Can Parliament force the C of E to change its doctrine of marriage?


Labour MP Ben Bradshaw has called for the Church of England to change its doctrine of marriage or face the threat of disestablishment. 

His comments were prompted by the refusal of Hereford Diocese to allow same-sex married Mpho Tutu van Furth, daughter of the late Desmond Tutu, from officiating at her godfather’s funeral. Bradshaw claimed that the Church is ‘actively pursuing a campaign of discrimination’ against gay people. 

This was a particularly high-profile, egregious example. But cruelty like that is practised on lesbian and gay people in the church all the time, every day – people you never hear about in the headlines, people whose lives are destroyed – and it can’t go on.

Patience is being worn very thin, and parliament is in a position to put pressure on the church. Without change, I think we might see growing calls for disestablishment.

Bradshaw has an interest in this, as a gay man who was one of the first MPs to register a civil partnership. In 2009, he won the Stonewall Politician of the Year Award for his work to support equality for lesbian, gay and bisexual people. He is a member of the ‘gayest Parliament in the world’; 9% identity as LGBT, compared with around 1.8% of the population as a whole. Interestingly, Bradshaw’s remarks have only been reported in the Guardian amongst the mainstream news channels.

It is worth examining what Bradshaw is claiming, what he is threatening, and what the consequences might be. 


His first claim is that the Church is actively discriminating against gay people. At one level, some of my gay friends, including those who are ordained, would be surprised about this. The C of E specifically seeks not to discriminate against people on the basis of their sexuality, and all the evidence suggests that the proportion of clergy who are gay is far higher than the the proportion in the general population. 

What the C of E does discriminate against is patterns of relationship which contradict its own doctrine. In law, this is legitimate discrimination, and is on a par with (for example) discriminating against appointing a Muslim when advertising for a Christian youth worker. The question here is whether the C of E, or any religious group, has the right to determine its own beliefs, and act on them. Although such a right is protected in law under Freedom of Religion, this right is not absolute, in that there are limits to it, for example where it conflicts with human rights. 

Bradshaw appears to be claiming that the C of E does not have freedom to define its own understanding of marriage, and is perhaps suggesting that there is a human right to both be same-sex married and to be ordained in the Church which trumps the Church’s own freedom. The idea that ordination is a right of some sort is highly unusual. 


But that leads to reflection on the nature of the doctrine of marriage. In his exploration of the theological and philosophical issues around marriage and sexuality, US author Darrin Snyder Belousek notes:

The creation-covenantal pattern of marriage is a consensus doctrine of the church catholic. Until the present generation, all Christians everywhere have believed, and every branch of Christian tradition always has taught, that marriage is man-woman monogamy. (Marriage, Scripture, and the Church, p 52)

In his comments, Bradshaw points out that Anglican churches in Scotland, Wales, the US, Canada, New Zealand and elsewhere conducted or blessed same-sex marriages. But what he fails to say is that these provinces represent a tiny fraction of the Anglican Church worldwide in terms of attendance. Bishops representing around one third of the members of the Anglican Communion refused to attend the recent Lambeth Conference because of differences on sexuality, and bishops representing another third issued a dissenting statement. 

So the current doctrine of the C of E is in line with the vast majority of Anglicans worldwide, as well as the wider global church through history. 

By contrast, the UK has allowed same-sex marriage in law for 9 years, and it is easy to forget what a surprise that was, since there was no mention of it in the Government’s manifesto. When Civil Partnerships were introduced in 2005, they were understood to be ‘gay marriages’ in all but name, and there was little anticipation of further change. 

Of course, longevity isn’t always a guarantor of truth. But something strange is going on when a politician demands that the Church must change its long-established doctrine in order to conform to quite recent cultural changes. 


The logic of Bradshaw’s demands appears to be around the trade-off he believes inherent in the establishment of the Church by law. 

The C of E “enjoys extraordinary and unique privileges in its role in the nation’s life”, he said, citing the 26 seats in the House of Lords reserved for Anglican bishops.

Bradshaw sees establishment as being the granting of privileges, rather than as an obligation, and the presence of bishops in the Lords as giving the Church access to power rather than bringing wider perspectives to the process of government. Although there are some powerful arguments for disestablishment, such as those put forward by Jonathan Chaplin, the model Bradshaw is assuming would fit best in an autocratic dictatorship: you can have access to power and privilege as long as you do what we tell you. This is not a common understanding of how establishment of the Church actually works. 

Bradshaw should really be aware of this, since he is a member of the Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament. This is the group that is responsible for passing on legislation from the Church to Parliament for formal approval—not the other way around! For more than 100 years, since the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Church has had formal autonomy in governance, making its own decisions first in the Church Assembly and then (from 1969) in the General Synod. 

In other words, ‘establishment’ here is about the freedom of the Church to be self-governing, but the beliefs and action of the Church finding protection in law. It has never been about the Government dictating what the Church must believe, and the kind of action that Bradshaw is suggesting would be unprecedented in recent history. 


Underlying this episode is a more basic question for the Church of England, and any other Christian denomination: how are its beliefs determined, and what role do changes in cultural values play in this? Changes in culture might raise new questions, and provoke the Church to look again at its own doctrines and what Scripture says. But, at the end of the day, the Church must decide whether contemporary cultural values will override the teaching of Scripture and the ‘consensus of the church catholic’, or whether it will remain faithful to the inheritance of faith, and offer an alternative vision of what it means to be followers of Jesus. To put it more simply: are Christians allowed to walk out of step with contemporary cultural values?

The Guardian article concludes with this comment from Bradshaw:

The contract with the nation has to be that it is there for everybody. It’s increasingly obvious that the C of E is not there for lesbian and gay people.

There is a serious practical challenge for the C of E here. But this comment also begs the question: what does it mean to ‘be there’ for any particular group of people? If, as the gospels make clear, Jesus believed marriage to be between one man and one woman, what does it mean for the Church to offer the good news of Jesus to gay people?


This article was first published, in an edited form, at Premier Christianity. Listen to Andrew Goddard in conversation with Ben Bradshaw on Radio 4’s Sunday programme here. And see Martin Davie’s comments here; he concludes:

At this point it might be asked, is the Church right to say that lesbian and gay people need to refrain from sex outside marriage and only marry those of the opposite sex? The answer is that the Church is right to do so because both the witness of nature in terms of human biology, and the witness of Scripture, tell us that God created human beings to have sexual intercourse with the opposite sex, and because the biblical account of the origins of marriage in Genesis 2:18-25 (reiterated by Jesus in Matthew 19:3-12 and Mark 10:2-12) likewise tells us that God created marriage to be a relationship between two people of the opposite sex.

God created human beings to live sexually in a certain way and the Church has no authority to say otherwise, any more than it has the authority to say that it is right to steal, bear false witness, or commit adultery.

What Ben Bradshaw and others really want the Church to do is to break its side of the unwritten contract between the Church of England and the English nation by ceasing to preach the truth about how God has created his human creatures to live in favour of what some, although by no means all, lesbian and gay people want to hear. The Church cannot rightly do this and neither Bradshaw nor Parliament as a whole should seek to force it to do so.


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.

164 thoughts on “Can Parliament force the C of E to change its doctrine of marriage?”

  1. It is quite possible that there will be Establishment pressure of some kind to persuade the Church to change her doctrine of marriage/sexuality.

    Phil Almond

    Reply
  2. Thanks for this. Note the link at “Listen to Andrew Goddard in conversation with Ben Bradshaw on Radio 4’s Sunday programme here.” seems to be missing.

    Reply
    • If you click on the “at Premier Christianity” embedded link then you get to the specific webpage in question, but I agree that our host might rejig the sentence for greater clarity.

      Reply
    • I do not why persons in relationships that cannot produce offspring want to have the same rights of those who can. Equality needs a qualification that goes beyond preferences.

      Reply
      • Did you mean ‘I do not *see*..’?

        I think this is a good point. The Government has an interest, in the legal sense, in regulating marriage that involves the raising of children.

        Why does it have an ‘interest’ in regulating other relationships?

        Reply
  3. What happens in other countries where there is an established or official church, such as the Lutheran Church in Scandinavian countries. Have those churches been forced to change their doctrine to accommodate changes in the wider culture? I know some of those churches do perform S-S marriage. Did they get there by choice or were they forced/pressured?

    Reply
  4. “in favour of what some, although by no means all, lesbian and gay people want to hear”

    Well 2 things on this phrase:

    1. this should read ‘in favour of what the vast majority of lesbian and gay people want to hear’… gay people who want to live in lifelong celibacy are a small sub-group, same as heterosexual people who want to live in celibacy all their lives;

    2. it’s not only what lesbian and gay people want to hear – that’s backed up by the support that the majority of heterosexual people in England express for lesbian and gay sexuality.

    In reality, the key issue is what the bishops decide. And it looks like collectively they will decide for change – change with reasonable protections for those who don’t wish to support gay relationships themselves.

    If the bishops endorse gay relationships and sexuality, then that opens the way for local churches to bless those relationships… because who is going to sanction them if they do? A local church that holds a public blessing service for a gay couple would then only be doing what the bishops have already advocated.

    In reality there will be a settlement accommodating the right of both wings of the Church to affirm or oppose these relationships. If any people don’t accept that accommodation, then they will need to either find a different set up (AMiE anyone?) or possibly be provided with some kind of limited episcopal oversight within the Church of England.

    Those who accept the accommodation will not require ‘oversight’ because they will simply be the mainstream Church of England.

    Reply
    • ‘In reality there will be a settlement accommodating the right of both wings of the Church to affirm or oppose these relationships.’

      No. If the decision is made then it is wishful thinking to assume the right of those to oppose these relationship will be upheld. They will be slowly squeezed out.

      Reply
    • this should read ‘in favour of what the vast majority of lesbian and gay people want to hear’… gay people who want to live in lifelong celibacy are a small sub-group, same as heterosexual people who want to live in celibacy all their lives;

      But what has what people want got to do with the price of fish? A heterosexual person might not want to live in celibacy all their lives, but if they don’t get married, then that is what they have to do.

      (Incidentally you don’t mean ‘live in celibacy’, you mean ‘stay a virgin’. ‘Celibacy’ is the state of being unmarried, not the state of not having sex. That comes from celibacy plus exercising the virtue of chastity. It is possible to be celibate (unmarried) and still have sex, if one is not chaste; similarly it is possible to be chaste and have sex, if one is married.)

      it’s not only what lesbian and gay people want to hear – that’s backed up by the support that the majority of heterosexual people in England express for lesbian and gay sexuality.

      But what matters is not what the majority of people (which includes atheists, Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, members of other Christian denominations, etc, etc) think. It’s what the majority of people in the Church of England think.

      In reality, the key issue is what the bishops decide.

      Surely it’s not; surely it’s what General Synod decides, as the Church of England’s governing body?

      If the bishops endorse gay relationships and sexuality, then that opens the way for local churches to bless those relationships… because who is going to sanction them if they do? A local church that holds a public blessing service for a gay couple would then only be doing what the bishops have already advocated.

      True — they couldn’t actually conduct a legal wedding of a same-sex couples but they could do a ‘service of blessing’ (by doing so they would be breaking the law, and their oath, in using a form of service which has not been authorised (the bishops can’t of themselves say a service is legally authorised), but we know that law is rarely enforced)

      In reality there will be a settlement accommodating the right of both wings of the Church to affirm or oppose these relationships.

      Which, as I have pointed out previously, is in practice impossible and would mean not ‘accommodation’ for those who hold the traditional, universal-until-five-minutes-ago view but a grudging acceptance to tolerate them as long as they never act on or express publicly their opinion.

      More importantly of course, in agreeing to believe that two contradictory things can both be true, the Church of England would be dissolving itself into logical absurdity.

      Reply
      • Oh forgot to add — do you really think the position where Church of England ministers can conduct services of blessing for same-sex marriages but not the legal marriages themselves would be accepted by the pro-progressive side?

        It seems unlikely to me. Far more likely it seems is that as soon as that was allowed there would be a campaign to get General Synod to pass a resolution so that Church of England churches could apply to register same-sex marriages.

        Would you, Susannah Clark, commit right now that if the bishops do commit to not disciplining Church of England ministers who conduct services of blessing for same-sex Maria’ marriages where the actual legal marriage was performed in a civil ceremony, you will accept that as the permanent compromise and you will never, ever agitate or argue for our otherwise try to make it the case that Church of England churches can register to perform the legal part of a same-sex marriage?

        Because if you won’t give that assurance on your word then I think we can conclude that you would not be happy with that compromise but would keep pushing for more change, and extrapolate from that to others on the same side, drawing the conclusion that the compromise suggested is not intended to be final but merely a staging-post on the way to the ultimate goal of doctrinal change?

        Reply
          • I suspect that is a minority view at the ‘absolutist’ extremes of both groups. I suspect there is a significant majority of parishioners in the Church of England who want an end to this factionalism and would be happy for a compromise of accommodation, so they could get on with the rest of the Church’s pastoral work in the parishes.

          • Of course it is. Some, as Susannah suggests, may be happy with compromise for a time. But they will not be happy being asked to drink from a separate water fountain for ever.

          • Penelope: “Some, as Susannah suggests, may be happy with compromise for a time.”

            I didn’t actually say ‘for a time’.

            I want a compromise, full stop.

            What Christians 30 years ahead believe, I have no idea.

            Right now, and for the foreseeable future, I want ‘liberals’ AND ‘evangelical Christians’ within the Church of England. I want a broad church.

            I am as opposed to gay pressure groups hounding out ‘conservatives’ as I am opposed to ‘conservatives’ hounding out ‘liberals’.

            If either happened, then I would retreat to the spiritual life of my convent.

            I am not looking for an exclusively ‘Gay Church’. With many theological differences, we are ALL ‘Church’. ‘Gay’ is one part of who I am, but by no means all. ‘Gay’ is part of who the Church of England is, but not all.

            In many ways – though people here may not believe it – I am deeply conservative. Mainly because my spiritual practice is Catholic and pre-dates the Church of England.

            In the Church of England, we are diverse. We are Broad Church (including catholic), not just evangelical. We need to protect the different groups, in an accommodation of multiple consciences. Anyone not willing to accept such accommodation will probably find themselves marginalised to alternative arrangements, but the future mainstream of the Church of England is likely to accommodate more than just one ‘group’, not least because this differences are deep-rooted and real already in this Church.

          • I don’t want any liberals or ideological evangelicals either. Or ideological anything else. That is the last things we want. I ”want” people who are honest and truthful, always learning, never confusing their wants with their research findings, and never simply parroting the position they have been stuck in since their formative years. At least, not without justification.
            The idea that people exist in polarised groups from birth, pilloried in G&S Iolanthe, is half of the problem, and the idea seems to be to exacerbate it! The only thing that exists from birth is temperament. You will not find truth via temperament.

          • I want a compromise, full stop.

            So can you explicitly give your word, right here and right now, that if there were to be a compromise along the lines you suggest (bishops agree not to discipline Church of England ministers who do services of blessing for same-sex marriages, which are legally entered into in accordance with the civil law; the Church of England remains prohibited from actually performing legal same-sex marriages) that you commit to never ever arguing or agitating or otherwise advocating for any further change?

          • The fatal flaw in Susannah’s position is that she never stops to question why a spectrum that bulges at both ends (an improbable thing) should exist in the first place.
            Nor, secondly, why most individuals within that spectrum stay put.
            How can that fail to be a matter of psychology or temperament?
            But if it is merely psychology or temperament it is perfectly useless in the quest for truth. Does that not bother her?

          • “So can you explicitly give your word”

            No. The compromise has to include gay marriage or I would continue to call for that.

            I want ‘full conscience’ for ‘liberals’ and ‘conservatives’, either to accept gay marriage in the Church of England or to oppose it.

            But note – I conversely want the freedom not to practise or preach gay marriage as well.

            LLF is not just about subsequently ‘blessing’ civil gay marriages. It is about the nature of marriage itself.

          • Susannah, thanks for your clarity here.

            ‘No. The compromise has to include gay marriage or I would continue to call for that.’

            OK, so you are clear that you do not want any kind of middle way. I think it is good, since there isn’t one.

            ‘I want ‘full conscience’ for ‘liberals’ and ‘conservatives’, either to accept gay marriage in the Church of England or to oppose it.’

            So what you are in fact arguing for is that the C of E should have no doctrine of marriage. That is quite an ask.

          • But if it is merely psychology or temperament it is perfectly useless in the quest for truth.

            I think a re-reading of the first chapter of The Abolition of Man , on ‘Men Without Chests’, is required.

          • But note – I conversely want the freedom not to practise or preach gay marriage as well.

            What about the freedom to preach against same-sex marriages and the freedom to not recognise them?

            When I asked about this before you replied that a person in that situation should ‘stop being the bedroom police’ which is not giving the freedom to not recognise same-sex marriages as marriages at all, is it?

          • Ian: “So what you are in fact arguing for is that the C of E should have no doctrine of marriage. That is quite an ask.”

            Thank you for your patience and engagement, Ian.

            What I’m saying is that the Church of England may decide to ‘hold’ both doctrines, accommodating both, but just being honest that we have divided views, and that is simply the reality on the ground when it comes to the ‘mind’ of what people in the C of E believe.

            YOU can marry just heterosexual couples (I know it’s not your main ministry, but I’m referring mainly to ministers/priests who share your position).

            And my own priest (and others sharing affirmation of gay marriage) can marry *ALL*.

            Neither of you are constrained by the other.

            ‘Accommodation’ of both views just recognises the reality of what people actually believe in this Church.

            Therefore I’d suggest the ‘middle’ position (which the ‘middle’ of the Church of England may support, rather than factionalism) is indeed the compromise position.

            And how lovely, if we look past the one issue of ‘sex’ and seek grace and love in prayer, to say ‘We have different opinions on this’ but we… ALL of us… are ‘Church’.

            Because we are.

            You have real gifts (and I’m not seeking to flatter – you do) and I should hate to see you backed into a corner by a settlement around co-existence and accommodation, and edged out into AMiE or some other set up. I watch your videos. I like your humour and who you are. I don’t want you to leave, but the implications of ‘accommodation’ (which you really don’t want) may not pan out exactly the way you want.

            Unlike you, I think there IS a middle way. You just need to be willing to stop insisting that one half of the Church of England should dominate the other half. That has been the problem for 60 years. That is not a middle way in a Church with such deep divisions.

            We can co-exist. I think that will be the mainstream position of the future Church of England. Time will tell. But two separate views is who we are already. It doesn’t stop us loving one another, does it? And me marrying my wife doesn’t stop people in your section of the C of E still in conscience only marrying ‘some’ people. It wouldn’t stop you at all. I’m against ‘absolute’ demands on both sides. There is, indeed, a middle way, unless you are saying, “One side has to win.”

            To which I’d suggest sweetly, “Isn’t that a bit intransigent?”

          • What I’m saying is that the Church of England may decide to ‘hold’ both doctrines

            What you are asking here, to be clear, is fit the Church of England to hold both that the Bible is the Word of God, given to us for all time, reliable and authoritative in matters of faith and doctrine; and at the same time, that the Bible is a flawed text constrained by its cultural context, useful as a guide but containing errors that need to be overridden with reference to other sources.

            Can you not see it is simply not possible to hold both those at the same time?

          • It is not intransigent (merely a logical necessity) to say that incommensurables cannot coexist, that a circle cannot be squared.

            It comes across as condescending in the extreme for Susannah to say she does not want people to leave. The people in the list in question include all saints and luminaries one can think of, together with Christ himself.

            I am sure there is variety of opinion on every topic under the sun. Why is this one being given preferential treatment?

            Variety of opinion is irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant is variety of informed opinion, variety of researched opinion.

          • Susannah (and Penny)

            ‘What I’m saying is that the Church of England may decide to ‘hold’ both doctrines, accommodating both.’

            That is not possible. Current doctrine says marriage is between one man and one woman, and sex outside of that is to be met with a call to repentance.

            So you cannot hold this doctrine, and also hold a doctrine that sex outside of this is holy and intended by God.

            Since canon law is the law of the land, it is not possible to hold two contradictory doctrines. And it makes no sense in any case.

            So either you change your doctrine of marriage to ‘any two people’, or you don’t. There isn’t a ‘middle way’, except for abolishing any doctrine of marriage at all.

            (This is all pretty basic logic, and has been pointed out before, so it is odd that you think my comment odd.)

          • Ian: It must be ‘either’ one doctrine, ‘or’ another doctrine. There is no middle way.

            Ian, I don’t agree. You can have a doctrine about the benefits of marriage, which could be shared by all parties, and was inclusive of both groups, rather than divisive.

            Something which teaches that marriage is a blessing, a stability, a covenant of love, a gift to couples and a gift to community, a framework in which committed couples can live out their lives, in some cases have children, and enjoy intimate devotion, like the devotion that Christ has for the Church…

            The ‘either’ / ‘or’ then comes in a statement that there are two different views of marriage in the Church of England (<< this is just basic fact), and some people believe it should just be for 'some', while some people believe it should be for 'all', and the Church accommodates both views because there is no agreement.

            THAT would be a middle way, respecting the consciences of both groups, while limiting doctrine to the benefits of marriage as an institution.

            The 'mind' of those who make up the Church of England is simply not agreed on the 'some' or 'all' part. My approach (above) is just being frank and honest about that.

          • Susannah ‘Ian, I don’t agree. You can have a doctrine about the benefits of marriage, which could be shared by all parties, and was inclusive of both groups, rather than divisive.’

            Then you are asking for a fundamental redefining of the doctrine of marriage, because that it not the way it is defined now. And this would also mean detached the C of E from the BCP.

          • Something which teaches that marriage is a blessing, a stability, a covenant of love, a gift to couples and a gift to community, a framework in which committed couples can live out their lives, in some cases have children, and enjoy intimate devotion, like the devotion that Christ has for the Church…

            Which — as you keep being told — is totally incompatible With the current Church of England doctrine that marriage is instituted by God, who created the human race split into two halves, male and female, so that those two halves might come back together to form one flesh.

            You seem to think that the traditionalist view agrees with you on everything about marriage, except whether it is open to same-sex couples or not. So you can just put out your doctrine of marriage, add ‘oh and it only applies to opposite-sex couples’ on the end, and the traditionalists will be happy to sign up.

            But the fact is that the traditional view disagrees with you on every level right down to the fundamental purposes of marriage; and that’s why it disagrees with you on the question of same-sex marriage.

            It’s notable, for example, that your doctrine of marriage is all about the benefits it gives to the couple and the wider community; whereas the traditional view is of marriage as being first and foremost about service and obedience to God, and and benefits being secondary to that. Yours is a human-centred view of marriage, all about how marriage blesses the couple and the community; the traditional view is God-centred, about how by getting married the couple are serving God first and foremost. It’s totally the opposite way around. You can’t get much more incompatible than that.

        • S – ‘do you really think the position where Church of England ministers can conduct services of blessing for same-sex marriages but not the legal marriages themselves would be accepted by the pro-progressive side?’

          S – I’m not at all sure what church services of blessing actually are. The last time I was on holiday in Sweden (earlier this year), the Svenskakyrkan magazine came through my apartment door (they put it through everyone’s door) advertising services of blessing for peoples pet animals. You could take your pet dog, or pet cat, or pet hamster along to the lawn just outside the cathedral and some priest would give your animal a blessing and sprinkle it with magic water.

          I didn’t go along to find out what was involved, so sadly I can’t be more informative – but it seems to me that a service of blessing doesn’t actually mean all that much.

          Reply
          • but it seems to me that a service of blessing doesn’t actually mean all that much.

            Well, certainly I would take the view that no Christian church should be having any kind of ‘service of blessing’. God blesses things, not us. The idea of a ministry blessing things is getting very close to the idea that God has bound Himself so that whenever a certain type of person wearing a certain funny dress says a certain form of words, He is compelled to do something.

            And another term for being able to compel a spiritual entity by using a form of words that that entity is bound to obey is ‘magic’. Whether it’s God or Mephistopheles. And Christians shouldn’t be using magic, and especially not trying to compel God to act in a particular way by means of magic.

            However, the point is that Susannah is correct that if the law that Church if England ministers only is legally authorised forms of service is not enforced (and it generally isn’t), then there’s nothing can stop them saying the words, though the words will have no legal or spiritual effect.

            And my point is that I can’t see those pushing for change being happy with this, and that while they can’t make the words have a spiritual effect, they can, if they can get a resolution through General Synod, get them to have a legal effect, so they will push for that.

            (And having done that they can then push for another resolution to change doctrine on the grounds that it would just be regularising what is already happening).

          • Sorry, Susannah. I want a broad church too. I think that may happen. Perhaps, as with women’s orders, not so many will flounce as threaten to. The fear of being ‘forced’ by the state to do something against one’s conscience, is simply fear mongering. No one, not even the present King, can force a priest to marry a divorcee against their conscience.
            But I want to see a church in which marriage is celebrated, in which we ask for God’s blessing on all couples, because anything less, though it might ‘do’ in the interim, is apartheid.
            Frankly, I would like to see the shackles of the five guiding principles fall away too, but again, I can, just about, see a reason for them in the ‘not yet’.

          • Ian

            You are seriously arguing that a Church which marries same sex couples has ‘no doctrine of marriage’? What a very odd inference.

          • You are seriously arguing that a Church which marries same sex couples has ‘no doctrine of marriage’?

            No, he’s saying that a denomination which ‘accommodates’ but the view that same-sex marriages are valid and the view that they are not (which is what Susannah Clark claims to want) has no doctrine of marriage.

            Which is obviously true: you can’t claim to have a doctrine of marriage if you accept two logically incapable views on marriage as both being equally correct.

            A denomination that just says same-sex marriages are valid obviously does have a doctrine of marriage (but a different one to the Church of England).

          • Well ‘S’, actually you can have a doctrine on marriage which teaches that marriage is a blessing, a stability, a covenant of love, a gift to couples and a gift to community, a framework in which committed couples can live out their lives, in some cases have children, and enjoy intimate devotion, like the devotion that Christ has for the Church…

            That in itself is a doctrine of marriage.

            Then because the Church of England is made up of two views on marriage (open to some or open to all) we simply acknowledge and accommodate the reality of what we actually believe in this Church.

            But to have a doctrine that exhorts people to devoted and covenanted relationships, that in itself worth having as a doctrine of marriage.

          • That in itself is a doctrine of marriage.

            It is. But it is a doctrine which is incompatible with the current doctrine of the Church of England. So for the Church of England to adopt that doctrine it must do one of two things:

            EITHER it must abandon its current doctrine and adopt the new one that you give there

            OR it must say that either of two totally incompatible doctrines is acceptable.

            If it does the second, as you seem to be advocating, then it no longer has a doctrine of marriage, does it? You can’t say two totally incompatible doctrines are both acceptable and then claim you have a doctrine. You don’t.

          • I too holidayed in Sweden earlier this year. Arriving in Karlstad I visited the cathedral and found I had just missed the book launch for the retiring Dean, Harald Cohen’s book of reflections, and photos of his cats, “Alla borde ha Katt” (Everyone should have a cat). What is going on?

  5. To put it more simply: are Christians allowed to walk out of step with contemporary cultural values?

    I think it will all hang on whether or not they want todo that. The percentage of counter-cultural types in any church is far lower than an art school.

    Reply
    • The percentage of counter-cultural types in any church is far lower than an art school.

      The percentage of counter-cultural types in a church may be low, but the percentage of people in an art school willing to stand up against the mores of their peers is zero.

      Reply
      • What art students do or don’t do isn’t the issue though.

        The challenge is to get evangelicals to embrace something – a counter-cultural identity – that they aren’t inclined to do. Art students can be sheep-like in a faddish, groupthink sort of way but they are at least open to the idea of being innovators and radicals.

        Reply
        • The challenge is to get evangelicals to embrace something – a counter-cultural identity – that they aren’t inclined to do.

          I really don’t know about ‘evangelicals’, the term doesn’t mean much to me, but when I was young and in Sunday School, Scripture Union, CSSM, etc, etc, we had Romans 12:1-2 drummed into us. Do they not do that any more?

          Reply
          • Yeah they still trot that one out. And it’s said by some of the least counter-cultural people that you could possibly find.

          • And it’s said by some of the least counter-cultural people that you could possibly find.

            Oh dear oh dear. Still it does rather confirm what I have thought for a while, that the church in this part of the world is overdue for a good winnowing, to get rid of the hangers-on who were never really serious but were just going along with the flow.

          • Yes that’s necessary but the remnant must be willing to engage with and transform the culture – otherwise all you have is a succession of smaller and smaller cultic communities.

    • Bradshaw is correct, and this matter shows the impossible position of an Established church in a society that has become secular. It needs to be recognised that secularism is as much a faith system as Christianity, albeit a faith system without a formally recognised deity. Secularists passionately believe things that they cannot prove from axioms more primitive – most prominently the capability of man to be improved if only the social engineeering is got right.

      Reply
    • Actually, it will all hang upon what the Lord rules. If he acts in accordance to our deserts as a country then he will allow the moral and spiritual disintegration of our country to continue. If he acts according to his mercy hen he may say – thus far and no further. Our God is rich in mercy may we continue to call for 11th hour intervention.

      Reply
  6. S: “Surely it’s not; surely it’s what General Synod decides, as the Church of England’s governing body?”

    In the Established Church, there are complex relationships in operation, and (for example) not all the Houses in Synod have identical powers.

    A scenario, if a minority of Synod members (anything less than 50%) block changes to the marriage law (changes requiring around 67%):

    1. I draw attention to Article 7 (1) of the Constitution of the General Synod, which states that on doctrine related issues, the House of Bishops will propose the wording and terms to be presented to Synod.

    2. For example: “This Synod re-affirms that marriage shall only be between one man and one woman.”

    3. Failure to re-affirm by 67% (or possibly even by 50%) could lead to the bishops appealing to Parliament and the Crown, and informing them that the marriage measure (status quo) no longer has the support of Synod.

    4. A request could be made for suspension of those clauses in the Worship and Doctrine Measure (1974) requiring two thirds majorities, ON GROUNDS OF REPUGNANCY.

    5. I draw attention to the 1533 Submission of the Clergy Act, which states that “no canons shall be made or put in execution by the Convocations of Canterbury and York which are contrary OR REPUGNANT to the Royal Prerogative or the customs, laws or statutes of this realm” (this power retained by the 1969 Synodical Government Measure No 2, Section 1: 3(b).

    Fundamentally, we cannot have a situation where a minority in Synod indefinitely blocks change that a majority of Synod members, and the House of Bishops themselves see as necessary in a pastoral crisis such as we now have. An appeal on grounds of democratic principles and ‘repugnancy’ would get traction in Parliament, with its strong support for LGBT people.

    Of course, I defer to Church and Civil lawyers.

    Reply
    • That still makes the important thing what General Synod decides, not what the bishops decide; the fact you’re taking about needing to apply such understand procedural shenanigans to get your way against the will of General Synod just shows you know that the final decision rests with General Synod.

      I don’t know enough about the procedural detail to know whether the measures you describe could be effectively fought, but this cabal you claim doesn’t exist and isn’t coordinating a media strategy has clearly put a considerable amount of thought into the matter before briefing its foot soldiers on it! I hope now the plan has been revealed that people can start working on counter-manoeuvres.

      Reply
      • This isn’t “the plan”.

        I am not someone’s “foot soldier”.

        You (and others) keep alleging this.

        I was simply giving an example of how it is not and cannot just be a case of a minority blocking what the leaders of the church and between 51% and 66% of Synod members believe. That minority would be in defiance of what the Church of England wants.

        Being honest, the present General Synod got complicated by the emergence of the ‘Save the Parish’ campaigned. Some are liberal, some conservative, in social terms. But I remain unconvinced that ‘evangelical Christians’ are a majority in Synod. I have real doubts that 51% now oppose changes.

        General Synod provides a platform for discerning and implementing church governance, but the Bishops do have some priorities, as I pointed out. One of those is wording of motions on issues of a doctrinal nature.

        Would the present Synod re-affirm the status quo by 67%? I doubt it. Or even by 51%? I am doubtful even of that.

        At a point of crisis – real pastoral crisis – changes need to be brought in, and bishops may indeed start talking over the head of Synod with Parliament, if a minority group (and conservative evangelicals ARE a minority group) block change, contrary to what the Church by majority now seeks and urgently needs.

        Ben Bradshaw may not be as irrelevant as some people think. The Bishops need to lead. I think everyone can agree with that!

        Reply
        • I was simply giving an example of how it is not and cannot just be a case of a minority blocking what the leaders of the church and between 51% and 66% of Synod members believe.

          Of course it can be just. That’s the whole reason for requiring a super-majority in order to change: to entrench a bias in favour of the status quo. If you can overrule such a requirement whenever you feel particularly strongly, you might as well just not have the super-majority requirement at all.

          To go to another context, to amend the constitution of the United States requires a two-thirds majority in both of their legislative houses. Do you think that your argument that such a requirement is ‘unjust’ would cut any mustard of an amendment to that constitution were proposed which failed to reach the required threshold, and that it should be temporarily suspended just for this amendment and for no others?

          Of course it wouldn’t.

          Reply
    • As you fail to response to S, I don’t think you would follow through on your final sentence. Unless it is in accordance with your entrenched philosophy.
      It is truly a remarkable position that minority would dictate that a marriage of man and woman only is Repungnat.
      Your true colours are showing.
      As a former lawyer, it seems highly unlikely that your dive into legal processes comes without being guided by any legal advocacy. ( Mention of Royal Prerogative, to me is a give away). That is you have this info. and application from someone else effectively using you and your CV as a mouthpiece. Desperation, methinks. Clearly secular in drivers and direction to me.

      Reply
      • Mention of Royal Prerogative, to me is a give away

        I suppose the one thing this approach has going for it is that if it were actually tried it would probably be the best chance we have of seeing whether a future Supreme Court (or whatever takes its place) is prepared to back up the frankly bizarre Miller II precedent or whether they can find some way to walk it back, given that otherwise no one’s good to touch it with a bargepole for at least a hundred and fifty years.

        Reply
        • Stop it S.
          As a former lawyer I’d love to see Royal Prerogative tested in the Courts in this matter, notwithstanding the Miller farce.
          Highly unlikely in my lifetime. Constitutional law, as you note, rarely passes by with such speed.

          Reply
      • Thank you John and, as I have said before, I respect your grace and essential kindness, even when – at times – you feel the necessity to call out and challenge with firm words, to give warning, and to censure.

        I think it is an openness to the Holy Spirit which you have, so I give credit to God. You are deeply embedded in a relationship with scripture, not academically, but through relationship with it over many years. I see it. I feel it.

        So thank you. I do have very different views and approach, but I would trust you in trouble, because I believe in your goodness in redemption.

        I’d also like to add, that through interaction with some people here, I have been reminded of my own early days as a born again Christian, and my amazement at Jesus, and it has contributed to a re-awakening for in me on my continuing journey.

        As a Church we mustn’t lose our evangelical brothers and sisters, because they are invaluable, and promote ardour, and incite living faith. My own children are much loved, much nurtured beneficiaries of evangelical Christianity.

        Reply
  7. I am asked by ‘S’ (whoever they may be) whether I would continue pressing for change in the (now rather unlikely) event that the bishops wanted to keep just the status quo.

    The answer is ‘yes’. Anyone can argue for changes.

    But I’m the wrong person to criticise on the ‘slippery slope’ issue.

    I have for years argued for a ‘broad church’ settlement which respects the consciences of both ‘conservatives’ and ‘liberals’, and for accommodation of both groups. I have not done that in order to then press the ultimate eviction of ‘conservatives’.

    Nor do I want to see someone like Ian leave the Church of England. And I certainly don’t want evangelicals to be pushed out.

    If either ‘extreme’ group (wanting ‘either my way or the highway’) ended up demanding and dominating, I would continue to argue against such an outcome. I want choice in the church. Choice to exercise conscience on the issue of sexuality.

    I believe the bishops may endorse an accommodation somewhere along the lines I have been proposing, and the real question to those who wish to stay in the Church of England is: will YOU accept the bishops’ proposed outcome if it opts for such accommodation and inclusion?

    It’s not me who is likely to be opposing such outcomes. I am in the middle (as I suspect are most people in our parishes nationwide) who want an end to factionalism, a settlement, and more focus on other aspects of acute pastoral need.

    To be plain: I believe the evangelical position on sexuality is coherent. I believe the position in support of gay sexuality is also coherent. I believe we should respect conscience. I want evangelicalism to be ONE group – along with ‘catholics’, ‘liberals’, and others – in the Church of England. But not to dominate. I seek accommodation of different views.

    I have reason to believe many bishops do too.

    Reply
    • But, Susannah, there are more fundamental issues at stake. Some of us believe that anyone making the Declaration of Assent is making a commitment to believe, preach and teach the following Doctrines:
      Original Sin
      Wrath of God
      Christ’s death a propitiation of that Wrath
      Predestination to life
      Eternal Retribution for the unsaved
      and anyone who does not believe, teach and preach those truths should not be a minister in the Church.

      Phil Almond

      Reply
      • “Some of us believe that anyone making the Declaration of Assent is making a commitment to believe, preach and teach the following Doctrines:”

        Phil it has been shown many times now that this is simply wrong. The doctrine commission made that clear in the 1960s and it has been repeated many times since.

        Reply
        • I do find it odd that you keep refuting this Andrew. Check the ordination vows:

          Do you believe the doctrine of the Christian faith as the Church of England has received it, and in your ministry will you expound and teach it?
          Ordinands I believe it and will so do.

          Canon A5: Of the doctrine of the Church of England

          The doctrine of the Church of England is grounded in the Holy Scriptures, and in such teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church as are agreeable to the said Scriptures. In particular such doctrine is to be found in the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, The Book of Common Prayer, and the Ordinal.

          Which parts of this do you think no longer apply, and why?

          Reply
          • Which parts of this do you think no longer apply, and why?

            Not meaning to put words in people’s mouths, but my impression over many interactions is that Andrew Godsall would say it all still applies, but would use his own special unique meanings for the words so that it doesn’t mean what anyone reading it would think.

            For example I haven’t yet worked out exactly what Andrew Godsall means by the word ‘believe’ but it certainly isn’t ‘think it is true that:’ (cf his refusal to say he ‘believes’ that men have walked on the moon). It seems to be closer to ‘am willing to define myself as part of a community that has the following as a shibboleth:’. But as I say I’m not completely sure.

          • Again, as I have said several times. What it means is what the C of E has said it means. It’s all there ….but to select the relevant parts for your question here they are:

            It must not put the Articles in isolation, but must acknowledge that Bible, Creeds, Prayer Book, Ordinal and the *developing consensus of Anglican thought* also have their own contribution to make to the doctrine of the Church of England. It must also indicate that these possess different degrees of authority. (Emphasis mine)

            It must not only declare in what ways the Church of England is distinctive, but must indicate the doctrines it shares with all Christians.

            The possibility of fresh understandings of Christian truth must be explicitly left open.

          • ‘and the *developing consensus of Anglican thought* also have their own contribution to make to the doctrine of the Church of England’

            Curious then that this never found its way into the liturgy. Perhaps someone thinks you’re mistaken.

          • Oh well there is no doubt that each of the ‘sides’ in this debate thinks the other is mistaken. That’s exactly why we have found ourselves with the LLF process.

            But if you look at the thread here I was responding quite specifically to Phil Almond. I do not believe in

            The Wrath of God
            Christ’s death a propitiation of that Wrath
            Predestination to life
            Eternal Retribution for the unsaved

            And neither am I required to believe and teach such things. And I don’t suspect that you believe in all of those things either Ian.

          • There seems a remarkable overlap between the things you ‘like’ and the things you ‘believe’. How can that be, when liking and believing are such different things?

            You are still speaking of sides. The fact that there are sides shows why we should not take the process seriously. In detailed questing for the truth there are nuanced positions which are provisional and cannot be lumped tribally into 2 sides. The 2 sides scenario is generally emotion based. Useless. Evidence never has had 2 sides and never will.

            The 2008 publication The Anglican Communion and Homosexuality (for the Lambeth Conference) is actually at a superior level to LLF in many ways.

          • Christopher none of what you say here makes any sense with reference to the points I have made. Where do I indicate at all what I *like*? What I like has nothing to do with it.

          • I do not believe in

            […]

            And neither am I required to believe and teach such thing

            You also don’t believe that the Bible is the primary source of doctrine. I think you are still required to believe and teach that, are you not?

          • Because the 4 things you listed yourself not believing were the 4 most objectively harsh things, and therefore that seemed too much of a coincidence for there not to be a correlation.

          • Christopher that’s hardly a reason for drawing any conclusion. I’m surprised that you could even begin to do so. But then again so many of your arguments are based on your emotional response. What one likes or dislikes has nothing to do with it at all.

          • I certianly do beleive the bible is the primary source of doctrine and have said so several times.

            What you have said several times is that you believe the Bible contains errors in matters of doctrine, faith and morals and that it therefore needs to be judged against other sources and corrected if necessary.

            If the Bible can be corrected by other sources — that is, if the Bible can be overruled — then it is not the primary source of doctrine, is it?

            Do you do not believe that the Bible is the primary source of doctrine. But you are supposed to believe that, aren’t you?

          • I certianly do beleive the bible is the primary source of doctrine and have said so many times.

            Okay; I don’t have the facilities to do so at the moment but as soon as I do I shall prove that you do not believe that by citing some of the many occasions in which you have stated you believe that the Bible contains errors in matters of faith, morals and doctrine and needs to be corrected by other sources.

          • S: “If the Bible can be corrected by other sources — that is, if the Bible can be overruled — then it is not the primary source of doctrine, is it?”

            The primary source is the Holy Spirit, who can inform our understanding and touch our hearts through many verses in scripture, and also through our God-given conscience.

            In terms of the written scriptures, collectively they convey the attempts of religious individuals and communities over time to try their best to ‘make sense’ of their encounters with God and with Jesus.

            Their narratives are obviously a deep source of our inherited understanding of God as we, in turn, struggle to make sense of God, in our time, in our diverse societies.

            But revelation from the Holy Spirit works not only in written text (which we should take care to understand is fallible, because its authors were fallible… but also inspired in that, like us, they sometimes encountered God in ways that opened their hearts and understanding)…

            Revelation from and through the Holy Spirit also works through our consciences, individually and communally. There is an interaction going on between our consciences, and scripture, and our community, and tradition… and we try to make sense of it all, listening to the witness of the saints, to the witness of our own church communities today, and the equally sincere but fallible witness of the Bible authors.

            In some things they write in the context of their own times and culture – because that’s where they live. They want to write about holiness and the unholy, so they look to their own religious community in their time, and try to think what seems unholy to them, and they land on man-man sex because that seems an example in their culture.

            Or they report that Jesus affirmed the value of marriage, which let’s face it, is a lovely thing, and they understand that (and Jesus talks in the context they understand) about how a man and a woman in marriage is a lovely thing. But Jesus doesn’t even mention man-man sex. He’s not talking about that.

            Then we ask the Holy Spirit in our time: ‘Beloved, is there purity and holiness in devoted lives of two men or two women? Or is it unholy?’ And within church community, a growing number of people feel the Holy Spirit tells their consciences ‘It is fine.’

            Others disagree. We each struggle to hear our primary source who is God. Can the Bible get things wrong? Let’s say, it can be culture-strapped and limited, incomplete… so things that one society views and assumes may not all be applicable in another time or place. That’s certainly true of the OT. Individual assumptions in that got superceded. Were the NT authors just teleprinters being used by God to type their words for them? Or were they… fallible, sincere, limited human beings trying to make sense of their encounters, and assisted by God, but not puppets, not perfect, just trying to make sense.

            They too had to open their hearts and minds and consciences to the Holy Spirit. And so do we. And so, perhaps, should Parliament, in that God can speak to secular consciences too. But yes, the Bible in many places is a huge source of witness to profound, hard-to-grasp encounters with God.

          • The primary source is the Holy Spirit, who can inform our understanding and touch our hearts through many verses in scripture, and also through our God-given conscience.

            That’s not Church of England doctrine.

          • Thanks Susannah, that’s helpful. What the CofE states quite clearly on their website under ‘what we believe’ is this:

            God has revealed himself through the Bible. God has revealed himself most clearly through the gift of his Son, Jesus Christ.
            God makes himself known personally to each believer through the work of the Holy Spirit

          • Susannah ‘Then we ask the Holy Spirit in our time: ‘Beloved, is there purity and holiness in devoted lives of two men or two women? Or is it unholy?’ And within church community, a growing number of people feel the Holy Spirit tells their consciences ‘It is fine.’

            So your authority in these matters is your own individual feelings and ‘conscience’. That is a religion called ‘affective individualism’; it is not the Christian faith, and this is not the authority the C of E reports to.

          • “So your authority in these matters is your own individual feelings and ‘conscience’.”

            Erm, no Ian. Not just *individual* feelings and conscience (not sure why you put conscience in inverted commas).

            I wrote ‘Then *WE* ask the Holy Spirit (which is what we are doing in a way with LLF)…

            And I wrote ‘within the church community’… not just me.

            All of us, committed to LLF, are trying to discern what God is saying to us as a Church. So please don’t imply that I’m some kind of standalone individual. I’m not. You know very well it’s a large number of people in the Church of England who share my views on gay sexuality.

            I also made it clear that scriptures DO play a part in discerning truth. There’s a falsehood that does the rounds, that ‘liberals’ ignore the Bible – they don’t. Many value it deeply and profoundly. I value the Bible tenderly, as well as reason and conscience, but in the end we should nit try to constrain the Holy Spirit (our true source and authority) or suggest our understanding is ‘scripture alone’ (or some such phrase in Latin!). It’s not.

            It’s scriptural narratives, tradition, reason, conscience, and lived experience, including living in community.

            I think I made that clear.

            We try to hear what the Spirit says to us as Christians, in our time, in our communities, in the context of our knowledge, culture, and actual lived lives.

            Our primary source is God.

            Scripture is a secondary source, and a precious one, with go-betweens trying to express and make sense of profound encounters with a God who is always in many ways numinous, incompletely known, mysterious to us. It is fallible men and women like ourselves, and we receive their understandings through the lens of their experience, culture, knowledge, and limits of knowledge at their moment in history (Adam and Eve / evolution etc).

            Our primary source (especially with prayer) is God speaking to our hearts, minds and consciences. We must be careful not to idolise the Bible, as some kind of verbatim text sent word for word by God, to be followed by non-thinking robots. God gives us minds and consciences to pray, to discern, and includes attention to scriptural witness, but not in a fundamentalist way.

            Please don’t pin on me that it’s all about individual feelings. I think that risks being a marginalising technique, Ian. It insinuates that a person discards the Bible, and is driven by casual feelings, hedonism, and ‘anything goes’. That is far from the case. Discipleship is costly, a devotion, and in all kinds of way requires death to self, the way of the cross, and everything involved in a life of prayer. I’m fallible and sometimes pretty rubbish of course.

            But try not to recognise that real, sincere Christians – a lot of them in the Church of England – treasure the Bible, but approach it in a different way of reading and interpretation to yours, searching conscience, searching meaning, and not at all casually. We simply don’t all have the same view on sexuality. That’s just the reality. Don’t blame me! This is why LLF is trying to discern a way forward for us as a Church. Not just individuals. We are all ‘Church’. As community, we are seeking the way forward. Scripture alone is not the answer, because our community has two opposite views of what scripture requires of us. Conscience, prayer, reason, lived experience… all come into play. The Holy Spirit can speak through them as well.

            In the end, the test is ‘how do we open to grace to live together in one Church of England, or do some people refuse to do so?’ That’s not about feelings. It’s about costly love, patience, forbearance…

            None of this is just idle individualism. It is sincere disagreement, but it’s also a challenge to find grace and co-existence with people we disagree with. That’s just the reality of where we all are.

            [Sorry about length, but you kindly engaged, and I answered.]

          • ‘Our primary source (especially with prayer) is God speaking to our hearts, minds and consciences.’

            Certainly not according to the C of E. But also not according to the teaching and example of Jesus. He shaped his life by the Scriptures. And he expects us to shape our lives by the Scriptures because, he tells us ‘they testify about me’.

            This debate really is about whether Jesus is Lord.

          • ‘But try not to recognise’… ugh… I meant ‘try to recognise’ – ignore the not or it reverses the meaning.

          • Not just *individual* feelings and conscience (not sure why you put conscience in inverted commas).

            Just like the plural of anecdote is not data, the plural of feelings is not evidence.

          • “Certainly not according to the C of E. But also not according to the teaching and example of Jesus. He shaped his life by the Scriptures. And he expects us to shape our lives by the Scriptures because, he tells us ‘they testify about me’.

            This debate really is about whether Jesus is Lord.“

            A few things to observe here as I think the emphasis is simply wrong.

            One of the debates is certainly about whether Jesus Christ is Lord or whether the scriptures are Lord. The CofE is clear about that and states this:

            “God has revealed himself through the Bible. God has revealed himself *most clearly* through the gift of his Son, Jesus Christ.
            God makes himself known personally to each believer through the work of the Holy Spirit.“

            Being a Christian is about having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. You can’t have a personal relationship with books.

            Secondly the CofE says this:

            “Belief in God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit is at the heart of our faith. Christians believe that Jesus is God’s Son. Jesus reveals to us that God is our Father, and that God is available to us through the Holy Spirit. “

            It’s Jesus that reveals God to us. The bible is a source for that revelation.

            Thirdly, Jesus shaped his life by obedience to the Father, not by obedience to the scriptures. He was quite prepared to re-interpret and, if necessary, disregard those. That was one of the reasons he was put to death.

          • Andrew ‘Thirdly, Jesus shaped his life by obedience to the Father, not by obedience to the scriptures. He was quite prepared to re-interpret and, if necessary, disregard those. That was one of the reasons he was put to death.’

            That is such a bizarre comment. A complete false dichotomy; without any evidence—Jesus was a Torah-observant Jew; and Jesus ‘disregarding scripture’ is such an odd claim, unsupported by the gospels. Their repeated emphasis is that he fulfilled the Scriptures.

            But, yet again, the comment demonstrates that this is, in reality, a debate about sources of authority and the status of scripture.

          • “God has revealed himself through the Bible. God has revealed himself *most clearly* through the gift of his Son, Jesus Christ.[…]“

            Which we only know about because of the Bible . Take away the Bible as a reliable source and there’s no reason to think it’s true that Jesus was the unique Son of God, rather than just a good man or a charismatic preacher, and there’s no reason to think He was raised from the dead, and there’s no reason to think that His death and resurrection effectively achieved the salvation of all those who accept Him as Lord.

            Thirdly, Jesus shaped his life by obedience to the Father, not by obedience to the scriptures. He was quite prepared to re-interpret and, if necessary, disregard those. That was one of the reasons he was put to death.

            Not only is it not that, it’s Marcionism, and that’s a heresy.

          • But, yet again, the comment demonstrates that this is, in reality, a debate about sources of authority and the status of scripture.

            Quite. Andrew Godsall’s fundamental argument in this whole debate is that the Church of England has already decided that scripture can be ‘disregarded’ (his word!) if it conflicts with other sources of doctrine, and that therefore the fact that allowing same-sex marriage would require scripture to be disregarded should not be a barrier to changing the doctrine.

            However he is unable to produce any explicit evidence (eg a General Synod resolution) for this change in the Church of England’s position on scripture, instead relying on implications that he claims can be inferred from various statements and publications including things like random pages on the Church of England web-site that could have been written by who-knows-whom and stuck up with who-knows-what review procedure, or lack of review procedure, and the long-standing de facto lack of any disciplinary consequences for those in the Church of England who have taught this heretical position.

            What’s more he conflates the prima scriptura position with sola scriptura and claims that the fact the Church of England has never held the later proves that it has never held the former, which is obviously an invalid argument because they are different things.

            He also claims totally logically incompatible things, like that he believes that the Bible is the primary source of doctrine and also that scripture can be ‘disregarded’ (again, his word) in matters of doctrine.

          • Ian I see you only address the third point I made. The other two have evidence from the CofE that our primary revelation is from Jesus Christ. The scriptures bear witness to that and as with any witness, it is not infallible. We worship Jesus Christ. We don’t worship scripture.

            As to the third point. Evidence for that has been raised before but to recap a few points. Jesus was accused of breaking the sabbath and re-interpreted – correctIng earlier tradition – the true meaning of sabbath.
            Jesus refused to condemn the woman caught in adultery. Jesus promised paradise to the thief on the cross, even though there is no evidence of repentance.

            As to S claiming that any of this is Marcionism……I think that person needs to study some early Christian doctrine.

          • Quite the contrary – and the reason is that there are so many doctrines. If the 4 listed as least believable are the 4 harshest that is a correlation almost impossible by chance. Which of course is the caution of one who is determined to make sure emotion is not clouding judgment.

          • Ian I see you only address the third point I made. The other two have evidence from the CofE that our primary revelation is from Jesus Christ. The scriptures bear witness to that and as with any witness, it is not infallible. We worship Jesus Christ. We don’t worship scripture.

            We only know anything about Jesus Christ through scripture though. If scripture isn’t reliable (a word I much prefer to ‘infallible’, because ‘infallible’ is far too vague) then we can’t know that we know anything about Jesus; so how can we worship someone we cannot know?

            Jesus was accused of breaking the sabbath and re-interpreted – correctIng earlier tradition – the true meaning of sabbath.

            Exactly: He corrected tradition, by pointing out that the tradition was not in accordance with scripture. So far from an example of Jesus

            Jesus refused to condemn the woman caught in adultery.

            Again, that story isn’t about Jesus contradicting scripture; it’s about the Pharisees trying to trap Jesus into either saying something that they can use to get the Romans to kill Him, or saying something that they can use to demolish His popularity by claiming to the people, ‘look, He doesn’t follow Moses’s Law [ie, the scriptures]’.

            Jesus outsmarts them, because He knows the scriptures better than they do, and is able to answer in a way which neither denies the scriptures nor gets Him in trouble with the authorities.

            Jesus promised paradise to the thief on the cross, even though there is no evidence of repentance.

            ‘We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve.’

            That’s repentance right there.

          • “We only know anything about Jesus Christ through scripture though”

            This is repeatedly asserted. And scripture is a most precious collection of source documents. Attempts by people to make sense of the enigma and mystery of our God who came to live among us.

            But firstly, it is fallible authors trying to express mystery. Though the Holy Spirit doubtless helped them, speaking to their hearts, they did not receive texts about what to write down word for word. Like anyone would, they were struggling to interpret and make sense of the reports of what Jesus said (some of it), what Jesus did (some of it), and they reported this through the lens of their times, the lens of their religious culture, and the lens of their religious communities.

            Secondly, with reference to those communities, quite apart from the biblical authors of scripture, there must also have been eyewitness accounts handed down about Jesus’s life, which is the start of tradition.

            Thirdly, when people write “We know nothing about Jesus except what scripture tells us” that is simply not true. Jesus is not just an intellectual collection of facts, written down in a book. Jesus is real. Jesus is a person. And successive generations have had personal encounters with Jesus Christ – so we come to know in very real ways, the Jesus who longs to have personal friendship with us.

            And that contributes to tradition too.

            Fourthly, we have been made with God-given consciences and minds, created to be receptive to the Holy Spirit and what the Spirit says to us, not only in scripture but in our lives. Day by day. Just as the first followers of Jesus had to interpret mystery, so do we. We have minds and consciences made to do that. We are not robots simply fed a texted verbatim manual which answers every day to day issue. We’re not robots to see the Bible authors as some kind of infallible, all-seeing humans (unlike ourselves), though they can be really helpful. We are made with feelings, really important feelings, which are supposed to interact with our consciences, and may come to different conclusions in different situations, cultures, times, and even (as we see here) different conclusions from each other. But what matters most of all, is that we open (with our minds, our consciences, and our communities) to the love of God right here and now.

            That does not mean repudiating all scripture. But it does mean exercising God-given conscience, and navigating mystery through the lens of our own life and times, with heart, with faith, with feeling, with compassion.

            And in a living day-to-day relationship with Jesus Christ who we encounter first-hand. Scripture – tradition – community – conscience – mind – feelings – openness to love and to the Spirit – living daily relationship with Jesus.

            ALL these things are avenues to encountering and trying to make sense and understand the God who is with us. AND to open to love, and the challenge of compassion for others, in the world today, in societies today, with their unique (not robot template) circumstances. Conscience and the Holy Spirit, and active prayer life, are vital. The Bible is also most precious, because it helps us recognise in other people’s words, the encounters with God we in our turn experience, albeit in the contexts of different times and cultures, and with expanded scientific knowledge. We should not disdain Parliament’s capacity for conscience either. God gives all people consciences, and sometimes leadership may come from outside the Church first.

          • That does not mean repudiating all scripture. But it does mean exercising God-given conscience, and navigating mystery through the lens of our own life and times, with heart, with faith, with feeling, with compassion.

            That’s not being a Christian. That’s being a Quaker.

          • Thirdly, when people write “We know nothing about Jesus except what scripture tells us” that is simply not true. Jesus is not just an intellectual collection of facts, written down in a book. Jesus is real. Jesus is a person. And successive generations have had personal encounters with Jesus Christ – so we come to know in very real ways, the Jesus who longs to have personal friendship with us.

            Rubbish. I’ve never met Jesus, and if I did it’s about the only thing that could get me to contact a psychiatrist.

            But more to the point, say two people both say they have met Jesus, and one says that Jesus told them X and the other says that Jesus told the Y, and X and Y are mutually exclusive. (This is not an uncommon occurrence, as you point out).

            Clearly either:

            (a) they both met Jesus, and Jesus told the truth to one and lied to the other.

            (b) one, or both, of them is deluded about meeting Jesus.

            I presume we can discount (a) as you would agree that Jesus is not in the habit to telling lies. So that leaves us with (b): one or both is deluded.

            Obviously it is of vital importance to know which of them is deluded, or if both of them are, correct? Because a message that is actually from Jesus is of vital, cosmic importance; but a mere delusion can be (and ought to be) safely ignored.

            But how can we tell? Obviously a delusion seems real to the person suffering from it, so it’s no point in asking the claimants anything: they will both be convinced that they actually met Jesus even though we know (because we have rejected (a)) that that cannot be true.

            So do you have some way of telling which of the two actually has a message from Our Lord, and which needs a little rest in a quiet room with soft walls?

            And if you don’t have such a way, then it is clearly true to say that we know nothing about Jesus except what scripture tells us. Because if you come to me and tell me you’ve met Jesus and this is what He’s like, then I have no way to know whether you really met Jesus or whether you are mad.

            And — crucially — the same applies to the person making the claim. Even they can’t know whether their experience of meeting Jesus was real, or a delusion, because, as above, a delusion seems real to the person who is deluded (hence why if I ever thought I’d met Jesus I would be checking myself into the nuthouse, and not trying to overturn centuries of established doctrine).

            So the only people who we can be sure really met Jesus, and aren’t mad, are the people who met Him while He was on Earth, between his birth and His ascension. We know their experiences were real and not delusions because there are multiple independent witnesses to corroborate what they saw and heard. That’s crucial. Note that every time Jesus appears to someone after his resurrection, there are at least two people present: specifically to rule out the possibility of it being a delusion or a figment of their imagination, at least two witnesses are required for proof.

            (The exception is Saul, and in that case there is physical evidence, which, again, is witnessed by multiple people).

            But unfortunately we can’t ask them about Him, because they are asleep and awaiting the resurrection.

            Fortunately, though, they wrote down their experiences with Jesus, and left them to us! And — provided those records are reliable — we can use them to know about Jesus, indeed, they are the only way we can know about Jesus.

            Which is why God made sure they wrote the records, and why God made sure the records were reliable: precisely so that we, and all the other generations who didn’t have the opportunity to actually meet Jesus, could find out about Him and what he said and what He did.

            But if the records aren’t reliable, then we have no more reason to believe anything they tell us than we have to believe someone who comes up to us and claims to have met Jesus isn’t a good two or more stops beyond Barking.

          • Thank you Susannah. I can’t for the life of me understand why people are so black and white about the bible. It’s a whole variety of different things, not least because it is a whole library of books, not just a single source.
            The Church of England does not need to pass any resolutions in synod to say what it believes about the bible. It self evidently allows a wide variety of views about the bible and always has done. That was stressed to me so much during my training. There is no one single view that the C of E has about the bible.
            And of course it is the early Church that really has given us what we know about Jesus Christ, as the Orthodox so clearly believe. If not for the early Church there would be no New Testament. Tradition/Church has to be key to our understanding of Jesus Christ.
            But it is the personal relationship that we need to keep coming back to. You don’t have a personal relationship with books.

          • It self evidently allows a wide variety of views about the bible and always has done.

            See, this is the argument ‘nobody’s been disciplined for this, therefore it must be officially allowed’.

            But that’s not a good argument. It is, as I think I said before, the argument of a speeding motorist that, because the police haven’t been bothering to prosecute motorists who drive at 79 mph on the motorway, the speed limit is actually 80 even if the signs say 70.

          • (The Act of Uniformity, and the subsequent ejections, were not things done by a denomination that ‘allow[ed] a wide variety of views’ on anything. Andrew Godsall’s view of how the Church of England ‘has always been’ seems to start no earlier than the very end of the seventeenth century.)

          • S: “Rubbish. I’ve never met Jesus, and if I did it’s about the only thing that could get me to contact a psychiatrist.”

            Okay, I rather gathered that, but it’s your prerogative. All except the first word, ‘Rubbish’.

            It is not ‘rubbish’ that people have personal encounters with Jesus, and personal relationships with Jesus.

            This is so widely recognised through the Christian world, and through time, and even in the interactions of John on Patmos… who do you think the Holy Spirit is, dwelling within you, if not a person who speaks to you, shares with you? and when you pray: is it just a list of requests to a conceptual God, or are you in relationship with God, delighting in God, offering and receiving love, exchanging devoted love, being friends with trust and sweetness, and interplay of spirit with spirit.

            I know people vary, and have different temperaments, but I do feel it’s a bit disrespectful of you to ‘rubbish’ a widely reported and experienced thing like being born again, and encountering Jesus in a personal relationship.

            As for ‘how can you tell things are right etc’… well yes, the Bible often helps us wonderfully (it is my most precious book – or books), and inspires, and so does prayer. And so does conscience. And then there is community. A lot of discernment is not individual. It arises in the context of community.

            We are not just individuals, we are ‘Church’ together in a community, and it’s the community as a whole that listens, shares, agrees, disagrees, and discerns ways of living. LLF is an expression of that. So it’s never just one of your ‘crazies’ who can claim what God wants.

            But personal encounter with Jesus is not an uncommon experience, either at point of conversion, or in that growing relationship that can deepen in trust and intimacy through a life of prayer.

            Your experience may differ, and that’s up to you and God, obviously. I would encourage you to seek personal intimacy with God if you want, and an opening up to feelings. I do find you pretty cerebral, and I’ve acknowledge your intelligence (IQ 160+ I’d assume), but you do speak a lot in concepts, somewhat less about feelings and emotional life. I believe God wants us to share an emotional life with God as well. To get personal. To give our feelings and not just our minds.

            But like I say, we are all different.

          • It is not ‘rubbish’ that people have personal encounters with Jesus, and personal relationships with Jesus.

            Look I am very careful to quote precisely the context of what I respond to so please do me the favour of reading it all. The ‘rubbish’ there referred not to the fact that some people claim to have personal encounters with Jesus, nor even to the fact that some of them might actually do so, but to the claim that such encounters mean that ‘Thirdly, when people write “We know nothing about Jesus except what scripture tells us” that is simply not true.

            And the point I explained is that even if people who claim to have personal encounters with Jesus actually do and are not totally cuckoo, that still doesn’t enable us to know anything about Jesus because there is no way for anybody (including the claimant) to tell whether they are actually having a personal encounter with Jesus, or are several spanners short of a full toolbox.

            What someone like that says might be true, but because there is no way to know whether it is or not, no one can put any weight on it. So it can’t possibly add to our knowledge about Jesus because we can’t possibly trust the source.

            I know people vary, and have different temperaments, but I do feel it’s a bit disrespectful of you to ‘rubbish’ a widely reported and experienced thing like being born again, and encountering Jesus in a personal relationship.

            As I’ve explained, that is not what I was rubbishing. But, frankly, just because something is ‘widely reported and experienced’ doesn’t stop it being rubbish. Seeing ghosts is widely reported and experienced, and that’s rubbish.

            And I don’t care whether something is ‘disrespectful. I care only whether it is true. And so should you.

            And so does conscience.

            Fallen consciences are not a reliable guide. But I suspect another heresy you would hold is to deny the fallenness of human nature.

            So it’s never just one of your ‘crazies’ who can claim what God wants.

            You don’t get closer to the truth by putting lots of crazies together. As I wrote above, just like the plural of anecdote is not evidence, the plural of feeling is not evidence. Unless those multiple members of the community actually objectively observe something, then it’s not multiple witnesses, it’s just a bunch of subjective experiences and subjective experiences are not evidence and do not add up to evidence no matter how many there are.

          • Anyway this is getting off the point, so I’m not going to engage on it any more.

            The important point is that no Christian denomination, and certainly not the Church of England, admits personal revelation as a valid basis for doctrine.

            That’s how you get Quakers (where everyone follows their own personal revelation) and Christadelphians or Christian Scientists (where everyone follows the personal revelation of one founder).

            In contrast the defining feature of a Christian denomination, like the Church of England, is that the Bible is the final authority and all claims to personal revelation are to be judged against the Bible, and if they disagree with the Bible then they are throw out. the Bible is the primary source of doctrine which overrules all others.

            And if the Church of England ceases to hold to that — which despite Andrew Godsall’s claims I do not believe it has yet — then it will cease to be Christian.

    • the real question to those who wish to stay in the Church of England is: will YOU accept the bishops’ proposed outcome if it opts for such accommodation and inclusion?

      I don’t think you get to ask this question given YOU have stated explicitly that YOU will not accept the bishops’ proposed outcome if it doesn’t opt for your preferred solution.

      EITHER you demand the other side accept the outcome, even if they disagree with it, and commit to doing the same yourself; OR you say you will only accept the outcome of it goes your way and allow the other side to do the same.

      You really can’t, no matter how many times you try, demand that others say they will accept the outcome whatever it is while saying you will only do that if it goes your way.

      Reply
      • *No-one* has to ‘accept’ the outcome.

        We will each have the choice… to stay in the Church of England and continue to express our opinions in a supposedly free society… or to leave the Church of England. But the likelihood is that the outcome will be somewhere along the spectrum: gay sex is sinful… gay marriage is unacceptable… different views have integrity and on grounds of conscience they should both be accommodated… gay relationships should be affirmed.

        That will then be the Church of England we live in (however reluctantly).

        It won’t mean I agree with it, or have to stop arguing my point of view. I don’t really see what you are getting at, ‘S’. It seems like a straw man argument.

        I want both ‘sides’ to stay. Accommodation of both views makes that possible.

        I think that will be the outcome. I will ‘accept’ the reality of any new or old ‘status quo’, but may disagree with it (as may you). It’s the same for us all…

        A. Agree and stay in the C of E.
        B. Disagree but stay in the C if E.
        C. Disagree and leave the C of E.

        Choices, choices, choices, and freedom of decision. My decision is most likely to (A) if both groups are accommodated within the Church of England. Otherwise it is likely to be (B).

        I am NOT being hypocritical. The same choices are open to us all, whatever the outcomes.

        (I’m not arguing your straw man further… feel free to talk to yourself!)

        Reply
        • But there is no argument. ‘Sinful’ is a word that requires further definition. ‘Disease-causing far, far above the average’ is not. And anything that is the latter sounds sinful to me.

          Reply
        • I want both ‘sides’ to stay. Accommodation of both views makes that possible.

          No, it doesn’t. Because the heart of the matter is that while you are correct that both views are internally logically coherent, only one of them is consistent with the Bible being the Word of God.

          You yourself have admitted passim that to hold your view you have to accept that the Bible is wrong on this matter, and that Jesus was constrained by His culture when He taught about marriage.

          And you simply can’t ‘accommodate’ within one Christian church the view that the Bible is the unique, supreme Word of God, and the view that it isn’t. Those are totally incompatible. Cannot co-exist.

          So as well as ‘accommodation’ being practically impossible, for reasons i have outlined and you have never refuted, it is, more importantly, logically and philosophically impossible. For it would require the Church of England to believe two mutually incompatible things about the Bible at the same time.

          And that can’t be done with integrity.

          Reply
          • Why? Why should anyone keep quiet?

            Because anyone who didn’t would be persecuted. If they were a minister they would be put under a disciplinary procedure, and barred from other posts; if they were an attender they would be told that they were not welcome if they were going to say such offensive things.

            If they held any kind of post, paid or voluntary, they would be told that they would lose the post if they kept on saying such things.

            So they’d better keep quiet.

    • Susannah,
      You seek credibility and influence from who you are, including a seeming inside track with the Bishop’s thinking and direction.
      S’s influenced is base on the arguements made,
      on who he isn’t, rather than is.
      As we form views on the validity of politicians, not only on how they answer questions, but on questions, points principles, avoided, not answered, where the questions are anonymous or not, likewise we form views on this whole question of doctrine revision.

      Reply
      • And your alternatives apply only After a change has been made, which you see as forgone conclusion.
        Why not apply those choices Now? Or go back to Scotland? But no, you are seeking, not accommodation but transportation to AMiE.
        Sin. Either it is sin or not. *A* is not also *Non-A*. Law of non- contradiction.
        Even as the whole question of sin is avoided.

        Reply
      • “including a seeming inside track with the Bishop’s thinking and direction…”

        You keep alleging this, Geoff, but I only have the same opportunities of access as you or anyone else. The opportunity to write to a bishop. I’ve exercised that freedom for many years now. And built up some relationships, like anyone can if they wish.

        You are free to do the same.

        To be clear: I speak for myself. I am not told what to say. I am not part of a formal or informal conspiracy. There is no ‘plan’ that I am involved with. I am a nobody. An elderly recently retired nurse. Entirely marginal, except to my Reverend Mother and personal church friends, and people I try to help (as I’m sure we all do), and my family.

        The bishops will do their own thing, and I have zero control or involvement in that. Please could I ask you to trust me about this? It’s a bit embarrassing to allege there are strings being pulled, with regard to me. I am an individual, no part of a bishops’ cabal. Why would they listen to me more than their postman or delivery driver? More than you or anyone else?

        All parties feel pain in this debate, and anxiety, but we should try not to slip into paranoia or conspiracy theories. I’m not in any conspiracy. I’m not even all that much liked by quite a lot of social liberals, because of my desire for accommodation of both ‘sides’. Some see that as ‘sell out’. I am too moderate for them. Trying to steer to the middle is rarely a comfortable position to be in. I suspect many bishops feel that as well, but that is their business, and unrelated to me.

        Reply
        • I don’t feel pain at all about this. That shows you misunderstand. I just oppose the dishonesty and all the people who are lying to themselves to get what their flesh natures want.

          Reply
          • Just as well straight people don’t have ‘flesh natures’.

            Of course they do — where do you think the push to accept remarriage after divorce came from? That one was so old they tried to push it on Jesus Himself!

            These days of course you also find them trying to get the church to accept fornication.

          • Yes, exactly. The remarriage after divorce thing was the most blatant reversal of a teaching of Jesus one could imagine.

          • Some factors here are (1) David Instone-Brewer’s track record in other matters as well of trying to put Jesus’s position nearer to contemporary culture than it has either generally been thought to be or seems from the texts to be; (2) Jesus’s repetition (emphasis) of the concepts remarriage and adultery; (3) Mark being the earliest gospel; (4) Matthew being dependent on Mark, and often glossing where not; (5) the divorce logion / discussion being the best candidate for a universally agreed teaching of Jesus that exists (having the additional support of Paul, whose rendition of Jesus’s perspective disagrees with Mark at no point); (6) objections to this arise in societies where it does not fit in with mores.

            To speak of adultery is to speak strongly (and distinctively too; and if unpopularly, then authentically), so what are the hopes of saying Jesus meant different or contrary to that?
            Being as minded for the deserted (as opposed to deserters) as anyone always reminds us that there are of course specific situations omitted by the blanket rule. A large question is how one can cease to be married to anyone anyway, given that marriage equals sexual union. But that is tangential.

          • I don’t care two hoots about DIB’s ‘track record’. That is just ad hominem. The pertinent facts are:

            a. there was an existing debate
            b. the language of the question in both gospels exactly plays into that
            c. it is very clear that Jesus takes the side of Shammai in rejecting ‘any reason’ divorce
            d. none of that rules out the possibility of remarriage after divorce; ‘indissolubility’ of marriage is nowhere supporting in Scripture
            e. Paul’s discussion of the possibility of divorce (which in the ancient world *always* meant subsequent remarriage) confirms this.

            So your wild claim that remarriage after divorce is a clear rejection of the teaching of Jesus is just tosh.

          • I think it’s quite important to point out that although the two of you disagree here, you both agree that Jesus, and the Bible, are correct — you are arguing about what the Bible says. But you agree that the Bible is the final authority, and that whatever Jesus ruled in first-century Israel still applies to us today.

            It is this which makes this disagreement of a totally different quality to the disagreement on same-sex marriage, where people agree on what the Bible says, but disagree about whether the Bible is the final authority or whether it can be overruled; or over whether what Jesus said in first-century Israel does still apply to us, or whether He could not see beyond His own culture and that we know better that Him.

          • Christopher, Ian – well, perhaps ‘the church’ (by which I mean the organisation) shouldn’t be involving itself in any marriage ceremony at all.

            There is a principle of one man and one woman making a life-long commitment. This is the ideal. But we all know that it can happen that, in very unfortunate circumstances (e.g. husband becoming an abusive alcoholic), divorce may actually be necessary – and then we think it is harsh and cruel if the poor innocent victim, if and when they meet somebody else who is decent, is denied the right to marry somebody in a church.

            At the same time, with this re-marrying divorced people business, we already see that church marriage has become a complete joke. There was a royal wedding a few years ago, which was a church wedding, where the woman was a divorcee. In this case, the woman in question had decided to get a divorce – and there wasn’t the slightest hint that there had been any malpractice on the part of the man she had divorced.

            That such a marriage took place under the auspices of the C. of E. proves that marriage within the C. of E. is already a joke – yet it is very difficult to see how to make up a set of rules which maintains the sanctity of marriage and at the same time allows for the exceptional cases, without introducing a class of spiritual gestapo officers sticking their noses into divorces and nosing into peoples private lives to decide whether a church marriage is OK or not on a case by case basis.

            There is no indication that Adam and Eve married in a church; if there was a church ceremony with Isaac and Rebekah, then the bible didn’t record it. Things might be easier if the church took the view that marrying people was not part of its remit.

          • Paul never mentions the possibility of divorce that I can see. What does he mention?

            (1) He mentions unbelievers who may walk away. They are not abiding by Christian rules.

            (2) If separate (not divorced), it is necessary to remain unmarried. This rules out remarriage. (1 Cor 7.10-11).

            (3) A key element is reconciliation (7.11), which (why?) gets forgotten in some discussions. It is something very beautiful indeed and of the essence of the gospel. It takes less than one second (Harry and Meghan please note). Otherwise the idea is that Satan’s power is too strong, we have to give into it (like – why? – this is the deception), and make inevitable many anguished years and deathbeds. Uh – no – just hug and make up. Children in the playground can. Have adults so much less ability than they?

            On the earlier points:
            Ad hominem, no – we are concentrating on the writer’s self-acknowledged intention (Psephizo 16.11.21) to look at modern day ruinous consequences (in his own words) as relevant to interpretation of biblical texts. And indeed, secondly, to select especially-topical issues for analysis in the first place. If one sees modern consequences as relevant to exegesis once, one will do so again. The question is whether they are indeed relevant to exegesis. Since the ‘ruinous consequences’ depiction is controversial (first, how true is it? second, would the alternative not be more ruinous?) that more basic question needs addressing first.

            (a) There was an existing debate – that is a truism. The same subtopics will keep on coming up in it, as is true of any debate. They are the only subtopics there are.
            Jesus may see himself in the debate’s context, or as rising above it, or as independent of it. All these 3 need to be considered as possibilities.

            (b) Truer of Matthew than of Mark, and it is Mark that is the main issue. But given that Matt reproduces Mark, does he have access to ipsissima verba or is he glossing, on this quintessentially legal issue, being the most rabbinic of the evangelists?
            Matt reframes the debate as being about divorce for any reason rather than divorce per se. (Yes, this will have been a familiar perspective to him.) This works when we come to the porneia exception which Matt includes.
            The answer given by Jesus in Matt, however, insofar as it derives from Mark, is largely an answer to the divorce per se issue (Jesus going back to creation), and to that extent is a non sequitur. This is one of the subcategory of pericopae that Matt the editor changes at the start only for the logic of the original Mk version to reemerge later (Goodacre etc discuss these). This confirms that Mark is the original, as between the two. But that was not doubted anyway. So we revert to Mark.

            (c) Jesus is certainly closer to Shammai than to Hillel, but may or may not see himself in their context.

            (d) No remarriage (remarriage as adultery) is first the climax of what Jesus says, second the only thing he repeats for emphasis, third the conclusion to which the other points lead, fourth the really distinctive element of the teaching – no wonder it was preserved and remembered. Fifth, the language it uses is as strong as can be. The stronger the language, the less argument it brooks.

            (e) See on Paul above.

            Certainly what I am passionate about is preventing what has so often been rare (nothing can often be rare unless there is no need for it to be common) and is now unnecessarily common, which is in its effects on souls and children so unnecessarily much of a killer. We should just compare it with the other things generally termed child abuse, most of which are dreadful. When we do so we find that this ranks extremely high among them because of its breadth and finality and because of the lie at its centre. Children are fobbed off when all it is is that adults are too immature to act even at the level of children in the playground. And they would rather make all their loved ones suffer in an unhealed and terminal way rather than say sorry. I am glad I have never had to suffer such a hell at any close quarters, but I am just one person – millions of equally precious people have had to suffer.
            At the time in the 1960s when authority was rejected, its close cousin maturity was also rejected.

          • When a new couple join a church and one or both partners admit that it is their 2nd or 3rd marriage, does anyone ever ask why they divorced their previous partner? It could easily be an ‘adulterous’ arrangement. Why is there no vetting process? As pointed out above, the archbishop had no problem marrying Harry and Meghan. How many people who oppose same-sex marriage celebrated that particular wedding? It is a bit of a mess – even on the conservative side.

          • Royalty seems to serve some function…

            Ian. are you willing to say that Harry and Meghan (and others like them) might be in an adulterous relationship or are you going to stick to singling out same-sex couples for reproach?

            Hint: the biblical approach is to be truthful but gracious/understanding/forgiving about both.

          • Joe S. – With Harry and Meghan, I have been wondering how such a couple could be married in a C. of E. church with a C. of E. person officiating. Whether it is ‘adulterous’ or not – I wouldn’t be prepared to frame it as such; the relevant feature is that the woman is a divorcee. She decided to divorce her previous husband – and there has never been any suggestion that he was doing anything bad at the time – all the indications are that she got the divorce because the marriage was incompatible with her chosen career path. That is by far the most important point – and I really wonder what the C. of E. ‘doctrine of marriage’ actually is if these two got a church wedding.

            Is it just that they made an exception because the granny of one of them happened to be queen (and the earthly head of the C. of E.)? Or is this an indication of the general rule within the C. of E.?

            If the Harry and Meghan wedding really does represent the general rule for the C. of E., then I have absolutely no idea why they have a problem with SSM – when they seem to be prepared to marry absolutely any pair of (currently unmarried) heterosexual headbangers who come along and ask for a church wedding.

          • So the people who predicted a slippery slope in 1970 were right. Just like the people who predict a slippery slope are generally right.

            Ergo, listen to them now before it is too late. There is no need to play catchup with the Christians many years down the line when you realise they were right all along.

        • Susannah,
          I don’t hold to conspiracy theories, but recognise the politics of activists. I see you as an activist. And what are we to make of it when you write above: “I have reason to believe many bishops do too.”
          You mention a need to not only recognise marriage as a covenantal blessing, but here is the rub:
          How can sin be blessed?
          If homosexuality, is scripturally identified as sin- let it sink in deeply, what it then means to bless it in life-long commitment to it?
          This is what you are asking to be accommodated, not only that, but overtly, publicly celebrated. And sure, it already has in some Cathedrals, with Pride endorsements.

          Reply
  8. Parliament has been passing ungodly laws particularly since the 1960s. Incidentally it is worth pondering how they managed to go so many hundred years at a stretch without needing to pass any such – and then contrived to pass so many in a short period 50 years ago.

    They obviously think the Church has some catching up to do in the ungodliness stakes. How could we be so remiss?

    Yes (ahem) we are really keen to do that, Parliament.

    Reply
    • Christopher – the reasons are explained very well in Mountararat’s song from Iolanthe. Politicians were just as corrupt back then, but they did not interfere. In the time of good Queen Bess, the house of peers made absolutely no claims to intellectual eminence or sublime scholarship; during the Napoleonic wars, the house of peers did absolutely nothing ‘and did it very well’. The conclusion is that things work well while the House of Peers withholds Its legislative hand and noble statesmen do not itch to interfere with matters which they do not understand.

      The problem nowadays is that these politicians, for the most part corrupt and alcoholic, somehow seem to think that they have to be seen to be doing something.

      Reply
        • Christopher – well, this shows that you are a man of culture, sophistication and intelligence. Perhaps not surprising that the opera Iolanthe is referred to in this context several times independently – when the absurdities of Parliament are central to the discussion (and W.S. Gilbert clearly had a deep understanding of this).

          Reply
    • Thanks Christopher. I largely, probably totally agree with your comments on divorce remarriage. I would allow for divorce and remarriage on the grounds of sexual sin. Even here remarriage is not certain. I don’t think it necessarily follows that Jesus adopts the premise that divorce means freedom to remarry.

      The really big sell out is using 1 Cor 7 as a basis for divorce and remarriage on the ground of desertion. Each can claim they were ‘deserted’. This has been responsible for the explosion of divorces among Christians.

      In some circles ‘conversion’ is seen as a clean slate allowing the divorced person to proceed as if never married. This is clearly nonsense but its hard to convince some sincere christians that our actions have consequences in this life that ‘conversion’ cannot undo.

      I do think the moral authority to condemn homosexuality is largely pulled from an evangelical church rife with divorce and remarriage. I wonder if ‘desertion’ was simply the tool of established churches to cope with the large number of unbelievers that these had.

      John Pier believes there is a basis for divorce but no remarriage. I found Wenham and Hess’s book very helpful on this 20 odd years ago and regret that Hess defaulted on this position some time later – largely because his view had not gained acceptance.

      Reply
      • I have not read much, but Gordon Wenham seemed to get it, and Andrew Cornes did painstaking work. David Instone Brewer’s work comes up with a picture that is so different, sometimes admittedly actually contrary, to the impression given by the actual text. It also pays far too little attention to redaction criticism, which is basic to gospels analysis.

        People have no idea what a devilish thing they are dealing with here. A mum and dad are a child’s whole world and identity. Whereas for example smacking a child once is treated very seriously in some quarters, something ten thousand times more ‘abusive’ is actively encouraged.

        Where there are extended families and church communities there is accountability. There are standards of maturity below which it is taboo for adults to drop.

        The trend you see in evangelical churches is the same as Catholic annulment. There is a lot of lying to oneself and sophistry in both processes. Because that is unresolved, it festers.

        Reply
  9. Can it? No.

    Will it try anyway? Of course it will.

    It would, put bluntly, be foolish not to at least have a go. The enemies of the established church couldn’t really pick a better time for it. The church of England is neither principled enough, influential enough, unified enough or determined enough to resist a sustained assault from the state upon it’s independence.

    Reply
    • Wonder how the House of Lords Bishops would vote bearing in mind the HoL can’t ultimately block? Like turkeys voting for /against Christmas?
      Therefore, fear and self interest may prevail in their pressure to revise
      established doctrine.

      Reply
      • Given that the ‘Lords Spiritual’ are there precisely because the church is established, it seems self-evident which way they will vote in that matter. They will try and preserve their influence for as long as they can. And that’s not a cynical comment, because I do think the Lords Spiritual genuinely do a good job and perform faithful witness in the house. A much more effective one than they do on Twitter at least.

        As for how effectively the house would resists pressure on the church from the commons, it rather remains to be seen. I think there will be restraint in the direction of the commons, but it cannot stand opposed indefinitely.

        Reply
  10. ‘Can Parliament force the C of E to change its doctrine of marriage?’

    Not being a constitutional lawyer I have no idea on what is held to be constitutionally possible but law is a far more movable feast than some people believe. In truth, law is only the opinion of those with the power to legislate at any one point in time, followed up in due course by those with the power to adjudicate on cases. The fact that cases can progress from lower to higher courts with different adjudications on the way up is proof of this (if it were ever needed). In reality, law at any one time becomes the result of the majority opinion of the present moment once it has worked through the system to make it happen. In the case of our established church that’s usually an exceedingly long time – depending on the issue at stake I guess.

    I’m sure Parliament could force change on the C of E if it were to muster the interest but my guess is that a C of E in-house decision to make the change is the more likely (and probably what Parliament would prefer). There are both demographic and within-church cultural reasons for this. Demographically people of an inherently conservative nature (nothing to do with political parties) have naturally been thinning out with the march of time.

    The cultural point may be more contentious, but I’ve just been sampling some of the online worship offerings of the larger evangelical churches (not excluding the HTB brand). Like it or not, these (considerably younger) guys are on a different cultural planet from those who are departing the scene. I’m sure there will be some who are up for engaging in the spiritual and intellectual battle for the existing C of E doctrine on marriage, but I get the impression that a lot of them are looking for (and receiving) the kind of Christian challenge which will be only too pleased to skirt around the social and personal pain involved. Archie Coates as good as admitted that recently; his reasoning that people will come to the right conclusions as they work things out for themselves over time sounds like good marketing but a somewhat diluted application of what we learn from the New Testament. I doubt that HTB (the church which will have had a direct line to their most influential former member) has attempted to engage seriously with Justin Welby on this issue.

    In any case, for those of us who have the most to lose from a change in doctrine, speculation is less important over the next few months than action. It’s the minds of a pretty small number of undecided individuals which really need to be convinced. Our argument should be put clearly, honestly and rigorously – both in the public sphere and to every individual whose vote will count. It’s an argument of principle that needs to speak for itself on its own terms rather than respond to the many diversions put up by those who want it to fail. It’s a ‘choose this day whom you will serve’ moment. The other side will make its own case. The rest will boil down to the vote(s) on the day. That will be an interesting day!

    Reply
    • There is no way it will not end up as an absolutely colossal mess. Which, as we were all no doubt taught in Sunday School, is what always happens when you give a foothold. Give an inch and they will take an ell, and all that.

      Reply
  11. Ian Paul , in this article, said this:-
    “…..the biblical account of the origins of marriage in Genesis 2:18-25 (reiterated by Jesus in Matthew 19:3-12 and Mark 10:2-12) likewise tells us that God created marriage to be a relationship between two people of the opposite sex.”

    Do you Ian, then, as a scholar and teacher of Christian theology, deny the veracity of the Scriptures which talk about ‘The marriage Feast of The Lamb’? Where, here, is ANY reference to gender or sexuality?

    Reply
    • “‘The marriage Feast of The Lamb’? Where, here, is ANY reference to gender or sexuality?”

      That’s a desperate grasping at a non existent straw. Do you actually think these are actual identical things?

      Reply
      • I don’t understand your reply… tho I’m on a mobile phone with difficulty seeing nesting…
        If it’s to me (?). I’m not unaware of the imagery but it’s not the same as human marriage surely… or at least in Jesus’ eyes. There’s no going forth to multiply…

        ““For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.” (Matt. 22:23–30.)”

        Reply
        • What makes the imagery appropriate then?
          The world is full of thousands of images. Does the bride-husband image top all these thousands in its appropriateness here?

          Reply
        • Human marriage between two different people (male and female) from creation was intended to model the love relationship between Christ ad his church thus language like marriage supper, bride, husband, wife etc is used.

          It seems God deliberately made differentiated humans (male and female) to highlight the distinction between Christ and his church, However, integral to this picture was the intended loving leadership of Adam. When sin is introduced it is to Adam that God calls. Eve, was to respect her husbands responsibility to lead and in fact she took the lead in the fruit eating while Adam waived his responsibility.

          One reason the church finds it so hard to yield to Christ is we have lost the sense of a love relationship with distinctive roles. Of course one reason we have lost this in marriage is because we do not see it modelled in the church.

          I remember Eric Alexander on Eph 5 telling the (probably apocalyptic) story of someone asking a small boy ‘How does Christ love the church?’ And the boy replied, ‘you watch how my daddy loves my mummy and looks out for her and that’s how Christ loves the church. And how he was asked, should the church love Christ? To which he replied. Ah well, you watch how my mummy loves and submits to my daddy and that’s how the church submits to Christ.

          He was clearly a wise little boy. We have discarded this model and I can see no benefits coming our way.

          Reply
    • Ron

      Do you appreciate how far you are scrapping the bottom of the barrel here. Human marriage models the spiritual union between Christ and his church. There is correspondence but not complete identity (bough the language of husband, wife, bride etc is used). Nevertheless human marriage of a male and female was designed by God to point to the ultimate marriage just as the first heaven and earth pointed to a new heavens and new earth…. Adam pointed to Christ…. Canaan to a heavenly country… Jerusalem to the New Jerusalem… animal sacrifices to a human sacrifice

      I’m sure you know all this Ron. I can understand that your own orientation makes this hard to accept but not impossible. The Lord accepts repentant sinners whenever they come – he does not cast us out as I’ve often discovered.

      Reply
  12. I hope you will forgive me for flagging up an impressive article by Joshua Penduck. I concede that this does not directly relate to Parliament but, as many other posts in this thread so not either, please allow me a little leeway in this case. The article is of real interest to both ‘conservative’ readers (who may find much to agree with) and ‘liberal’ readers (who may find it challenges their/our views).

    https://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/articles/a-letter-in-response-to-the-bishop-of-oxford/

    Joshua’s article is ‘conservative’ but very intelligently developed. It is a really challenging critique of the ‘liberal’ position on sexuality.

    His defence of ‘conservative’ opinion is less the ‘sound-bite’ and the attrition of trench warfare over proof texts… more thematic and radical (in the root sense), unfolding along an almost symphonic deployment of reason and logic.

    It is worth reading, as a ‘liberal’ Christian, to confront one’s own suppositions, and try to see if/how they hold up.

    I think this is one of the most convincing presentations of the ‘conservative’ case, which does not mean I accept Joshua’s arguments and assumptions/premisses, but I am certainly challenged by them. Besides, I respect good writing and logical clarity.

    He makes a strong case. There is reason and coherence.

    Question for any ‘liberal’ reader: on what specific points or basis do his arguments fall short and fail to convince?

    To Ian: this article could be worthy of a page all by itself?

    Reply
    • It is a good article, yes. Your ‘conservative’/’liberal’ framing of so much, in what seems to me an unconsidered manner, is the source of a high proportion of your mistakes, IMHO.

      Reply
    • Susannah, Thanks for the link. Very well written. I’m pleased to find your response to it. None of it is new, but again, I’m pleased that that it is in a voice which registers with you.
      Like Christopher the liberal/ conservative categories do not help. Categorical errors, I’d say.

      Reply
  13. > Can Parliament force the C of E to change its doctrine of marriage?

    Yes, it can, easily I think. All Parliament would need to do is enforce all aspects of equal opportunities legislation for charities that want to claim Gift Aid. Most parishes, and therefore dioceses and probably then NCIs would find it impossible to survive without Gift Aid.

    Reply
    • Really,
      How did Churches survive before Gift Aid? How would any Voluntary sector organisations do? Is there not a hidden assumption here that Christian Churches do not warrant Charitable status?

      Reply
      • Geoff, I’m just saying that Parliament could force churches to change their practice more easily that many suggest. For example, the “triple lock” is presented as a strong protection, but most churches would fold without Gift Aid.

        I’m not saying this should happen, neither that churches should be dependent on Gift Aid, just noting that that’s all it might take.

        Reply
        • Christian – well, if indeed that is all it does take, if that plays any part at all in motivation for change, then it proves that these churches weren’t Christian churches in the first place. Perhaps a very, very good thing.

          Reply
          • I agree, but money’s already playing a paradoxical part in this whole mess. Big evangelical churches which have stacks of money have actually stayed aloof from the fight rather than offer the leadership for the fight you would expect. They think they can do their own thing irrespective of what happens. They apparently have little concern for the smaller, more vulnerable evangelical churches and their clergy who are being, and will be, crushed by their revisionist bishops. If you want two obvious examples, where’s HTB and St Helens, Bishopsgate been during this mayhem? And there are plenty of others.

            Melvin Tinker was rather more street wise. Despite the size of his church in Hull he realised that far too many of his fellow evangelicals didn’t have the stomach to fight for the soul of the C of E, and that whoever was bishop when he retired could see to it that his successor would be a ‘company man’ who would fall in line with the revisionist trajectory. Well poor Melvin did die suddenly but not before he’d removed his church from the clutches of the C of E.

        • Geoff, I’m just saying that Parliament could force churches to change their practice more easily that many suggest. For example, the “triple lock” is presented as a strong protection, but most churches would fold without Gift Aid.

          They wouldn’t fold. They would have to significantly reduce expenditure, which might mean changes like, for example, renting premises for services rather than owning their own buildings; but they wouldn’t fold.

          Reply
  14. “face the threat of disestablishment.”

    This might just show how out of touch Bradshaw is with many Anglicans.and congregations are rarely “purely Anglicans” in the 21stC. Of course some may be influenced (blackmailed?) by Gift Aid withdrawal threats.

    Surely no one at any point on the spectrum of opinions could sensibly think that this is a decent way to decide on theology… Highest bidder principles? I find it difficult to believe that the most liberal would see the State defining the theology of the church as without problems. Sup with the devil and you need a long spoon. Beware of what you ask for.

    If the church allows its theology to be State dictated , by definition it is not God’s church… and not one I’d be part of. The Church existed before establishment, it exists outside establishment and will exist when the establishment is no more.

    Reply
  15. Starting from a different place- the Coronation Oath, here is a usual thoughtful article from Gavin Ashenden.
    https://www.christiantoday.com/article/the.pressures.to.change.the.coronation.oath/139444.htm

    Would a change be embraced with open arms by the CoE? Disestablishment by the back door, or would it give full reign to cultural establishment of the CoE that it seems to crave? Without loss of status or any influence it may have even though continued favour in the HoL may not have sufficient support. Change of the HoL has a notorious self preservation road block.
    All the while, “Things can only Get Better” Blairs out from the Cathedrals across the land with a changing of the Guard/ Defender and implanted guardians of the faith (s) mantras. It would then be the state church by assimilation.
    “Take this world but give me Jesus.” Fanny Crosby

    Reply
  16. What possible * theological * arguments could be put forward to support an established church (tied to the crown and parliament) in a post-Christian, secular country anyway? Or indeed any country?

    Reply

Leave a Reply to Geoff Cancel reply