and you do not understand these things?
Why would what is true be maximally pleasant and tailor-made to our own preferences?
It is obvious that it would not be.
What we preach is what is true / that for which there is evidence that it is true. What else can one preach?
It is obvious that the real world will not in every respect fit our preferences. We are fortunate if it does so in a large number of ways.
Isn’t all that obvious?
People already know what their ideal scenario is. Thus there is no need to preach that. Whereas if there is news of any kind (good news, warnings) people need to be informed of these.
Andrew Godsall
“Scripture takes the view that all things it categorises as wrongful are worthy of death and it is only by God’s mercy that the penalty is delayed some years”
That is the complete opposite of the Gospel. That God is a monster.”
1) There is a major difference in interpreting these issues between the OT and the NT because the OT applies to a situation of a secular nation which in a way God is ‘ring-fencing’ from pagan neighbours and their practices as part of the preparation for Jesus’ coming as Messiah and Saviour. Whereas in the NT, after the Crucifixion and Resurrection, there is a transposition from a secular-style nation to a ‘kingdom not of/from this world’ which people join by spiritual rebirth and faith and not by ordinary birth. The OT death penalty is a necessary part of that ‘ring-fencing’ – in the NT the Church does not do death penalties but simply exclusion, and even then as far as possible seeking a change of heart and return to fellowship. In a case like homosexuality where the basic ethics of the situation are confirmed in the NT, the implication is that basically the deliberately disobedient person is putting himself in a position of choosing spiritual death, of being ‘dead to God’ by his own choice. This point is made in a rather neglected text that comes shortly after the famous John 3; 16 and says “This is the judgement – they choose the darkness” by choosing to basically tell God “Go jump – we know better than you”.
The OT death penalty is appropriate as an indicator of the seriousness of the rejection of God that is involved. In NT terms we are warning that the disobedience amounts to a choosing of spiritual death over spiritual life.
There is an accepted ceiling for the appointment of conservative evangelical bishops – namely, that there be no such bishops, except for those operating outside the diocesan structures. However great their gifts and abilities, that is it.
There will now be another ceiling, namely that placed on nonbelievers in LLF/PLF who see it as a backward step. Is their ceiling Archbishop of York, Bishop of Durham, or what?
(Were this an Agatha Christie, it would be solved thus:
The two C of E bishops were clearly both keen to sit on the committee and could form a central bloc there. Having done so, they survey the view. Years ahead of indecision on LLF is neither intrinsically a pleasant prospect nor one that coheres with their own preferences. They therefore want to cut to the chase, carrying on the impetus started by the 44-bishops letter 2023, which anyway gives the impression of substantial episcopal consensus. They vote in someone who will be fully committed to a sexually-modern and feminist agenda [their circles will contain many who are not seriously contemplating the leader not being female], a step which is a Rubicon hard to return from if even harder to play out without a gross mess. If that person can be of such an age as to be in charge for 8 years, that will leave the stage free for the younger of the two bishops to be next in line for 7 years. The turn-and-turn-about has become catholic-liberal because the engine room and energy, the evangelical masses, have been relegated by the powers even further than they already were, to the extent that they can now coherently occupy no see in the top 5, and possibly not any that are diocesan without showing commitment to ‘the cause’ [as opposed to the Christian cause]. Pure fantasy, of course.)
The other alternative is to consider that both ‘sides’ will almost certainly be absolutely furious if one of their own is not appointed, which could have unity implications. This will almost certainly be considered. A total of one bishop is both
(a) on the signatories of ‘The Church of England’s Doctrine of Marriage’ (2023); and missing from the 44 bishops who signed the pro PLF/ pro ministers’ civil SSM letter in November of that year;
(b) on record as furiously opposing something called ‘conversion therapy’ and being welcoming of their radically revisionist suffragan.
The tack of being strongly in favour of both parties (a clear winner) has not occurred to anyone else. But it is only in Christie-world that it would be an actual tactic.
I do not agree with Hobson’s-choice choices nor with horses for courses. In fact, the best archbishops have always been those who had stature in their own right (50% of recent appointments) rather than the horses for courses (the other 50%). But never before has there been such a certainty of fury from some quarters if anyone not very suitable to both sides is appointed.
The choice of Dame Sarah Mullally does indeed enable the subsequent appointment of Bp Graham Usher 7 years down the line for a 7 year term.
She is a nice person and also competent, and a leader in anti- assisted suicide campaigning.
The following are completely out of court:
-Feminist orientation
-NHS is a leading problem in spreading unscientific gender theory. And in general in touchy-feeliness trumping reality.
-To have held top office in the NHS and not to be able to speak more articulately, more coherently and above all more compasionately than the following chilling blog quotation: ‘pro-choice rather than pro-live [sic], although if it were a continuum I would be somewhere along it moving towards pro-life where it relates to my choice, and then enabling choice when it relates to others’.
-A wish to bless same sex marriages that have taken place, even for Christian leaders. Even for the un”married”, ‘there will be the opportunity for these people in a same-sex relationship to come and have that relationship blessed. And of course some of those will be sexual.’
I can scarcely think of any bishop who has gone further down this awful line of cultural accommodation to the very worst and most anti-family initiatives of the culture.
That she is not a theologian will inevitably lead to trouble, accusations of over-promotion, and the comparative crushing of those who can think in that way.
Generally the main things that prove successful in top office are holiness and brains.
(In the years since Fisher, the Communion has degenerated from international statesmanship to concentrating on microaggressions. Horizons degenerating from broad and sweeping to minuscule. The appointment will not counteract the downside of the over-feminisation of the culture and national church.
One good aspect of her appointment is that she will share the incredible energy of so many of her predecessors.)