Where is discontent in the Church of England?


As I write the title for this piece, I feel rather hesitant. Why is it worth talking about discontent? Isn’t it best left, so that we can focus on things that are positive? Sometimes that is true—but the difficulty with ignoring the discontent, or other negative feelings, is that they then fester, and become worse. And the reality is that the discontent is out there, and being expressed, and it invites some kind of reflection.

There is also a theological reason not to focus on the negative. All through scripture we find descriptions of nay-sayers, and we also find that the nay-saying involves either a focus on the human rather than the divine, or simply a lack of faith and vision. But there is rather a lot of discontent in the C of E at the moment, and I think we are better off addressing rather than ignoring it. Once I have done that in this post, I promise that normal service will be resumed, and in my next post I will return to focussing on the wonders of what God has done, as set out in the Scriptures, and reflect on how we might inspire our congregations with the compelling vision of the goodness and grace of God in Jesus Christ by the power of his Spirit.


The issue of discontent has been raised for me by two articles, one shared by others on social media, and one shared by me.

The one shared by others calls itself ‘A love letter to the Church of England‘, but it seems rather devoid of love for anyone or anything. It begins:

It is a truth universally acknowledged that a lot of people are fed up with the Church of England. It is important to say (in the name of inclusivity) that there are also other churches available where you can be having a tiresome time, but I’ll stay in my own lane just for now.

In the last fifteen years or so we have witnessed an evangelical takeover in The Church of England: Steaming backwards out of Holy Trinity Brompton, creating an enormous bow wave of Pioneer Ministry, Alpha, and Church Planting. A tsunami of initiative that has, ironically, pushed people out from the edges of the church where they were happily lurking, and into the neat lycra clad bosoms of a thousand yoga teachers, all biding their time like bears, mats at the ready, waiting for the salmon to swim upstream. Many of those who got washed ashore by this wave of evangelicalism have discovered that Yoga is better for their mental wellbeing than spending a Sunday morning listening to two ladies in the middle row bitching about the vicar, to the accompaniment of an old Graham Kendrick song, played on an organ at half speed.  I think it was hoped that we might replace these hopeless pew-warmers with a new community of the committed but so far this doesn’t seem to be panning out, does it? They are in bed on a Sunday morning and they aren’t coming back.

As I read through this long piece (3,000 words long), I had three responses.

The first was a pastoral one: it made me very sad. I don’t know the author (who is a chaplain at Cumbria University based in Lancaster) but it felt to me as though the piece was so full of exhausted and rather bitter cynicism that this is the work of someone who at the very least needs support, probably needs a sabbatical, and likely needs to rethink her approach to ministry. She works part-time as a psychotherapist, and that seems to be to be a good thing.

There are lots of things that can provoke us to cynicism in ministry—resentment at the way we have been treated, disappointment with God, disillusionment in our theological and pastoral thinking, or frustration with the institution of the Church. But if we allow these things to make us cynical, I think it is the death of ministry. Actually, it is the death of vibrant faith, and it needs dealing with, whatever the cause, but it is particularly corrosive for those in stipendiary ministry.


My second response was about the language used here. Why would anyone ordained in the Church of England describe the ministry of others in these kinds of terms? ‘An evangelical takeover’; ‘steaming backwards out of HTB’; she characterises her students as believing that ‘most Christians are farty homophobic bigots whose faith got stuck in the ark’, and appears to agree with them. She claims that ‘much of the church is…homophobic, individualistic, climate denying.’

I wonder when it became acceptable to denigrate fellow Anglicans and fellow Christians publicly in these terms? She is a chaplain at a university—and is mocking the Christian students who might expect her support; they have enough enemies already.

Yesterday on social media the idea that I was giving a talk on the Church’s doctrine of marriage at a city church was described as ‘shitty’ by the previous incumbent. Perhaps clergy have always used this kind of language about one another, but in the past it was private. Social media has dragged this language into public and shone a glaring light on it. But when did Anglican clergy become so lacking in discipline and self-control that they became happy to malign each other in this way in front of the watching world? ‘See how they love one another…’

My third response was to note the serious theological issues at stake here. The author appears to be content to play games with important questions of truth, and delight in goading those who take these things all too earnestly.

I’m more of a Richard Rohr girl. Everything belongs. Everything is sacred. I don’t want to have conversations discussing if people are ‘in or out’. I never did…I went to Christian Union once or twice, but they were all a bit serious and seemed quite focused on not having sex with each other. Which I found annoying…

Back at college chapel, Luisa and I tiptoed in trepidation into a Feminist Theology Conference, full of circle- dancing women pissing off the evangelicals by calling God ‘Christa’. They were all reading Gyn-ecology by Mary Daly.

I think that Richard Rohr stands some way outside any reasonable definition of orthodox Christian faith; he is universalist, panentheist and describes his beliefs as akin to Buddhism. I think that matters, and he wide appeal in the church is corrosive. Having a distinctive sexual ethic has been a hallmark of Christian faith since the early church, and Paul ties this into belief in bodily resurrection in 1 Cor 5, so it is not ‘merely’ ethical. And the sexualising and feminising of God is of huge theological significance, not merely a game to be played. In saying this, I risk being labelled by the author as one of those oh-too-serious Christian Union types. But in fact the Church of England has, in the past, taken these theological issues seriously; if it no longer does, then something big has changed very rapidly in the last few years.

The author came to faith herself in an evangelical context:

At a friend’s baptism in Derby, in February 1992, an evangelist called Gary Gibbs led the altar call in the most time-honoured way possible: “If you want to give your life to The Lord tonight, raise your right hand!” – and I did. And I would do it again.

And yet she now mocks those who stand in the same tradition. Having walked through the door of conversion, she seems to have closed it behind her so that it is no longer available to the students to whom she ministers. I think that is tragic.

My final response it to recognise that there are important issues that need addressing which have played a large part in generating the author’s cynicism, disillusionment and discontent.

As a young female curate in the early 2000’s I regularly had groups of male clergy, black shirted and hostile, turning their backs on me en mass when I walked into rooms and refusing to walk next to me in processions or sit next to me at meals. It was standard. Quite a lot of them were gay men.

That is a hideous experience, and I haven’t experienced anything that could match it. I have, though, experienced prejudice from those of different traditions, and pretty awful manipulation and use of power dynamics in a range of situations. These things need addressing—as long as we can address them without becoming cynical, or spraying our cynicism around the world online.


The second expression of discontent was of a rather different kind.

I am the wife of an Anglican vicar in training and, sometimes, I bitterly miss the Catholic Church. But it’s not for the reasons you might think; it’s got nothing to do with theology or cathedrals. It’s got everything to do with moral courage and spiritual leadership.

When I was asked where I stood on an issue (for example, abortion) I could explain that, as a Catholic, I followed the teachings of the Catholic Church. It did not excuse me from doing my own thinking, but it did mean that my views were not taken as personal. To an abortion advocate, their disagreement was not with me as an individual but with the teachings of the Catholic Church, a global institution with over 1.3 billion members. I was protected.

When I moved to the Church of England, my experience changed completely. I found that when these questions came up, the tone of the conversation was much more vicious and personal. It took me a while to figure out why, but I understand now. Where the Catholic Church teaches clearly on what it believes, the Church of England stays silent…

The Church of England refuses to teach me on the key moral and spiritual matters of today. I am begging you for guidance but you will not provide it. I am left fumbling on a thousand issues and I am frequently overwhelmed. I am trying my best but there are too many questions, and even if I did nothing but read for the rest of my life, I would still run out of time.

And as I am trying to learn about gender and sexuality and abortion and race and Anglicanism, I have the added pressure of knowing that I alone will be under attack if the position I come to doesn’t align with the world’s teaching…I can find more moral clarity from the FTSE 100 than I can from the Church.

At least as interesting as the piece was the range of the 165 comments in response to my posting from it. Some suggested that she was asking the Church to think for her; I don’t think she was, and the assumed individualism in that response very striking. Some saw her complaint as a call for spoon-feeding; I interpreted it as a call for theological leadership.

Others thought that she had unrealistic expectations of having a kind of ‘magisterium’ in the C of E akin to the Catholic Church. But I think there’s a difference between having a magisterium and having courage and clarity. I am constantly amazed when I find people often don’t even realise the C of E has a formal position/doctrine on subject X let alone know what it is. Sadly many such people are clergy! I am not aware of anyone having fallen out of ordination training because, after study and reflection, they decided that they did not actually sign up to the doctrine of the C of E. That seems to be to me implausible and worrying.

There was some important discussion in the thread about whether we can believe in absolute ethical certainties, and the discomfort that some feel with necessary ambiguity. One thread explored the complexity of ethical issues, and the divergence of views in the Church. But it is interesting that we have come to a situation where, on many ethical issues, it appears as though there is little confidence that Christian faith has something distinctive to bring to secular discourse—and that at a time where, arguably, contemporary culture has moved as far from Christian faith as it has been for many decades, even centuries.

The most helpful summary of what is at stake came in a comment from Jeremy Duff:

Its point is that, in the leadership of the Anglican churches, cowardice in not speaking clearly, and projecting that there is no such thing as Christian teaching—on whatever topic—is damaging for people. The contrast with the Catholics is that among Catholics there is a clear articulation of the considered church position. Nobody is then forced to agree with it, follow it, etc. But there is clarity, which for many gives a direction of travel or a reference point. Anglicanism seems to have wandered into a position in which everyone can decide for themselves what the Church teaches.

That is defended within Anglicanism by a false polarity—either it’s a dictatorship or we all decide for ourselves. But that is false. The traditional Christian position has been there is Christian doctrine, and many of us find different aspects of it challenging, outside what we can accept at the moment, a work in progress, and so on. It is as if in Anglicanism folks are either so fragile and self-obsessed that they can’t cope with the idea that there is an ideal which is beyond them, so they have to collapse the idea down to their personal practice or opinion. Or indeed a particular clergy sin in which they want to reject any sense of authority over them (despite ordination vows), or being servants of something bigger than them, and want to be a personal ‘measure of all things’.


There are many other issues to be explored in response to this second expression of discontent, too many for one article. But my main point here is to juxtapose these two. How can both sets of discontent be addressed? Can they? Can these two disparate views even co-exist in one Church with any coherence? Can a house so divided against itself really have a future?

I think these things could co-exist in the past, when two things were in place. First, there were not quite the same pressures from outside that there are now; second, there were not the same pressures from within to change in response to some fundamental challenges to the sustainability of the Church.

When you have an old, precious, porcelain vase, with beautiful decoration, and which is a valuable family heirloom, sitting on your mantelpiece, the fact that it has deep cracks in it does not matter as long as you leave it alone and do not want to pick it up and put it in a new place. But if it needs moving, you are in trouble, as it is not certain that the pieces will hold together and withstand the demands of change that must happen for it to find a new situation.

That feels to me to be the situation the Church of England is at the moment. Yet, if the vase is not moved and cannot change, it is going to be swept off the mantelpiece and smashed to pieces.


DON'T MISS OUT!
Signup to get email updates of new posts
We promise not to spam you. Unsubscribe at any time.
Invalid email address

If you enjoyed this, do share it on social media (Facebook or Twitter) using the buttons on the left. Follow me on Twitter @psephizo. Like my page on Facebook.


Much of my work is done on a freelance basis. If you have valued this post, you can make a single or repeat donation through PayPal:

For other ways to support this ministry, visit my Support page.


Comments policy: Do engage with the subject. Please don't turn this into a private discussion board. Do challenge others in the debate; please don't attack them personally. I no longer allow anonymous comments; if there are very good reasons, you may publish under a pseudonym; otherwise please include your full name, both first and surnames.

275 thoughts on “Where is discontent in the Church of England?”

  1. I think this is a good article. The deficiency in the C of E is at it’s senior levels:

    Lack of leadership based on Scripture – this is the core issue.

    Reply
    • I think Bishop Richard Holloway has it absolutely correct when he writes:
      “The real battle for Christians today is not Armageddon, it is the battle for a sensible approach to that ancient library of books we call the Bible. The Bible was written by human beings, with all the longings, prejudices and illusions that characterise us as a species. It is not an apocalyptic almanac, a mystical code book, an inerrant textbook for living. It is a compendium of a particular people’s struggle with meaning; so it should encourage us to do the same in our day.”
      Leadership is to encourage people to wrestle with that struggle with meaning and to provide signposts and markers on the way. The Anglican approach of seeking those signposts and markers in scripture, tradition, reason and human experience is an excellent way.

      Reply
          • Andrew – I wasn’t aware that `pretty vacant’ was one of Graham Kendrick’s songs – but I think that his songs were one of the reasons I always avoided the CU at our university like the plague.

            (There was also the other major issue – that the CU met on Friday evenings – at the same time as the SNO were playing at the Usher Hall and students could get discount tickets costing 2 pounds to hear the orchestra making a delightful catastrophe out of some well loved tunes. The fact that the CU used these Graham Kendrick numbers – which, at least for me, were worse than pulling teeth – made the choice a `no-brainer’)

          • Yes, Andrew.
            Jesus seems to get up your nose!
            As does God having any authorial, intent, voice, copyright in drafting the title deeds, scripture. He is to be eliminated. Best to invent our own god, pluralistically, synchretistically in our own muddled, confused, image. Ichabod.

          • Hello Jock,
            The reference to title deeds was due to Andrew’s description, more than a year ago, of scripture (and 39 Articles) as the CoE title deeds.
            However, pressed further following land law analogies, his view of scripture shreds the title deeds and pressing the land law analogy further it makes way for *vacant possession* occupation, habitation by trespassers, all and theological sundry.

        • Geoff – there is clearly something that gets up Andrew’s nose – but I haven’t worked out what it is. Maybe you are right that it is basically Jesus that gets up his nose – but it could be the way that the faith has been mis-represented. For now, I’m giving him the benefit of any doubt, because sometimes I find that I do sympathise with his objections to certain things (other times he seems to be attacking what is absolutely fundamental to the Christian faith, though ….).

          Reply
          • Jock,
            Stick around and you’ll find out, by joining up the dots, (even through the gaps, where there is next to no comment on Ian Paul’s New Testament, Gospel, scripture articles) though Andrew seems to comment less regularly. A starting point, would be Andrew’s view of scripture and tracing his theological heroes such as John A T Robinson (indeed his reference to the Bishop Holloway above is a hint) and the influence of Historical/Higher Criticism and post-modernism. I find it deeply significant from someone in, or formerly in, high office of influence (and appointments?) in the CoE. We’ve been here before, seemingly without end.

            But Andrew is in the room to correct me. Thanks, Andrew…I stand to be corrected. I apologize in advance, if you think I’ve misrepresented you.

          • Geoff – may I put in a good word for Richard Holloway?

            I remember, once upon a time, Richard Holloway gave a weird and wacky sermon in a church service broadcast on Radio 4. He was strongly recommending that people engage in copious amounts of fornication and enjoy it. As far as he was concerned, this wasn’t a serious sin. He pointed out in the sermon that evil dictators (such as old Adolf Hitler, who was absolutely faithful to Eva von Braun) tended to be absolutely faithful to their wives. He finished his sermon by exhorting people to go out and enjoy themselves.

            My mother found this utterly outrageous, but then she said, `you know, he didn’t get that from anywhere else, he made it all up by himself, unlike the lavatory man.’

            The `lavatory man’ was her way of referring to Pastor Dan (the lavatory man) from the local Baptist church that she attended (an American from an American `Southern Baptist’ sect), where he didn’t seem to make up any sermon of his own, but usually spouted vacuous nonsense that he had found somewhere on the internet.

            So yes – I kind of entirely agree with you that Richard Holloway is more-or-less satanic, but he seems to be a thinking satanist, who comes up with original satanic thoughts of his own – and this, surely is a good thing.

      • today is not Armageddon, it is the battle for a sensible approach to that ancient library of books we call the Bible.

        BEGGING.

        THE.

        QUESTION.

        Reply
        • Didn’t you realise, S, that in this post-modern world of Biblical revisionism, relativism, this is Andrew subscribing to the new “absolute” : “I think Bishop Richard Holloway has it absolutely correct when he writes:”

          Reply
          • There is absolutely no approach to the bible that doesn’t beg the question. The approach that begs it the most is to say that scripture is inerrant. The only evidence that scripture is inerrant comes from scripture itself.
            All approaches to the status of scripture beg the question in a variety of ways. But to suggest that the books of the bible are somehow different from every other kind of literature is the most fallacious and dishonest.

          • There is absolutely no approach to the bible that doesn’t beg the question.

            Of course there is.

            The only evidence that scripture is inerrant comes from scripture itself.

            But there is a perfectly non-question-begging argument that the Bible must be reliable — I don’t like the word ‘inerrant’, it’s too vague — that does not beg the question. I’ve given it before, but you reject it because it involves God influencing the material world and you don’t think that can happen because you’re a Deist.

            But to suggest that the books of the bible are somehow different from every other kind of literature is the most fallacious and dishonest.

            Is this you officially and unambiguously stating that you do not believe the Bible is any different from other books, ie, it is not inspired by God in any way that couldn’t also be said of other books?

            I ask because I know you keep going on about ‘the range of views of the Bible that are acceptable within Anglicanism’.

            Surely ‘the Bible is no different from any other type of literature’ is well outside that acceptable range?

          • Please do read those range of views S. I have said before where I am on that range. It is well within it, and I don’t intend to go over that ground again.
            Yes, the bible is a reliable expression of the salvation history of those who authored the various books in it.

          • Yes, the bible is a reliable expression of the salvation history of those who authored the various books in it.

            ‘Salvation history’ again. Your term for ‘they made it up’?

            Anyway, you didn’t, I note, Denny that you don’t think the Bible is any different from any other literature in the world. Other more familiar with what the Church of England teaches than I am can decide whether that is within its bounds.

          • I don’t need to deny or affirm anything to you S. but for the avoidance of any doubt I affirm and confirm quite happily that I am within the range of views that are considered acceptable as expressed within official C of E teaching.

            And salvation history is not a term made up by me at all but a term used within biblical studies.

            http://www.oxfordbiblicalstudies.com/article/opr/t94/e854

            https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/german-english/heilsgeschichte

          • I don’t need to deny or affirm anything to you S. but for the avoidance of any doubt I affirm and confirm quite happily that I am within the range of views that are considered acceptable as expressed within official C of E teaching.

            And salvation history is not a term made up by me at all but a term used within biblical studies.

            http://www.oxfordbiblicalstudies.com/article/opr/t94/e854

          • I don’t need to deny or affirm anything to you S. but for the avoidance of any doubt I affirm and confirm quite happily that I am within the range of views that are considered acceptable as expressed within official C of E teaching.

            So you say. But I’d quite like to hear someone who actually knows about it confirm that thinking the Bible is no different from any other book is an acceptable view within the Church of England. It seems highly unlikely to me that it is, but I am no expert.

            And salvation history is not a term made up by me at all but a term used within biblical studies.

            http://www.oxfordbiblicalstudies.com/article/opr/t94/e854

            That definition really doesn’t match up with how you use the term. You seem to mean by it something much more like ‘a record of people’s subjective experiences of searching for salvation’.

          • I’m glad you have read the Oxford Biblical Studies article. It is very informative.

            And if you would like the range of views about the bible confirmed by the official CofE ‘line’ on the matter then you only need to refer to the document I have already referenced for you many times.

          • Here is the opening statement about the bible from the CofE most recent report I have pointed you to many times S. I hope you find it helpful. I agree completely with this.

            “The Bible is a collection of books gathered together over many centuries. It contains laws, poems, stories, letters, wisdom sayings, and prophetic pronouncements. Whenever you read it, every word you read has a human history. Every one of them was written by a human hand, in a particular place and time. Every one was touched by many other hands before it ended up in this collection we call the Bible. The Bible therefore rings with the voices of all kinds of people. It is shaped by their differing backgrounds, their cultures, their assumptions and their experiences – including their affections and desires, their intimate relationships, and their sense of their own identity.
            Our own reading of the Bible is no less shaped by history. Our backgrounds, our experience and our assumptions influence how we read – and so do the background, experience and assumptions of all the people who taught us how to read it. When we read, we are as entangled in the tapestry of history as is the Bible.
            At the same time, Anglicans believe that the Bible is, in a classic phrase, ‘God’s Word written’, and that God works through our reading of it. We believe these humans’ words are words inspired by God (2 Timothy 3.16) and that we can hear God speak to us through them.
            On the whole, Anglicans have tried to hold all these claims together. We do not think that the Bible would somehow be more the product of God’s guiding hand if it were less the product of human hands. Our reading of it in the present would not be more capable of serving God’s purposes for our lives if it could somehow be less our own activity.

      • It [the bible] is a compendium of a particular people’s struggle with meaning,

        Yes it is that but so is everyone’s ‘religious’ thought since dawn of time. Leadership is to preserve and celebrate the truth once it has been discovered.

        Reply
        • Yes and truth is discovered by the use of scripture, tradition, reason and experience. And as time moves on, we discover more. So we discern more of the truth. At least St Paul was aware that we now see through a glass darkly. Our claim truth will always be partial,…..

          Reply
          • Nobody else has commented so that is simply an incorrect statement.

            No, it’s a correct statement, it’s just trivially correct if you only consider this discussion. But I’m not only considering this discussion; in past discussions on this website you have claimed that certain documents are authoritative and they claim has been disputed. So I would rather not take your word for it. If a document, or a body, does have the authority to set doctrine, it should be fairly easy to point to where that authority is defined.

            What we do know is that the piece I have quoted from is published by the Archbishops Council so is official C of E material and is very current.

            Does the Archbishop’s Council (or is it Archbishops’ Council?) have the authority to define doctrine in the Church of England? Can you point to where it is given that authority?

            Is absolutely everything published by the Archbishop’s Council authoritative doctrine of the Church of England?

        • The language has a deliberate ambiguity. The Bible is not a book about people’s struggle to find meaning. It may at times reveal their struggle with the meaning they find. However, overwhelmingly, the Bible is a book which gives meaning. It is not man’s search for meaning but God’s revelation of meaning,

          Inerrant is not the best of words but it is the best available to us. The authority Jesus and the NT writers give to the OT is clear. Jesus says not one jot or tittle will pass from the law until it is all accomplished. The constant quotation of the OT in the NT reveals how it was valued. The writer to the Hebrews believed the accuracy of Scripture was evident in what it did not say as well as what it did – Melchesidek was given no ancestry precisely that he may be a type of Christ.

          Andrew reveals his heart before God when he belittles his word and approves others doing so.

          Reply
          • Oh I don’t belittle Jesus Christ at all. He is God’s Word.

            So you don’t think that Jesus Christ is God incarnate? Interesting…

          • Of course I do. The Word of God incarnate.

            So you really don’t think Jesus Christ is God incarnate. As I say: interesting…

          • 14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

            That’s what I believe. It is indeed very interesting,

          • That’s what I believe. It is indeed very interesting,

            I don’t know if the owner of this web-site does requests, but if he does, then I would really like to see an article going through the various things you believe and indicating, with references to official documents, whether they are within or without what the Church of England would consider acceptable Christian belief.

            So far we have:

            • Jesus Christ is not God incarnate

            • the Bible is no different to any other kind of literature

            • God is incapable of influencing the natural forces of the material world

            Any more anyone can think of? How about it, owner?

          • S: I’m sorry to spoil your fun but I know the owner of this website will not wish to publish defamatory remarks.

            I certainly do believe that Jesus Christ is God incarnate. Please do show where I have said otherwise.

            The C of E current view about the bible and its composition I have copied earlier in this page. I paste it again here in case you missed it. It does not involve God overriding the forces of nature by causing wind to blow away pages or spill ink over writing or anything of that sort. To do so would contravene the free will of the authors. There is no scholarship – biblical or otherwise – to support such a view and nowhere have you produced any.

            Here is the passage – I hope you find it helpful. I agree completely with this.

            “The Bible is a collection of books gathered together over many centuries. It contains laws, poems, stories, letters, wisdom sayings, and prophetic pronouncements. Whenever you read it, every word you read has a human history. Every one of them was written by a human hand, in a particular place and time. Every one was touched by many other hands before it ended up in this collection we call the Bible. The Bible therefore rings with the voices of all kinds of people. It is shaped by their differing backgrounds, their cultures, their assumptions and their experiences – including their affections and desires, their intimate relationships, and their sense of their own identity.
            Our own reading of the Bible is no less shaped by history. Our backgrounds, our experience and our assumptions influence how we read – and so do the background, experience and assumptions of all the people who taught us how to read it. When we read, we are as entangled in the tapestry of history as is the Bible.
            At the same time, Anglicans believe that the Bible is, in a classic phrase, ‘God’s Word written’, and that God works through our reading of it. We believe these humans’ words are words inspired by God (2 Timothy 3.16) and that we can hear God speak to us through them.
            On the whole, Anglicans have tried to hold all these claims together. We do not think that the Bible would somehow be more the product of God’s guiding hand if it were less the product of human hands. Our reading of it in the present would not be more capable of serving God’s purposes for our lives if it could somehow be less our own activity.

          • I certainly do believe that Jesus Christ is God incarnate.

            So you were just messing with me by deliberately implying you didn’t? Fine, if that’s how you get your kicks, but it does waste time.

            It does not involve God overriding the forces of nature by causing wind to blow away pages or spill ink over writing or anything of that sort. To do so would contravene the free will of the authors.

            Of course it wouldn’t. If the forces of nature in an Icelandic volcano with an unspellable name cause my aeroplane to be cancelled, does that contravene my free will? No.

            There is no scholarship – biblical or otherwise – to support such a view and nowhere have you produced any.

            Seeing as you define ‘scholarship’ to mean ‘stuff that agrees with my premises’ it would be difficult to do so.

            Here is the passage – I hope you find it helpful.

            And which of the creeds, articles, or which bit of the Church of England’s liturgy does that come from? Those I understand are the only official sources for Church of England doctrine.

          • I haven’t implied or stated anywhere that I deny that Jesus Christ is God incarnate. I have clearly stated quite the opposite several times including a reference to the first chapter of John’s Gospel. Please do say where I have implied any denial of the incarnation.

            The CofE does not publish official material emanating from the Archbishops Council that contravenes its doctrine. To do so would be ridiculous.

          • Andrew

            I think that some may not realise that the Word was made flesh refers to the Incarnation.
            Hard to believe. But hard to explain the reaction to your statement otherwise.

          • Please do say where I have implied any denial of the incarnation.

            A: Oh I don’t belittle Jesus Christ at all. He is God’s Word.

            S: So you don’t think that Jesus Christ is God incarnate?

            A: Of course I do. The Word of God incarnate.

            S: So you really don’t think Jesus Christ is God incarnate.

            A: ‘And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.’ That’s what I believe.

            So that’s three times, twice after specific promotion, that you qualified ‘God incarnate’ with the Arian formula ‘Word of God incarnate’, which is a pretty strong implication (especially given you are no stranger to heresy) that you draw a distinction between God and the Logos. I’m glad to hear you don’t, but if you had just once responded ‘yes’ or ‘I do believe Jesus Christ is God incarnate’ without having to qualify it, this could all have been avoided.

            The CofE does not publish official material emanating from the Archbishops Council that contravenes its doctrine. To do so would be ridiculous.

            I hope you’re not basing your entire doctrinal argument on the idea that this would be either the first or the last time that the Church of England did something ridiculous.

          • As Penny points out the phrase ‘word made flesh’ refers to the Incarnation and is based upon the first Chapter of John. If you think that part of scripture is heresy then you are rather confused. But as Penny points out, it is the only explanation for your confusion.

            If you think the C of E is generally and specifically confused about things then I have no idea why you take such an interest in what goes on in that church. I have quoted quite clearly what the C of E believes about the bible and it’s authorship. I have been quite clear that I agree with it. Yet you still don’t seem to accept it.

          • As Penny points out the phrase ‘word made flesh’ refers to the Incarnation and is based upon the first Chapter of John. If you think that part of scripture is heresy then you are rather confused.

            The heresy (and it is a proper heresy, Arianism) is in claiming that ‘the Word’ in ‘the Word made flesh’ is distinct from God. Heresies often use the same words as truth, they just give them subtly different meanings. That’s why they are so insidious, and why it’s so important to keep checking that we are all using the same definitions of the words we use and not engaging in constructive ambiguity where two people sign up to the same form of words (eg a creed) but mean different things by it.

            If you think the C of E is generally and specifically confused about things then I have no idea why you take such an interest in what goes on in that church.

            Only because it is the most visible organisation in the UK that claims to be Christian, and therefore what it does has an outsize influence on what those outside the Church think Christianity is.

            I have quoted quite clearly what the C of E believes about the bible and it’s authorship.

            You’ve quoted something but nobody other than you seems to think what you quoted from is an authoritative source for doctrine, is the problem.

          • “nobody other than you seems to think what you quoted from is an authoritative source”
            Nobody else has commented so that is simply an incorrect statement.
            What we do know is that the piece I have quoted from is published by the Archbishops Council so is official C of E material and is very current.

          • Nobody else has commented so that is simply an incorrect statement.

            No, it’s a correct statement, it’s just trivially correct if you only consider this discussion (there are two of us in this discussion any you are the only one who seems to think it authoritative). But I’m not only considering this discussion; in past discussions on this website you have claimed that certain documents are authoritative and they claim has been disputed. So I would rather not take your word for it. If a document, or a body, does have the authority to set doctrine, it should be fairly easy to point to where that authority is defined.

            What we do know is that the piece I have quoted from is published by the Archbishops Council so is official C of E material and is very current.

            Does the Archbishop’s Council (or is it Archbishops’ Council?) have the authority to define doctrine in the Church of England? Can you point to where it is given that authority?

            Is absolutely everything published by the Archbishop’s Council authoritative doctrine of the Church of England?

          • The Archbishops Council has the authority to produce authoritative statements and documents yes. That is one of its purposes as an executive body. It would certainly no be permitted to publish material that contravened what the C of E taught and believed. If it did do that it would cause the resignation of both Archbishops.

          • The Archbishops Council has the authority to produce authoritative statements and documents yes. That is one of its purposes as an executive body. It would certainly no be permitted to publish material that contravened what the C of E taught and believed.

            You’ve just contradicted yourself. Either the Archbishop’s Council (again, where’s that apostrophe supposed to go?) has the authority in is own right to set doctrine, in which case there can be no higher body with the authority to refuse it permission to publish something; or some higher body sets the doctrine and decides what the Archbishops’ Council (WHERE DOES THE APOSTROPHE GO?) is permitted and not permitted to publish.

            So which is it? Does the Council have the authority to set doctrine, in which case what do you mean by ‘would not be permitted to publish material that contravened what the Church of England believed’ — how could the Council publish anything that contravenes Church of England doctrine if it is the Council that has the authority to determine what that doctrine is?

            Or is there another, higher authority which sets doctrine and decides what the Council is permitted to publish?

            Which is it? Because what you’ve written — that the Council both has the authority in its own right to set doctrine, and has to answer to some other authority for what it publishes — is incoherent.

          • You are not a very careful reader sometimes. Here it is again. No contradictions. Read what I put very carefully.

            “The Archbishops Council has the authority to produce *authoritative statements and documents* yes. That is one of its purposes as an executive body. It would certainly not be permitted to publish material that contravened what the C of E taught and believed. If it did do that it would cause the resignation of both Archbishops.”

            From this we can be clear that what I have copied for you is entirely consistent with the *doctrine* of the C of E.

            General Synod will be the body that decides any change in doctrine and teaching. Other bodies or people within the C of E can argue for a change in doctrine but are not permitted to set current doctrine aside. The Archbishops’ Council would not, therefore, be permitted by General Synod to publish material which is not consistent with current teaching and doctrine.

          • You are not a very careful reader sometimes. Here it is again. No contradictions. Read what I put very carefully.

            General Synod will be the body that decides any change in doctrine and teaching.

            Okay, so there must be a record of General Synod setting out the doctrine that the Bible is no different to any other work of literature, right? So can you point me to the General Synod resolution that sets out that doctrine please?

            The Archbishops’ Council would not, therefore, be permitted by General Synod to publish material which is not consistent with current teaching and doctrine.

            That assumes that General Synod reads and carefully considers every word in every document published by the Council, which I don’t believe for one second. I would rather see the actual decision by General Synod setting out this doctrine. If General Synod is as you say the supreme authority on doctrine turn it must have made such a decision and there must be a record of the vote. Where is it?

          • You are not a very careful reader sometimes. Here it is again. No contradictions. Read what I put very carefully.

            I asked whether the Council had the authority to define doctrine. You seem to have answered a totally different question about whether the Council has the authority to publish doctrine defined by General Synod. So don’t tell me I don’t read carefully when you can’t even answer the question asked.

          • I will tell you what is pertinent to the issue S. No more and no less.
            The Archbishops’ Council may not publish material that is contrary to the doctrine of the C of E. Therefore the material that is does publish must be consistent with C of E doctrine.

            You keep going on about scriptural books being no different to any other books, and I can’t see anybody claiming that. What I have claimed is exactly what is in the document I have copied from. So let me copy it again so that you are clear exactly what is and what is not being said about the bible by the C of E.

            “The Bible is a collection of books gathered together over many centuries. It contains laws, poems, stories, letters, wisdom sayings, and prophetic pronouncements. Whenever you read it, every word you read has a human history. Every one of them was written by a human hand, in a particular place and time. Every one was touched by many other hands before it ended up in this collection we call the Bible. The Bible therefore rings with the voices of all kinds of people. It is shaped by their differing backgrounds, their cultures, their assumptions and their experiences – including their affections and desires, their intimate relationships, and their sense of their own identity.
            Our own reading of the Bible is no less shaped by history. Our backgrounds, our experience and our assumptions influence how we read – and so do the background, experience and assumptions of all the people who taught us how to read it. When we read, we are as entangled in the tapestry of history as is the Bible.
            At the same time, Anglicans believe that the Bible is, in a classic phrase, ‘God’s Word written’, and that God works through our reading of it. We believe these humans’ words are words inspired by God (2 Timothy 3.16) and that we can hear God speak to us through them.
            On the whole, Anglicans have tried to hold all these claims together. We do not think that the Bible would somehow be more the product of God’s guiding hand if it were less the product of human hands. Our reading of it in the present would not be more capable of serving God’s purposes for our lives if it could somehow be less our own activity.

          • I will tell you what is pertinent to the issue S. No more and no less.

            So you’re saying that the General Synod, which according to you is the only body with the authority to set Chruch of England doctrine, has never ruled on this novel view of the Bible. Right. Got it.

            You keep going on about scriptural books being no different to any other books, and I can’t see anybody claiming that.

            I’m afraid it was you who claimed that:

            ‘But to suggest that the books of the bible are somehow different from every other kind of literature is the most fallacious and dishonest.’

            https://www.psephizo.com/life-ministry/where-is-discontent-in-the-church-of-england/#comment-405862

            There’s no other way to read that than that you think that the Bible is no different from other kind of literature.

            This is clearly a departure from the historical Christian position, which is that the Bible, uniquely among all written works ever produced by humans, was inspired by God, and therefore is different from any other kind of literature, because no other kind of literature is inspired by God in the same way.

            If the Church of England were to depart from this you would expect its supreme authority to have made the change in an explicit decision, not just snuck such an epochal change out in the middle of a document about something else.

            But you are unable to point to where the General Synod considered this very significant question and decided to adopt as its doctrine this new idea that that the Bible is no different to every other kind of literature.

            Therefore the only possible conclusion that can be drawn is that you (and quite possibly the Archbishops’ (that’s where the apostrophe goes — I finally looked it up) Council are mistaken about what the Church of England’s doctrine regarding the Bible actually is.

          • “There’s no other way to read that than that you think that the Bible is no different from other kind of literature.”

            It is not at all what I am saying. What I am saying is what I have quoted in detail from the Church of England. Third time lucky perhaps. You obviously haven’t read it – which is no surprise as you show so often that you find reading quite hard.

            The Bible is a collection of books gathered together over many centuries. It contains laws, poems, stories, letters, wisdom sayings, and prophetic pronouncements. Whenever you read it, every word you read has a human history. Every one of them was written by a human hand, in a particular place and time. Every one was touched by many other hands before it ended up in this collection we call the Bible. The Bible therefore rings with the voices of all kinds of people. It is shaped by their differing backgrounds, their cultures, their assumptions and their experiences – including their affections and desires, their intimate relationships, and their sense of their own identity.
            Our own reading of the Bible is no less shaped by history. Our backgrounds, our experience and our assumptions influence how we read – and so do the background, experience and assumptions of all the people who taught us how to read it. When we read, we are as entangled in the tapestry of history as is the Bible.
            At the same time, Anglicans believe that the Bible is, in a classic phrase, ‘God’s Word written’, and that God works through our reading of it. We believe these humans’ words are words inspired by God (2 Timothy 3.16) and that we can hear God speak to us through them.
            On the whole, Anglicans have tried to hold all these claims together. We do not think that the Bible would somehow be more the product of God’s guiding hand if it were less the product of human hands. Our reading of it in the present would not be more capable of serving God’s purposes for our lives if it could somehow be less our own activity.

          • It is not at all what I am saying.

            Okay, so what did you mean by ‘to suggest that the books of the bible are somehow different from every other kind of literature is the most fallacious and dishonest’ then?

            Is the Bible unique among all works of literature in that it is inspired by God in a way unlike every other work of literature, or is it not?

            Yes or no question. Go on. Give us a one-word answer. If you dare.

          • Answer written above three times. From official CofE source.
            A one word answer can’t possibly do justice to such a unique collection of different sorts of literature.

          • From official CofE source.

            An official source, but one that you have failed to establish, despite your claims, as an authoritative source.

            A one word answer can’t possibly do justice to such a unique collection of different sorts of literature.

            Okay, so we must take as your definitive statement on the matter the twenty-three words:

            ‘to suggest that the books of the bible are somehow different from every other kind of literature is the most fallacious and dishonest.’

            I’m sure everyone reading understands exactly what you meant by that, and can draw their own conclusions from your unwillingness to be clear about what exactly you believe.

          • I believe what the CofE officially says about the matter and that is posted above for anyone to read.
            As you haven’t produced any sources or research for your own wacky ideas I think that is the end of any conversation on the matter.

          • I believe what the CofE officially says about the matter and that is posted above for anyone to read.

            No, what you believe (we know because you wrote it and you haven’t repudiated it despite opportunities to do so) is that ‘to suggest that the books of the bible are somehow different from every other kind of literature is […] fallacious and dishonest.’

            As you haven’t produced any sources or research for your own wacky ideas I think that is the end of any conversation on the matter.

            My ‘wacky ideas’ that are only what Christians have believed for centuries…

          • I’m afraid that’s just not true S. The CofE does not hold your beliefs about the composition of scripture and there is no scholarship to support your ideas.

          • I’m afraid that’s just not true S. The CofE does not hold your beliefs about the composition of scripture and there is no scholarship to support your ideas.

            I said ‘Christians’. Check out the Westminster Confession, it’s in there.

          • Westminster Confession has nothing to do with the CofE or the Cof E with the Westminster Confession. That approach to the composition of scripture says nothing about an ink spilling God (and would indeed be laughable if it did). The approach begs the question more than anything else.

          • Westminster Confession has nothing to do with the CofE or the Cof E with the Westminster Confession.

            So? I wrote that my views had been held by Christians for centuries. The Westminster Confession, which is where I got my views from — I don’t claim to be original — was written there and a half centuries ago. And the ideas weren’t new then. So I’ve proved what I wrote . But then you often find reading quite hard, don’t you?

            That approach to the composition of scripture says nothing about an ink spilling God (and would indeed be laughable if it did).

            Again you obsess over ‘ink spilling’. But the Westminster Confession reads:

            ‘The Old Testament in Hebrew […] and the New Testament in Greek […], being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical.’

            Which is all I’ve ever said: God has acted in His care and providence to keep the Bible pure. He may have spilt ink to do so; He may never have spilt a drop of ink. But spilling ink is not beyond His powers, though it seems to be beyond the powers of the wimpy Deist God you believe in.

            The approach begs the question more than anything else.

            What question does it beg, then, exactly?

          • That approach to the composition of scripture says nothing about an ink spilling God (and would indeed be laughable if it did).

            By the way, why is it laughable to think that God could spill ink, but not laughable to think that He turned water into wine? Or do you think that is laughable too, something only credulous mediaeval peasants could believe actually happened, not clever twenty-first century scientific types like you?

          • The Westminster Confession does not have the benefit of the advances in biblical scholarship that have been prevalent over the last 150 years. Christopher Shell looks at some of these in response to you below. That work has changed our understanding and appreciation of biblical composition and that scholarship can’t be overlooked.

          • The Westminster Confession does not have the benefit of the advances in biblical scholarship that have been prevalent over the last 150 years.

            So you’re no longer disputing that my view has been held by Christians for centuries? Great.

            Are you still calling it ‘laughable’? May I ask — do you believe that Jesus turned water into wine? If so, what makes your belief in that less laughable than the idea that God is capable of acting on the world to preserve His written Word — including, yes, by causing ink to spill, if necessary?

          • Oh of course *some* Christians hold and have held extreme views, but not the majority of them. Fundamentalism is dangerous however nicely it’s dressed up.

          • There is no correlation between being extreme and being bonkers, in the same way that there is no correlation between being middle of the road and being accurate. Extremity is entirely neutral.

          • Oh of course *some* Christians hold and have held extreme views, but not the majority of them.

            Are you saying that you think believing that Jesus turned water into wine is an ‘extreme view’?

            Again: do you believe that Jesus turned water into wine?

          • No. I’m saying being a fundamentalist is an extreme view.
            Yes. I believe Jesus turned water into wine.

          • No. I’m saying being a fundamentalist is an extreme view.

            Who’s a fundamentalist? I’m not a fundamentalist. The Westminster Confession isn’t a fundamentalist document (fundamentalism didn’t exist at the time it was written). So why bring up fundamentalism?

            Yes. I believe Jesus turned water into wine.

            Okay, so why is that not laughable, but thinking that God might have caused the spilling of ink to preserve the integrity of His Word is laughable? What’s the difference? Would it be less laughable to think that God might have caused ink to turn to water to preserve His Word. — after all ink to water isn’t inherently any more ridiculous than water to wine, is it?

          • Your approach to the biblical texts is a fundamentalist one. You don’t think the bible can be in error. You don’t think the writers could have been mistaken. You don’t think the compilers and translators could have misinterpreted things. These are marks of a fundamentalist.
            Unless of course you are now saying that there could be errors in the bible, and that the various authors might not have interpreted things correctly. Or that errors could have occurred in copying and translation.

          • Your approach to the biblical texts is a fundamentalist one.

            It’s not a word I would use.

            You don’t think the bible can be in error.

            That’s not a phrasing I would use, as it’s hopelessly ambiguous: ‘in error’ is a very fuzzy concept and as you know I think we should strive for precision. I would instead say that I think the Bible is totally reliable in matters of faith and salvation.

            You don’t think the writers could have been mistaken.

            Not about matters essential to faith and salvation, no. About incidental matters they could have been.

            You don’t think the compilers and translators could have misinterpreted things.

            Oh, not only do I think they could have, they must have done, as there are numerous examples of some compilers or translators interpreting things in mutually incompatible ways to other compilers or translators. In such cases, as they cannot logically both be correct, at least one must have misinterpreted.

            These are marks of a fundamentalist.

            Well they may be, but as I would not use the term for myself, and I disagree with your ‘marks’, I don’t think you can use the term of me either, at least not and be consistent.

            Unless of course you are now saying that there could be errors in the bible, and that the various authors might not have interpreted things correctly.

            See above.

            Or that errors could have occurred in copying and translation.

            Clearly errors have occurred in the copying and translation, or all the copies we have would be identical, and they aren’t. The important think is that God has ensured that no errors have occurred that would make the Bible unreliable on essential matters of faith or salvation (or at least not allowing such errors without also ensuring that a reliable copy also exists, so that we can recognise the corrupted version and reconstruct the correct text).

            Now, are you going to answer why you think that it’s laughable to think that God could have caused ink to spill, or indeed have caused ink to turn into water, but not laughable to think that God turned water into wine? Why could a God who can turn water into wine not also turn ink into water?

          • You may not use the word fundamentalist but that is what you are.

            As we have agreed, Jesus Christ is God incarnate. The writers and copyists and compilers of the bible are not. They are therefore liable to make errors. They are human. See the passage I have quoted before from the official C of E document that describes biblical writings and how they happened.

            God does not give human beings freedom and then override it.

            We have discussed this before and whilst I note that you do not accept it, it is to no purpose to discuss it again.

          • You may not use the word fundamentalist but that is what you are.

            I can’t stop you calling me whatever you like, but you are wrong here.

            God does not give human beings freedom and then override it.

            I agree — it’s why I’m not a Calvinist — but nothing in my view of the Bible would require God to override anyone’s free will, so I don’t know why you keep being this up.

            We have discussed this before and whilst I note that you do not accept it, it is to no purpose to discuss it again.

            On the contrary, I accept it totally. It is, as I say, why I am not a Calvinist.

            So are you going to explain why you think the idea of God causing ink to spill, or changing the nature of ink into water, is laughable, but the idea of God changing the nature of water into wine is not laughable? Because I can’t for the life of me see what the difference is but you seem convinced that there is one. So what is it?

          • “So are you going to explain why you think the idea of God causing ink to spill, or changing the nature of ink into water, is laughable, but the idea of God changing the nature of water into wine is not laughable? Because I can’t for the life of me see what the difference is but you seem convinced that there is one. So what is it?“

            I’m surprised you can’t see the difference but let me spell it out one more time. Changing the nature of water into wine is attested to in Holy Scripture, was part of the tradition of the early Church, has been part of Christian tradition and so believed for 2000 years and has been the subject of exploration by biblical and literary scholars. The spilling of ink on pages of Scripture or changing water into ink to expressly support the peculiar notion of biblical fundamentalism is the invention of someone on a website 2000 years after the event, is believed in by no other witnesses and has never been the subject of any kind of scholarship. So the two can not possibly be compared as bearing any similarity.

          • How can S be a fundamentalist when the word ‘fundamentalist’ is so muddled a word, and is also a word generally used from a humanist/secularist perspective?

            How could Jesus himself not be analysed to be more ‘fundamentalist’ than many fundamentalists?

            And the same goes for the majority of the famouse saints, apostles, etc..

          • Changing the nature of water into wine is attested to in Holy Scripture, was part of the tradition of the early Church, has been part of Christian tradition and so believed for 2000 years and has been the subject of exploration by biblical and literary scholars.

            So? None of that has any bearing on how inherently ridiculous an idea it is, which is the point. If you had been around two thousand years ago —so none of that scholarship has happened — and someone had said to you, ‘Listen, I was a servant at a wedding last week, and this guy turned water into wine!’ would you have said, ‘That’s laughable’?

            The spilling of ink on pages of Scripture or changing water into ink to expressly support the peculiar notion of biblical fundamentalism is the invention of someone on a website 2000 years after the event, is believed in by no other witnesses and has never been the subject of any kind of scholarship.

            That’s the genetic fallacy: dismissing an idea just because of where it came from. When in fact the source of an idea is completely irrelevant to whether or not it is true.

            So addressing the idea itself and not its source, why is the idea that God might have caused ink to spill any more inherently laughable than the idea that God turned water into wine (or that God caused manna to form in the desert, or that God caused a sodden altar to burst into flames, or that God caused a storm to subside, or any other example in the Bible of God’s power over the forces of nature?)

          • Oh I’m sure it is quite reasonable to assume God put humans on Mars as well.

            Well, He certainly could have done, couldn’t He?

            Whether He did it not is something I suppose we shall only discover when we start to explore Mars in detail.

            But I fail to see the relevance. Will you answer the question: why do you think it inherently laughable to think that God could have caused ink to spill, but is not laughable to think that God caused water to turn into wine, caused a fig tree to wither, or caused an earthquake that broke open a prison’s doors?

            Do you think that just because God is not recorded as having done something in the Bible, He is incapable of doing it? Well maybe you do, as you have in the post said you think that God is incapable of stilling a storm, and that is recorded in the Bible. But it seems to me that the Bible only records some of the ways in which God has interacted with the material world; it is not an exhaustive record. Perhaps you do think it is exhaustive. Do you?

          • Oh I see you are back to contemplating the hypothetical. I’ve no interest in that other than to say that if you imagine a God who can spill ink when God doesn’t approve of something somebody writes but doesn’t lift a finger to stop someone intent on slaughtering 6million Jews then the God of your imagination is a monster and not one I care to worship thanks very much.

            And to say that your God’s efforts to create a totally reliable written series of books hasn’t worked because people continue interpret those texts quite differently.

            And as I don’t think the matter of same sex relationships are an essential matter of faith or salvation your insistence that scripture is ‘reliable’ in such matters is neither here nor there.

          • Oh I see you are back to contemplating the hypothetical. I’ve no interest in that other than to say that if you imagine a God who can spill ink when God doesn’t approve of something somebody writes but doesn’t lift a finger to stop someone intent on slaughtering 6million Jews then the God of your imagination is a monster and not one I care to worship thanks very much.

            But you worship a God who can turn water into wine for the sake of a God party, but doesn’t lift a finger to stop someone intent on slaughtering six million Jews, don’t you? How is that any different?

            And to say that your God’s efforts to create a totally reliable written series of books hasn’t worked because people continue interpret those texts quite differently.

            ‘Reliable’ doesn’t mean ‘can only be interpreting one way’. That would be ‘unambiguous’ and I’ve never claimed the Bible was that.

            And as I don’t think the matter of same sex relationships

            Can we stay of the subject of sex for once? We are discussing far more interesting and important matters.

          • for the sake of a God party

            A good party… I think I’ve confused my poor stupid little text predictor.

          • Ah the bible is ambiguous you say? I’m relieved to hear you say that and it’s something you have never admitted before. We are making progress!
            There would be no point in having a 100% ‘reliable’ or, as others prefer to put it, inerrant bible unless people could agree what ambiguity meant in that context. Your caveat is that it is reliable in essential matters of faith and salvation. But we don’t have any agreement what those essential matters are.

            Do some careful research about the story of water into wine. There is a reason biblical scholars refer to that and other episodes in John’s Gospel as ‘signs’ rather than miracles. And it’s significant that it is a sign of the kingdom. Nowhere is the bible referred to as a sign of the kingdom.

            That sign is an act of God. We agree. Hitler was a human. He had free will. We already agree that God can’t give free will with one hand and take it away with another. So with those who wrote the biblical texts. They were humans. And so had free will.

          • Ah the bible is ambiguous you say? I’m relieved to hear you say that and it’s something you have never admitted before.

            Well, I mean, I also haven’t ‘admitted’ that human beings don’t have tails but I’m not sure how that’s relevant either.

            There would be no point in having a 100% ‘reliable’ or, as others prefer to put it, inerrant bible unless people could agree what ambiguity meant in that context. Your caveat is that it is reliable in essential matters of faith and salvation. But we don’t have any agreement what those essential matters are.

            No, but that is a flaw in our understanding, not in the Bible. One (or both) of us is wrong — the Bible isn’t wrong.

            Do some careful research about the story of water into wine. There is a reason biblical scholars refer to that and other episodes in John’s Gospel as ‘signs’ rather than miracles.

            I’m sorry, I don’t understand the distinction between a sign and a miracle. You’re not not going back on your claim to believe it happened, are you? We still agree that there was a real body of water in a real jar at a real historical wedding that one moment was composed of molecules of water and the next was composed of molecules of water and also molecules of fermented grape? It’s not a metaphor or an allegory or ‘salvation history’ but a real thing that really happened in real history?

            Hitler was a human. He had free will. We already agree that God can’t give free will with one hand and take it away with another.

            We are. But, for example, for God to have caused the death of Hitler in 1917 would not have violated Hitler’s free will, would it? After all we know that God is capable of, and does, cause the deaths of human beings: He caused the deaths of Ananias and Sapphira, didn’t He?

            Therefore the idea that God did not kill Hitler because that would have violated Hitler’s free will must be false, because it that were the case then killing Ananias and Sapphira would also have violated their free will, and so God would not have killed them. But God did kill them, didn’t He?

            So with those who wrote the biblical texts. They were humans. And so had free will.

            Right, but (for example) if I am writing something and my cat walks over the desk and spills ink onto the page, the cat hasn’t violated my free will, has it? So similarly if God caused the cat to spill the ink, God wouldn’t have violated my free will, would He?

            So your objection to God causing ink to spill on the grounds that God is not capable of interfering in the wiring of natural laws is unsound because we know that God is capable of that because we agree that, for example, He turned water into wine.

            And your objection on the grounds of free will is also unsound because someone spilling ink over something I am writing does not violate my free will.

            So all your objections so far are unsound. Do you want to try again?

          • Hmm….

            “No, but that is a flaw in our understanding, not in the Bible. One (or both) of us is wrong — the Bible isn’t wrong”

            The bible is ambiguous, you have said. If it is ambiguous then it isn’t clear. And it could be wrong. Of course it could. It was written by fallible human beings, trying their best to communicate in words things that can’t adequately be expressed in words. That is why it seems a bit ambiguous at times. We don’t call God ineffable for nothing. If you try and ‘eff” the ineffable you are going to get it wrong sometimes.

            So I’m afraid you are not quite right there.

            If you take away someone’s free will you stop them doing what they purpose to do. Hitler purposed to kill 6 million Jews. The human authors of the bible purposed to write down their understanding of God’s actions in the world and among God’s people. You can’t take away their free will to follow their intended actions. That would contravene their free will.

            So I’m afraid you are not quite right their either.

          • The bible is ambiguous, you have said. If it is ambiguous then it isn’t clear. And it could be wrong. Of course it could.

            No, doesn’t follow. Just because something is ambiguous doesn’t mean it could be wrong. The two are different things.

            It was written by fallible human beings, trying their best to communicate in words things that can’t adequately be expressed in words.

            It was written by human beings, guided by God. That’s why it’s reliable: because although fallible human beings did the writing, God, who is infallible, was guiding them as they wrote.

            If you take away someone’s free will you stop them doing what they purpose to do. Hitler purposed to kill 6 million Jews.

            This is a bizarre definition of free will. If you purpose to travel to Birmingham, but I sneak into your house and steal your car keys so you can’t go, I have stopped you doing what your purposed to do. But have I taken away your free will? Of course I haven’t. ‘Free will’ means that you have moral agency and are able to make moral decisions. It does not mean that you are able to do everything you intend to do. If that were the case none of us would have free will, as none of us are able to do everything we intend: we all fail sometimes.

            Anyway, that certainly can’t be the definition of free will that God works to, because there are loads of recorded examples of God stopping people from doing what they purpose to do. Haman purposed to destroy the Jews; God stopped him doing that. Does that mean God took away Haman’s free will? Pharaoh purposed to recapture the Israelites and ring them back to Egypt, but God smashed the waters of the Red Sea on him, stopping him doing what he purposed to do. Does that mean God took away Pharaoh’s free will? Herod purposed to use the wise men to find and kill Jesus, but God sent them back another way, stopped Herod from doing what he purposed to do. Does that mean God took away Herod’s free will? Ananias and Sapphira purposed to spend the money they kept back form the sale of their land, but God killed them, stopping them from doing what they purposed to do. does that mean God took away their free will? Paul purposed to go to Damascus to stamp out the followers of Jesus who were there, but God blinded him, stopping him from doing what he purposed to do. Does that mean God took away Paul’s free will?

            As you can see from these examples among many, God has no qualms about stopping people from doing what they purpose to do. Indeed this aspect of God’s actions is often mentioned in the Bible:

            ‘The LORD foils the plans of the nations; he thwarts the purposes of the peoples. ‘ — Psalm 33:10

            ‘He [God] thwarts the plans of the crafty, so that their hands achieve no success’ — Job 5:12

            …again showing that God is both able and willing to stop people (and nations) from doing what they purpose to do.

            So this idea you seem to be putting forward that God has some self-denying ordinance that He will never stop someone from doing what they purpose to do because that would be to take away their free will just doesn’t stand, I’m afraid. God can and does stop people from doing what they purpose to do.

            (And I, personally, believe that God did thwart Hitler’s purpose. Hitler, just like Haman, intended to totally destroy the Jews. He failed. Do you not think God had a hand in ensuring that failure? I do. God was, as always, looking out for His people and ensuring they were not destroyed. As He always does. Many throughout history have tried to destroy the Jews, even continuing to this day; all have failed, and will continue to fail, because God will continue to thwart the plans of all those who mean to destroy His special people.)

            The human authors of the bible purposed to write down their understanding of God’s actions in the world and among God’s people. You can’t take away their free will to follow their intended actions. That would contravene their free will.

            But if the human authors of the Bible intended to write the truth about God, as presumably they did, then if God guided them to make sure that they did in fact write the truth about Him, that’s — by your definition — not contravening their free will because God would not then be stopping them from doing what they intended to do — rather God would be helping them to do what they intended to do. How can helping someone to do what they purpose to do be stepping on their free will? If a teacher sees a pupil of their making a mistake, and steps in to correct it, are they removing the pupil’s free will? Of course not. If anything they are aiding the pupil in exercising their free will.

            So when God stepped in to prevent the writers of the Bible from making unintentional errors when they were intending to write the truth about Him, He wasn’t taking away their free will; like the teacher correcting her pupil’s mistake, He was helping them exercise their free will by helping them to complete their intended purpose of writing the truth about Him.

            So to sum up: in addition to your two previous objections being unsound (I notice you haven’t even attempted to rebut my refutations of them, because you can’t), you’ve raised two additional points, both wrong.

            Firstly you suggest that to thwart what someone’s purpose is to take away their free will, and therefore God wouldn’t do it. This is wrong for two reasons:

            (a) thwarting someone’s purpose does not take away their free will under any reasonable definition of ‘free will’

            (b) there are many recorded instances of God thwarting someone’s purposes, as well as statements in the Bible that God does thwart people’s purposes.

            Secondly you suggest that God guiding the hands of the writers of the Bible would be to remove their free will. But actually it did not remove, but rather enhanced their free will, as it meant that they achieved their intended purpose more fully than they would have been able to do if left to their own devices.

            So we can see that your first two objections are unsound, and your second two are as well. Care to try a third pair?

          • Oh dear, and I thought we might be making some progress.
            I am afraid that we might just have to leave it there as I think our disagreements can’t be resolved.

            The bible is limited because, as I have said, it is an attempt to put into words things are ineffable. By definition you can’t fully express the ineffable. If you think otherwise then you are denying that God is ineffable. And if you do that, then by simple logic your god would be less than God.

            The definition of free will from Miriam Webster is: freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention. That’s the definition I’ve been working with. We can’t possibly know what definition God is working from. (See above about God being ineffable). And your using proof texts from the bible just begs the question. It’s your classic circular argument and it won’t work.

            As I have said many times before, I think if we could sit down over coffee or a meal we might make some progress in mutual understanding. As it is, you seem to be becoming less clear and more circular in your arguments.

          • Oh dear, and I thought we might be making some progress.
            I am afraid that we might just have to leave it there as I think our disagreements can’t be resolved.

            Well, of course we’ll have to leave it there as I have demolished all your arguments and you have no new ones to make.

            The bible is limited because, as I have said, it is an attempt to put into words things are ineffable. By definition you can’t fully express the ineffable. If you think otherwise then you are denying that God is ineffable. And if you do that, then by simple logic your god would be less than God.

            I have never argued that the Bible is ‘unlimited’. Of course the Bible doesn’t express the entire truth about God; that would, as you say, be impossible, because we humans could never comprehend the entire truth about God.

            However, the point is that the Bible is reliable on the limited subset of the truth about God that it does express.

            The Bible doesn’t tell us 100% of the truth about God; but what it does tell us, is 100% reliable.

            You are trying to shift the goalposts because I have defeated every objection you had to my actual claim — that the Bible is reliable — and are now trying to attack something I never claimed, that the Bible is not limited. Shows you know you’ve lost.

            The definition of free will from Miriam Webster is: freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention.

            Yes. The freedom to make choices. Not the freedom to have those choices work out in the way they intend. Free will means I have the ability to choose to go to Scotland tomorrow; it doesn’t mean I will necessarily get there. And if God intervened to stop me from getting to Scotland — say by causing the eruption of a long-named Icelandic volcano — then God would not thereby have taken away my free will, because my free will consisted in my ability to make the choice, and I did make the choice.

            Free will means God won’t stop Hitler from choosing to exterminate the Jews. It doesn’t mean He won’t stop Hitler from succeeding — and He did.

            And your using proof texts from the bible just begs the question.

            That’s why previously every time I use an example from the Bible I ask you explicitly beforehand if you agree that it’s true, as I know that for you something being in the Bible doesn’t necessarily mean you think it’s true. For example, if you hadn’t agreed that you thought that Jesus really had changed water into wine, then I wouldn’t have used that as an example. But if you do believe that Jesus changed water into wine, as you claimed you do, then you can’t, logically consistently, also believe that God is incapable of causing an ink-pot to spill, because any entity capable of changing water into wine is clearly also capable of causing an ink-pot to spill.

            I didn’t ask in advance in this case simply because there were so many examples, but from your response I assume this is you saying you don’t believe any of those things really happened? You don’t believe that God put Esther into the King’s palace to save the Jews. You don’t believe that the waters of the red sea drowned the Egyptian chariots. You don’t believe God sent a dream to the wise men, warning them not to go back to Herod. You don’t believe that God killed Ananias and Sapphira, or that God blinded Paul.

            Which is fine. You can believe all that stuff never happened if you like. I know you think the Bible was mostly made up. I just like making you be explicit about it so everybody else can also see you think the Bible was mostly made up.

            As I have said many times before, I think if we could sit down over coffee or a meal we might make some progress in mutual understanding.

            I can’t see any basis you have for thinking that.

            As it is, you seem to be becoming less clear and more circular in your arguments.

            I have systematically logically demolished every objection you have come up with. You clearly have nothing left but empty bluster. But keep blustering; I like it.

          • Oh dear. How ridiculous that you see it in terms of winning and losing. How childish. The point is about exchanging views.
            I simply can’t understand your views and never have.
            On the question of free will you would not agree to anything until I produced a definition. You seem to agree with it. But then produce this nonsense about God stopping Hitler in the end. How lovely for the 6million killed that idea must be. And what offensive nonsense you produce again.
            As to the bible being reliable in terms of essential matters of faith and salvation. Again what rubbish you produce. You can’t even say what those essential matters are. And unless there is some agreement about that, your idea is nonsense.
            The bluster is all yours S – but I also enjoy reading it so please feel free to blister away as much as you like. It gives anyone reading a good laugh!
            Have a wonderful Holy Week.

      • Yes, I think the quotation I have posted about the bible is absolutely correct.
        Best to read his recent books to discover where his faith is now. He was also on Private Passions on Radio 3 last Sunday, which is available on BBC Sounds. Still attends Church. Still follows Jesus Christ.
        Which is not to say I agree with everything he says. But in the quote I have given here, I agree fully.

        Reply
        • Still follows Jesus Christ.

          As you yourself keep pointing out, Mr Godsall, you don’t know whether he is following Christ. Only Good knows that. The most you can say is that he is still claiming to follow Christ.

          Reply
  2. Mary Wren’s piece confirms the impression that there is a timebomb waiting to explode. For so long people have been people-pleasers, terrified to be authentic and speak their minds. This is not only dishonest, stultifying and unfulfilling but also counterproductive.

    People are being expected to regard as the most important thing in their life, and a major time commitment, something where there is not only
    (a) no clear message, but
    (b) whatever message there is is minimal and bland and devoid of any challenge (you’re a good good Father; I’m loved by you. You are good, good, oh.), and
    (c) even if one disagreed with this blandness one would be discouraged from doing so.

    For a long while, even the Catholic option (which is so far behind in biblical understanding and analysis, and so pietistic and so arm’s-length and full of passive members and unhelpful hyper analysis of the smallest chatterable issue) has been clearly a better one than the Anglican whether for school choice (why opt for a school only for them to go rainbow 3 years later?), for campaigning/activist purposes, or just for the basic minimum long-termism.

    Reply
  3. There is lots to unpack here, and that’s a good thing. Thank you for writing it.

    The stand-out section for me was this reflection:

    “Perhaps clergy have always used this kind of language about one another, but in the past it was private. Social media has dragged this language into public and shone a glaring light on it. But when did Anglican clergy become so lacking in discipline and self-control that they became happy to malign each other in this way in front of the watching world?”

    One of the very first lessons I had when I started my training last year was on professionalism and your ‘public face’, though this isn’t what it was actually called. I remember the college chaplain, who used to work on the Baptist Union team that handles issues like this, telling us that a sizable majority of the complaints that came across her desk were not from congregants/members, or even from the public, but from other ministers on social media.

    This matches my perception that of a lot of the ‘toxic’ dialogue (particularly on Twitter) is not between the clergy and [other], but between the clergy themselves, often but not always from within the same denomination/institution. I think we must be more guarded, as I know from my own experience. I have been both the recipient of toxic comment, and the creator.

    We do need to be more honest about, and hold each other accountable for, the way social media brings out the worst in us. As the modern Psalmist says, ‘Their Facebook feeds are an open grave…’

    Blessings,
    Mat

    Reply
    • Hi Mat

      I agree. I think we need to maintain a distinction between being plain and forthright and the tone we adopt. Unfortunately tone is hard to convey and open to misinterpretation. Don’t

      Twitter is toxic at many levels. Probably better avoided. I only recently joined and only to view some comments.

      I’d encourage you, when through, to be bold. You have (going by your comments) a fairly bold nature. Be bold in a sanctified way for the gospel. Your generation are going to need a holy boldness. Find it in the Lord. Certainly don’t settle for fudge. As far as I can see its best not to climb the slippery pole, it simply muzzles.

      Reply
  4. A very good article and yet again shows the divisions within God’s house known as the C of E. Are we too wide a church and try to placate everyone? I do totally agree, from my humble position, with the statement above “Lack of leadership based on Scripture – this is the core issue.” Surely all answers to the questions are in Scripture? Blessings Chris x

    Reply
  5. About the person who said `I am begging you for guidance but you will not provide it’ as a criticism of the Church of England:

    Doesn’t 1 John 2:27 give us the Christian position about precisely what guidance we actually need from the church `leaders’ and teachers? If we are Christians, we already have this within us. The function of going to church is to meet others who also have this within them, to encourage each other in the faith – and the function of the `teacher’ (the guy up front giving the sermon) is to articulate clearly the stuff that all Christians already know intuitively – even though they probably lack the skills to articulate it themselves.

    Reply
  6. Well, I’m glad that the chaplain said a Big Yes to following Jesus when I gave the invitation in 1992, but sad about where she’s ended up theologically and perhaps practically.

    How this happens is no doubt a tad complex but the need for a strong discipleship spine both for new Jesus followers but also for those heading for public ministry is essential. Included in this must be the need to show that a commitment to an evangelical worldview does not entail kissing goodbye to your intellect!

    Reply
  7. Thanks for floodlighting the elephant in the room. There has always been disagreement within the Church (capital C) and a lot of the time it is healthy debate, seeking to go deeper in understanding. My perception of the “discussion” over the past decade (in particular) is that it has become toxic through a lack f humility and the tribalism of viewpoints. I recently sought to contribute to an online conversation, offering an alternative view, and was verbally assaulted by numerous people, including a “you simply don’t get it, do you.” No attempt was made to discuss or disagree well. That toxicity may be what is being described here – and, sadly, offers little sign of being addressed or healed in the coming days. It does not bode well.

    Reply
  8. A lot of what you say is very right and wise. I agree wholeheartedly about the need to disagree politely and sometimes in private, rather than being aggressive. That, incidentally, is surely one of the points of the Living in Love and Faith course, which my small group is currently studying. For completeness, there are also the church members who are discontented because the church policies that exist won’t move in the direction they believe is right, obviously in particular about sexuality.

    The C of E is not the Roman Catholic church. Don’t we need to balance the need for leadership with the recognition of the strengths of being a “broad church”, which may not have space for Richard Rohr, but has space for a wide variety of beliefs and churchmanships?

    Reply
    • Penelope One issue that seems to be clear from your post is that the LLF course can provide a good foundation for improving social etiquette. However, concerning Justin Welby’s desire to maintain “good disagreement”, I’m perplexed as to how that is possible if your church members are “discontented” and opposed to “church policies” they believe are not right, while at the same time, presumably ,willing to belong to a church which “has space for a wide variety of beliefs” . Evidently the LLF *committee* is still working on this one!

      Reply
  9. “I wonder when it became acceptable to denigrate fellow Anglicans and fellow Christians publicly in these terms?
    Since the whole of society got a lot more individualistic (even narcissistic). The church has done nothing to stem this tide – and has, in some ways, simply adapted to the new situation. Consumer led ‘lifestyle’ Christianity now dominates the church – with HTB simply leading the way with what is currently trending.

    Reply
      • Maybe not bad language – because that’s not part of the HTB ‘brand’ – but HTB is still a consumer led lifestyle church.

        I’ve just watched my old church being taken over (because prime location in now gentrified part of the city) by a HTB team – with all of the older council estate parishoners ever-so-politely pushed out by young professionals with yoga mats. Nobody ever says “Go away, we don’t want your type (chavvy, poor, single, socially awkward) here anymore” but that message gets through with a continual lauding of the type that they do want to stick around (young professionals with kids, wealthy people with good social connections).

        Reply
  10. May the fragance of Jesus fill this place.
    Rising from the sacrifice, of lives laid down in adoration.
    May the glory if Jesus fill his church…
    Graham Kendrick

    John 12: 1-8

    Reply
  11. The CofE only represents an ever smaller number of Christians but we are not turning to yoga. My wife and I are in our 70’s and we have just left the Church of England and taken fellowship with a small evangelical planted church. It is a very happy and supportive group and it is growing.
    There were several planted churches to choose from and all appear to be thriving.
    Christianity is no dying just because the CofE has lost interest in what the Bible says.

    Reply
  12. The first piece was indeed rather devoid of love, but I couldn’t help chuckling at her description of CUs as places where people “seemed quite focused on not having sex with each other.”

    Reply
  13. ‘there are also the church members who are discontented because the church policies that exist won’t move in the direction they believe is right, obviously in particular about sexuality.’

    I wonder if it is really lack of leadership, or rather, lack of the type of leadership ‘I’ want, telling the church the things ‘I’ think are important.

    Reply
    • Gill – you’re probably right about this – earlier I pointed to 1 John 2:27; Christians already have all the `leadership’ they need. It is the Holy Spirit that lives within us. The function of church is that we meet like minded people (and also some guy who can articulate things to put things in clear language).

      Reply
  14. I assume discontent varies from church to church and will also depend on where someone is in their walk of faith but so saying I think the following factors are at play:
    • Lockdown – people stopped going to church: some have left, some have returned, some now come occasionally, and some are still following online. Fellowship requires people to physically meet.
    • I think the CofE (in particular) does not know where it stands on human sexuality, morality, sin, forgiveness, judgement, other faiths, and the authority of scripture – many clergy are afraid to make a stand (and so lack authenticity and conviction).
    • We have replaced God’s love (which is sacrificial and disciples us) with a world view of love which accepts everyone and everything (provided it is not perceived to harm or offend)

    Reply
  15. Ian
    Having read both blogs I was swept away by the discontent of the first and (as you know) disconcerted by the former RC searching for a type of authority which the CoE doesn’t give. I think she is in the wrong denomination and the discontented priest in the right one.
    Quite a few priests I know could describe themselves as Richard Rohr boys or girls and I don’t find their beliefs particularly heterodox. I’m not sure panentheism is heterodox.
    What I think the first writer articulates and which many of us feel is that the generous orthodoxy of the CoE is being threatened by neoliberal notions of growth, productivity, and success; and by wholly secular models of management and leadership. And that certain tribes who valorise correct belief over the praxis of fellowship, worship, and care for humanity and creation, are in the ascendant. I am much more disturbed by the Christian Institute publicly rejoicing that it will still be legal to torture trans people than I am by Richard Rohr or *bad* words on social media. In any case Christians using foul language are simply modelling themselves on Paul and the Church Fathers.
    I don’t know anyone who has left the Church for yoga – though I get more from the practice of yoga than from most worship these days – I do know those who have left for Sunday morning lectures and Bach. There’s a familiar narrative that people leave the CoE because it is perceived as having become too lax. Some do. Others leave because they are tired of a church which continues to sacralise misogyny, racism, homophobia, transphobia and ableism.
    There are certainly many who are discontented with the CoE. For those who long for a magisterium, there is the RCC; for those who want and exclusive denomination, there are plenty of sects; for those who long for prodigal love, mystery, numinous worship and orthopraxis, well we hope the CoE hasn’t entirely lost its way.

    Reply
    • I don’t know anyone who has left the Church for yoga

      Very few people leave the Church these days. Most simply never join, or ever give the Church half a second’s thought.

      Reply
      • True. But lots of people think yoga is the answer.

        The CofE has given up on the answer. Along with the monarchy, it’s just one of those things we have always done so maybe (not too convinced) we should carry on doing it?

        Reply
        • For some, yoga is the answer.
          For others it’s the Church Catholic in its expression as the Church of England.
          I’m discontented with it, but I wouldn’t write it off prematurely.

          Reply
          • For some, yoga is the answer

            Do you think that for some, Terri and two equals three; for some, it equals one thousand and twenty-four; for others, the square root of minus one, and for a few, it equals four?

    • “I am much more disturbed by the Christian Institute publicly rejoicing that it will still be legal to torture trans people than I am by Richard Rohr or *bad* words on social media.”

      I am pleased because the government (briefly) realised that you cannot ban what you cannot define. I am absolutely in favour of more-strongly criminalising coercive, manipulative and demonstrably harmful treatments (therapeutic or otherwise) and from the start my objection to the bill has never been the intent behind it, and has always been the catch-all and imprecise nature of what the government thinks ‘conversion therapy’ to be. Most of what the public thinks conversion therapy to be is illegal anyway, and has been for some time; it just isn’t a specific offense under existing legislation.

      It needs revision.

      Not being thrown out.
      Not being accepted wholesale.
      Simply adjustment.

      Or is that too unreasonable?

      Reply
      • Sorry Penelope, I misread your comment as a generalised “Christians” celebrating, not the Christian Institute specifically. I was being needlessly defensive. I have not seen anything posted by the CI, and you may well be right that they were ‘rejoicing’.

        Reply
      • I am absolutely in favour of more-strongly criminalising coercive, manipulative and demonstrably harmful treatments (therapeutic or otherwise)

        Most of what the public thinks conversion therapy to be is illegal anyway, and has been for some time; it just isn’t a specific offense under existing legislation.

        I’m struggling to square these; if the things you think should be criminalised are already illegal, what is the point of the legislation? Could you give a concrete example of something that is currently legal that you think needs to be made illegal?

        Reply
        • ‘Evening S. Sorry, lack of clarity on my part.

          I desire something similar to how the Government changed the law in 2019 to make ‘upskirting’ and other voyeuristic crimes specific offenses. Crimes of that type were already illegal, and covered under the Sexual Offenses Act of a decade or so earlier, but because they were not defined it was difficult to prosecute them, and so many cases were dropped.

          Something that was legal did not become illegal, but something already illegal was defined more clearly and is now easier to more effectively prosecute. This is what I want from the conversion therapy bill.

          Is that a satisfying explanation?

          Reply
          • Is that a satisfying explanation?

            Not really.

            Do you have a concrete example (there were, as you note, many such examples when it came to the Sexual Offence Act) of something that is currently difficult to prosecute, which clarifying the law would make easier?

            Obviously an actual case which either collapsed or was not prosecuted because of the deficiencies in the law would be best (as noted, there were many such examples for the other change you cite) but if not then a hypothetical, but concrete, example would do.

          • None that are as concrete and specific as you desire.

            Okay so let me get this straight because I fear I must have misunderstood.

            You think the law ought to be changed because the current law is so unclear that behaviour which is already illegal is going unpunished due to the lack of clarity in the law.

            And yet you are no only unaware of any example of this happening — not one single example! — but you cannot even imagine a hypothetical situation in which it might happen?

            I’m sure you can see my confusion. I must have missed something but it sounds to me like you have absolutely no evidence at all that there is any problem with the law as it stands, either a real problem or even a theoretical problem, yet you claim to think that the law is so deficient that it needs remedy by statute.

            But that can’t be right, can it? For you to think there is a problem with the law you must be able to (a) define that problem and (2) have evidence that the problem actually exists?

            Because if there is no such evidence then it looks to me like the law is actually working perfectly well in this area. I mean if there’s never been a problem, and you can’t even imagine how there could be a problem, how can it not be the case that the law is working perfectly well?

            So I must have missed something. What have I missed?

          • I cannot respond to this in a way that does not leave a hundred more begging questions, or would not invite and encourage even greater digression from the subject of the article.

            You win. I cannot give you the argument you want.

            Time, and my knowledge/ability to argue the specifics of this don’t permit it, so I will at least spare you the endless circling and questioning that characterises some of the conversation below.

          • I cannot respond to this in a way that does not leave a hundred more begging questions,

            I think you mean ‘unanswered questions’. A begged question would be one where you assume the conclusion in the premises, rather than just one you are unable to answer.

  16. On the evidence of the first letter I see no reason to consider the woman who wrote it a Christian in any biblical sense of the word. On the other hand the RC lady sounds genuine and despite magisterium issues raises fair questions; she sounds like a true believer.

    From outside it seems the Cof E is overrun with nominalism and vicious wolves in sheep’s clothing. It is replete with blind leaders of the blind tumbling into ditches. I’d be interested in what percentage of female clergy are genuine believers. The trouble is many of the other denominations are in the same sorry state.

    More worrying still, much of evangelicalism is in a bad way. Much of it is very shallow and most believers have only a smattering of understanding when it comes to the Bible. A kind of therapeutic theism holds sway. The feel good factor is everything and the cost of discipleship is never very specific. People know more about the characters on television than they do about the characters in the Bible. Worse, they care more about them too. Secular music with often its sewage lyrics are the staple diet of many young and not so young. We are addicted to entertainment.

    Preachers rarely preach the hard edges of the faith and when they do they have few who will wish to listen. We have on the whole a blend in Christianity. Our gospel remains ‘a come to Jesus and all your problems will be solved’ The seriousness of sin, the fear of God and eternal judgement are mooted and even air-brushed. We are culpable or at least most of us are.

    The day of reckoning is rapidly approaching. I say that with no relish. It seems likely many presently alive will have to make difficult costly choices. Many careers will be closed to Christians and prison may be the church for many – at least those who are faithful and real. Many evangelicals will either disappear like snow from a dyke or join the ranks of apostates such as Jayne Ozanne and Steve Chalke. I hesitated over the word ‘apostate’ but what other word is appropriate for those who repudiate the basic biblical morality and abandoned their evangelical roots. Ironically, the two examples are on the vanguard of promoting legislation that will lead to the persecution of believers. To talk of sin, to say that behaviour is sinful has become intolerable to some who profess to be Christians and they are in tune with a therapeutic culture (as false teachers generally are).

    The days are visible when to speak of sin of any kind will be branded as antisocial, psychologically damaging, unloving and irresponsible. The Christian gospel will be emasculated completely and only those who are loyal to the Lord will stand. I pray that I will have the courage to stand.

    Reply
    • Well here we have it. As I said, sacralised misogyny and ad homs.
      Didn’t expect it quite so soon to be honest.
      I think if you’re accusing people of being vicious wolves in sheep’s clothing, you may take time to consider the saying on motes and beams.
      A thoroughly disgusting, sub Christian tirade.

      Reply
      • I’d suggest also that the spiritual roots of yoga are counter to the tenets of orthodox Christianity and our Holy Triune God. So much so to render confusion.
        The use of the term *torture* is deeply a hostile, entrenched? false equivalent; a sub Christian twitter-like pile- on perhaps? It certainly didn’t take long, did it Penelope?

        Reply
        • Really, Geoff? I don’t find them to be antithetical.
          Breathing and exercising my body and contemplating doesn’t undermine my belief in a triune God. I think my faith is a little stronger than that. If your faith is frail, I wouldn’t advise interaction with other cultures which might taint your beliefs.
          But, again, I don’t understand your attack.
          There are enough testimonies to conversion therapy who have described it as torture.
          Are you doubting their witness?
          Why are you so hostile to the notion that conversion therapy is coercive and dangerous?
          Have you some agenda here?

          Reply
          • There are enough testimonies to conversion therapy who have described it as torture.

            I described having to sit through a particularly bad evening of amateur theatricals as torture.

          • In the twitter thread cited I advocate chastity before marriage for ALL couples – gay, straight and bi.
            But nice try, stalker.

          • In the twitter thread cited I advocate chastity before marriage for ALL couples – gay, straight and bi.

            Did you, or did you not, write in that thread that you think it ought to be made illegal to teach that the only right place for sexual intercourse is in a marriage that is between a man and a woman?

            Because I think you did write that in that thread, and I think anybody who reads it will see that you wrote that.

            (You’re trying to change the subject onto ‘chastity before marriage for ALL couples’, which was not the topic. We know you think it should be legal to advocate chastity before marriage for all couples, but that was not what I asked. Stop trying to change the subject and answer a straight question yes-or-no question for once.)

          • Indeed it does.
            So, since Christ never commented on trans people, on IVF, on bisexuality, nor on nuclear warfare, we have to use our discernment.

          • Is that the same Christ who spent a lot of his time talking about trans, bi etc matters?

          • No Christopher it’s the Christ who spoke a lot about gravity, the second law of thermodynamics and DNA.

          • So how is following either of those ‘Christ’s ‘following Christ’? To follow Christ is to do and say what he did and said.

          • Christopher

            Yes. Exactly.
            So where she didn’t say anything, for example on nuclear war or IVF, we have to interpret what ‘being in Christ’ means.

          • Which means having a totally different set of emphases and priorities compared to his.

          • Really Christopher? How do *you* discern Christ’s priorities on nuclear war on IVF.

          • They would be in conformity with his known priorities, but following him means sticking to his known words and actions.

          • This answer starts well but quickly reveals we have different Christs. The biblical Christ (and we have no other) would undoubtedly reach out to those of other faiths and no faith but whatever his level of engagement he would not regard it as ‘fellowship’. Fellowship is to share the common life and light that is in him and that is only available to those who are united to him by faith; those who follow him keep his commandments.

            Now undoubtedly we all fall short here. Yet there is falling short and there is subverting and snaking his commands. If I read you rightly this latter is what you are doing. Penelope, do you bow your will humbly to the word of God? Do you live with a sense of the fear of God? Do you hate sin and love righteousness? Do you have a pure heart? Are you meek? When you see sin in your heart and in the world does it cause you to mourn? Do you love the statutes of the Lord? Are they gold to you? Are they your daily bread?

            If not then you may be perfectly acceptable in the C of E but you will not have a seat at the heavenly banquet. You will be forever outside the celestial city in the burning lands. I say this with no relish but while I don’t wish to be rude I do wish to be frank. If you have Christ in your heart you will turn away from some of these views that shame him and seek to support LGBT people in more biblical ways.

            Who shall ascend into the hill of the Lord? or who shall stand in his holy place?
            4 He that hath clean hands, and a pure heart; who hath not lifted up his soul unto vanity, nor sworn deceitfully.
            5 He shall receive the blessing from the Lord, and righteousness from the God of his salvation.
            6 This is the generation of them that seek him, that seek thy face, O Jacob. Selah. Ps 24

            All these things my hand has made, and so all these things came to be, declares the Lord. But this is the one to whom I will look: he who is humble and contrite in spirit and trembles at my word. Isa 66

          • John

            I hope it’s obvious that I hate sin and love righteousness. If I did not I wouldn’t be fighting so hard here for the lost sheep that you and others here are so determined to keep outside the kingdom. I mourn constantly the sins of the world. Avarice, greed, violence, torture, abuse, misogyny, sexual exploitation, hunger, poverty, prejudice, racism, inequality, misuse of our finite resources. Do you?
            I do not fight for them humbly or meekly but with the whole armour of God.
            I do not care for a celestial banquet which would exclude my LGBTIQ siblings, or my siblings of other faiths, or my disabled siblings. Or only include them on terms which are acceptable to the Western, white, male, cisheteronormative canon which regards hegemonic, patriarchal ‘normality’ as a gospel imperative. Such a banquet is not the Messianic feast for which creation yearns but a club for the ‘saved’, those who construe correct beliefs as a ticket to the kingdom. I support LGBTIQ people in perfectly biblical ways, but do you?
            I don’t think the CoE is the path to salvation, Any more than Catholicism or Islam.
            I don’t know whether I have Christ in my heart. But I have Him in my bowels.

          • I don’t know whether I have Christ in my heart. But I have Him in my bowels.

            And is He enjoying it in there?

          • I do not care for a celestial banquet which would exclude my LGBTIQ siblings, or my siblings of other faiths, or my disabled siblings

            No one who calls Christ ‘Lord’ will be excluded. The only people excluded will be those who think they know better how they should live their lives than Him.

          • I do not care for

            There you go again thinking that what you care for has any relevance whatsoever! You do realise don’t you that the truth might indeed be something you don’t particularly care for? There are lots of things I do not care for that are nonetheless true.

          • As the former Bishop of Edinburgh has said
            “Christian theological history is filled with stories of groups who have developed theories of the election of themselves to salvation and the damnation of others; theories that demonstrate that their particular group has been exclusively endowed with divine truth, so that they possess a unique mission to the world and have a unique authority within it.”
            It is demonstrated so well on this forum….

          • Christian theological history is filled with stories of groups who have developed theories of the election of themselves to salvation and the damnation of others; theories that demonstrate that their particular group has been exclusively endowed with divine truth, so that they possess a unique mission to the world and have a unique authority within it.

            It’s also filled with stories of groups who have developed theories of fluffy universalism. The only thing that matters is which theory is true.

        • Yet Andrew, it seems that you believe yourself to be among the elect and confidently assert your superior knowledge of divine truth and dismissal of others. Quite what your authority for confidence in your election and insight to divine truth is based on I’m not sure. In neither case is it the Bible which you do not trust.

          Reply
          • I don’t even know what among the elect means John. It sounds like an appeal to special privileges. If that’s what your religion involves then someone else can have my privileges – whatever they are.

          • At school dinners I would sit next to fussy eaters and say, “if you don’t like deep fried parsnips take them from the server anyway then give them to me”. Andrew is someone who I want to sit next to. If he doesn’t like deep fried privileges—I’ll have ’em! The alternative is red pottage.

          • I don’t even know what among the elect means John

            ‘Elect’ is an old-fashioned word that means ‘choose’. To ‘elect’ someone is to choose them. So to be ‘among the elect’ means to be among those chosen by somebody. So for instance if you are a member of Parliament you are among the elect who were chosen by the voters. With a capital ‘E’ it usually refers to those chosen by God to be saved (based on no merit of their own, so they have no basis to be proud of their status as one of the Elect).

            Hope that helps.

  17. John In the midst of the wide variety of points you have made, I would focus on the one or two references to scripture which have great bearing on this discussion. The central question is not, in my estimation, that of leadership; it is the issue of authority, by which I mean : by what criterion do we formulate the beliefs and practices that are central to our understanding of the Christian faith? Richard Holloway was in many respects a good leader and still is an excellent communicator. However when it comes to the issue of Christian truth, I can remenber a time when his biblical exposition had its merits. But when a man oscillates between some kind of orthodoxy , agnosticism to what, in some quarters, is now described as *radicalism*, the leadership topic cannot be the primary focal point.

    Reply
  18. Blend-in and muted, not ‘mooted’. All the examples I cited in my scattergun approach come down ultimately to a lack of authority. Isaiah had the word of the Lord but no one would listen to it; they stopped their ears (Ch 6). No doubt he was dismissed as a traditionalist, alarmist, – certainly a misogynist (Ch 3)

    Though those who twist the Scriptures to their own destruction no doubt see him as a champion of homosexuality (Ch 56). They may think his use of language sanctions unnecessary coarseness which Scripture condemns He certainly undercuts Israel’s racism (Ch 19) He has a message of hope for the disabled (Ch 42) coupled with a call to avoid a victim mentality (Ch 35). He condemns hollow religion (Ch 56). Above all he proclaims God’s fierce wrath against all who replace him as the sole object of worship (40-50)

    Isaiah spoke of salvation (Chs 9, 11, 53). Glowingly. But he was no universalist. Only a remnant would be saved (Isa 10). For all others he has prepared a day of slaughter (Ch 34). I don’t hear Isaiah in the language of theological liberalism. And, God help us, I don’t see Isaiah approving the practices of much that calls itself evangelicalism. I point a finger at myself.

    Reply
    • John

      You make a significant point right at the end of this comment, “I point a finger at myself.”

      One of the marks of a true Christian, a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ and a follower of Him, is that he reveals to us the depth of our own personal sin and our desperate need of a Saviour. Day by day we become even more aware of our own inadequacies and failings, for which, thank God, there is a perfect remedy found in Christ. We may seem doctrinaire and bigoted at times to those still outside of Christ but we urge them, “Come, see a man who told me all the things that I have done.” (John 4:29)

      Reply
        • And you and Penelope aren’t; entrenched; don’t seek to impose your absolutes, your view of scripture, your view of God Andrew?
          All in the name of Christ? All in the name of Christ, you are seeking to convert…to what, to whom?
          The Christ of history? The Christ of the Bible? The Christ of your own deconstruction and reconstruction?
          If it is not in his name, then in which name, for there is no other name by which anyone may be saved.
          Where does conversion to Christ come in your own, or the CoE theology, or in any closed material world system that seems to be the one you subscribe to ?

          Reply
    • Ros – more to the point, some of the exchanges seem counterproductive. On a place like this, surely much better to try and elicit *why* someone has reached the conclusions they have reached – rather than getting all upset that they have reached the wrong conclusions and accusing them of being sub-Christian (whatever that is) or not-a-Christian-at-all.

      For example – I personally do not appreciate Richard Holloway, but I’d be interested to hear the things that shaped his wacky (in my view) conclusions – and why they are shared by others.

      For the sexuality business – well, everybody who considers themselves to be Christian takes the view that God calls us to love our neighbour as ourselves and this governs how we approach these issues. Those who are on the `conservative’ side see certain things as being either self-harm or harmful to others – that is the basis on which they oppose these things. Those on the other side consider the `conservative’ approach to be oppressive, repressive and doing much more harm than good. Would be interesting to understand what motivates people to reach the position they have reached rather than saying that everybody on the other side of the argument is a `Pimhole!’

      I think that pretty much everybody here has reached their own conclusions through their own careful thought – so we’re not going to change anybody’s mind; we can at least try to understand why we’ve reached different conclusions.

      Reply
      • “For example – I personally do not appreciate Richard Holloway, but I’d be interested to hear the things that shaped his wacky (in my view) conclusions – and why they are shared by others.”

        With respect Jock, to do that you would actually have to read his books rather than the wacky headlines about them. Primary sources are the only acceptable reading matter on which to base a judgment.

        Reply
        • Andrew – you have aroused my curiosity! Name one title that you think is his most important (or the one that influenced you most) and I’ll read it! As my mother pointed out, at least his ideas are original.

          Reply
          • Try Leaving Alexandria first to discover where the man has come from and what he actually believes now and why. And do listen to last Sunday’s Private Passions on the BBC Sounds. (A Radio 3 programme)

          • Andrew – OK – got it. I’ll find time to listen to this. It’ll be available for 23 days (and I can’t download it, because that option is only available in the UK).

            That’s basically what I’m looking for – what he believes now and, crucially, why – what led him to it.

  19. John

    You make a significant point right at the end of this comment, “I point a finger at myself.”

    One of the marks of a true Christian, a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ and a follower of Him, is that he reveals to us the depth of our own personal sin and our desperate need of a Saviour. Day by day we become even more aware of our own inadequacies and failings, for which, thank God, there is a perfect remedy found in Christ. We may seem doctrinaire and bigoted at times to those still outside of Christ but we urge them, “Come, see a man who told me all the things that I have done.” (John 4:29)

    Reply
  20. Secular people can see that the Church of England doesn’t really believe in anything any more. It is following the world downhill instead of leading it uphill. As a result it is viewed with increasing contempt by both atheists and committed Christians, and is dying. Liberal theology is the reason. God is slowly removing its lampstand.

    Where is discontent in the Church of England? In Jesus Christ, of course. He is deeply discontented with it.

    Reply
    • What utter twaddle. There are, as Ian and others would point out, plenty of statements on what the CoE believes. In some areas such as the Real Presence in the Eucharist, there is space for nuance and disagreement.
      If you don’t believe in CoE doctrine that’s your choice.

      Reply
      • You can’t choose to believe things. In matters of belief, evidence forces itself upon you. Choice is irrelevant.

        Reply
        • What utter rubbish. Belief in particular things is clearly a matter of choice. Some people choose to believe that Adam was a real person. Some people choose to believe that Job was a real person. They make such choices based on evidence presented to them. Others comes to quite different conclusions. Those beliefs in both cases are a matter of choice after considering the evidence.

          Reply
          • I am using ‘choose’ in a different way, as the dictionary most certainly has more than one meaning. You could say that we survey the options and then on that basis choose the (evidentially) likeliest candidate – that is the sense of ‘choose’ you are employing. Great. But other people might ‘choose’ the most congenial option. That is not great, because obviously congeniality is not evidence.

            Surely you have heard people say ‘I choose to believe’ (even though I don’t) which is comparable to ‘I choose to be happy’ (even though I am not) or ‘I choose to love’ (even though I don’t). I don’t recommend any of the three. Except in the sense that that if we take positive steps (even when we don’t feel like it) then this has positive effects.

          • ‘When I use a word’ said Humpty Dumpty … ‘it means just what I choose it to mean’.

          • What utter rubbish. Belief in particular things is clearly a matter of choice.

            Don’t be stupid. Of all the things you’ve written this might just be the most ridiculous. Nobody can choose whether to believe something.

            To believe something means to think it is true, and nobody can choose whether they think something is true or not. Either they do think it is true (for example, because they have considered the evidence and been convinced by it, or perhaps for some psychological reason, such as a paranoiac who believes that they are being spied upon) or they don’t; they have no choice in the matter.

            Others comes to quite different conclusions. Those beliefs in both cases are a matter of choice after considering the evidence.

            No they are not. If you consider the evidence and find it convincing, such that you think the proposition is true, then by definition you believe it. You cannot, in that case, choose not to believe it. If you think it is true then you believe it.

            Similarly if you consider the evidence and find it unconvincing, such that you either think the proposition is untrue or you can’t firmly work out whether it is true or not, then by definition you don’t believe it. You cannot choose to believe something that you are not convinced is true, because to believe something means to be convinced that it is true.

          • Well at least I’m glad that Christopher understood the use of the word in the end.
            S – watch an episode of the TV programme Would I lie to you? Then you will understand how the word choice has to work when presented with evidence for 3 possible options.

          • Understood the use of the word in the end?

            (1) So at the age of 55 I have finally discovered what ‘choose’ means? Something I have never known before?

            (2) You would think that the person who distinguished more than one separate meaning would be preferred to the one who assumed (why?) that usage (1) ought to have been usage (2).

            Once again you manage to be inaccurate, ill-evidenced, and would-be-points-scoring simultaneously.

          • Penelope’s point is nonsense, since both the usages of ‘choose’ are extremely widespread, as she knows. The only way that Humpty Dumpty’s words (which are Lewis Carroll’s satire on a ridiculous approach anyway) could be apposite here would be if any of the meanings that people were assigning to the word ‘choose’ were private meanings. Far from that, they were both very public meanings.

          • watch an episode of the TV programme Would I lie to you? Then you will understand how the word choice has to work when presented with evidence for 3 possible options.

            People on that programme don’t choose to believe anything. When given three options, they may well not have any idea which is true; which means they don’t believe any one of them. They then choose which one to give as their answer; but they don’t believe the one they give as their answer, because to believe something means to think it it true; they are just giving it as their answer because those are the rules of the game.

          • No: based on the evidence presented to them they are making a choice: do they believe it is true or do they believe it’s a lie. It’s a straight choice.

          • No: based on the evidence presented to them they are making a choice: do they believe it is true or do they believe it’s a lie.

            No, they are not. They are making a choice as to which answer they think is most likely to be accepted as correct. It’s nothing to do with what they actually believe.

            I mean if you think about it the game can’t possibly be about what they actually believe, because belief is an internal mental state, so there is no way for the game’s referee to find out what they actually believe. You can’t, contrary to the spy stories, attach electrodes to someone’s head and read off a trace of their brain activity and from that determine what they believe.

            Personally, I think that many if not most if not indeed all of the things presented as true on that programme are actually not true at al; either they’re entirely made up, or they are significantly embellished. So if I were to appear ont he programme, and were presented with three alternatives, I could not choose to believe any of them. Because to believe something is to think it is true, and I would think all three alternatives are false. So I couldn’t choose to think any one of them was true — that is, I couldn’t choose to believe any of them.

            I could, however, still play the game by choosing to say the one I think would be most likely to be accepted as the correct answer — and that is what all the contestants are doing, because that is what the actual game is. It has nothing to do with what they actually believe. (I hate to break it to you, but the people on your television are very rarely saying what they actual believe).

          • Penelope

            There is a difference between comments that are about a person and comments that attack opinions held by a person. People generally move from the latter to the former when they run out of reasoned argument.

      • Which congregations in the CoE are in decline and which are growing?

        Liberal theology is a one-generation thing; it cannot reproduce itself, but is parasitic on authentic belief.

        Reply
        • Conservative theology is a parasite on the Body of Christ. It corrupts and enfeebles the authentic Word of God. Like a cancer, it may grow, but it may, ultimately, kill its host.

          Reply
          • I am content to wait and see who is right. But I am not a ‘conservative evangelical’. I believe that the gifts of the Holy Spirit are available to the church today and if they are not manifest (as they certainly are not in liberal churches at least) then something is wrong – although I believe also that modern Western charismatics are kidding themselves 90% of the time.

          • Do you have an evangelical/charismatic background Penelope? As Anton points out few are converted to Christianity via liberalism. Liberalism is the refuge of lapsed evangelicals who can’t quite give up the faith for whatever reasons (Jayne Ozanne… Steve Chalke)

            Why would anyone ever convert to liberal Christianity? It is simply an echo of secular values (generally left wing values) at any point. It has nothing to offer and that is patently obvious to all. Tom Holland, writer of Dominion, was clear that if he ever embraced faith it would not be the powerless faith of liberal Christianity.

            Regarding conservative theology I would say the only churches growing and often filled with young people are conservative and charismatic churches.

          • Conservative theology is a parasite on the Body of Christ. It corrupts and enfeebles the authentic Word of God. Like a cancer, it may grow, but it may, ultimately, kill its host.

            You misspelt ‘liberal’.

          • Firstly, we cannot limit the Holy Spirit. She blows where she wishes.
            Her gifts are as manifest in liberal churches as they are in conservative churches. They are also manifest in the Catholic and Orthodox churches and in other faiths and none.
            I have a Catholic background. I wasn’t converted via any ism. I was baptised into the life of God.
            It isn’t patently obvious to me that what you call liberal Christianity has little to offer. It informs secular values rather than copying them. And where it is perceived as being left wing it is at its closest to the Gospel. Scripture is perspicuous on many things and one of them is that riches debar us from the Kingdom.
            Some conservative and charismatic Church’s attract young people. Often because of their worship rather than their theology; which many of the young ignore. Moreover, the vast majority of young people want nothing to do with the church for the reasons suggested by the first writer Ian quotes.
            In any case, the pursuit of numbers is a rather sad striving for the productivity and solutionism of neoliberal goods. It has little to do with the Gospel. As I observed, cancer grows.
            And Tom Holland is a very poor historian.

          • Liberals, like evangelicals, believe that the Bible is a narrative for Christians to live by, but unlike evangelicals they believe this narrative is not true. Liberal theology is hypocritical, because liberals speak differently amongst themselves and when they are in public. Publicly they affirm the gospel, but when they say they believe it, they don’t mean what evangelicals mean. Among each other, liberals use language that questions countless events in the scriptures, including the miracles and even the virgin birth and Resurrection of Christ. The liberal view is actually a form of secret knowledge for insiders, or gnosticism. Knowingly to say the Creed while using its words to mean one thing amongst other liberals but something else to the rest of the world is to be a liar. Liberals use the same phrase as that spoken by Satan in Genesis (3:1) – “Did God really say…?”; is their theology from the same source? Liberal bishops and clergy take a salary from churches for providing oversight while sowing doubt. They are parasites on the body of Christ. They could not get away with it if leaders of congregations were paid by their congregations, instead of through a centralised hierarchy, because believers would not pay to be ministered doubt.

            Here are some statistics from the Mind of Anglicans survey made by the organisation Christian Research in 2002. Just 51% of some 1800 respondents to a questionnaire sent to 4000 Anglican parish clergy “believed without question” that Jesus Christ was born of a virgin, 56% his uniqueness, 66% his resurrection, 77% the Trinity and 77% his atoning death. Those are core Christian beliefs. The apostle Paul said that if Christ was not resurrected then Christian faith is in vain (1 Corinthians 15:14).

          • Gosh, you pretend to know a lot about the ‘liberals’ of whom you speak.
            Do you remember the Commandment about bearing false witness?

          • In any case, the pursuit of numbers is a rather sad striving for the productivity and solutionism of neoliberal goods. It has little to do with the Gospel.

            Seriously? You think that a lifeboat trying to save as many people off a sinking ship as they can is a ‘rather sad striving’ and the ‘pursuit of numbers’?

            Each number is a person, a person who needs saved. If ‘the pursuit of numbers’ means trying to save as many people as possible, and not pursuing numbers means leaving people who could have been saved to their terrible fate, then by golly I’m all for the pursuit of numbers, and any other moral human being should be too!

          • Gosh, you pretend to know a lot about the ‘liberals’ of whom you speak.

            Not nearly as much as you pretend to know about conservatives though.

          • Penelope, Scripture does not say of the Spirit ‘she blows where she wills’. In fact, as i understand it the only time the NT ascribes gender to the Spirit it is male. We are all capable of making interpretative mistakes but the suspicion lurks that your ‘mistake’ has an agenda driving it. Like your ‘mistake’ that riches debar us from the kingdom of God. Abraham the father of the faithful was rich. With God all things are possible.

            So are you a rebel against your Catholicism? Or do you mistakenly believe that your baptism conferred spiritual life and you have yet to know the new birth. Is God calling you to believe the gospel and yield to him?

            We are called to care deeply for LGBT people but we are not called to approve their lifestyle. The same applies to many others too… atheists, racists, liberals, conservatives, socialists, postmodernists, ablists, and every other identity group that exists. All belong to the world that God loves and Christ died to save. They need the gospel to save them from the root ailment from which other ailments grow – their deep seated hostility to God and their rebellion against his authority. Therein lies the problem with this world and the problem that still troubles me much more than it ought.

          • Penelope

            S has expressed my reposte better than I could. I’m not in the business of defending the behaviour of OT saints. God revealed his expectations gradually through history. It’s what we call progressive revelation. Only with Christ and the giving of the Spirit are his requirements of his people fully revealed. But to whom much is given much is required.

            According to Tom Holland, of whom you are dismissive, it was Christianity that gave us the foundations on which much of western Christianity’s values are based. The value of the individual, of the slave, of the disadvantaged can be traced directly to Christianity. Stability in marriage (now almost destroyed by liberal humanism), humility, meekness etc are essentially Christian virtues.

            Meantime Penelope you are selling your birthright for a mess of liberal porridge.

          • Andrew

            Your pleasure is in undermining God’s word. I wonder how he will respond to this in tthe day of judgement… it can hardly be called trembling at his word.

          • John

            Yep, as I said, Holland is not a good historian. Very colonialist, westernised view of history for, in 2000 years, Christianity has sown many tares among the wheat.

            You may not choose to judge Abraham’s actions; having been given moral discernment by God, I do. That is what I call progressive revelation.

            And I would much rather have a mess of liberal pottage than be among the ‘elect’ you seem to valorise. They do not shew me Christ.

          • Yep, as I said, Holland is not a good historian.

            You mean he disagrees with you.

            You may not choose to judge Abraham’s actions; having been given moral discernment by God, I do.

            I don’t know why you always think pointing out that Biblical figures were sinners is such a gotcha. You might have missed that the whole point of Christianity is that we humans are all depraved sinners, so of course Abraham was no exception. King David was an adulterer too, are you going to mention that?

            And I would much rather have a mess of liberal pottage than be among the ‘elect’ you seem to valorise.

            No one who believes in unconditional election ‘valorises’ the Elect. That is the whole point of unconditional election: the Elect were not chosen for any merit of their own, so being in the Elect is nothing to be proud of.

            You’d know that if you understood what you were criticising, but you’ve never shown the slightest interest in understanding anything you disagree with.

            (Personally, I disagree with unconditional election — but I took the time to understand it.)

          • “Andrew

            Your pleasure is in undermining God’s word“

            Strangely John I thought it was you doing that….

          • Christopher

            Hm … interesting. Concepts are often context dependent of course. But, rape is non-consensual (usually penetrative) sex, is it not?
            What is the difference, therefore, between the rape of women in Ukraine and the rape of Hagar or the Levite’s concubine?

          • Rape is not simply nonconsensual penetrative sex, those are just the generally agreed aspects of it, according to the way this invented concept (invented to express a real and awful reality) has been used.

            Concepts are as humans make them. There are endless ways of slicing them up and configuring them. Although none of these are right or wrong, those that express the realities more simply and accurately are more right than others.

            Sometimes different extra aspects will be added to this concept depending on whom one is talking to and when.

          • Sorry Christopher, what defines rape, apart from non consensual (penetrative) sex?
            I know this is sometimes accompanied by violence. I know the thing penetrating isn’t inevitably a penis or the thing being penetrated inevitably a vagina or anus.
            But what other definition is there?

          • I already answered.

            Any question of the form ‘what is the definition of concept X?’ is unanswerable since it depends on usage.

            Any question ‘what is the current definition?’ we answer from the dictionary. These are subject to change.

            Any question ‘what is the legal definition?’ we answer from the lawcode. These too are subject to change.

            Your question presupposes that concepts rather than realities are unchangeable. This is multiply and clearly not the case.

          • Christopher

            Yep, but the (legal) definition is likely to get wider rather than narrower.
            That is, to include more types and methods of sexual assault; the ways in which rape is now extended to include marital rape and same-sex rape.
            It’s not likely to develop into a concept describing something else entirely.

        • Penelope

          You know nothing about me personally. Are you resorting to personal attack because you have run out of arguments?

          I worshipped in the Church of England for a decade and was on a PCC and the only one who sought to relate issues that came up to the Bible. The pushback from that, coupled with plentiful reading and talking to others, was ample education in the apostasy of liberalism.

          Reply
          • Anton

            It took you a while to realise I was being gratuitously offensive.
            Not very pleasant is it?

          • John

            It was not a mistake to call the HS ‘she’. Like many Christians I choose feminine pronouns for God’s Spirit, not because there is gender in the Godhead but to remind us not to worship a male God.
            Likewise, it was not a mistake to suggest that riches debar us from the kingdom. Read the story of the rich young man, the parable of Dives and Lazarus, and the early chapters of Acts. Ananias and Sapphira were punished because they withheld money from the common purse. And if you’re suggesting Abraham as an exemplar, you would do well to remember that he was a rapist who was willing to kill his second son.
            You’re attitude to riches makes it even makes more ironic that you include socialists among those who have a deep seated hostility to God. That would be a surprise to my late Christian socialist dad, but he can, no doubt, share the joke with Tony Benn.
            I am not sure what you mean by LGBTIQ ‘lifestyle’. Does it include shopping, cooking and cleaning, childcare, hobbies like that of the straights?

          • Penelope,
            Your transition to I. (Irene) wasn’t as quick, or as sustainable, as your detransition to G. (Gratuitously Offensive.) How (Q) Queer is that? Just a (T) theory.
            Yours,
            L.D.M.L (Les Dawson’s Mother In Law)

            From the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks.

            But, I’m with John. This is a matter that carries the unbearable weight of eternity, God’s Judgment and hell that mockery and flippancy can not swat away or forestall. The Biblical, God’s, warning against false teaching is shuddering heart stopping, that should stop people in their tracks let alone embark on a course of
            determined opposition, scholarly or otherwise to the revelation by and of the Person of God, fully revealed in and through his incarnation, in Jesus the Christ. There is no other name by which people are saved. Saved? From what? From whom? Saved for what? Saved for whom?
            The incarnation, life death, resurrection and ascension, took place in space, time and history as fact; objective truth. Or we are all time wasters, squabbling sinners doomed, no matter our passions, drivers, motivators, life desires : completely lost in darkness, particularly in progressive enlightenment, in a closed material world of humanism, philosophy, deism and a Christless Christianity in which life transformed, conversion, plays no part. And the Holiness of our Triune God, bears no relation in salvation and sanctification in conversion and life lived, in morality, in mortifying sin.
            In short, without the Cross of Christ, and all the entailments there is no Christianity. There is no Good News. God saves us from God (Piper). I’d add that He saves us for Himself.

          • It was not a mistake to call the HS ‘she’. Like many Christians I choose feminine pronouns for God’s Spirit, not because there is gender in the Godhead but to remind us not to worship a male God.

            I though that nowadays we were all supposed to be careful to only ever refer to someone by the pronouns that they themselves have indicated they wish to be used for them.

            Given the Holy Spirit has indicated in scripture that he wishes to be referred to by male pronouns, are you not guilty of the crime of misgendering (an especially heinous modern crime, that can get you on conviction a lifetime ban from the Twitter) by using she/her pronouns?

            the parable of Dives and Lazarus,

            There’s no such parable. There is a parable about a beggar called Lazarus and an unnamed rich man, but there’s nobody in that parable called ‘Dives’. Still, perhaps that is what you’re misremembering?

          • …. besides, wasn’t Mary got with child by the Holy Ghost? A bit difficult if the Holy Ghost was a girl …..

          • Dives and rich man are interchangeable, one being the Latin for the other. Also ‘Dives and Lazarus’ became the traditional name of the parable.

          • Dives and rich man are interchangeable, one being the Latin for the other.

            Not with a capital. It’s not a proper noun.

            Also ‘Dives and Lazarus’ became the traditional name of the parable.

            I’ve never heard it, but nevertheless the fact it’s traditional (if it is) doesn’t make it right.

          • Penelope

            You ‘choose’ to describe the Holy Spirit as female reveals the arrogance and idolatry of the human heart. As if we can define God as we choose. It is even more ludicrous than the belief that we can define our own gender by choice.

            Neither the story of the rich man and the story of Ananias and Sapphira each that riches debar from the kingdom. The former revels the danger of riches being wrongly used, the latter reveals the danger of lying about our use of our wealth. In neither case is wealth the reason for judgement. In both it is our relationship to our wealth that is key.

            I suspected you may choose to be obtuse and pick up on lifestyle. I hoped I was wrong and you would be above mere argumentation. I hoped we were trying to reach for truth and not merely jousting..

          • John

            Of course we’re jousting. Do you think people telling each other that they are apostate and that they are not saved will lead us into all truth.
            But we’ll done on your exegesis. You have just demonstrated once again that there are no two eyed fundamentalist. And you accuse me of twisting scripture! Ananias and Sapphira are killed simply because they keep money for themselves. There is no indication in the text that they were going to misuse the money. I notice also that you say nothing about Abraham being a rapist. But scripture is always perspicuous isn’t it?
            As for the LGBTIQ lifestyle, I have no idea what you mean, but I suspect that you are using it as a euphemism for sex. (I had hoped we could get through a whole thread without sex.) Anyway sex is sex. Queer people do it. Straight people do it. Some people don’t do it at all. I have no particular interest in what they do in private.

          • Ananias and Sapphira are killed simply because they keep money for themselves.

            No they aren’t. The text is quite clear. They are killed because they lied to the Holy Spirit.

            I have no particular interest in what they do in private.

            And so you shouldn’t. However God is interested in what I do (and what you do, and what everyone does) in private.

          • They only capitalised Dives to match it with the capitalised Lazarus.

            It was felt an imbalance that one character was named and one was not. Any reader would feel that.

            Luke named Lazarus (which name reads very strangely in the parable) because he was commenting semi-critically on John’s story about a man rising from the dead (as it is proposed that this Lazarus also does). Just as he has a figtree parable in place of the figtree cursing. And he has Mary and Martha elsewhere in Johannine roles.

            I do not want to be party to any conversation that includes name calling.

          • It was felt an imbalance that one character was named and one was not. Any reader would feel that.

            Hopefully ‘any reader’ would not then presume to take it upon themselves to correct Scripture, though.

            Luke named Lazarus (which name reads very strangely in the parable) because he was commenting semi-critically on John’s story about a man rising from the dead (as it is proposed that this Lazarus also does).

            Oh have you read an interview with Luke where he explained his choices? Where was it published? Or did Luke tell you this in personal correspondence?

          • Christopher

            I apologise that it was my citing of this parable which provoked what appears to me to be an unseemly attack on your NT scholarship.

          • It is worth noting that this is the only ‘parable’ where a character is named. It may be the meaning of his name that is significant; God has helped. To the onlooker the opposite seems to be the case and it looks as if the rich man is the one God has favoured. However, destinies reveal where God’s favour truly lies.

            Reversal of expectation run through Luke from the choice to exalt Mary and her exultation that her child was for the rise and fall of many in Israel. From appearances it seems a pregnant Mary outside of marriage is a sinner deserving to be covered in shame but the reality is she is ‘highly favoured above woman’. Rather than being crushed by the shame that would surely follow her through life she rejoices that the Lord has done great things for her.

            Mary and Lazarus found it costly being favoured by the Lord. In this life that favour was not immediately obvious. One day when God’s sons are revealed to the delight of creation that favour will be on full display.

            Penelope your twisting of narratives to suit an agenda reveals the deeper warp in your heart when confronted with God’s word. You persistently misconstrue texts. S has pointed re A&S out what is obvious to any unbiased mind. Abraham is another case in point. I have do doubt Abraham’s behaviour was not God’s will; it was a failure of faith. But it was not rape. There is no suggestion in the narrative that Hagar objected to her union with Abraham and Abraham was acting according to the legitimate customs of his time. As in Eden, it was his wife that urged him in a direction contrary to God’s will. It’s that underlying patriarchy again distorting everything isn’t it.. always blaming the woman? Hagar is promoted to the status of a wife (which clearly gave her the confidence to mock Sarah). The result of this unbelief has had ramifications down through the centuries.

            If you believe the Bible Penelope you read it to grasp its perspective and be guided by that. We try by God’s grace to avoid imposing our own values or the values of our age upon it. This is to twist the Scriptures to our own destruction.

          • The name Lazarus plays no role in the story otherwise.

            To which we add the compounding factor that no other parable people are named.

            And to that we further add that it feels normal within both the genre and the specific narrative if they are unnamed and would feel strange if they were named.

            To which we further add that if they were named we would at least expect the name to be carefully chosen.

            To which we add that there seems no purpose in the precise name Lazarus (otherwise).

            To which we add Luke’s known tendencies with his sources, and it is at that *large-scale* (and all small scales must submit to the large scale within which they are anyway included) that we must be primarily looking if we want to see what he is doing.

            We discern Luke’s plans and tendencies from any patterns that are formed on a scale too large to be coincidental.

          • One of the patterns is that Luke likes to acknowledge proper names in John that were not in Mark. Annas, Caiaphas, the second Judas disciple, Mary, Martha, Lazarus. (Not Nathanael or Nicodemus though.)

          • To which we further add that if they were named we would at least expect the name to be carefully chosen.

            Okay, but Luke didn’t choose the name, did he? Jesus did.

            We discern Luke’s plans and tendencies from any patterns that are formed on a scale too large to be coincidental.

            No, we don’t ‘discern’ them, is the issue. We make educated guesses at them. And I’ve written and read enough things to know that often the guesses you make about why authors made the choices they did, and other people’s guesses about why you made the choices you did, are often very wide of the mark — and that’s when the writer is alive and able to correct the record. It seems utterly unjustified to think we could know with any certainty what was in the mind of someone who was promoted to glory nearly two thousand years ago.

          • John

            You are very much imposing your own (contemporary) values on the Abraham narrative. Hagar was a slave. She had no power of saying yes or no. Abraham raped her. With Sarah’s connivance. Because, in a patriarchal society, the only use of a wife (not that she is necessarily a ‘wife’) was to bear sons.
            It was indeed the ‘legitimate’ custom of the time. But we would call non consensual sex with a slave, rape.

          • Exactly, we make educated guesses. The more of Luke’s oeuvre and tendencies are taken into account, the more background knowledge there is, then the more educated there will be.

            Whether Luke or Jesus originated the beggar’s name is a matter for study not for dogma which will always be trumped by study.

          • You are very much imposing your own (contemporary) values on the Abraham narrative.

            No, that’s what you’re doing. By the standards of the time it wasn’t rape; by our standards it was. Now, as morality doesn’t change with time, one or other standard must be wrong, and you might well be right to impose your own contemporary values onto Abraham. But don’t pretend that isn’t what you’re doing. You are saying that your (contemporary) values are better than Abraham’s values.

            It was indeed the ‘legitimate’ custom of the time. But we would call non consensual sex with a slave, rape.

            Exactly: We would. They wouldn’t. So you are imposing our values on them. Perhaps correctly, but that is what you’re doing.

          • Exactly. And look how quickly our definitions change, how unstable and fashion-prone they are.

          • Exactly, we make educated guesses. The more of Luke’s oeuvre and tendencies are taken into account, the more background knowledge there is, then the more educated there will be.

            Right, but then we don’t present those educated guesses as if they were facts that could be established through reasoned argument. We say, ‘it seems that …’ or ‘lots of people think that …’ or something similar.

            Whether Luke or Jesus originated the beggar’s name is a matter for study not for dogma which will always be trumped by study.

            Could you give an example of His study could possibly provide a definitive answer to the question of who came up with the name?

            (And also why, if Like did make up the name and put it in Jesus’ mouth, we should not then begin to suspect that he made up other words and put them in Jesus’ mouth too?)

          • “And also why, if Like did make up the name and put it in Jesus’ mouth, we should not then begin to suspect that he made up other words and put them in Jesus’ mouth too?)”

            Which of course is exactly what Luke and other Gospel writers did do. There were no tape recorders. They were writing a long time after the words were spoken.

          • Yet again, this unthinking lumping together of the 4 gospel writers as though they were all the same.

          • Which of course is exactly what Luke and other Gospel writers did do.

            It isn’t, no. They interviewed people who heard what Jesus said, and who told them He had been said as best they could remember it. They didn’t put words into Jesus’s mouth. They weren’t Johann Hari.

          • “Yet again, this unthinking lumping together of the 4 gospel writers as though they were all the same.”

            Rubbish. Of course they are not all the same. But their work as compilers and editors have similarities.

          • “ as best they could remember it. “
            Which was clearly not always exact. And you only have to look at a synopsis to see how Mark. Luke and Matthew adapt those stories for their own purposes, changing the order of words, and events. And then look at how particular words in parallel stories are different. Words were changed.

          • I don’t think their work as compilers and editors always has similarities. Mark’s task of writing down material orally received is a different sort of task to Matt’s or Luke’s, since they have one or more written source.

          • Which was clearly not always exact. And you only have to look at a synopsis to see how Mark. Luke and Matthew adapt those stories for their own purposes, changing the order of words, and events. And then look at how particular words in parallel stories are different. Words were changed.

            Or the stories were told multiple times, and each gospel writer got theirs from someone who heard it on a different occasion.

          • More to the point, there’s a massive difference between ‘doing your best to reconstruct what happened from many eyewitness accounts’ and ‘just making stuff up because it suits your purposes’. Making up a name that Jesus never said would clearly be the latter, and the gospel writers were doing the former.

          • How anyone could read John’s Gospel and claim that the evangelist didn’t put words into Jesus’ mouth is beyond my comprehension.

          • Penelope –

            ‘How anyone could read John’s Gospel and claim that the evangelist didn’t put words into Jesus’ mouth is beyond my comprehension.’

            Try smoking an awful lot of dope. Then you’ll be able to `feel it, man – feel it!’

          • Of course it is – how can you deny that the vacillations in definition bear this out? This is just one example of something that is bound to be true because of what concepts are.

            There is nothing absolute about concepts. People struggle to form concepts that will most neatly express realities, and there is constant evolution here, sometimes in a forward direction and sometimes not.

          • ‘Heard on a different occasion’, S? I can understand that someone would think that was one of the possibilities (as indeed it is) when they first came to consider the matter. But when we are talking the synoptic gospels (a) we are talking the documents that most closely reproduce each other in the entirety of ancient literature. And (b) using a source is the most simple way of writing, and is (c) something that many authors acknowledge that they do. (d) Luke knows sources. Both he and you would be using a sledgehammer to crack a nut if they refused to go down the path of simply using written sources when such were available and known to them, and instead stuck with eyewitness interviews, particularly when you have not given evidence that eyewitnesses were around when Luke wrote.

            But it gets worse. By your hypothesis, the eyewitnesses Luke used (it always has to be plural eyewitnesses, apparently – but why?) gave him in the main precisely the same narratives and sayings that his predecessors had received. Which means they were the same eyewitnesses. Which means that they would have said to him – We have already given our accounts to the earlier gospel writers, which they have already written down, and you can access them.

            What we actually find is different. It is that Mark includes various accounts where we might suspect who the eyewitness is; John includes eyewitness details himself; Matt reproduces a great deal of Mark parrot fashion and has very little in terms of new stories (which are what he would have got from eyewitnesses) apart from the folklegendy type, but masses of new sayings; and Luke seems to have had access to different eyewitnesses e.g. women for small tracts and otherwise his new narratives fit his OT preoccupations neatly. In other words, a complex picture. How anyone can deduce from that that the 4 evangelists, who were to quite a large extent up to 4 different things, can be generalised about – is beyond comprehension.

          • Christopher

            I replied to your comment about rape. But it appears to have nested above in another exchange.

          • There is no nesting this far down the chain.

            Three conversations are going on at once, and one has to work out from the context who is responding to whom. It isn’t easy, though it is interesting.

  21. I’ve noticed myself becoming much more discontent with the church of England, or my little bit of it, over the last year, than I ever had before. Part of this is to do with picking up a national mood of discontent, I think: the first year of covid was characterised by dizzy activism, the second year by exhaustion, but in the third there is a whiff of nihilism in the air. And part is to do with specific local instances of injustice.

    But leaving these national and local causes aside, I think there are five reasons I’m discontent.

    1. I long for a relational culture – a culture where it’s normal to have conversations with people rather than labelling them, and rather than trying to “manage” people without relationship. When people have deep-seated reasons it’s hard for them to have these conversations, it takes real humility and time to begin them. But it’s possible. It will take a certain self-awareness to see where we’re speaking to or about others without respect and repent of that. The state has a bureaucratic culture – it can’t help it, it just does; and the market has a business culture, by definition. But churches are meant to have relational cultures. We’re meant to love one another, as Christ has loved us. If I became a vicar again (I’m now a diocesan official) – and I assume I probably will become a vicar again at some point – I would spend the first few months teaching God’s people how to have “121s”, that is, one to one conversations in which each person discloses something of themselves (their story, their passions, their relationships, their gifts) and listens really well to the other person (their story, their passions, their relationships, their gifts). I genuinely believe that widespread use of 121s would do more to change the Church of England for the better than any other “strategy”.

    2. I long for triple listening (the term is John Stott’s) – listening to God, listening to God’s people, listening to the wider community. People have vocations, and churches have vocations; at a time of bewilderment, triple listening is how a church can find its vocation. I think a lot of discontent stems from a lack of understanding of what we, and our churches, are called to do – and the vocation is likely to be less ambitious than our big aspiration. It’s likely to be about being a creative minority, in partnership with other creative minorities, keeping the story of Jesus alive and doing something – not everything, but something – for the common good.

    3. I long for bottom-up planning, where God’s people, having done the triple listening, plan their next steps. The only thing you can successfully build top-down is a hole. Planning needs to be done with an eye to issues of power – the state has power-over (if you doubt that, try opposing the state, it will use the police and then if necessary the army to keep you in line), the market has power-over (your boss can sack you), but churches are supposed to have power-with, because all God’s people are equal, though with different roles and responsibilities.

    4. I long for action through public storytelling. All God’s people confident to tell their story, in relation to God’s story; churches enabling the community to speak confidently about the issues they care about and be heard; a lot more people than at present, whom God has called and gifted, whether or not God has called them to be ordained, having a particular role in preaching the good news in a variety of settings. Pastoral care, preaching, campaigning, prophetic witness, evangelism, testimony all flow from getting action through public storytelling right. So if I’m a Vicar again, I will spend some months – after we make a start on 121s and triple listening and planning – giving attention to story-telling.

    5. I long for triangles to be turned into tables. That is, I long for hierarchies and barriers to be turned into flat teams and hospitality. I long for everyone to find their place at the tables of power (“if you haven’t got a seat at the table, you’re probably on the menu”) and at the Table of God, the Lord’s Table, which is a foretaste of the Great Banquet in the new heaven and the new earth. Meanwhile, I can’t stand triangles (never invite me to an orchestral concert, it will be carnage), and try to destroy them wherever I see them – but hopefully in the context of all the things I’ve listed above.

    I’m sorry this was a long comment. I’m sorry if the tone is that of someone who thinks they’re some sort of expert – I’m really, really not. My point is this: your diagnosis of your own discontent will no doubt be different from mine. But the only way I have any chance of staying moderately spiritually healthy is to articulate my discontent, and do positive things to deal, as far as in my power, with each of the factors I identify; I could list the things I’m doing under each of my 5 headings, but that would make the comment even longer and more self-serving. And I dare to say that the only way each reader of this blog will be saved from the debilitating downsides of discontent is if they, in turn, find ways to act humbly in their context, with others, to deal with whatever factors they’ve identified. God probably wants us to be discontent, in the sense that he wants to disturb the comfortable so they will act; but he also wants us to have the deep contentment of knowing he is enough for us, and that we are doing what we are called to do to make a difference. Power can be a dangerous thing (see above); but powerlessness, or feeling powerless, can be worse, and lead to us rotting from the inside. All of us can do SOMETHING.

    Reply
    • Thank you Andy.

      From personal situational experience and observation of other places there is a lot here I agree with…

      “The only thing you can successfully build top-down is a hole.” rings a lot of bells: Dioceses piling up mission agendas; leaders thinking that giving out “orders” is leadership; congregations wanting solutions handed out “off the shelf” rather than “out of their discipleship”.

      From a stranger’s point of view I hope you might return to being a vicar again if that door opens … DV of course

      Reply
  22. Andy

    You have expressed these points it would seem through a great deal of personal angst. Frustration, disillusionment and discontentment are withering. I hope you have someone close you can talk to about these issues. Talking about it is probably important.

    At the risk of sounding trite I hope you have found a way to bring these matters to the Lord. There is no doubt that prayer is a release as long as we don’t use prayer as a means of further focussing on our concerns.

    Regarding power, I would say that the only power that the church or an individual i the church has that is of any worth is the power of the cross. Perhaps realising this would save us all from a lot of grief. Humanly speaking you can achieve very few of these aspirations. I think you (and all of us) need to focus on what the Lord has primarily called you to do, do it, and leave the outcomes to him. You seem to be doing this if I read your last paragraph rightly.

    If you were a vicar again. I’d say make the Bible’s priority for you, you’re priority. Preach the word. Preach it boldly, graciously and faithfully. Earth it (so far as it needs earthed) in the lives of God’s people. Challenge them to service and give them their head. You can’t do everything. You actually can do very little well before you start fraying at the edges. It is the word that gives life and produces growth. Everything grows out of the word. We need to rediscover this. You will need to pastor the word in from the pulpit and the fireside. Anything beyond this is a bonus and needs to be weighed. You do not want to burn out.

    God’s people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. The shepherds are caused to provide food.

    When I was younger I was able to look on false teachers with a degree of neutrality. Now I feel the destruction and chaos they cause. I see the way they twist Scripture and their arrogance in doing so. The answer on the whole is solid, dogged, biblical, applied preaching dependent on the Holy Spirit, A quiet prophetic ministry is the only hope for any congregation.

    God bless

    Reply
    • Me too. I loathe the destruction and chaos they cause. But, fortunately, they won’t be standing at the Last Judgement with a clipboard.

      Reply
  23. John, thank you for your thoughtful and compassionate response. Your word “angst” is a good one. I have felt angst-y over the last few months, and it is that angst that led me to dare to present myself, in parallel to the two writers Ian highlights in his article, as another example of someone discontented with the Church of England – but for different reasons again from either of them.

    However, I can honestly say that by identifying the reasons for my angst (this thinking absorbed me to some extent between about Christmas and February), and seeing the practical things I can do about them, I’ve got to a point where I’m really not angsty or dissatisfied to any great extent; in fact, I feel quite cheerful and hopeful (anyone who knows me personally will confirm that, though I don’t blame you for not reading that off the cold page!). Hence my advice to any other dissatisfied Anglican: put your dissatisfaction into words, find your satisfaction in Jesus, and humbly start to do what you can do to make a difference, and you will find your angst, too, turns to something more constructive. Angst may remain for a night, but joy comes in the morning.

    Thank you also for the reminder that my determination to build a relational culture, triple-listening, bottom-up planning, story-telling, and a place at the tables of power and the Table of God must not displace the Bible. Absolutely agreed.

    Reply
  24. Re the chaplain at the University of Cumbria – she should have a peep at Lancaster Uni’s Christian Union which is vibrant, multicultural / ethnic and creative. By and large I have found uni chaplains distinctly unimpressive though, happily there are some real exceptions. I once sat through an ordination service at Christchurch, Oxford where a college chaplain gave the sermon the substance of which was for the ordinands to take inspiration from Les Dawson – and that was it.

    Reply
  25. Andrew Godsall – I listened to the first 20 minutes of the hour-long radio programme yesterday, the discussion with Richard Holloway, and I’ll try to find time for the rest of it.

    First impressions – well, clearly (from his description) he was not motivated by the burden of his sin, which rolled away at the foot of the cross (as per John Bunyan, `Pilgrim’s Progress’); the parable of Luke 18:13,14 didn’t seem to enter his motivation at all; he was never the sinner standing far off praying `God, have mercy on me, a sinner’. That doesn’t seem to have been his motivation and that never entered into it.

    He seems to have been deeply impressed with the Anglo-Catholic ceremonial, but I felt that there was much that was left out. He was particularly impressed with the funeral of a cousin, arranged with incense and candles, but he never told us how much the death of his cousin affected him (and I imagine a great deal).

    Also, he left home at the age of 14 to go into training for the priesthood – is there something he wasn’t telling us about home? He put a positive spin on it, but were there also negative things? Because 14 seems very young to leave home. I know (for example) that my grandfather left school at 14 in 1909 and joined the fishing, but he stayed at home. His oldest son left school at the age of 14 in 1939 and became an accountant, but stayed at home. Moving away from home at that age seems crazy and damaging – unless there was something that he wasn’t telling us.

    Richard Holloway says he was deeply impressed with the idea of the monastic life and thought about it, but decided not to follow it because he felt that he would have been unable to live up to the ideal. Fair enough. He and I are clearly completely different people with completely different perspectives, because I always thought that the `ideal’ sounded like a drab empty life ……

    I’ll listen to the rest of it. He comes across as a decent fellow, but one who has never been struck by his own sinfulness and doesn’t see the crucifixion and resurrection as a remedy for that – nevertheless, felt compelled to join the priesthood anyway.

    Reply
    • Jock a radio programme which is primarily about music isn’t going to go into the kind of detail you seem to want it to. My suggestion was that you read the book Leaving Alexandria AND listened to the radio programme. The latter to give you some more personal flavour to go with the book.

      Reply
      • ….. thanks. That was another thing – music is absolutely central to his worship. In the opening he explains that his favourite form of church service is `Even Song’, where he likes the music and where there isn’t a sermon so that he doesn’t feel `got at’ by the contents of the sermon.

        Yeah – the music was a huge step up from Graham Kendrick ditties – and I’ll bet he never entertained that style when he was bishop!

        Reply
        • Jock, Richard Holloway is a former Anglo-Catholic who lost his faith.
          He actually lost his faith long before he retired but he kept quiet about until he reached pensionable age.
          He is beloved by liberals like Andrew and Penelope but his apostasy embarrasses them and they try to conceal it.

          Reply
          • James – yeah, I’m aware of that – but I’m trying to find out *why*. Importantly (at least for me), he comes across as a decent sort – so I’m wondering what sort of faith he had in the first place, why he lost it, etc …..

          • Again James you are using secondary material. You would do well to read Leaving Alexandria to find out the truth of the matter.

          • James

            You have no idea what my opinion on Holloway is because, to my knowledge, I have never expressed it here.
            But you are also quite wrong to conclude that I am embarrassed by his ‘apostasy’.
            I admire many people and dislike many people. Some of the people I dislike the most are self-identified Christians.

  26. Andrew, I am *very* familiar with Richard Holloway’s “pilgrimage” and loss of faith – far better than you could know.
    And I know that he has been a hero of sorts to you and his abandonment of Christianity is a source of embarrassment to you. As it ought to be because Holloway has only been consistent in his thinking.
    If you are reluctant to follow him, that can only be because you think he is mistaken or you lack the courage to admit that he is right about “the bankruptcy of theism”.

    Reply
  27. We have known for a long time that Penelope strongly dislikes a good number of “self-identified Christians”. The lack of love has been obvious and repeatedly stated in this blog. “I thank you, God, that I am not like this publican etc”.
    If she is not embarrassed by Richard Holloway’s abandonment of Christianity and even theism, then she has not been paying enough attention. The fact that she puts speech marks around the word apostasy indicates a degree of discomfort with the word – unless of course she actually agrees with Holloway’s line of thought.
    There have always been unitarians, pantheists and mystical atheists in the Church of England (including its clergy – I’ve known a number over many years, even chatted with Chris Bryant in his clerical days) but they’ve usually spoken circumspectly until they left clerical employment, as Holloway did. Do not imagine he became an atheist on his 70th birthday.

    Reply
    • The publicans on this thread are those who believe that they have the correct beliefs, that they belong to the elect and who sneer at those who aren’t saved. Me, for instance. Yes, you’re right, I do tend to dislike Christians who believe and behave like this. That’s not all the people on this thread, of course, some have a very narrow, fundamentalist concept of Christianity, but are still full of love.
      I don’t understand is why I should be embarrassed by Holloway’s abandoning theism. I admire all sorts of people who aren’t theists. As for ‘apostasy’, I put the word in inverted commas because it’s not a concept I approve of. It leads to violence.
      Holloway nursing doubts for a number of years seems more moral than those actively working against their church, calling it apostate, but continuing to take the stipend, the house and the pension

      Reply
      • The publicans on this thread are those who believe that they have the correct beliefs, that they belong to the elect and who sneer at those who aren’t saved.

        You’re not interested in what your opponents actually think, I know, only your caricature of them, but as If pointed out, no one who believes in unconditional election could possibly sneer at someone who is not saved, because they believe that they don’t deserve their salvation.

        You , on the other hand, seem to believe that you deserve to be deified.

        I know who I think is more likely to be guilty of the sin of pride.

        Holloway nursing doubts for a number of years seems more moral than those actively working against their church, calling it apostate, but continuing to take the stipend, the house and the pension

        That’s what Holloway did, isn’t it? He pretended to believe, though he didn’t, until after he had retired, in order to keep getting his stipend.

        Reply
  28. Well, there is clarity for us at any rate. But perhaps Penelope doesn’t see that she is just as sectarian and rejecting, in her own way, as the Christians she openly says she dislikes? Does she not discern “sneering” in her own attitude? Spiritual pride, even?
    But if she doesn’t see why she “should be embarrassed by Holloway’s abandoning theism” ( to quote her precise words), I don’t know why she bothers calling herself (in some sense) a Christian. The point is really so basic I am surprised I have to make it. Our Lord was clear, and everywhere in the New Testament makes this plain, that to reject Him is to reject the One who sent Him.
    Whether Penelope “approves” of the concept of apostasy is neither here nor there and is not going to any angel’s wings. Jesus, John, and the Letter to the Hebrews are very clear on this, and these are the authorities for Christians not what one person chooses to believe (or not).
    Holloway was and is still, I understand, a hero to liberals, including many who are not brave enough to follow him consistently; but integrity and courage mean telling those you “admire” that they are wrong.
    That is why, for example, no evangelical will excuse Ravi Zacharias’s conduct and no Catholic will defend Jean Vanier’s conduct. You see, we believe in the objectivity of the Christian faith. It isn’t ours to reconstruct (deconstruct) as we go along – as Holloway did.

    Reply
    • You really are a self-righteous individual aren’t you? Disliking some Christians and admiring some atheists reveals nothing about which of us is saved. Indeed, as I commented on another post, I am properly agnostic about who will be saved. And equating unbelief with sexual abuse is pretty vile. But, then, I am getting used to the moral relativism and unseemly personal attacks I encounter here.
      Which means I would rather spend an eternity with Richard Holloway than with many here. But then having a warped heart, I would say that, wouldn’t I?

      Reply
      • But, then, I am getting used to the moral relativism and unseemly personal attacks I encounter here.

        Little bit of the pot calling the kettle black with ‘personal attacks’, do you not think? Shall we make a list of the times you have called people ‘sub-Christian’?

        I mean, I don’t mind being personally attacked, so I’m fine for you to continue launching personal attacks on me. But if you dish it out, you ought to be able to take it.

        Reply

Leave a Reply to Ros W Cancel reply