Andrew Goddard writes: The recent announcement from the House of Bishops (discussed here by me and here by Ian Paul) is raising the question as to how it relates to the last Synod motion on PLF passed back in July 2024. At least one Diocesan Synod is being asked to call on the bishops to “proceed at pace in facilitating implementation of all aspects of the Living in Love and Faith motion passed by the General Synod at its July 2024 Group of Sessions, including by revising the Pastoral Guidance to remove restrictions on the use of the Prayers of Love and Faith in standalone services”. It is, therefore, worth looking at what such a request amounts to, what has happened since the motion was carried, and why proceeding as planned is no longer likely to happen (I offered a similar analysis in relation to implementation of the original February 2023 motion two years ago).
The Context of July 2024
The motion in July 2024 arose after the previous Synod in February 2024 had found agreement across its divisions that it would be better to “move to next business” rather than vote on the proposals before it. That decision was made in the context of
- The formal commendation in December 2023 of prayers for use in regular services but with Pastoral Guidance making clear their use in standalone services would require the use of canon B 2.
- The November 2023 Synod asking (by a majority of just one in the House of Laity) for consideration to be given to introducing such services experimentally.
- The appointment in November 2023 of new episcopal leadership of the process replacing the Bishop of London with the Bishops of Leicester and Newcastle, followed by the swift and sudden resignation of the Bishop of Newcastle on 1st February 2024.
Following the February 2024 Synod, the July proposals arose out of:
- The “LLF working groups” deciding that commendation (as originally proposed and rather than B 2) should be used for standalone services but only tied to adequate, proportional pastoral provision related to new patterns of episcopal ministry,
- Those groups proposing consideration of “3 spaces in one church” to recognise the reality of the church’s situation but this being swiftly rejected by the bishops (GS 2358, para 10).
- The July proposals were therefore seen as distorting the work of the LLF working groups by a significant number of their members as set out here.
- The Faith and Order Commission being in the process of work on various matters related to the proposals.
The July 2024 General Synod motion
Turning to the motion itself, while it made sense in its original context it is clear that much has changed since then making calls for its implementation in all aspects unworkable.
First, in relation to its clause (a), the timetable which Synod supported has proved, like so much in the selling of PLF, highly unrealistic. The work of FAOC was meant to enable a “decision by the House of Bishops in early January 2025…to be presented at the February 2025 General Synod” in relation to clergy in same-sex civil marriage. By early 2025 all that was clear was that basing such a development on “a clear distinction between holy matrimony and civil marriage” as had been proposed but widely critiqued warranted “scepticism”. It was only in October 2025 that the House received the completed work on this in the light of which they have recognised canonical and/or doctrinal changes would be required and they will bring proposals to Synod in February 2026.
Second, in relation to clause (b)(i) the request the House of Bishops “remove restrictions on the use of PLF in ‘standalone’ services” now has to take on board the detailed work of members of FAOC and the Liturgical Commission (GS Misc 1430). This
frames a series of questions that the House of Bishops will need to answer in their deliberations on how to proceed. To what degree is a liturgical text’s silence on a topic an acceptable way to indicate agreement with present teaching? What symbolic actions should be proscribed and/or prescribed to ensure the PLF cohere with the Church’s doctrine of marriage? And what level of communal authorisation is required to engender confidence that ministerial discretion in the use of the PLF will not create doctrinal plurality?
To proceed without the bishops and Synod giving these questions serious consideration would now simply repeat the flawed approach which has produced the mess we are now in.
Third, the removal of restrictions on standalone services was also explicitly tied in (b)(i) to “the introduction of an arrangement to register for Pastoral Reassurance”. The origins of this go back to a promise of the Archbishop of York to General Synod in February 2023
I want to give you this pledge that I won’t be able to vote, I won’t be able to support commending these prayers when I hope we vote this through today. But I won’t be able to support commending these prayers until we have the pastoral guidance and pastoral provision.
Although broken by him when he commended the prayers for use in regular services, this pledge linking prayers with pastoral provision (later renamed Pastoral Reassurance) was strongly supported by the LLF working groups. However, (a) the bishops were unhappy with even a relatively minor form of this (DEM, Delegated Episcopal Ministry) and (b) many who needed such reassurance believed they needed more than DEM. To demand implementation of the July 2024 motion, and in particular to introduce standalone services, is to demand the bishops embrace some form of provision/resassurance.
Fourth, related to this, although there appears to still be a plan for a Bishops’ Statement, the decision not to explore reassurance means there has now been an explicit rejection of “a Code of Practice which provides for the delegation of some specific and defined episcopal ministry” requested in clause (b)(ii). In the words of the recent statement, the bishops have “concluded there is currently no need for a new code of practice setting out special arrangements such as Delegated Episcopal Ministry”. This also means that clause (d) of the Synod motion (to agree for “arrangements for Pastoral Reassurance to be regularly monitored”) also is now not needed.
The question here is why the bishops voted to bring this proposal of DEM and a Code of Practice to Synod and voted for it at Synod and sent it out for discussion at Diocesan Synods but have now almost unanimously rejected this. Here there is no formal FAOC paper relating to this which explains this reversal. It would appear that many bishops were opposed to it but still brought it to Synod and sent it to the dioceses. This may help explain the sudden resignation of the Bishop of Leicester back in June.
Fifth, the “further theological work carried out under the auspices of the Faith and Order Commission around the nature of doctrine, particularly as it relates to the doctrine of marriage and the question of clergy in same-sex civil marriages” which Synod asked to see has now shown there are serious problems in proceeding as the bishops and Synod wanted in July 2024 (See GS Misc 1429, 1430 and 1431).
Sixth, the proposal (clause (c)) that “taken together the Pastoral Guidance, the Bishop’s [sic] Statement and Code of Practice for pastoral provision will replace Issues in Human Sexuality” has been overtaken by two developments: (a) the decision noted above not to have a Code of Practice and (b) the widespread agreement in July 2025 that, in relation to the ordination discernment process, Issues in Human Sexuality should be, in the interim, replaced by the “requirement for candidates to live in line with the Guidelines for the Professional Conduct of the Clergy”. This option was not considered in July 2024 but arose out of “the advice of the LLF working groups” called for in section (b) of that motion.
Conclusion
In summary, it is clear that the PLF process is now stuck in a very big ditch but whatever comes next there appears to be little or nothing in the July 2024 General Synod motion that is now likely to be of much help. Any call to “proceed at pace in facilitating implementation of all aspects of the Living in Love and Faith motion passed by the General Synod at its July 2024 Group of Sessions” fails to recognise what has changed since then and is not a possible way forward.
Revd Dr Andrew Goddard is Assistant Minister, St James the Less, Pimlico, (where his wife Lis Goddard is vicar) Tutor in Christian Ethics, Westminster Theological Centre (WTC) and Tutor in Ethics at Ridley Hall, Cambridge. He is a member of the Church of England Evangelical Council (CEEC) and was a member of the Co-Ordinating Group of LLF and the 2023 subgroup looking at Pastoral Guidance.
Buy me a Coffee
Thank you Andrew for keeping track of the Byzantine complexity of all this. (Has Canterbury made Byzantium look simple by comparison?) I trust your conclusion is correct that this is not a possible way ‘forward’ – although as far as biblical and traditional faith goes it would be a way backward.
Jesus Christ didn’t think in committees!
Some others think the fifth point is just carrying on by another means (eg ‘Rev Dan’ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbzSm_qvjtg ). In this the progressives seem to be ‘doubling down’ rather than giving up. The General Synod elections next year will be fought energetically (already started) – are evangelicals ready?
I think they will be.
Oh, and I think Rev Dan completely misreads this!
I think we do need to be careful in our terminology here. If we are resolute we’re ‘being faithful,’ but if those we disagree with are resolute they’re ‘doubling down.’ The former has positive connotations, the latter negative ones. The Alliance ‘doubled down’ on its position earlier in the year, or was it ‘being faithful’? It perpetuates the terrible sense of tribes denigrating one another. I would make exactly the same point if a ‘progressive’ used that language but try to find a better word for them
In the next round, one side appeals to scripture and the other side either denies the authority of scripture or imports the postmodern idea that there is no such thing as truth, only power, smuggled in under the notion of ‘interpretation’ of sentences that re mostly as clear as a children’s reading book. In the next round each side denies that the other is Christian. There will be no referee until the Second Coming.
They will need to be, conservative evangelicals need to win at least 34% of Synod places to ensure they have the votes to block bespoke services for same sex couples under canon B2. Though they likely will it is not certain, as liberal Catholics and open evangelicals have already stated selecting candidates and campaigning to try and get their long shot 2/3 majority target met
The Creator God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel, incarnate in the Lord, Jesus of Nazareth, is nothing, if not, “the ultimate progressive”. Before there was anyone capable of writing a page of ‘scripture’, He was active. He continues to be active today, when no further ‘scripture’ may be added to the canon. As a homosexual Christian, I know my place: and it is not within the Church. Now seventy-three, for fifty years I have looked on as the ‘ship’ of the Church founders on the ‘rocks’ of human sexuality. What is particularly sad, is to see the Church descending to the levels of Islam: believing more in ‘INLIBRATION’ than ‘INCARNATION’. This is the merssage this old Christian receives from the Byzantine, Jesus-free, argumentation above.
Mark, thank you so much for your clear and helpful comment.
I agree with you that, for someone in your situation, an article like this might read as Byzantine. That is because it is focussing on one particular issue around Church of England due process.
But both the author and I believe that Jesus is our teacher, and he is the good shepherd, who loves his sheep, died and rose for them, and seeks them out. We believe that his teaching is the truth, and life-giving. We therefore have to work to understand why his particular teaching that marriage is between one man and one woman, because of God’s creation of humanity, is actually the good news for all of us, regardless of how we understand our sexuality.
This article does not explore that question. But my friends at Living Out do so, and I attempt this in my Grove booklet ‘What is sex for?’ https://grovebooks.co.uk/product/p-180-what-is-sex-for-a-pastoral-theology-of-our-sexed-bodies/
But I am grateful for your comment, and you offer an important perspective that none of us should forget.
Despite the recent legal reality check, and the opportunity that it gives a new Archbishop of Canterbury publicly to repent and draw a line under the past folly, it appears they just can’t let LLF go. Dogs returning to their own vomit comes to mind, and the consequential New Testament warnings (eg 2 Peter and Jude) are stark indeed.
The question for those who are sorely vexed by past and continuing folly is how long they should remain around people or in an organisation that has no reverse gear on this destructive dead end issue.
I go to an Anglican church simply because it is, rather to my surprise, the best congregation reasonably close. I made it clear to the vicar that I had a low opinion of the hierarchy and he said simply that he shared my view and would go on as long as he could being paid by apostates to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ, which he does very well.
But I am sure that Jesus Christ wants his genuine faithful to quit the CoE’s liberal congregations.
The tension between the utterances and antics of a denomination’s national hierarchy and the day to day ministry offered at the local level mean that the search for a good local congregation may present a surprising choice!
What’s also hard is deciding when it’s time to leave a local church that is being progressively corrupted, not least by influence from what’s going on at the national level: you may find you still owe loyalty or duty of care to congregational members despite being increasingly at odds with the leader. I suspect that’s an increasing experience right now. It becomes even worse when there’s no alternative at reasonable distance in any direction. I’m no great fan of trekking large distances in a car all the time: wherever possible local gatherings are the preferable option, whereas a better experience at a distance can, in reality, can become simply a consumer’s choice.
I think it *does* have a reverse gear, and that has just been engaged. We are now seeing pushback against it…!
I hope you’re right. If so, we’ll start to see not just acceptance of a legal judgement but a radical change in vision and attitude – a vision that’s centred on God’s sovereignty, and real joy to be found from yielding to his authority. I’d suggest the acid test may well be around this one issue: discipline – both self and institutional. And, speaking as an evangelical, a return to discipline may not be without implications for our own group. The leadership of the new AoC could hardly be more important!
Even had stand alone services for same sex couples passed conservative evangelical churches in the C of E would have had an opt out, as they do for prayers within services and as those conservative Anglo Catholic and a few conservative evangelical churches have an opt out from having a woman priest or bishop
This https://viamedia.news/2025/11/17/cries-of-suffering-a-response-to-the-nature-of-doctrine-and-the-living-god/
An odd article…
The article presented as unbalanced, and predetermined, prejudge, seeking to serve his stated position, with seeming contradictions and logical fallacies from a skimmed reading.
Again and again this whole topic is centred on doctrine of
1. Scripture
which depends on
2 the doctine of God
3 the doctrine of revelation
What is absent is the weight of subjectivity, of the culture, of the dominant secular ‘spirit of the age’ hermeneutic.
There are many words in the article which, in total, don’t appear to add anything new, but are composed and developed with something of an air of desperation.
Very fascinating Penny – thanks for sharing.
Mike’s claim that his work on the FAOC has been misrepresented is indicative that the reports we are reading may not be limpid.
Yes, Mike Higton makes some really telling points about the weakness of the FAOC Report, which are complemented by Andrew Davison’s piece in last week’s Church Times at:https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2025/14-november/comment/analysis/analysis-beware-of-doctrinal-development
Mike is perceptive in outlining some of the weaknesses in the FAOC document and its unbalanced use of sources, including his own. Very helpfully and crucially he makes it crystal clear that it’s not a debate between those who regard Scripture as authoritative and those who don’t, those who think doctrine should be in agreement with Scripture and those who don’t. It’s between people who regard Scripture as equally important but who for a variety of reasons read it differently. (There are in addition others who don’t have that view of Scripture or who want to dismiss it as outdated but that isn’t Mike’s position.) This is the case with many areas of doctrine across the history of the church in every era (e.g. Spurgeon and John Clifford, Wesley and Whitefield) so we should be able to recognise this. Too often the debate has been presented as though one group takes the Bible seriously and the rest don’t, but it ‘s absolutely clear that isn’t the case. I really don’t know why on this issue that can’t at least be recognised when it can on others. It doesn’t mean that anyone is asked to change their mind but only that they come to recognise that someone may disagree with them and still be highly intelligent, prayerful and want to discern the way of Christ and that therefore there’s no need to break communion with them.
There’s also a tendency to rapid responses in which any suggestion that another view expressed by someone from another ‘side’ has any possible validity whatsoever and so has to be totally rejected instantly. I have noticed a clear tendency over several years for people on all sides to praise as theologically coherent and sophisticated views with which they agree, and to denigrate as theologically incoherent or shallow the ones they disagree with. That, of course, means we don’t have anything to learn from those who are so clearly wrong.
It seems to be clear Tim, that you have nothing to learn. Again the question is not a one of taking Scripture seriously, it is a one of what scripture is.
Modernists have taken scripture seriously, Historical and Higher critics, did and do. Biblical scholars of any and all stipes have and do, including skeptid and atheists.
It is incorrect to say that it has been described as a dispute between those who do and don’t. David Runcorn who has commented here down the years, takes scripture seriously.
As I only skimmed, the article, it seems to reject, scriptural themes, systematics let alone whole canon Biblical theological interpretation (which is far from recent, as adopted even by Spurgon).
The correspondence of absolute truth also appears to be absent from the article. And logical fallacies, such as ‘A’ is not, ‘none A’ seem to be present.
Why take Scripture seriously? What does it even mean?
To trust and obey? Or look for loopholes?
We all have lots to learn from those we disagree with as well as those we agree with. Many articles and comments I read do most emphatically say that those who wish to use PLF are ignoring the Bible or not taking it seriously. Or looking for loopholes or being disobedient. I was not arguing for SSM.
But how do you know they are not doing all those things? Lack of awe runs very deep and is at the root of all this.
Are you implying that no-one should ever be accused of bad faith? In the real world plenty of people have bad faith.
My charge is a combination of both bad faith and lack of expertise, leading to a third thing – the arrogance that thinks that those with lack of expertise can dictate on such matters.
This is where you’re wrong, Tim.
(1) It is not possible for the most studied text that ever existed to have such contrary possible interpretations. Such a thing would scarcely be possible for any text.
(2) Those who make this doubtful claim are doing so illegitimately unless they can lay out their evidence.
(3) Most of them are not at a scholarly level that would allow them to do so, which means that their voice has no weight.
(4) This further means that they are dishonest people who knowingly and overweeningly try to usurp both those better qualified and those with more common sense.
I look forward to your pointing that out to Mike Higton and Nicholas Adams.
They are well known commentators and exegetes?
As I gather, they are theologians – not a biblical exegete in sight. And theology is not a topic of study on a level that can be falsified or verified.
But even then, we do not form informed opinions by consulting 2 people.
Still less 2 random and/or cherrypicked people.
Christopher, I am reporting some of the views I have read. I’m not lying or making it up.As Rowan Williams pointed out many years ago, equally faithful Christians do come to very different views from the Bible on many topics. He uses the example of war and weapons of mass destruction. The fact that texts are very intensively studied cannot prevent them from being read in radically different ways. I simply don’t understand why recognising the variety of readings undertaken in good faith and with intellectual rigour is so difficult to acknowledge. No one is asking you or me to necessarily agree with them.
It is not possible for the most studied text that ever existed to have such contrary possible interpretations
It’s not possible?
Christians have disagreed over slavery on Scriptural grounds. We’ve disagreed over the ordination of women. We’ve disagreed over the permissibility of contraception, not to mention divorce. We’ve disagreed over infant baptism, sola fide, the filioque, predestination, etc. etc.. How much more disagreement that cites contrary interpretations of Scripture do you need to see?
Hi Tim
You will agree with me that your comment throws up the following unresolved issues:
(1) The word ‘view’ is unuseable because it means someone who has researched something for 10 years is on the same level as someone who just has a selfish preference.
What I am interested to know is – how can you disagree with that point?
(2) You are not lying or making it up. But as no-one said you were, the question is irrelevant. It also makes one think you are not understanding what is being debated.
(3) ‘Equally faithful’ – what is the intrinsic value in being faithful? Surely it depends on whether one is being faithful to something good or to something bad.
(4) Why does it take Rowan Williams to point out something which is not only not a profound point but also needs to reckon with the other points I am now making? Joe Bloggs could do that.
(5) Christians do come to very different ‘views’ – point (1) invalidates this.
(6) Christians do come to very different views [derived] from the Bible on many topics.
Yes – and one reason is that some are not following the text; a second is that some do not know the languages; a third is that some are more intelligent than others; a fourth is that some are more honest than others. You cannot possibly believe that they all rank equally in those 4 matters? Do you?
(5) The facts that texts are intensively studied does not prevent them being read in radically different ways – you say.
No – there would be agreement on the main common core, usually, and then disagreement about fine detail. That is my experience from scholarly gatherings. ‘Radically’ is a very strong word, and in this context very inaccurate. There are limits to what words and sentences can mean, and 99% of meanings are always going to be immediately ruled out.
And also, you ignore the fact that the people doing the studying are of different degrees of expertise. But this is not the first time I have made that point. It is not one that can, logically, be disagreed with.
(6) ‘in good faith’ – for the second time, you are simply assuming that good faith is present. For the second time (again), you know that in the real world that is not the case. Diplomatic convention and reality are quite distant from one another.
You have not provided any evidence that good faith is present!
(7) Intellectual rigour.
This is what I am complaining of the lack of.
You are simply asserting that it is present. It will not come to be present by your asserting it.
(8) No-one is asking you or me to necessarily agree with them – you say.
But debate is about pointing out what things are evidenced and what things are self-contradictory. It is a matter of some people always being wrong, and the vast majority of possible positions always being wrong. Do you ever think any position is wrong? How would its wrongness be determined?
Here you present plurality of opinion as something which people would be happy to live with so long as they did not have to agree with positions they did not hold. That is not the perspective of anyone who cares at all for truth. Those who care for truth care for those who are mistaken (e.g. who have been involved in self contradiction) and want to introduce the light of truth (or increased truth) wherever they are able to do so.
As Yoda might have said, ‘The spirit of relativism is strong on this one.’. Relativism is well known to be self-refuting/ invalid.
Adam – those are position statements that take into account a wider database, not disagreements about what texts say.
Anyway, why is ‘contrary interpretation of Scripture’ in a different category from contrary interpretation of any other text? It seems that Scripture is treated different because people want to continue to evoke the right of derive more improbable inferences from it than they would from other texts. I wonder why….
‘right to derive’
Christopher,
You’re just appealing to authority (a fallacy) and getting frustrated that other people aren’t engaging in proof-texting as you’d prefer. Sorry, but that doesn’t cut it.
Adam, you confused different things. The appeal to authority is a fallacy because it involves saying a name, introducing no argument nor evidence, and pretending that the argument is thereby won.
Whereas what I did was just make a point that all agree with – namely, on any topic we listen to those who have studied it most.
As to proof texting, I don’t recall citing any texts at all.
This is simply untrue. Of course people have argued about what the scriptures ‘say’ on, for example, slavery. They are still doing so. Long after the Atlantic slave trade was abolished. Just as they are still arguing (for example here) on whether the Bible permits women to teach, lead, or be ordained.
If you were following the argument here, you would realise that there is nothing random in the citation of Mike Higton and Nicholas Adams on this topic.
Just to add, they are as pertinent to this discussion as is the theologian who wrote this blog.
Oh Christopher, an appeal to authority does not require “saying a name”. You keep arguing that what matters is whether someone has been researching longer, are deemed by you to be more expert, etc.. That is an argument about authority (who said it), not a consideration of the evidence itself (does this make sense). You keep suggesting that the task at hand is translating individual words and sentences, which is why you argue there is a hard to refute consensus. But that is a proof-texting approach to the topic: find the sentence you like, translate it, and hey presto! there’s your answer.
Hello Adam
(1) Appeal to authority does not require saying a name?
That’s right – though it typically does. What I was referring to was the authority fallacy -dropping in the name of a scholar and never mentioning their reasoning.
(2) I keep arguing that…?
a: No, this is not an argument: rather, it is an assertion of the obvious.
b: And because it is obvious, you are quite wrong to say that this is something that I (in particular) are saying and thinking. It is, rather, something which for obvious reasons most people are thinking. The only alternative is that there is no such thing as expertise. Which is a position which I am sure you would not wish to maintain.
(3) That is an argument about authority not a consideration of the evidence?
No, it is referring to the writings of those who have considered the evidence at most length and at the highest level of analysis. It is a request that people read their evidence.
(4) I say the task in hand is the meanings of words and sentences – but that is proof texting?
Consequently, everyone has to stop giving words and sentences meanings from now on. And burn their dictionaries (and their other books).
People only invent this thing called proof texting when the words and sentences turn out to have unwelcome meaning. It is not called proof texting. It is called reading, and reproducing what one has read.
(5) I find the sentence I like, I translate it, and hey presto, there’s the answer?
a: Yes – there indeed is the answer to the question ‘How should this be translated?’ – or at least to the question ‘What could be held to be the most legitimate translation available?’. But there is more than one question.
b: I don’t translate. Expert people translate the Bible and are commissioned to do so. I doubt many on these blog comments are able to operate at their level, nor secondly have the qualifications to do so.
In any case, how could it be the place of someone who is not a specialist to adjudge which interpretations are textually legitimate options and which are not? One can easily refer to those many who ARE specialists.
Generally speaking, highly respected theologians have some working knowledge of scriptural hermeneutics 🙂
Exactly. So we prefer those for whom it is their first specialism above those who have merely a working knowledge. Is anyone disagreeing with that?
No one Christopher. And you can read exegetes too who will disagree with your ideology. But mere exegesis is not sufficient for a full theological and anthropological exploration of God’s relationship with humankind.
Christopher, earlier you stated that ‘you will agree with me that,’ which is a curious comment unless you’re absolutely certain that your points are clear and correct and you know my mind. It sounds as though you believe your views are incontrovertible and so any rational person would agree with them. Or was it a command, an instruction to agree with you?
CS: ‘In any case, how could it be the place of someone who is not a specialist to adjudge which interpretations are textually legitimate options and which are not? One can easily refer to those many who ARE specialists.’
Because, Christopher, that is how all human beings appear to be able to understand each other. Even without having to refer to a dictionary to find the *accurate* ‘interpretation’ of a word.
I can read exegetes who disagree with what is plain to the expert translators, simply because there are 8bn people in the world, and one can come across just about anything. Just because a certain minority exists (and many do) you think their mere existence validates their arguments.
Tim, you are actually thinking that I am the sort of person who forces others to think things? By command? That is the sort of thing I regularly call to account. Assuming and forcing worldviews, e.g. the ”trans” worldview.
I wrote ‘you will agree’ because I was trying to restrict myself to the self-evident. If I failed in that, point out where; but do engage with the points, for they are many.
What a shame that Mike Higton did not follow the biblical faith of his father.
He has followed the biblical faith of Mike Higton, as is seemly.
I deny it is biblical. I am happy to debate specific verses with him.
I am sure you do. Others, however, disagree with you. It has been thus for at least 2000 years. The scriptures themselves are a discourse, not a monologue.
I am not interested in discussions about discussions about scripture.
No. Only in proof texting it seems. Not a very good way to read scripture.
Disagree? No one would guess that those who have thought less would disagree with those who have thought more. No one would guess that some positions were logically and evidentially tenable and others not. No one would guess that in a world of 8pm people they would not all be in perfect concord and would not all be of equal expertise.
The relativist fallacy is rising.
8m people
Proof texting means that you bring a proposition to scripture and see whether scripture finds it true or false. This is appropriate when you are in exegetical disagreement with someone, because a proposition then exists which one party believes is true and the other believes is false.
Of course, when you read scripture for interest, you let *it* suggest propositions. Very different situation.
8bn people
This discussion suggests that disagreement is significant.
Not evidenced disagreement. Not any particular disagreement. Just disagreement per se.
This in a world where 99.999% of possible answers to any question are clearly wrong, and a world where the number of people alone (8bn) will easily guarantee that disagreement exists on any topic at all. As though that were significant.
Can they raise the dead?
No, but God can…!
The core basis of PLF, prayers for same sex couples within services as approved by a majority of Synod, is already underway anyway. Church of England churches whose PCCs have approved such prayers for their parishes and benefices are already conducting the prayers for same sex couples married in English law within their services.
The only delay to PLF would be in terms of bespoke services for same sex couples which would be stand alone and potentially need alternative episcopal oversight. That won’t be voted on until the next Synod elections, where liberals and open evangelicals would need to get a 2/3 majority to meet the canon B2 requirement the bishops have set for stand alone services to be approved. That is unlikely so that remains on ice. Clergy being able to marry their same sex partner in a civil service though is likely to be approved as the bishops affirmed only a simple majority was needed for that
If they try that, we will go ahead and establish a National Province.
Go ahead but if 2/3 of Synod voted for bespoke services for same sex couples it would have the canon B2 mandate required and would be implemented regardless
Establishing a national province as clergy were married to same sex partners in civil law would though be unlawful as the Bishops would affirm if approved by a majority of Synod
The structure for a third province is already underway.
So what, it would be illegal and likely lead to expulsion from the Church of England for any churches participating if set up without Bishops and Synod agreement. There was no third province set up when female clergy were first ordained after that received a 2/3 Synod majority nor when female bishops were approved by 2/3 of Synod either. At most there would be flying bishops for churches who did not want to have a bishop married to a same sex partner or a bishop who ordained clergy with same sex partners, as there are for churches who do not want to have a female bishop or a bishop who ordained a female priest
Very Monty Python. And in the left corner, the solitary splitter for whom provision is made suitable to those who accept female clergy and deny PLF, and in the right corner…
As many positions as people, As many churches as individuals.
Given 2/3 of Synod voting in favour would be needed for bespoke services for same sex couples as 2/3 of Synod was needed to vote in favour of female clergy and bishops and a majority of Synod would be needed to vote even for civil same sex marriages for clergy not done in church, most churches won’t have flying bishops. In any case, the churches most anti same sex relationships also tend to be the churches most anti female ordination so the same conservative Anglo Catholic or conservative evangelical male bishop can cover both
If you take the proportions, you are simply ignoring the vast number who are pro female ordination and anti SSM. Such as the Alliance and HTB which led the resistance. Permutations are endless even within a single congregation.
What vast number? About a quarter of the house of laity voted against female bishops and last year evan a narrow majority of the house of laity voted for PLF. Plus as long as a flying male bishop for those who oppose female bishops and clergy is also a flying male heterosexual bishop who opposes same sex relationship recognition he can do the same job for conservative evangelicals anti same sex relationships he does for conservative Anglo Catholic and conservative evangelicals anti female ordination. Of course once the PCC approves the prayers that is all that is needed for a congregation, anyone opposed can just not turn up when a same sex couple is having prayers for them in a service
Lol, you are thinking that the Synod which is much less than 1% of Anglican attendees is representative.
It is representative of politicking types, activists, those with time on their hands, for example. (I am an activist myself.)
Just like parliament is not representative. E.g. on Brexit, SSM, death penalty. These things show percentage-wise just how unrepresentative it sometimes is.
The Synod is the governing body and effective parliament of the Church of England. What the Bishops and majority of Synod decide is the law of the C of E and determines its doctrine
Parliament is also elected, at least in the supreme House of Commons, the Lords a mere revising chamber and what a majority of Parliament makes as law is the law in the UK
You actually think that people are not aware that Synod is our church governing body or that our government is elected?
Where have they been all this time? Under a stone?
You must know that that has nothing to do with the point – how typical or representative they actually are of those they claim to represent.
That was the point – why was it sidestepped?
So, where are we at?
The Prayers of Love and Faith are still commended for use in services under Canon B5.
If we want PLF to be in standalone services that’s going to require approval under Canon B2, and there’s no reason to think that will be forthcoming. As such all the pastoral reassurance that was going to accompany that isn’t needed so also won’t be forthcoming. Whilst allowing clergy to enter same-sex marriages on the same basis as civil partnerships only requires a simple majority in Synod, there’s more work to be done there and would also need legislation, so none of us should be holding our breath.
What’s also happened is that we’ve stopped asking ordinands to agree with Issues in Human Sexuality.
Does that mean there’s nothing to do because we’re in a “ditch”. No. The disposal of Issues leaves us with something of a lacuna when it comes to the topics that Issues tried to grapple with. Worse, those are topics that were neglected in the LLF debates by everyone (on both sides) who wanted to skip ahead to marriage wars. I continue to think it would be helpful if the Bishops would bring forward a new Issues to be clear about our view on sexuality and sexual orientation, whether that is sinful or not, whether we think it can be changed or would recommend trying, etc.. It would also be a good idea to do some of the work that LLF/PLF recommended on celibacy and singleness (which got completely neglected in the subsequent debates). All of that might be things we can close to consensus on, which would be no bad thing.
It might also be an idea, given that the PLF still stand, for those who amended the prayers for covenanted friendships explain the changes made and why these are supposed to be better than what was originally proposed.
Adam, I don’t think you are correct here.
a. The new papers raise serious questions as to whether the bishops were right to commend the PLF, in part from theology and more so from due process in HoB.
b. Ordinands, instead of IHS, need (as they always did) to agree to abide by the Conduct of Clergy. So nothing has actually changed there, which is why there was more or less unanimity in the Synod debate on that in July.
c. There has been a lot of writing about marriage over the years, both from the C of E and from others. There really is not much of a lacuna!
Well,
a. The Bishops don’t seem to think so. They are clear PLF are commended.
b. I’m not suggesting that something has changed particularly for ordinands. I’m saying we’ve dumped IHS.
c. This issue is not just about marriage. And whilst there has been lots of writing on sexuality from Brandan Robertson, to Richard Hays, to Robert Gagnon, to Karen Keen, to Rosaria Butterfield etc., are you suggesting that this is in fact an area where we can all disagree well and don’t need any official statement or guidance on teaching from the bishops because all positions are valid?
a. Er, 12 publicly dissented at the time, and there *might* have been a vote in the meeting on whether commendation was right.
b. So what?
c. Of course we do. But it needs to be Anglican and biblical. We are certainly not short of material.
a. The first of the “key decisions” at the Bishops meeting was that they will confirm that the PLF remain commended. You might prefer if they didn’t do that, but that was the decision.
b. IHS covered a lot more ground than marriage and sex. Indeed, most of the complaints about it and frustrations with it came from the somewhat dated approach and way it talked about those other aspects. It has now been stripped of any status in Church teaching or understanding of the Anglican position. Therefore we have a gap. I propose it would be a good idea for a new Bishops statement to fill that gap. Being clear about these things would be helpful both to underscore the degree of unity we actually have (e.g. sexual orientation itself is not sinful etc.), and to head off attempts that I can see coming to resurrect the ex-gay movement.
c. Great. Robertson, Keen, Vines, Hays, Higton etc. are all adamant that they are biblical. The trouble is those who disagree will regularly insist that they’re not. And I’m not sure when we decided being Anglican was necessary to drawing on a theologian’s work – after all, you have a fondness for citing Belousek who’s a Mennonite. Throughout LLF I’ve been told repeatedly by those on the other side of the debate that this is Gospel issue. How can this be a Gospel issue and something on which the Church leadership need make no particular statement?
Adam Bell,
Sin is a Gospel issue! Salvation and sanctification are Gospel matters.
A clear majority of Bishops and Synod voted to approve PLF, it is completed and is now commended and thus C of E churches across the nation whose PCCs have approved PLF are now implementing it where married in UK law same sex couple parishioners want the prayers in a service. Indeed several such prayers for same sex couples in services have already happened and dates are already in diaries for many more to happen within services
I could be ‘adamant’ that I was Chinese.
Name them please. It is a public matter.
Simon: hoisted by his own petard.
Ours for starters, the Bishops have commended and Synod have voted to approve prayers for same sex couples and now churches like our are already offering prayers for same sex couples within services entirely in accordance with what Synod and our PCC approved
Christopher you write : ‘Tim, you are actually thinking that I am the sort of person who forces others to think things? By command?’ No I don’t think that and in any case I don’t know you. I was suggesting that the words you used could look like that to others – as though you are making absolutely incontrovertible statements that of course everyone else will agree with. E.g. ‘(1) It is not possible for the most studied text that ever existed to have such contrary possible interpretations. Such a thing would scarcely be possible for any text.’ Not possible? That’s a absolute and incontrovertible claim. Maybe the more a text is studied, the more different readings emerge rather than the opposite. It may be that little study sometime is what leads to unanimity.
In conclusion, I suspect that there won’t be a lot of meeting of minds in this area!
It happens every time. Someone bows out before any of the actual evidence or the actual logic is discussed. It is always the progressives (I don’t of course use the term) who do so.
There are a lot of points, but
-saying that everyone in the world has good faith, or should be assumed to have good faith, is known by both of us to be untrue;
-much study of NT texts does indeed take place, but very little of it substantiates the idea that the main translators are seriously wrong. After all, the main translators are much more expert than most commenters, in order to be chosen to translate the Bible in the first place;
-it is obvious that the more someone has studied something, the more they should be listened to;
-it is also obvious that we live in a democratic phone-in culture where everyone thinks their own take has equal right to be heard – there is held to be no gradation according to how much people have studied something; but obviously there should be, if we are not to ride roughshod over that study and over evidence and argumentation themselves.
When I say ‘it is not possible for the most studied text that ever existed to have such contrary interpretations’, I am just saying that the more that texts are studied, the more interpretative options are ruled out; and I am secondly saying that it is one thing for texts to have clearly different interpretations (how often that happens can be seen in footnotes – around once per page, perhaps) but to have contrary ones stretches credulity.
It then ceases to stretch credulity when we find (a) which culture and time the contrarians emanate from and (b) that so few of them ever had the necessary expertise in the first place. But at least they could attempt to be honest and admit that the first century Mediterranean is not subject to the 21st century west of which it clearly knew nothing.
You appear to assume that correct and accurate translation solves exegetical questions. It does not. Even where translators agree on the correct rendering of the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, ambiguities and uncertainties remain about meaning simply because we are dealing with languages and cultures which are alien. A simple example is that Hebrew and Greek don’t have words for husband and wife. The reader wouldn’t know when they see the word husband in their English translation of the Hebrew Bible, that the original words might be Baal or Adonai. I think many readers might be a little shocked by words which carry a very different freight and give a rather different picture of marriage in antiquity.
So, yes there are widely varied interpretations of some texts and fresh translations which shine a new light on the scriptures
And even then the question is not necessarily resolved by having a neat and agreed translation of a particular text. Most commentators on here would hold to the doctrine of sola fide (faith alone). The only part of Scripture that directly talks about whether we are justified by faith alone is James 2: “You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.”
Are the adherents of sola fide simply unbiblical? No. Do they have some alternative, if arguably a less expert or minority opinion, translation of James 2? No. So how do they answer? By saying we have to look at the wider context of the rest of Scripture, the context that James was written in and the arguments being advanced around that particular text, the coherence of our theological framework, and the realise that James 2 isn’t quite as clear-cut and isn’t saying what you think it is even if the translation is as above and uncontested.
It is very rare that interpretations are ‘widely varied’ – as footnotes show. Lovers of diversity ignore all the consensus as though it did not exist and highlight any disagreement as though nothing else existed. A good exercise would be to go through the footnotes of any translation. Two things can be found. The fewness of the contexts where more than one understanding can make sense of ALL the text (always a difficult thing to happen). And the way that different translations agree on which contexts these are. They are relatively few and notorious.
My point about translation is not that it solves things. It is actually an impossible art. Rather, my point is that Bible translators have lived in a whole text, know the languages, and have been commissioned in preference to rivals. So 99 percent of us know less well than they.
You are still confusing translation and interpretation. Of course all translation is interpretation and there will be notes which both elucidate both the interpretative choices and the MSS variations. However, that is the beginning not the end of exegesis and hermeneutics.
As you admit, texts written in late antiquity do not (always) address the cultures of the 21st Century.
Not confusing them, but noting as you do that translations are the end result of much interpretation. The comparatively unschooled who have done none of this prior interpretation nor of this translation still claim to think their two pennorth can trump all that. Given that they are often proposing more or less a reversal of the sense, something which is always not just rare but vanishingly rate, then it is obvious what response we give to that.
I don’t know who these ‘comparatively unschooled’ people are, but I rely on translation for my rusty koine Greek and almost non existent Hebrew. These experts then inform my hermeneutics.
The comparatively unschooled who make up the vast majority of LLF participants.
Maybe. But they aren’t the ones making theological and doctrinal decisions are they? I think you’ve moved the goalposts again.
Yes. I always have a dishonest hidden agenda, not.
You’re confused again. I said you moved the goalposts – from a discussion on scholarly interpretation – to the ‘unschooled’ partaking in LLF discussions.
I said nothing about nor implied a dishonest agenda.
So Simon? Name them.
Why? There are now thousands of C of E churches in England whose PCCs have approved prayers within their services for same sex couple parishioners after LLF was passed by Synod, especially those on the liberal Catholic and open evangelical wing
Why? Because you are full of promotion, yet do not divulge where though claiming to know.
If they are open ordinary service to the public, why be secretive, doing things in the dark, with something to hide.
Hardly conducive to secret church “shoppers”, who will judge and mark the service.
Apart from any formal necessary open research, evidence.
The churches and their PCCs and congregations know who are they, as do the same sex couples who now having prayers for them within services in those parish churches. However obviously publicity would just encourage conservative evangelicals like you to protest at them if you knew where they were
All bluff and lack of conviction, to be done in the dark, and not brought into the light. Some attributes of a sect.
No, the vast majority of the English population of which the Church of England is established church backs same sex marriage and most even back same sex marriage in the churches of their established church. It is conservative evangelicals who refuse to even allow standalone services of prayers for same sex couples who most resemble a sect in the Church of England but it is as it is and given conservative evangelicals for now have over 1/3 of the votes on Synod ie a blocking majority PLF in churches that wish to do so has to be done with some discretion
No evidence for your assertions And the services are a mockery and contradiction your perpetual description of what the CoE is as the established church, for all, (except now for those you describe as evangelical).
As you now contend, it is a sham, or charade of a Christian church, even as established. Not to be trusted (which is somewhat of a progression of LLF methodology, so far, as clearly set out in the many articles of Andrew Goddard, to which there is no answer that has moral and ethical integrity.
56% of UK voters think the Church of England should conduct same sex marriage, just 24% think it should not. The prayers within services are not even that but a compromise which Synod voted for as conservative evangelicals would vote down same sex marriages or standalone services in churches.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2023/01/19/24c7d/1
If you think the C of E is a sham of a Christian church even with PLF you are most welcome to leave it and join your nearest Baptist, Pentecostal or free independent evangelical churches where you can completely reject same sex relationships to your hearts content!
Still done in secret, in the dark, not the CoE. A sham, a Pretense, a sect.
So much for your sectarian, divisive, welcome made
in unexpressed ignorance of the Gospel, of the Evangel; not a Christian then?
What then is the Evangel, that you want to ban?
Of course you have shown not one iota of understanding of what the Evangel is, the Good news of Jesus: Jesus locked out. There will never be unity, without Unity in Christ, unity in the Holy Spirit, in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Simon
If UK voters who don’t even meaningfully attend the CofE count for more than the Bible, then the CofE is indeed a sham church. The Church is God’s Church, not the UK’s Church, and what He says should decide what the Church does. And the scriptures could not be much clearer that gay sex is unacceptable to God. End, as they say, of…..
Except that actually that ‘establishment’ is even less scriptural than gay sex, and the Church even more needs to get rid of that establishment …..
The Church of England is established church so all residents of its Parishes belong to it and it will always reflect English culture rather than being Biblically pure on everything. After all it already ordains women clergy and bishops when St Paul forbade that and it already remarries divorcees when Jesus forbade that, certainly unless spousal adultery so saying some prayers in services for couples who have gay sex is not really much different.
If you want biblical purity on everything then become Baptist or Pentecostal or free church or Orthodox or Roman Catholic depending on whether you prefer the evangelical Protestant or Catholic and Orthodox traditions of Christianity. The C of E is not really for you, after all it was created in the first place to allow King Henry VIII to divorce his first wife and marry Anne Boleyn as the Pope refused him a divorce (though even the Pope now allows Catholic priests to say non liturgical prayers for same sex couples). The C of E of course will remain established church which is the core point of it, being a Catholic but Reformed church based on the BCP and offering weddings, baptisms and funerals for all of its parishioners who want them
“If you want biblical purity” ! I don’t think you’ll find much there either but it’s nice of you to think such elevated thoughts of us.
Simon-
‘If you want biblical purity…’.
It is not to do with [us getting] what we ‘want’. It is to do with what God wants. Those who pursue what *they* want are pursuing the path of selfishness, which is the opposite of Christianity. Moreover, this is a basic point.
‘The Church of England is established church so all residents of its Parishes belong to it and it will always reflect English culture rather than being Biblically pure on everything.’
I think this statement is the clearest evidence Simon, that what you actually worship and believe in, is a religion called ‘Anglicanism’.
St Paul…. “forbade ” no he didn’t. You’ve been down this futile argument path far too often.
Jesus “forbade” …”unless “…. as in didn’t forbid then. And what a terrible suggested basis for SSM ( which ever view one takes!)
Culture vs ” biblical purity”? No.. it’s seeking to put God first not culture.
The Reformation was all about Henry’s divorce aspirations. That’s a really historically poor understanding of history and its currents of change.
“Reformed church based on the BCP….” as in Bible based then… and as in “burnt at the stake…”
1 Timothy 2:11-12: “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be quiet”
In Mark’s interpretation Jesus even forbade all divorce without exemption,He answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.”
The Reformation in England was mainly about Henry’s divorce issue, he even wrote a book attacking Lutheranism.
If you oppose female clergy and bishops, oppose remarriage of divorcees in church and oppose same sex marriage or prayers for same sex couples in church you can at least have some logic in saying you base your views on scripture even if I don’t agree with you on all of that. If you back female ordination and remarriage of divorcees in church but oppose prayers for same sex couples and same sex marriage in church though you are just a hypocrite
It’s almost as if you’ve read all the biblical input here over several years but still don’t understand it…. or want to.
Not worth engaging with….
God’s blessings on you….but I’ll leave it there.
Well if Holy Scripture is necessary to Salvation, the Church of England then breached it when it allowed remarriage of divorcees in church in contravention of what Jesus preaches in Mark and when it allowed female ordination in contravention of Paul’s teachings in Timothy, well before PLF was even proposed.
Of course given the C of E was established by Henry VIII to allow him to divorce his wife and remarry when the Pope refused him that divorce, arguably the C of E breached scripture at its very foundation. So no, nothing I said on biblical purity subverts Anglican belief. The Roman Catholic church is a church of biblical purity and always has been, as are most Baptist and Pentecostal churches and free churches and as is the Orthodox church (except arguably on divorce), Anglican churches aren’t on the whole.
Note though Article 6 (rather than 39 as you stated) on the sufficiency of scripture is also matched by Article 37 which states ‘The King’s Majesty hath the chief power in this Realm of England, and other his Dominions, unto whom the chief Government of all Estates of this Realm, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil, in all causes doth appertain, and is not, nor ought to be, subject to any foreign Jurisdiction….The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this Realm of England.’ Affirming too that since its foundation the King and the Church he is Supreme Governor of has ultimate authority in the nation rather than the Pope in Rome
I say most Baptist and Pentecostal churches as the Baptist Union of GB has a few women priests and allows same sex marriage ceremonies to take place in accordance with ministers’ conscience, although gay church leaders still aren’t permitted to marry their partners. Plus some Pentecostal churches have female clergy and Reconciling Pentecostals International even allows same sex marriages
https://rpifellowship.com/about-us
Simon
The Article of the 39 on scripture says this
“Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the holy Scripture we do understand those Canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church”.
Your position belittling ‘biblical purity’ would appear to contradict that; and thus your ‘case’, far from being Anglican, appears to be an attempt to subvert Anglican belief. Historically various things in Anglicanism have not quite matched that idea of conforming to scripture; it is a rather necessary implication of the Article that in such a case the things not conforming to scripture are NOT to be believed…… Ergo large chunks of your assertions are not to be believed or required of ‘any man’ – and especially not of Anglicans…..
Yup…sadly internally incoherent
See my post above
Simon
1) No, I didn’t say the Article on scripture was No 39 – I wrote “The Article of the 39 on scripture says….” That is, the Article (among the 39) which deals with scripture says…. And it still says it, and still means what it says; and what it says is still Anglican belief.
2) And so Anglican belief is that what Anglicans believe is supposed to correspond to what the Bible teaches. And if something believed among Anglicans turns out on examination to be contrary to the Bible, that idea should be revised to bring it in line with the Bible. And in the complicated history which produced Anglicanism quite a few things thought ‘en route’ did ultimately end up contrary to the Bible and even now still need that revision so that they agree with God’s Word rather than imposing or perpetuating the merely human like for instance various self-serving ideas Henry VIII had (some of which indeed were abandoned in the early years during the reigns of Edward VI and Elizabeth. Article 37 by apparently giving the king authority over scripture is one case that needs correcting…. The king of England is not an authority superior to God!!
3) The Roman Catholic church is NOT a church of biblical purity and has not been since the 300s CE when along with what later became the Orthodox churches they accepted an unbiblical entanglement with the state – which in turn was perpetuated by the CofE as the ‘establishment’.
4) Strictly speaking Henry did not ‘divorce’ Catherine but had the marriage annulled – he had come to believe that the Pope should not have given the dispensation allowing him to marry his brother’s widow. In that case at least he intended to follow scripture.
5) I’ll leave aside remarriage of divorcees and ordination of women for the moment….
Simon
1) Fair enough but see also Article 37 affirming the Pope has no jurisdiction in England.
2) What Anglicans believe is supposed to correspond to what the Bible teaches is affirmed by a majority of Synod and has been since Parliament stopped legislating C of E doctrine in the early 20th century. Article 37 giving the King authority over scriptural interpretation still as Supreme Governor of the C of E is of course entirely in accordance with its history as a church founded by the English King.
3) The Roman Catholic church does not have women priests or women bishops, does not perform remarriages of divorcees except with a difficult to get annulment and does not perform same sex marriages or standalone services for same sex couples in its churches. Therefore the Roman Catholic church is more biblically pure than most other denominations now and of course the Roman Catholic church is not an established national church anywhere now outside the Vatican city if you also see that as biblically impure which I don’t.
4) Henry’s brother was dead when he married Catherine of Aragon so his marrying her did not contravene scripture as the Pope believed his divorcing Catherine when she was alive to marry Anne Boleyn would have contravened scripture.
5) Mark and Timothy contain passages of scripture forbidding remarriage of divorcees and ordination of women so if you want biblical purity on every passage of scripture you have to oppose those things as well
Simon
A) “Article 37 giving the King authority over scriptural interpretation still as Supreme Governor of the C of E is of course entirely in accordance with its history as a church founded by the English King”.
It may be in accordance with what a self-centred Henry VIII wanted and other monarchs put into law for their own benefit to in effect exploit the Church and claim to be doing things “in the name of God” – but I’m still awaiting any significant proof that God himself allows any such authority either to Henry or to any other secular monarch.
B) I deliberately used the phrase ‘entanglement with’ the state to make the point that the distinctive Anglican ‘establishment’ is not the only way to get that wrong. The RC church went a slightly different route after the break-up of the Empire and then the further break-up with Orthodoxy; it was still in a seriously unhealthy position in relation to states which had very unbiblical and positively unChristian results like for example the lethal persecution carried out by the Inquisition, Spanish and otherwise.
C) On the basis of texts in Leviticus, particularly ch20 v20, it was deemed Henry needed papal dispensation to fully marry his brother’s widow; the alternative allowed in scripture of a ‘levirate’ marriage would have resulted (hopefully) in a (surrogate?) heir to the brother, Arthur, and would have excluded Henry from the throne except as a regent till that child attained adulthood to reign in his own right.
It was that situation that Henry challenged, believing that to have the necessary (in his view) male heir he needed his marriage to Catherine annulled (not ‘divorced’). And to Henry, the Pope’s dispensation and refusal to annul implied that the Pope’s claim to authority in the matter was improper.
D) The basic points here don’t require us to go into those issues of divorce and of female ordination for now.
If your argument is, people disobey some things, so the best thing to do is disobey some more, that is as incoherent an argument as one can get, Simon.
Both divorce and the riding roughshod over how seriously Jesus opposed it – as is excellently witnessed in the best documents- are among the most horrible things there are.
Christopher Shell So how many conservative evangelicals in the C of E oppose divorce then as hard as they oppose faithful same sex relationships?
A) Henry VIII was the founder of the Church of England, the whole point of the C of E was it was founded to be the English national church whose head on earth was the King not the Pope.
B) The Spanish Inquisition was about 500 years ago, the Roman Catholic church is no longer established national church in Spain or any other major European nation.
C) Leviticus 20 20 only forbids a man taking his live brother’s wife, it does not say anything against taking his deceased brother’s wife. Nothing in Leviticus requires a levirate marriage. A levirate marriage would only have been valid to Catherine anyway.
Simon
A) “Henry VIII was the founder of the Church of England, the whole point of the C of E was it was founded to be the English national church whose head on earth was the King not the Pope”.
Yes, we know – but the question you persistently just ignore is where would Henry get the authority to found his national church – and it would not be from God because He outlines in the NT a completely different way for state and church to be related.
B) The Spanish Inquisition actually went on till 1834, and there were Inquisitions in other countries – indeed technically the Inquisition still exists, it’s just no longer doing executions and the like. Again you rather ignore the issue that a church faithful to NT teaching would not have done either the persecutions or the holy wars and ipso facto the RC body cannot seriously claim any special authority over anybody else.
RC ‘establishment’ was expressed in the end in terms of treaties – ‘concordats’? – and I understand some of them still exist. Not identical to the CofE version – but also a long way removed from what the Bible says about these things…..
C) It seems pretty universally agreed that Lev 20; 20-21 forbids marrying a brother’s widow. Deut 25; 5 gives the exception of Levirate marriage to raise an heir on behalf of the dead brother.
A) As Henry was King, the Church of England was established to be national English church headed by the King and nothing Jesus said specifically forbade such a church.
B) So still nearly 200 years ago that the Spanish Inquisition ended. Plenty of holy wars in the Old Testament, including God drowning Egyptian charioteers to free the Jews even if not in the NT. The only thing a concordat does is primarily recognise the freedoms of the Roman Catholic church within a nation, it does not make the Roman Catholic church the national church of that nation.
C) No it is not agreed that Lev 20 21 forbids marrying a brother’s widow, it says nothing about a deceased brother “‘If a man marries his brother’s wife, it is an act of impurity; he has dishonored his brother. They will be childless.”
Deut 25; 5 only applies to Jews and Israelis “5 If brothers are living together and one of them dies without a son, his widow must not marry outside the family. Her husband’s brother shall take her and marry her and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to her. 6 The first son she bears shall carry on the name of the dead brother so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel.”
Simon Baker-
It is a scandal that Anglicans will fail to oppose anything with the devastating and hellish consequences of divorce.
It is far more abusive even than most of the dreadful things that go by that description. It basically consigns one spouse and one whole family at least to an unresolved unhappy deathbed and an unresolved unhappy interim – i.e. the entire rest of their life. All at the altar of selfishness sometimes.
However, the truth is that legislation normalises. The most foul thing could be made legal, and within a few years most people, Christians included, will be justifying it. Had they been surrounded by different norms, they would be justifying those instead.
Your question has no significance, since the only thing that matters is what you referred to correctly before: Jesus’s stance. Which stance is, at last, a beacon of mercy and of care for the more innocent.
I don’t know if you read Sarah Vine’s column yesterday in which she associated divorce with the menopause and with not caring any more. Two things which truthful people have been saying for years, but why she should be proud of the triumph of irrationality and of selfishness…hence I use the word hellish.
Some fair points, Jesus only allowed divorce on the grounds of spousal adultery even in Matthew. Conservative evangelicals should therefore be campaigning to stop divorces being allowed beyond that ground and domestic violence certainly in terms of Church of England remarriage of divorcees services
Simon
A) There are lots of places in the NT where Jesus and the Apostles say things incompatible with the idea of a national church. Jesus’ statement that his kingdom is not of this world is one case, especially in the context of his trial before Pilate which is precisely aboutwhether he was trying to set up such a national body. Peter, the alleged first Pope also gives the rsather different position of saying that the only ‘Christian nation’ on earth is the Church itself, meant to operate among other nations as ‘resident aliens’ somewhat like the Jewish Diaspora. It appears to be rather important that Church and state be separate and that the distinction between world and Church not be blurred. Being a Christian is about truly being born again, not about superficial conformity to a ‘national religion’.
B) The RC and other groups DID do the national church thing in various ways for centuries; and since that is unbiblical they were all wrong in doing it, including the holy wars.
Yes, Israel did holy wars in the OT – but this is one of the areas where the NT makes a major difference. the NT kingdom is about a voluntary and international faith.
C) Factually the Pope did give Henry a ‘dispensation’ to marry Catherine, and whether he should have was one of the major reasons for Henry’s split with Rome. As far as I can work out the ‘levirate marriage’ option if used would have resulted in an heir to Arthur who once grown would supplant Henry.
Also factually Henry tried to set up a ‘non-papal Catholic church’ rather than Protestantism; Henry’s intent was superceded by eventually Elizabeth’s Protestantism and that commits the CofE to biblical doctrine and so ultimately to a realisation that they should NOT be established in the state…..
A) The fact Jesus said his Kingdom was not of this world had nothing to do with established churches, he was just making clear he would not overthrow Roman rule in Israel.
B) Either you believe in all of Scripture including the Old Testament and the Holy Wars that took place there or you don’t. You can’t just decide only to focus on the New Testament when you want to.
C) Of course the Church of England was established church in the reign of Elizabeth I. The Articles made clear the monarch had authority in England not the Pope and indeed in the reign of Elizabeth I you could be prosecuted for not attending C of E services
Simon
A) No, what Jesus says to Pilate goes much wider than ‘not interfering with Rome’ – for instance when he says his purpose in the world is to testify to the truth and that those on the side of truth listen to Him. pilate clearly saw that he was dealing with someone operating on very different principles to what he expected of a Messianic claimant, a King working to a very different kind of kingdom.
B) I very much “believe in all of Scripture including the Old Testament”. But ipso facto I believe those bits where the OT itself shows itself as preparatory, including the mention of the ‘new covenant’ which came in with Jesus. Jesus’ life, death and resurrection make a massive difference requiring new structures and ways for the ‘ekklesia’ of Jesus which is no longer simply the nation of Israel and those ‘once born’ in that nation. Jesus’ kingdom ultimately has to work in a new way and must not be confused with the secular world around it. I am not “just decid(ing) only to focus on the New Testament when I want to”. I am accepting a change that the Bible itself teaches but which unfortunately worldly rulers like Henry VIII and his successors do not understand because it isn’t intended for their worldly benefit (though a healthy Christian population will benefit the secular state too).
C) Of course Elizabeth had authority in England – but neither she nor her successors could possibly have authority to coerce Christian faith….
A) The fact Jesus came to bring truth had nothing to do with established churches.
B) So you use the ‘new covenant’ to pick and choose which bits of the Old Testament to follow.
C) Elizabeth had every right to be head of the national Christian church and use it as the main vehicle to present Christianity to the nation.
Simon
A) The fact Jesus came to bring truth had nothing to do with established churches.
** It is not so much the bringing of truth that matters here as Jesus’ further statement “Everyone on the side of truth listens to me”. This, along with quite a few other NT texts, establishes (!) the point that Christianity is about a free and voluntary following, NOT a following of superficial conformity dictated by an earthly ruler. John 1;12-13 makes clear that it is those who receive Him and believe in his name who receive the right to become children of God – explicitly said NOT to be of human decision. Earthly kings cannot dictate that receiving and believing – but their interfering in the issue may confuse things and actually hinder the true faith by settling for a superficial conformity….
B) So you use the ‘new covenant’ to pick and choose which bits of the Old Testament to follow.
** Actually I follow the whole Old Testament – but by the promised new covenant God Himself modifies many details of that following; for obvious examples the inclusion of Gentiles through faith, that sacrifices are no longer needed, and that the Church itself is the world’s Christian nation so that no other (worldly organised) ‘Christian nations’ are needed.
C) Elizabeth had every right to be head of the national Christian church and use it as the main vehicle to present Christianity to the nation.
** in the new covenant there are no ‘Christian nations’ beside the Church itself; and no authority is given to rulers to so declare their nations…..
A) Plenty of Christians in the established church also believe in Jesus and his truth.
B and C) Nothing in the New Testament forbids Christian nations and I am sure Jesus would rather England was a Christian majority nation than an atheist or other faith majority nation. Jesus just stressed the government should focus on government and Christians their church
Simon
“A) Plenty of Christians in the established church also believe in Jesus and his truth”.
** But in the established church they also believe the untruth that God ‘must want…’ established churches. Even though the NT teaches a whole different way to do things.
“B and C) Nothing in the New Testament forbids Christian nations and I am sure Jesus would rather England was a Christian majority nation than an atheist or other faith majority nation. Jesus just stressed the government should focus on government and Christians their church”.
But note that even as precise a scholar as the late Dr JI Packer had to concede that the NT doesn’t teach the idea of Christian nations. I blogged on this back in 2013
https://stevesfreechurchblog.wordpress.com/2013/10/18/a-controversy-revisited-2-jim-packer/
In a key passage Packer says that the debate on church and state
“…. reflected the presupposition that Scripture must legislate on the issue in question, even though no biblical author addresses himself to either. …. ”
As I said in that piece, I was a bit ‘gobsmacked’ by what Packer says there. I think the problem is that of course the NT writers did not explicitly deal with the issue as it eventually arose via what amounted to the Roman Imperial hijacking of Christianity over 200 years after the NT was written. So on the one hand it indeed says nothing directly approving Christian nations. But on the other hand it definitely does outline a different way to go, which is essentially incompatible with pretty much any attempt at a ‘Christian nation’.
A “Christian majority nation” is one thing; a formally and ‘by law’ Christian nation is a whole different thing, and inevitably confuses Church and world in an undesirable way. I repeat – the ONLY ‘Christian nation’ the NT recognises is the Church itself, which is supranational and needs to be precisely to work as God intended. It is not intended to superficially Christianise nations by law, but to call people OUT OF the world represented by the secular nations, and INTO the one ‘not of this world’ kingdom of the worldwide Church….
One thing that shows in your presentation, Simon, is that the established church gets distorted by its confusion with the nation. It is a lot easier to keep such worldliness out of the Church if the Church remains formally separate and truly God’s Church, and is not trying to ‘serve two masters’ of church and state.
The established church may well get distorted by its confusion with the nation (and in our era and country, it does), but it is not a truth of logic that disestablishment would not make the church’s centrality to the nation even less than it is with establishment. Establishment implies a degree of centrality which is hard won and might be foolish to relinquish. Plenty within the established church are preaching a true uncompromised gospel till this day.
There we have it. The Evangel, isn’t welcome. Shut out, banned. Jesus told to go elsewhere.
https://www.psephizo.com/life-ministry/is-the-church-of-england-growing/#comment-496712
At some point a while ago I suggested to Simon/T1 that he might like to be in charge of a CxE themed experience in the proposed mega theme park in Bedfordshire. He could officiate a high Anglican service on the hour, every hour, in a hall illuminated by laser light to look like a fantasy cathedral, He agreed. I’m sure he would be well suited, enrobed. I’d go for the vibe! Theatre at its best. Simon is wasted in his position at the moment.
I once visited the recreated Victorian village at Ironbridge. At one point a replica service was taken, outdoors, using BCP. I rather liked it and decided to use it to worship my Saviour. Afterwards, I asked the man who had taken it whether he was ordained or an actor. I asked in a friendly manner, for I didn’t care which. He clearly thought I did care and, as he was patently an actor (he would have admitted it if he were a vicar), he became very cagey – even when I explained that it made no difference to me. That was one of my more surreal religious experiences.
Wow, I didn’t think such a thing existed. As you say, it’s possible to worship – even if the service is in an aircraft hanger. I imagine each service would represent an era in church history, 200 years apart.
Sounds a good idea
It’s good to have you back S, if you are the same S from a good while, some years, ago.
Thank you, Andrew, and thanks, Ian.
During my darker days in C of E parish ministry, as the slow motion train crash of LLF and PLF gradually unfolded, I found watching the following short video strangely therapeutic…
I “commend” it to you…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIPfEBuA7HY
I didn’t know Synod was ever videoed. Thanks, Simon.
No probs, David.
Sorry it’s so black and white.
God didn’t want Israel to have a king but allowed it in His plan.
Therefore I don’t think Jesus wanted Christians to form Christian nations but it happened anyway. Not ideal but a fact.
Steve
Note that in God’s plan He eventually works it to the ideal. Wanting a king other than God was a wayward rebellion in a way. But ultimately God recombines his own kingship with the Israelites’ misstep because in the end the Messiah is BOTH of David’s line AND is God Himself incarnate in Jesus.
In a like manner the ‘nationalisation’ of our faith as the Roman Imperial religion was indeed a misstep – but one can see all kinds of ways God used it to bring about His will in the end, even when the kings of the earth *thought* they were doing their own will. But there was always a tension and in the case we know best, the UK, we can see God gradually challenging the Christian nation idea through the various dissenters, and eventually we are only a few short steps away from restoring the original NT idea but also with all kinds of examples to show where the 4thC misstep was wrong and how the problems can be avoided in the future. Other countries outside the UK have further to go perhaps with Putin’s nominally ‘Orthodox’ Russia and Trump’s shenanigans in the US. The CofE finally realising that establishment was always unbiblical could be a gamechanger even at a global level….
Well, let’s hope the CxE can lead the way…or be led into The Way.
As far as I can see the beast has seven heads- each one is a national/regional religion. England is an outlier, a subordinate to Evangelical nationalism. Seven is a spiritual number, there doesn’t have to be exactly seven international players but England is in danger of being subsumed into the central head.
The C of E no longer being established church would make it redundant. Its whole point is to be established Church of England headed by the King including Anglo Catholics and evangelicals and offering weddings, funerals and baptisms to all parishioners. If not established church the conservative evangelicals would become Baptist or Pentecostal, open evangelicals Methodist, conservative Catholics Roman Catholic or Orthodox and only a few liberal Catholics would remain
Its whole point is to proclaim the good news of Jesus afresh in each generation.
The whole point of the Church of England is to be the established Church in England headed by the King. That is what it was set up to do, be a coalition of Anglo Catholics and evangelicals offering weddings, funerals and baptisms to parishioners. If the Church of England was no longer established l, conservative evangelicals would become Baptist, Pentecostal or independent free church, conservative Catholics would become Roman Catholic or Orthodox, open evangelicals would become Methodists and those remaining in the Church of England would be largely liberal Catholics
Simon
I think we can agree that “The whole (or at least the main) point of the Church of England is to be the established Church in England headed by the King”. But the issue you keep sliding round is WHOSE point is that? Is it God’s point for what he wants HIS Church to be, or is it rather the monarch’s point of what he wants? Which may not necessarily be God’s wishes at all…..
And as for the idea of the CofE as ” a coalition of Anglo Catholics and evangelicals…” those two are in conflict and God is not likely to want such a ‘mixum-gatherum’ as HIS Church. And judging by how Jesus deals with scripture throughout the NT, God is likely to prefer the evangelicals though of course ironically both groups are wrong on the key issue of Church/State relations.
In the event of disestablishment I think the evangelicals may be better off as they generally have less commitment to establishment and will likely cope better with that particular change.
The King was anointed by God to be King of England and the UK at his coronation, so the two wishes are one and the same in this land.
It is also evangelicals like you who want to divide the Catholic and evangelical wings of Christianity as far apart as possible who will only benefit atheists and militant secularists in the UK. Jesus did of course anoint St Peter to be first Pope and leader of the churches of apostolic succession as well as being an evangelical for his new Christian church.
In the event of disestablishment there would likely be no evangelicals left in the C of E. It would be a liberal Catholic dominated church as disestablished Anglican churches from North America to Scotland, Wales and Ireland and New Zealand and most of the developed world are. The evangelicals would leave the day after and become Baptists like you or Pentecostal if conservative of Methodist or URC or Quaker if more liberal
Simon
I wrote
“But the issue you keep sliding round is WHOSE point is that? Is it God’s point for what he wants HIS Church to be, or is it rather the monarch’s point of what he wants? Which may not necessarily be God’s wishes at all…..”
You responded
“The King was anointed by God to be King of England and the UK at his coronation, so the two wishes are one and the same in this land”.
Start with a general point – everything that happens is “God’s will” in the sense that he has permitted it to happen. But not everything that is so permitted and happens is “God’s will” in the sense that he approves of it – you are surely aware of that from the cases where God permits you to do something sinful. Historically even anointed kings of Israel like David and Solomon could do sinful things and give sinful orders which God did not approve and servants of God were not bound to approve of and obey. That principle is rather clearly stated in Acts 5; 29 where Peter tells the Jewish authorities “We must obey God rather than Man”. The clear exception to this is Jesus who as God Incarnate and anointed king of God’s people will clearly not be giving “illegal orders” like the unconstitutional orders of Trump and others in the USA at the moment.
Romans 13 tells us
“Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves…”
Every authority is indeed ‘established by God’ – and that really does mean every authority, even the likes of Hitler and Stalin. And so everyone, including Christians, is to “be subject to them”. But note that the word translated “be subject” is a carefully chosen word which does not necessarily mean “approve and obey” – the principle outlined above still applies that we must obey God rather than man, and so we may disagree with and disobey even such God-appointed authorities. Their divine appointment does not guarantee the rightness of their deeds or their orders
But nevertheless, yes we are still required to ‘be subject’ and emphatically ‘not rebel’ against the authorities. This apparent contradiction is resolved by ‘not rebelling’ but by peaceably submitting to the punishment the authorities may inflict upon us for our disobedience. For examples of that in action basically see all the martyrs before the confusion created by Constantine ‘establishing/nationalising’ the church in his empire.
Even ‘Christian kings’ who claim to have been ‘anointed by God’ are still subject to these principles; even if we accept their anointing it does not guarantee they are doing right. (and I believe and have explained elsewhere that the ideas behind such anointing are not in fact valid – they are usually based on a questionable idea that the Christian king is somehow a ‘new David’, a description only truly applicable to Jesus).
The New Testament does not teach the idea of ‘established churches in Christian states’; it teaches instead the idea that the international Church in continuity with OT Israel is God’s holy nation in the post-Jesus world, and that the various nations should not be superficially ‘Christianised’ but rather should be considered as ‘the world’ OUT OF WHICH people are called into that Church as God’s/Jesus’ “kingdom not of this world”. The attempt in the UK to have an ‘established church’, whether in the original somewhat totalitarian form or the attenuated modern form contradicts what the NT teaches about church/state relations and so essentially cannot be “… God’s point for what he wants HIS Church to be …”, and the English monarchs’ claim of anointing cannot contradict scripture on the point but is in effect rebellion against God.
The Church of England was built on the fact the King was anointed by God and indeed a direct descendant of King David. If you don’t accept that you should never even have been in the C of E in the first place, that is the core principle of what makes the C of E unique, plus the use of services based on the BCP as shared with other global Anglicans as Catholic but Reformed. Hence you are a Baptist and can never be C of E
Simon
You wrote
“The Church of England was built on the fact the King was anointed by God and indeed a direct descendant of King David.”
“direct descendant of King David” Evidence please – lots of European royal families make that claim; but wishful thinking is no substitute for evidence, and there doesn’t appear to be any…. On the basis of the known movements of peoples in relevant periods this is san exceedingly improbable claim.
It’s also rather irrelevant – Jesus is indisputably descended from David and in his own person conveys both the kingship of David’s line and the Kingship of God. By virtue of his resurrection he remains king forever to fulfil all relevant OT prophecy – any other descendant of David pales in comparison to that.
Yes the monarchs of England undergo a ceremony which purports to be an anointing by God. But again that pales into insignificance compared to the anointing of Jesus proclaimed in his title of ‘Messiah’ (Hebrew) and ‘Christ’ (Greek) as THE anointed king of the Jews and of the world. The human ceremony whether for the monarchs of England or other later rulers like Charlemagne (who seems to have started the idea that a ‘Christian king’ is somehow a ‘new David’), confers no special quasi-infallibility and certainly NO POSSIBLE AUTHORITY to defy Biblical teaching.
https://www.associationcovenantpeople.org/king-charles-iii-and-his-judah-israelisitish-pedigree/
All Christian denominations believe Jesus is Messiah and the King of the Jews and the world. Only members of the Church of England however believe the King is anointed by God to head the English church. If you do not believe that you cannot be in the Church of England and must leave it, it is its core principle
Simon, I cannot believe your are 100% sure that the divine anointing of the king is an uncontrovertible fact.
But if you are less than 100% sure, then you are in the same boat as everyone else. Hence everyone else is allowed to stay in the Church of England, whatever anyone says.
The divine anointing of the king is an uncontrovertible fact and I am 100% sure of it and anyone who does not believe that should not be in the Church of England but should join another Christian denomination in the UK. Believing the King is anointed by God to be head of the English church has been the core foundation stone of C of E doctrine since it was founded by King Henry VIII with him becoming Supreme Governor of the C of E and replacing the Pope in that role. Even the BCP was not introduced until 1549 and the reign of King Edward VI
Simon
Yes, kings of England go through a ceremony of anointing with oil which they CLAIM is a divine anointing. And it is irrelevant and nothing to do with God and actually contradicts the Bible. The ONLY anointing that matters is the anointing of Jesus as the eternal heir of David and ruler of the Church which is “God’s holy nation” as Peter tells us.
It is fundamental to the Church and its function in the world that it is inter- or supra-national and separate from any and all worldly kingdoms. And no amount of (questionable anyway) claim of some other descent from David can give an earthly king any special authority in or over GOD’s CHURCH. Christians should positively avoid having a part in any such heretical self-aggrandisement by earthly/worldly rulers.
Yes, the ceremony of anointing with oil is a divine anointing of the King. For members of the Church of England that has always been as important as the anointing of Jesus as heir of David and ruler of the Church.
It is fundamental to the Church of England that it is established church of England. Christians who think otherwise should therefore not be in the Church of England
‘ For members of the Church of England that has always been as important as the anointing of Jesus as heir of David and ruler of the Church.’
Simon, I really don’t know where you get these ideas from!
What matters to Anglicans who know the Church is the doctrine that is found in the formularies and the BCP. And note that Charles III was explicitly asked ‘Will you maintain the Protestant reformed religion of the Church of England?’ to which he replied in the affirmative.
I get these ideas from the fact the Church of England was founded by Henry VIII to be a Church with the monarch as its Supreme Governor and not to have the Pope with authority over the Church in England. The Church of England was founded in 1534 via the Act of Supremacy to bring that into being.
The BCP was not created until 1549, 15 years after the Church of England was founded and after Henry had died and his son King Edward VI was King. The ordinals were not created until the reign of Edward VI either. In terms of the formularies, the 39 Articles were not finalised until 1571 and the reign of Queen Elizabeth I and
So yes, C of E doctrine now includes the BCP and formularies. Yet they have not always been part of the C of E, in the reign of its founder, Henry VIII, only the King being its Supreme Governor distinguished the Church of England from the Roman Catholic church. The Protestant Reformed religion the current King was required to affirm at his coronation also only came in in the reign of Edward VI and Elizabeth II
Sorry ‘only came in in the reign of Edward VI and Elizabeth I’
Simon
You write
“I get these ideas from the fact the Church of England was founded by Henry VIII to be a Church with the monarch as its Supreme Governor and not to have the Pope with authority over the Church in England. The Church of England was founded in 1534 via the Act of Supremacy to bring that into being.”
But yet again you slide round the key issue of how we know – indeed even CAN know – that this special status of Henry and his church are actually by God’s authority? And not just Henry’s self-aggrandisement…..
The later standards which are now the official CofE position are basically classic biblical Protestantism except that many churches of that period had not fully realised that the national(ised) church pattern and a special place for monarchs in the scheme were in fact unbiblical and so, in effect, an area in which the CofE and others (eg Lutherans) had not yet fully Reformed.
Article 6 says
“Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the holy Scripture we do understand those Canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church”.
Which amounts to “If it should turn out that in the confusion of the Reformation period some ideas were not brought in line with Scripture, those ideas should be further reformed to conform to scripture as ultimate authority”.
As the coronation affirms it, that is the defining distinctive principle of the C of E that the King is anointed to be its head. If you are a Protestant who rejects that principles then you cannot be in the C of E. So either you become a Baptist like you or you would have to be thrown out of the Church of England. There are plenty of fully Reformed in your view churches like the Baptists you are in, the Pentecostals, free churches etc. The Church of England has always been Catholic and Reformed though, never 100% Reformed
As I said the Articles were written decades AFTER the Church of England was created by Henry VIII so after its core defining principle that the English and now UK monarch is its Supreme Governor was established. Though note even Article 37 states ‘The King’s Majesty hath the chief power in this Realm of England, and other his Dominions, unto whom the chief Government of all Estates of this Realm, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil, in all causes doth appertain, and is not, nor ought to be, subject to any foreign Jurisdiction.’
Simon
You’re still sliding round that key issue of how we know – indeed even CAN know – that this special status of Henry and his church are actually by God’s authority? And not just Henry’s self-aggrandisement with no divine authority…..
And Article 6 still says, without qualification, that “Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation”.
Article 37 represents a still not-completely-reformed CofE which still hasn’t realised that the NT doesn’t teach the 4th century heresy of state churches. And so Article 37 is a mistaken interpretation which needs correcting by the scripture. Because the one thing for certain in this situation is that NO human King has authority OVER the Word of God, because that would mean the King is greater than God – and that is impossible.
The King of England indeed has authority against any earthly “foreign Jurisdiction” but he has no authority against God and against God’s Word, and despite Article 37 cannot in fact have authority against God in matters ‘Ecclesiastical’. The Church is under God’s authority – that is why we have Acts 5; 29 about “Obeying God rather than Man”. Not even the King of England, no matter how arrogant and bigheaded (and Henry VIII was both), gets to be an exception to that.
As the coronation service affirms it when it anoints the King by God.
Article 6 was not written until over a decade AFTER the Church of England was founded.
Article 37 is as much a principle of the C of E as Article 6. The King is Supreme Governor of the C of E, that is the core foundation of the C of E and always has been even before the BCP was created