Michael Hayden writes: Bishop Martyn Snow, Lead Bishop for LLF, has just published a booklet. The challenge is in the title: can we possibly imagine a future in which we can stay together in the Church of England—or is it time to give up and separate? Bishop Martyn has spent a considerable amount of time and effort in the past year trying argue that the time to separate hasn’t yet come, and this booklet is his proposed way forward.
The booklet begins with an analogy from couple’s therapy: when the two parties in a relationship are asking whether they can remain together, the therapist cannot make them stay together—(s)he can only ask them whether they can possibly imagine doing so. If they can’t, separation is the only option.
The problem with the analogy is that +Martyn is not a neutral therapist in this scenario. He is the Lead Bishop for LLF, a process which has caused massive division and a breakdown of trust at every level of the national church. If we stick with the marriage analogy, it’s more akin to one spouse having an affair and then telling the other, ‘I don’t think this is worth separating over!’ +Martyn might claim to be ‘personally orthodox,’ but he is spearheading the push for heterodoxy. He is not neutral, and he does not get to tell those opposed to his proposals how upset we are allowed to be.
Snow draws on his experience as Bishop of Leicester, a city that has put much thought into multiculturalism. He believes that there are lessons from interculturalism that might help us stay together in a divided Church of England.
What are the lessons he wants to share with us? Well, there is a very brief outline of the history of assimilation (the minority culture must learn to be subsumed into the majority/host culture), multiculturalism (multiple cultures living alongside each other but not bridging their differences), and interculturalism (multiple cultures engaging in dialogue across difference). Though he concedes the issues are not the same, he would have us adopt an ‘intercultural’ mindset towards our theological differences.
In this, he tries to be realistic that we’re not going to agree any time soon. Indeed, we may never agree on these matters. That’s an honest, if depressing, admission. What struck me, however, was that +Martyn doesn’t seem to be depressed by the situation. Indeed, he comes very close to celebrating our theological divisions.
Could it be that our disagreements in the Church are something that we must learn to live with? Could it be that our disagreements are a condition which is not going to change in our lifetimes? It could even be argued that such disagreements are built into Anglicanism – we were born in dispute with Rome, our early history involved much bloodshed, the ‘ejection’ of ministers who refused to use the Book of Common Prayer and recognise the authority of bishops, and many other controversies. This is arguably the greatest challenge and greatest gift of Anglicanism. (p.18, emphasis added)
+Martyn refers to the work of Ron Heifetz in Leadership Without Easy Answers. Heifetz drew a distinction between technical work, in which we simply apply known solutions to solve a known problem, and adaptive work, in which we learn to live and work in a changed environment. That changed environment, +Martyn argues, is a world of divisions both in the church and in society. Rather than spending all of our energy trying to solve our divisions, maybe we should be asking, ‘how do we relate to one another in a time of division?’ In other words: our divisions are here to stay; what are we going to do to be about it?
I find the circular reasoning galling, because accepting that we are in a time of division and that we need to bear with one another is precisely the reasoning the bishops have given for pressing forward with LLF. ‘It’s not a change, it’s just a pastoral provision in a time of uncertainty.’ The problem is, those causing the uncertainty and those proposing change are one and the same. The uncertainty only exists because they don’t like the Church’s teaching on marriage and sexuality and want to change it. All this talk of ‘a time of uncertainty’ and ‘a season of discernment’ is just smoke and mirrors designed to distract us. It’s throwing a load of sand in the air and then saying ‘there’s a sandstorm, we need to change direction!’
There is division and uncertainty in the Church of England—of course there is. But that uncertainty is not because God in Scripture has been unclear about these issues. He has been very clear, and the Church has always understood that.
There is division and uncertainty because a large group of people, led by a majority of the bishops, are trying to illegally change the Church’s teaching. This is their fault, and they are trying to capitalise on it to get what they want.
+Martyn’s plan for this ‘season of discernment’ is simple:
- Generous giving. He calls us to embrace the intercultural maxim of ‘gift exchange’, filtered through a gospel lens in which we give radically, without expectation of return (pp.47-48). We should be willing to give of our time, our resources, our people, and even our tears, even to those with whom we disagree.
- Radical receptiveness. The flip side of 1. is that we should be willing to receive from those with whom we disagree. “Can we identify with the other person in a way which enables the saving grace of God to flow between us?” Will we be willing to open ourselves ups to gifts that may change us or even hurt us (p.49)?
- Transformative thanksgiving. +Martyn argues that giving thanks for the gift of God is at the heart of our worship and our life together. He laments that “[a]rguably one of the saddest parts of the LLF process has been the unwillingness by some people to share Holy Communion together. This is a tragedy, yet expressive of where we are in this time of discernment.” Despite lamenting it, +Martyn does not try to argue that we should be willing to partake together. Instead, how can we practice ‘transformative thanksgiving’, even for those with whom we disagree?
It’s an attractive vision in some respects, but it falls short. It falls short because it’s far too simplistic. It doesn’t get beyond ‘wouldn’t it be nicer if we were all a bit nicer to each other?’ The things he suggests might be nice things to do in themselves, but they don’t come remotely close to dealing with the depth of the spiritual issues we face as a church.
+Martyn says time and time again that the time of separation has not yet come. But he doesn’t get to make that call. He can plead with us not to leave—and I’ve written at length here and elsewhere agreeing with that plea—but he doesn’t get to tell those opposed to his proposals how seriously we should disagree or how hurt we should feel.
To quote from a recent Faith and Order Commission report:
it is a failure of Christian love for one side to declare what kind of disagreement is being experienced by the other. It must surely be the case that those who disagree with a given decision are themselves determinative of what kind of disagreement is in view, not the content majority. Those who dissent from the majority view or decision get to define the nature of their disagreement: if it is widely held that such-and-such a belief or practice calls into question apostolic communion or ecclesial communion, then the disagreement simply is a first- or second-order disagreement, regardless of whether the majority think it merely strains communion (third order). (GS Misc 1406, para. 139)
Again: those proposing change don’t get to tell those opposed how upset they get to be about it. That is “a failure of Christian love”. +Martyn may be right that so far the numbers of those leaving the Church of England have been relatively small, but that is not the only kind of division and separation we should be concerned about.
The LLF proposals have broken trust between bishops and those on the ground. They have divided congregations and PCCs. They have led countless clergy and parishes to declare that they are in impaired/broken fellowship with their bishops and other senior clergy. They have led to ordinands and curates feeling unable to proceed with their ordinations. And yes, they have driven churches, clergy, and lay people out of the Church of England.
The time of great institutional schism may not have yet come, but that does not mean that the LLF proposals have not rent our church in twain. There is a massive spiritual chasm between Christianity and liberalism in the Church of England, and it grows wider and deeper by the day.
That is the reality that the bishops and their supporters in Synod have created, and that is the reality that we must decide how to live in light of. This is not a cute and cuddly, ‘we can ask questions and buy one another gifts’ kind of disagreement.
Can we imagine a future together? If we can, then I would suggest that it is not the kind of future +Martyn proposes, wherein our disagreements and divisions are treated as oddments and curiosities to be examined and even celebrated. There is nothing to celebrate about a Church that is divided about the very nature of the gospel. As +Martyn himself acknowledges (on p.42), nowhere in the New Testament are Christians called to rejoice in their divisions. Nowhere in the New Testament are Christians called to be thankful for those who teach a false gospel. Quite the opposite. We are to bear with one another, yes. We are to seek to live out Christ’s love better, yes. But there is nothing to celebrate in a church that doesn’t even know how to define the gospel anymore. Read Paul’s letter to the Galatians and come back and tell me that gospel divisions are ok in the church.
For what it’s worth, my position hasn’t changed: I still don’t think those of us aligned with ‘The Alliance’ should leave the Church of England. But I also don’t think we should give up the fight. Rather, we should stay and we should fight as though eternal souls are on the line. Because they are.
+Martyn presents what he hopes is an exciting vision for the future of the Church of England. It’s not. It’s a future in which division and disagreement are not only normal, they are the point. That’s not what Christ calls us to be as a church, and it’s not the abundant life he died to give his Church. Don’t let anyone sell you short.
Michael Hayden is Associate Minister at Christ Church Wharton, Winsford and chaplain to the Bishop of Ebbsfleet. He blogs at A Reformed Catholic, where this article was first published.
It has always seemed to me that the Bishops have never dealt properly with the theological issues involved in LLF in the same way as they did with women’s ordination but have based their arguments on ‘lived experience’.
One would have thought that there were as many lived experiences as there were people.
I wonder which experiences can possibly not be ‘lived’. Like I wonder which conversations can possibly not be ‘shared’. Like I wonder how any of the input to this can be literate.
Sit the dissenters in a room. Or, say, the ones on synod. Quiz them on their Bible knowledge and on their knowledge of social scientific studies of the effects of homosexual practice (than which two things nothing could be more relevant here). If they state preemptive conclusions, they are not thinkers. Accept arguments only, not assertions.
See with horror what the results are.
And then try to tell anyone they are a bona fide faction as opposed to captives of the prevailing culture.
As to ‘proposing change’, thousands of things are change. But these bullies (and promoters of unholiness) allow others accept only one among the thousands.
Even some of them want to rush that ‘change’ ahead and do the thinking later. That is the level we are talking about.
I hope their knowledge of social scientific studies is mor accurate and more up to date than yours
Enlighten us, Penelope, on some more up to date studies. I wrote on about 40 different topics, so you may need to cite studies on 40 different matters. Off you go.
Secondly, enlighten us on whether you have read the study you criticise. Thirdly, enlighten us on your basis for criticising things you have not even read (or at least not remembered). Obsession with defeating a dangerous opponent , is it?
Christopher
Same sex sex has exactly the same risks and side effects as opposite sex sex. I’m certain you know this. I’m hoping that we can agree that lying is still a sin?
In the interview that Welby had with Laura Knuesseberg on the BBC recently, it was clear to me that he still thinks the issues in the Cof E were essentially managerial and his was a failure of management. There was no theological content at all in his replies. With Martyn Snow l gain the impression that he is using the same kind of managerial speak and approach. The issues in LLF are fundamentally theological and that is what is driving the split. Interestingly, in the title of his book Snow does imply that in the end, staying together may not be possible.
Yes, and they are also spiritual.
‘Those causing the uncertainty and those proposing the change [only the one change, among thousands possible, that THEY prescribe – and that a 180-degree one] are one and the same.’
This ugly pattern is the reddest light imaginable. There are many examples – if one sets aside the humorous ones like Geoffrey Boycott doing a key test on the cracks in the pitch and being able to widen the cracks thereby.
-Tini Owens commits adultery and promptly presents herself as being the victim. The media agree to such an extent that she, of all people, is presented as the paradigmatic example of someone unfairly treated. (Or, more likely, there was probably a preconceived plan that the human interest story would be one as outrageously unsuitable as that, so as to shift the Overton window. You get the picture.)
-The sexual revolutionaries move the goalposts and then complain that their opponents, when calling foul at this, do nothing but talk of sexual matters. As though they themselves had not started it.
-Someone does or says something outrageous and hurtful – another person is upset as a direct result. That second person is then blamed for not being in control of their emotions.
When you see dishonesty at this level, pay no attention – they are not worth it.
What is the point of a loveless marriage continuing?
PC1 – what the bishop omits in all his theological gobbledygook and rationalisations to accept the unacceptable, is that Christ is the ever faithful groom and the Church His bride.
Because it takes a millisecond to hug and not much longer to say sorry. Moving heaven and earth and souls to chaos is clearly preferable, right?
What use is a hug when one partner has been unfaithful and shows no sign of desisting? Or if one partner abuses the other – physically, sexually, or mentally?
Anyway, what do you mean by a loveless marriage? Anyone who deliberately is unloving is unnecesarily sinful and should repent and stop immediately. They are the actual *cause* of the supposed problem, which will cease when they stop causing it. So it’s circular.
and if they dont stop?
Are you worshipping St Disney now?
PC1, you missed my point. That is circular, because if they do not stop then they themselves are the cause of that, and they are absurdly seeking resolution to something that they themselves started. Which indeed is where we came in – the revisionists note that there is division without noting that they themselves caused it and without them there would not be division on that point.
You can’t say ‘Oh, dear, there is no resolution, I wonder why’ when there is only one factor in the lack of resolution being temporarily present, which is your *own* step or determination to fail to resolve. It is like a child saying, ‘Teacher, I have dropped my pen – whatever shall I do?’. So it is not surprising that it is the most immature people of whom we are talking.
Your perspective is, unbelievably – Negativity and irresolution must win. Their doing so is entirely, generally, a matter of mindset. What a thing to wish – you are wishing yourselv and also others an unhappy deathbed, an unhappy interim before that – all of this within your one and only life – when all the time you know it is unnecessary. But people will do anything to prove a point, and that is what we mean by selfish human nature. Christians know that Christ redeems and overcomes that, as does his forgiveness, so Christians and mature people would not go anywhere near anything hellish like that.
All this word salad guff from people like Martyn Snow brings to mind the observation that ‘there are no mirrors in government’: the kind of people who secure a place there are either too full of themselves or too stupid to recognise what is plainly obvious to people outside their insane bubble. It’s an observation which applies just as aptly to the House of Bishops in the Church of England.
Perhaps some of the greatest damage the LLF/PLF fiasco has done applies within parishes / congregations. Suddenly clergy or PCCs are expect to jump one way or the other on a first order issue of doctrine while knowing they are likely to cause at least resentment, if not the withdrawal of active support, from valued members of the congregation.
Snow himself is strongly identified with the creation of ‘minster’ parish groupings. These groups of parishes necessarily have compromise built in under one leadership: the church’s orthodox doctrine cannot be upheld in all the former parish churches involved, so the leadership team must be content to go along with that compromise. This leaves individual congregants no option to attend at, and identify with, a faithful orthodox church. People must necessarily be driven away. It’s demonic. And it smacks of the same ‘globalist’ totalitarian assumptions that are overtaking Western nations before our eyes – emphatically so here in the UK where freedom of speech is being so plainly eradicated that it’s gaining worldwide astonishment.
Having to contend with the spirit of the age is one thing, but when that spirit enters our churches the choice is inescapable: stay and compromise or stand firm and leave. The only variable for each one of us is the local circumstances which will determine the timeline.
Snow and his fellow bishops will not get to make that decision on our behalf.
Each PCC decides whether to perform PLF or not in their churches, it is perfectly democratic. If you don’t agree just don’t go to any service with PLF for a same sex couple in the Parish, it is not that difficult!
Nonsense. And for more than one reason.
1. A PCC is not democratic – a poll of members is democratic. A PCC is a poll of the demographic that has time on their hands or is activist or cares especially, or any combination of these.
2. Even then, there will be a profound division within each congregation, often within each home. Chaos.
3. And all that amid the greatest nonsense of all: the idea that truth is found by (of all things) voting, which puts the greatest researchers of all on a level with the most unscrupulous of all.
Yes the PCC is the governing body of C of E Parishes, yet again an example of uber evangelicals having no understanding of the C of E and its diocesan and parish structure.
TI
A PCC is made up of those on the Electoral roll of the Parish. They make decisions on every day events of church governance usually headed by the incumbent of the Parish. They are not theologians and the system was never designed for them to be so. Bishop Martyn has thrown this system into confusion by the “Minster Model”, meaning there is no incumbent. The Parish will have a part time vicar if they are lucky or will be serviced by a number of vicars based at the Minster for services.
I am experiencing this model at the moment and am not impressed!
What a stupid comment. Sinful services will stop if we don’t go to them, and no-one will be affected by the sin? Theft will not happen if we look away from it? Wars will not happen if we are among the soldiers, and consequently no-one will get hurt.
You know that that line of ”reasoning” was refuted years ago. You show dishonesty by ignoring the refutation and just continuing with it as though nothing had happened.
(if we are not among the soldiers)
Nope, the Church of England is a Parish led denomination governed by its general and area Synods and its PCCs. You clearly have no respect for the Church of England or its administration, you have the right not to attend a service with a PLF but you have no right to stop a service containing PLF which has approval by the majority of Synod!
Nothing to do with my point. You said that bad things happening would be instantly remedied by one random person not getting involved in them. I merely pointed out that that was not remotely true; that you knew it; and that you have rather dishonestly ignored all the times the identical point has already previously been made.
Yet most of Synod does not think PLF is a ‘bad’ thing as it was voted for in all 3 houses. If you refuse to accept that democratic result and try to disrupt and stop C of E churches holding services with PLF rather than just not attending them then there is a case to expel you from the Church of England
Nothing to do with my point. My point was that your ‘logic’ meant that anything can instantly be solved and put to rights by one random person not getting involved. That one person’s lack of involvement means that anything which might go wrong will not do so. Any bad effects will be nullified. That is the logic of what you said.
YIou seem to think it is a matter of taste – if people don’t ”like” something they needn’t get involved. But it is a matter of them seeing its wrongness and wrong effects, not of them not liking it. They could still like it very much, but know that it has bad effects and is bad in itself. Objective not subjective. Is that point understood? Because you seem never to have moved beyond thinking in subjective terms about personal feelings, which is what children and the immature do. Worse, it does not seem to occur to you that anyone would think in any other way, would have progressed beyond self centred subjectivism. Maybe that is true of the liberal sector – it certainly seems to be, given how often they make this false relativistic point, when relativism was so easily and so long ago refuted. That is why I am concerned you understand the point.
Youa re allowing and affirming that people can take negative steps, but failing to allow or affirm taht they can take positive steps. Why on earth not? If they can do one, tey can do the other. That is the definition of contrary – an illogical and incorrect mindset fixated on (of all things) whatever is negative. If one were to allow or affirm only one of the two, anyone half sensible would choose the positive.
I have met this in other places. People say, We cannot change the ‘abortion’ laws, so should just live with them; but they know perfectly well that they are wrong, since people already *have* changed them (thus disproving their point) – just, in a negative direction. So the people who first piped up are allowing and affirming a change in a negative direction while simultaneously disallowing and not affirming a change in a positive direction. Have you ever heard such nonsense?
I really think the sexual revolution depresses people. It certainly stops them making sense.
PLF was voted for by majority in all 3 houses of Synod, it was not even same sex marriage which many liberals within Synod wanted but a compromise. You can still refuse to accept that mandate for PLF but it is there and if you try and stop PLF services taking place in C of E services despite the Synod mandate for them then as I said there is a case to expel you from the Church of England
This will not do as a response. The church really isn’t a democracy. We worship, and are as slaves to, our Lord and we follow the Way, which is a narrow one. Simply not attending a service with PLF does not resolve the problem if then those like me, who uphold the teachings of the Church that have stood for thousands of years until about two minutes ago, are expected to remain in communion with people who uphold a false doctrine. Just try to imagine what Paul would have said. Ah, we don’t have to imagine, it’s all there in the letters he wrote. We are being asked to revise scripture which can never be good. Beware, bowing to a worldly culture has NEVER been something our God will accept as worship.
Wrong the majority of Synod determines what the word of God is for the Church of England. If you refuse to accept that you have no place in our established Church of England and must leave for your nearest Baptist or Pentecostal church
Wow, this so-called ‘synod’ certainly is a big player in cosmic terms.
I remember Jesus saying what a big player it was.
Perhaps because of the voters in question being so clued up on Greek and on (as one 1000 page tome, from which so many run scared, has it) The Health Hazards of Homosexuality.
Cosmic terms is irrelevant to the C of E, it is the established church for England. If you refuse to accept the will of Synod you have no place in it
Yes – what are the heavens and the earth, the galaxies and the full extent of the universe, compared to the half-educated General Synod of England, UK, Earth? There is where true greatness lies.
An interesting point about the situation on the ground with congregations and PCCs. The parishes which I know which have ‘conservative’ (sorry I can’t find a better word) clergy also contain many congregation members and sometimes leaders with other views, from reluctantly living with differences re sexuality through to active support for SSM. And evangelical parishes are not monochrome or exempt from the debate except in a few cases. I know of one London parish which has a written policy of insisting that candidates for election to the PCC agree with the vicar’s view on same sex attraction, but that’s pretty rare I think.
Unless that vicar is a bully, I don’t see how such a policy could be enforced. Annual meetings elect whom they choose to the PCC.
Every vicar must uphold the most basic of standards at any rate. Biblically, historically, logically and internationally, that particular standard is as basic as they come.
A parish priest must, of course, teach the faith. But my point is that I don’t see any legal way of preventing someone who holds a revisionist position and who has been validly nominated being elected to the PCC.
Christopher has problems with following specifics in an argument Fr Dexter. For some reason he simple can’t do it. But your specific point was very well made. Sadly, there are Parish Priests who are bullies.
So it is purely a matter of the law, and we leave aside the question of what is right as being less important than what is legal.
You can’t ‘hold’ any ‘position’ unless you have done the study. Otherwise you are just leaping to conclusions before having any basis for those conclusions, which makes you dishonest.
Once again Christopher you simply can’t follow the argument. The question is about election to PCCs, and the legality relating to that. It is not about anything else.
So legality is totally unrelated to the question of whether the legality makes sense or has been privileged above more important related issues.
If you rule quite a lot of things out of discussion, that probably means (a) that your debating skills are not up to it, (b) that you are bossy, since why would people agree with your ruling them out, or with your claiming the right to do so, (c) that you are scared that they might put the cat among the pigeons and turn the tables, (d) that you end up with an artificial debate that recognises only certain questions whereas in the real world all questions exist, not just some.
In no world is the question of how constitutions and laws were set up a finite time ago unrelated to the question of whether this was coherent or to the question whether the legality question was wrongly privileged over the morality question or not.
Not for the first time, you thought I did not understand, whereas in reality I understood very well (it was not the sort of thing that any person icould fail to understand, as you should have noticed) but merely disagreed. Many people are conformist and always agree, in their conservative way, with ‘the way things are’, supposing that things fell from heaven at creation the way they now are.
Dear me.
The legality of PCC elections make perfect sense.
Or are you now favouring the Donald Trump approach that says the only legal election is one where he decides who wins?
No need to answer. We can see you have rather lost the plot just now
Your error in understanding this time was:
You thought my topic was the legal side of PCCs. Whereas it was the comparative importance of morality and legality re PCCs (or indeed re anything else). But that is exactly the kind of misunderstanding which will happen when (a) you are looking out to frame people on a high octane level – every reader can see how you are determined to do this on every possible and impossible occasion; and (b) when the number of ideas in your mind is fewer and therefore when you come across an unfamiliar one which is not in your experience you just conform it to what you judge to be the nearest one that IS in your experience.
What you should be doing is not thinking you always correctly interpret what I say, but rather having all possibilities in mind, including the possibility that you incorrectly interpret it or do not understand it. And if you do not understand it that may be because it is more intricate or variegated or precise than you are used to.
When you are dealing with me (who largely speaks original things because it is no point speaking the other things given that they have already been spoken and therefore are not much of a contribution) then this will naturally happen all the time.
Christopher I knew what your point was. It was a non sequitur. But thanks for confirming that you side with the bullies.
In other words, the question ‘Which is more important – morality or legality?’ has been decreed (on what authority?) not to exist.
Which is chilling for moral people. And a sign of the times.
Vicars do not have a veto on PCC elections. That’s quite invalid. But it does suggest the vicar is worried that their views on same sex attraction are not shared by a substantial slice of their congregation.
They rarely will be – it is the best recipe for division ever devised, and moreover at a time when congregations are small and about to die off.
But what does it say about you that you call this ‘worried’ (a purely emotional matter)? It is the rational dimension that you should be focused on.
If you refuse to accept the clear majority of Synod for PLF in all 3 houses, clergy as well as laity as well as bishops (PLF of course not even being same sex marriage just prayers). If you dismiss the opt out churches which disagree with PLF have and if you demand your own way still then there is the door and you are best off leaving the C of E.
The Church of England is established church of a nation where same sex marriage has been legal for over a decade and its Synod has rightly voted to give its same sex couple parishioners some recognition of their relationship and often now civil marriage via PLF. If you continue to reject that C of E decision then the C of E is not really the place for you and you can go to your nearest Baptist, Pentecostal or independent church where you can reject any recognition of same sex couples to your hearts content!
By your worldview:
(1) the Anglican, Baptist and Pentecostal churches fell from the sky at the dawn of time;
(2) people come with ready made ”views” rather than doing any research or talking to anyone;
(3) the less people develop their understanding the better;
(4) the most important thing is that coherence with or conformity with Jesus must never, ever get a mention.
You have no king but Caesar.
T1/Simon
That the CofE is the “established church of a nation” means that it defies explicit teachings of Jesus and of the alleged first pope Peter. That alone is something that needs a major sorting out in order to consider the CofE a Christian church at all (especially when the fruit of that error has included the persecution o those who should have been regarded as fellow-Christians). The nation as part of ‘the world’ is entitled to recognise plural beliefs and philosophies; the Church as the kingdom of God is only supposed to recognise what the Word of God teaches, and I note that that part of the CofE standards has still not been changed. On the one hand it is the implication in those standards that if the CofE realises it has been mistakenly following an unbiblical idea, it should correct that mistake and conform better to God’s Word; on the other hand, those who don’t want to apply that biblical standard should have the integrity to leave….
You as a Baptist nonconformist of course get no say on what the C of E does, you may legally be entitled to worship outside the C of E now without being jailed as you might have been a few centuries ago but otherwise the C of E is none of your business. Though of course the C of E has women priests and remarries divorcees already which some passages of scripture refute. You yourself refuse to follow the scripture of Jesus to be perfect and give away your possessions and follow him
T1/Simon
1) Simply as a Christian I have some responsibility towards other Christians ….
2) That the CoE used to jail people (or worse, ask the Anabaptists who got burned at the stake by Henry VIII’s church) is part of the evidence that the CofE is wrong to be – or ever have been – ‘established’. Jesus’ “not of this world” kingdom does not do things like that.
3) Have already commented on women ELDERS and what Jesus said to the rich young man.
4) Not got divorcees at the top of my ‘to do’ list right now – other things more important…..
5) It would help if you had a more coherent position to discuss …..
No you don’t, not beyond your denomination. Yes you yourself interpret scripture in the way you see want to see it as you have just admitted, prioritising based on your personal preference
T1/Simon
The Church is the body of Christ across all denominations and we all have reponsibility towards each other (though NOT the kind of coercive approach all too often seen in state-entangled churches). The implication of your attitude here is effectively that the CofE is opting out of the wider Church – is that really a good idea?
I try very hard not to interpret scripture just the way I want to see it, but to give full weight to the whole of the Bible (eg by considering the implications of the Ananias and Sapphira episode for interpreting the command to the rich young ruler – whereas you seemed willing to set scripture against scripture by thinking Peter’s words as an apostle would contradict Jesus or were of lesser value; now that is interpreting scripture the way you want….).
I can’t realistically deal with every issue, I have to prioritise – the position of divorcees seems to me to be a low priority compared to the current issues around Church/state-world and sexuality. That’s an assessment of practical importance, not ‘personal preference’ – I certainly don’t ‘prefer’ to deal as much as I do with sexuality.
I am saddened by tone of some of the contributions in this chain and what seems a willful refusal to seek to understand opposing points of view. To understand where establishment needs an understanding of history. Remember the Roman church was Catholic, almost everyone in Europe believed in the same God. Do as the priests tell and and all will be ok, in a largely illiterate world. Things were changing Henry VIII put the cat amongst the pigeons and set up his own church. He was in charge. To be in Parliament you had to be a member of the CofE. Monarch and government was CofE (Christian?) A totally different world to the 1st Century Roman world. The world has changed again, different players, different beliefs and world views. Time for establishment to end maybe but it emerged in a context in which it seemed reasonable.
Your use of ‘wilful’ is the key thing. Where we see from internal logic that the failure to move from an entrenched position looks to be wilful, we are for that reason more passionate, because (a) they are capable of better and (b) it matters. It is hard to understand failure to be passionate where souls are at stake.
Christians not in the established C of E have no right to interfere in its affairs anymore than Anglicans have any right to interfere in your nonconformist Baptist churches or Baptists in Roman Catholic affairs.
You clearly just interpret scripture your own way anyway and as you say prioritise based on your pre determined world view. Jesus after all condemned divorce except for spousal adultery, he never said a word against same sex couples in faithful unions
Why would he need to? On divorce he was absolutely right and the C of E is absolutely wrong and compromised. Many of its problems began with that capitulation.
On divorce, are you on the side of Jesus or the side of the Church of England, Simon?
I have no problem with remarrying divorcees in church as long as they did not commit adultery themselves and were therefore the reason for the marriage break up (hence the King and Queen only got a blessing in St George’s chapel after a civil marriage in Windsor Guildhall).
You did not answer the question, which sadly was predictable. What have you to hide? The two options were agreement with Jesus’s position and agreement with the so-called ‘Anglican’ position. You are allowed to have a nuanced answer, it goes without saying. But that was the question. What is your answer?
I gave you my answer, I have no problem with divorcees marrying in church eg if a former spouse committed adultery and nor did Jesus. Just not a full marriage if one of the parties committed adultery
How about if Matthew added ‘except for adultery’ to Mark here, showed no evidence of any other source, made Mark’s simple question into a more recondite one, and was written too late to have first hand knowledge of Jesus’s words?
If it is of ”Jesus”, the historical Jesus, we are speaking, what kind of methodology is it to gloss over the primary source and treat the secondary as primary?
So again you spin scripture the way you want to by dismissing Matthew’s account of the words of Jesus that divorce on the grounds of sexual immorality was valid
Immature people and children interpret according to what they ‘want’. Particularly immature people cannot conceive that anyone does different from that. Mature people and scholars interpret according to (what else?) the canons of interpretation.
You don’t know the difference between refute and prohibit.
Agreed
Yes. Jesus agreed that authority rested with something called synod – of which he had never heard – rather than with God.
You have no king but Caesar.
Fellowship.
There is only togetherness when there is unity, a oneness, in Christ, unity in the Spirit.
‘The best fellowship together is fellowship together in Christ’ – Mattew Henry.
Otherwise there is in operation a magisterium of functional pluralism and its attendant, integrated factionalism, no matter how it is dressed up.
The emperor’s new suit of clothes on display, yet uncovered.
Here’s the comments from one Christian struggling with same sex attraction and the impact on him of this ‘debate’:
And I found his testimony {from his Wesleyan tradition) about the harm this change causes to same sex attracted folk powerful:
Perhaps these bishops should listen more to these Christians and pay far less attention to organised modernists who distort Scripture and drag theology and praxis to the gutter.
To be honest, I also wonder whether Establishment and the Synod structure, with its politics and electoral processes, exposes the Church of England too much to the spirit of age. It’s a danger currently facing the Catholic Church.
I fall into that category. But when I hear of another theologian or commentator welcoming same sex sexual relationships, I just roll my eyes. It will continue, and it’s up to the individual to hear the Spirit or close one’s ears. At least on this, I think Im still listening.
One imagines its not easy with all the spiritual fog one encounters these days amongst so many ‘learned’ theologians and their minions so desperate to appear ‘relevant’!
you can be as ‘learned’ as you want, doesnt mean you have any discernment.
Or even enough basic imagination to come up with a bit of original thinking…
HJ,
It seems that the folks in Living Out are being steam-rollered, ignored. There was publically available discussion between SSA Vaughan Roberts and Oxford bishop Steven Croft and Croft’s essay ( of some length but ultimately accepting that cultural change, not scripture, was the main factor, driver of ssm change) There were posts and comments on this site at the time.
What is interesting from this article, is that there seems to have been insufficient attention to Bi bishop Snow’s multi- cultural pluralistic views in Leicester, that can be transfered as being equivalent to ssm. ( Even though ssm would bring a division with his Islam following neighbours which is being held out as a matter of indiffence, which ought not to cause offense and foster division.)
is the bishop bi?! lol
A slip Peter. Perhaps Freud would see it.
Freud would have a field day. Ids all around.
I don’t often use the word idiotic, but Bp Croft’s idea that the author of John was referring to men sleeping in the same bed as men just because he said that the Holy Spirit would reveal more things in the future is just that. The Holy Spirit reveals wonderful things, but he preferred that they be sordid and the chief correlate with so many disease accelerations. The author of John loved purity and was only a typical believer in that respect.
The author of John probably slept in the same bed as other men. It was common until comparatively recently.
Exactly. It was. This is what I mean by summaries needing to be unpacked.
He was a proper person who commented on Jesus speaking alone with a woman and (assuming he wrote Rev) commended virgins in ch14.
Christopher
Then, perhaps you should unpack them before making idiotic statements.
Give an example.
I did. Your comment about the author of John not sleeping in the same bed as other men.
But I said he did not refer to that practice not that he did not do it. Can anyone else see how PCD always gravitates to the most tabloidesque and vulgar?
You then fudged together the sexual and nonsexual meanings of that, even though they are as chalk and cheese.
To that double error, we add a third: calling it idiotic to deny or question something for which we have not the slightest evidence.
Christopher
As others have demonstrated, you have once again shown that you cannot follow an argument. You said that the author of John was not referring to sleeping in the same bed as other men. I responded that, until recently, it was common for men to share the same bed. You replied with some obfuscation about summaries needing to be unpacked. You then accuse me of being tabloidesque and of confusing sexual meanings with non sexual. I never mentioned a sexual meaning. That’s entirely from your own imagination. If you had wanted to construe a sexual meaning when you first made the point, then you should have done so. Otherwise your writing is ambiguous and confused.
If you call a positive attitude to unpacking gnomic statements a negative thing, it follows that you want to remain in a world where all statements are short and people infer all kinds of things baselessly from them, with further illumination disallowed. Anyone who sees benefits in unpacking for clarity’s sake is said to be obfuscating. Obviously they are doing the precise reverse – standing for clarity.
Men sleeping with men is a saying based on arsenokoitai ‘manbedders’ and on common speech (the phrase ‘sleep with’) and on context (the wider context of our discussion). It is a feat to be deaf to all three.
Of course beds were shared in ancient times as they were in earlier times in this country. Sleeping is not the issue – sexual activity is. But then you like to be obtuse.
The Methodist Church isn’t established and already does full same sex marriages as do the Quakers who have no Synod structure, the C of E still does not do same sex marriage. At most prayers of blessing via PLF as the Vatican is moving towards. Christianity is a broad church though and you refuse to recognise same sex couples at all plenty of Orthodox, Baptist and Pentecostal churches you can attend
but again, why should those who are attempting to change the basic beliefs of a church not be the ones to leave and set up their own, or as you suggest join other churches?
Synod has voted for PLF by majority vote in all 3 houses, those who refuse to accept that (even with the opt outs) can therefore leave the C of E
The Synod cannot authorise by simple majority (even in all three Houses) services that are contrary to the Church’s doctrine. It can, of course, change the doctrine, but it hasn’t. Nor has changing the doctrine even been formally proposed.
It has authorised prayers for same sex couples within services by clear majority vote and experimental stand alone services for same sex couples too
So why don’t you move to the Methodists?
As I am on the Catholic wing of the Church of England and they are too low church for me. I am also not that bothered about having same sex marriages in C of E churches, however unlike some evangelicals I am fine with PLF
Low church? Do you think Jesus would have understood a word of what you are talking about. Is style the most important thing in a dying world? How sequestered.
Transubstantiation, the importance of the mass, the role of the Book of Common Prayer, the role of icons and stained glass and the altar and incense, the focus on solely the Bible, whether services and the Bible should be in Latin or the vernacular have been key issues in Christianity for centuries. There is a huge difference between a high church Roman Catholic or Orthodox or Anglican and a low church Baptist or Pentecostal or Methodist, always has been since the Reformation and always will be
it’s tribal. These are tiny parochial small-town issues about rearranging the furniture. Is any of us living in a trivial, backwoods insignificant universe, rather than the huge awesome one? Saving the lives is less important than rearranging the furniture? Captain Smith lives.
Nope, they are the defining issues which distinguish Catholicism from Protestantism and churches with bishops of apostolic succession from purely Protestant evangelical churches.
They are defining issues in the eyes of those whose world is (unnecessarily) artificially so small that they cannot even see anything at a higher level than human institutions, their constitutions, their conventions and customs. As though those things were either there at the dawn of time or immutable.
It is all quite clear that “positions” are pretty much entrenched wherever one looks.
With folks all pulling in different directions the fabric will be shredded.
On the grounds of incompatibility, the marriage can be said to have irretrievably broken down.
All that remains is the divvying up of the money and the houses.
(the best of luck with that)
Perhaps it is time for us to go into the byways and hedgerows….
Much like Wesley and Derby…Et al. They understood church planting, building and growing without the resources of the CofE. Even though they remained “Anglican”ministers.
The money and the houses would of course stay with the C of E, exactly as they stayed with the Episcopal Church in the USA.
If your focus is on church planting rather than the traditional and historic parish churches and cathedrals of the C of E you really are better off as a Baptist, Pentecostal or independent evangelical anyway
Following this never ending debate in the Church of England and considering some of the bishops proposals to permit the acceptance of same sex relationships, reminds one of J.R.R. Tolkien’s mythological description of God’s creation as a sublime movement of music. The angels were overwhelmed by the unsurpassed beauty of this “Great Music”, but a number of angels in their midst introduced jarring and ugly notes of discord because they sought to introduce “matters of their own imagining that were not in accord with the theme” (Silmarillion, p.16).
The question facing the Church of England has always been this: Is the pandemonium created by this dispute between those saying homoerotic same sex relationships are permissible and those opposing this, a necessary discord until Scripture is better understood, or is it the result of spiritual deception of those seeking change?
1 How on earth would anyone know that Scripture *would* be differently understood in the future? It sounds more like they are totally dishonest and simply *hoping* that it would be better understood. As though hope made that more likely. This sounds like a teleological ‘view’ of history where history has to be conformed to *their* purposes and they already know which way it is going and it will never do in any different direction or fluctuate till the end of time. Very likely – when it is already so extreme now.
2 When developments in understanding happen, they do not happen by changing what the text says; least of all do they happen by reversing what it says. I suppose that would be a development, but one from more intelligent to less intelligent.
3 Even if Scripture were differently understood in the future, how could that be uniform, with everyone agreed? So it would just be the same situation as now.
4 The whole idea of the understanding of Scripture is meaningless. There is only the understanding of various individual passages. This is trying to telescope the issue unscrupulously.
5 Where there is an idea in the air that understandings of Scripture are supposedly going to change and the topic in question is precisely the one where people desperately *want* it to change, that is no coincidence.
6 Scripture has never been interpreted by anything but a small and demographically distinct sector of the scholarly community in any way that would satisfy them.
7 Given that the passages in question have been pored over more than most, this is unlikely to change.
8 The biblical texts have already been analysed in more detail than any others known to humanity.
For *that*, with all its multiple fallacies, vast amounts of time and money have been diverted and lives wasted. The plan is to continue that.
It is the result of Synod’s interpretation of scripture and the majority of Synod alone determines how the Word of God is interpreted in the C of E
T1 – above you claimed allegiance to the Catholic tradition. This view that the understanding of Scripture rests on a majority vote in synod, stands in contradiction to it.
The Church of England is a Catholic but Reformed Church. Though of course the Pope has now moved to allow prayers for same sex couples too
TI – one can pray for anyone at anytime.
Following considerable push-back from Catholics. Pope Francis has clarified that non-liturgical, private, informal, off-the-cuff blessings are permitted for same sex attracted individuals – not their unions – if a priest is approached.
This is very different from blessing a sinful union.
And, I have to say, it sounds to me that you want to be a Catholic in a Protestant ecclesiastical community.
The Church of England is a Catholic church but a Reformed one.
The Pope said ‘I don’t bless a ‘same-sex marriage,’ I bless two people who love each other and I also ask them to pray for me,” so prayers and blessings for the same sex couple but not their marriage. So basically near identical to PLF which isn’t a same sex marriage or blessing of a same sex marriage either
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/02/07/europe/pope-francis-defends-same-sex-blessings-intl/index.html#:~:text=The%20Vatican%20has%20insisted%20that,Vitale%2C%20who%20conducted%20the%20interview.
Well – I think all those pushing this exegetically highly improbable idea (which requires 180 degree volte face from what the texts say) are also people who want the Christians to come down to the level of secular society in this respect. So….
Of course, this is pure coincidence. But it does tell us very strongly about their honestly levels. And also, secondly, about their sexual-morality levels, whether in what they practise or in what they promote or both.
Fairly simple thought here – God has chosen, in and through Jesus, a way whereby the world is free (but ‘at their own risk’ of course) to disagree with God; to come out of the world and join the Church is voluntary.
In this context, ‘interculturalism’ or similar is appropriate to the World. It is NOT appropriate within the Church which is obliged to faithfully follow God and not to ‘let the world squeeze you into its own mould’ (Romans 12; 2, Phillips version).
SIMPLES ….!!
I assume you will be giving away all your possessions then to follow Christ if you perfectly put the Word first in all things not the World?
Ah, you are literalist. A curates egg of scripture misunderstanding and application.
Jesus presses in on what are our functional idols , gods, before him. They operate as counterfeit gods.
Sexuality is another.
Scripture is clear until it’s nuanced.
You couldn’t make it up.
But you do.
Every writing in the world is nuanced, because of the failure of reality to match words precisely.
Many things are clear. The general stance of all the scriptural writings towards a man sleeping sexually with a man is universally strongly negative, and indeed towards the top of the list of things treated thus. However, there are nuances connected with the topic, however clear the overall message is.
Within any topic there is room for many things to be clear and for many other things to require teasing out. The debate in this case centres on the overall stance of scripture positive vs negative. That one does not detain us for a second. Hence the debate should not be happening. However, there are plenty of debates to be had on more subsidiary issues. The churches currently are debating only the central question (because that is the only one that would be relevant to the lifestyle changes they are, immorally, so desperate for) and that is not up for debate among honest people.
The way you write, you would think only one question existed, and that one would have to be entirely clear or entirely complex. What is this world where there are not multiple issues?
Christopher Shell comments: “Every writing in the world is nuanced, because of the failure of reality to match words precisely.”
A moment’s reflection will show this is true. For instance, Christians are enjoined always to tell the truth.
But this does not mean we are commanded to betray secrets, or to tell others more than is necessary, or to say out loud things which are true but inappropriate. The commands of Christ always have to be intelligently contextualised and putting them into practice will depend on our spiritual maturity. This fact also conditions the way we act pastorally towards one another, understanding another’s temptations, wounds and struggles, as well as the graces bestowed upon the other.
Yes rejection of same sex couples must be placed at the top of any scriptural interpretation for the evangelical hardliner. Other passages of scripture can be given some nuance but rounded condemnation of the gays in all circumstances is absolute and beyond question!
PCD, you are saying there is a single thing called scripture which either all be clear or all be nuanced. Does anyone agree with her here?
The scripture of which you speak is 1200 pages long. Plenty of space on every single page for multiple clear things AND multiple nuanced things.
The dishonest ploy is to say that some parts of this 1200 pages are unclear and therefore the clear thing which we want to be unclear (which happens to fall within the same 1200 pages but is otherwise unconnected) must be made to ‘be’ unclear by association.
A bit like – a man did that crime, you are a man, therefore you are guilty of that crime by association. After all, you have one very general thing in common with the guilty person. QED. Guilty.
Christopher
I hope that’s a reply to Geoff. Because ot doesn’t reference my comment.
It references your objection that ‘Scripture is clear until it’s nuanced’. Which requires a vast 1200 bulk to be uniform. Either all opaque or all transparent.
However, it is not even remotely likely that 1200 pages would be anything other than part-opaque and part-transparent. And the opaque parts (like the transparent parts) are, naturally, not always the ones you want them to be.
This is at the high level of obvious.
Christopher
It was irony. Or sarcasm. Or both.
It was not even apposite. Do you or do you not agree that within 1200 pages there will be much that is clear and also much that is opaque, so shearing your comment of any irony and any bite?
Of course I do, Christopher. As you would know of you ever read attentively. Take your argument about nuance with Geoff.
Geoff: Simon is not a literalist. He is a poor reader. A literalist reads the NT carefully and understands that Jesus was speaking to a rich young ruler and instructed *that man to sell (not give away) his possessions, give to the poor, then follow Jesus about as his disciple. There is nothing in the New Testament that says this was a command to *all followers of Jesus, quite the reverse. Jesus makes it clear that all his disciples must avoid “serving mammon” but the call to radical poverty is a distinctive, individual vocation, not a general condition of discipleship.
Simon needs to learn to read carefully to determine which words are general or universal commands and which are individual commands to individual persons. Further, in literary studies, “literal interpretation” usually means not “non-metaphorical” but rather the *natural or *normal meaning of those words in their everyday context (i.e. how the readers or language users naturally understood those words). This is how Augustine used the word in “De Genesi ad litteram” (“The literal meaning of Genesis”). When Jesus said “If your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out”, nobody understood him to mean “Mutilate your body.” The literal or natural meaning of the words is clear: ‘Strenuously avoid looking at things that tempt you to sin.’
On ‘literal or everyday natural interpretation’: historically this meant ‘how the users of these words understood and used them’. For example, ‘to burn with anger’ means “to be very angry”, not to have 4th degree burns. Every language follows this procedure. In the end, it is virtually impossible to avoid some measure of metaphor in our language because we are physically embodied creatures.
James, metaphor is a very confusing word, but it is impossible to have a one to one correspondence between realities and words (especially verbs) because realities are so complex and also often so hard to group into groups. Verbs have to capture a shape of movement etc and such things are of infinite variety and complexity. In such circumstances one cannot be literal, because it would be like trying to capture literally every time a coastline bent.
The subtlety of HTB style exegesis: the Lord Jesus really wants you to be rich but he’s very pernicketty about what you do with your willy.
T1/Simon
1) After the number of times you’ve raised that one recently you better be able to prove that you have followed it yourself.
2) Serious in-context interpretation of that conversation and of other relevant texts suggest that this is not a universal command but in detail personal to the rich young ruler. Though yes, everybody has to be careful about the role of their possessions – I try to be, probably not ‘perfectly’.
3) IF possessions were the theme of this thread I would be prepared to engage further; but I prefer here to engage with the direct topic of ‘interculturalism’ etc. As I’ve said, in a (quite properly) plural society, intercultural ‘agreeing to disagree’ and discussing our differences is appropriate; but it is part of the value of the plural society that the various ‘cultures’ involved express their own culture and do not try to be ‘internally intercultural’ which is what +Snow seems to be suggesting
Unlike you I don’t take every word of the Bible literally but as you do you really should be following every passage, including that one
Maybe you take some metaphorically, then. Give me an example of something in a literal genre (command, letter, nonfiction narrative) that you take metaphorically, and then say why others are compelled to agree that this is indeed a metaphor.
T1/Simon
https://stevesfreechurchblog.wordpress.com/2013/01/31/a-brief-word-on-biblical-interpretation/
In brief except for a few extremists (and the original ‘Fundamentalists’ were not among those extremists), reading the Bible literally has never required “dumb wooden stupid literalism”. Though such literalism is common among theological liberals as a tactic to evade the commonsense meaning of Scripture…..
Simon/T1,
If Jesus has told Stephen Langton to sell his possessions and to give to the poor as a condition of discipleship, I imagine he would treat this injunction very seriously.
Do you know whether Jesus has given this command to Stephen?
Has he given *you this command? If so, are you keeping it?
If your answer to either question is ‘no’, thrn you are being singularly unintelligent in asking your question. Learn how to read the Bible correctly.
Jesus made clear to be perfect you needed to sell your possessions and follow him, Matthew 19 21
Simon, you are a very poor reader. Jesus spoke those words to a particular individual who was in thrall to his possessions.
He did not address them to all of his disciples. You need to learn Greek.
But even a competent reader of English understands how to read correctly.
(Let me add that if you, Simon, have the same spiritual problem of materialism, you should sell your excess possessions and give to the poor. Meanwhile, learn how to read correctly!)
The words of Jesus were clear about what you needed to do to be perfect. He never said a word about faithful same sex couples
Yes. They were a real issue in the Judaism of his day, weren’t they?
The Judaism of his day was no different to the 21st century UK, was it?
It’s not at all true that Jesus said nothing on 99.9% of possible topics, is it?
However, among the 0.1% he comments on ungodly sexual relationships of the kind listed in Leviticus. And secondly, he stands firmly against the humans who, even in the Judaism of his day, stand against God’s precious invention of marriage.
Which he, in line with the Hebrew Bible, did not define anywhere near the way you define it. Who does, apart from a few 21st century people who are deviating from the remainder of history through thousands of years?
Your position has not a leg to stand on.
So as I said Jesus never said a word against prayers for faithful same sex couples in committed unions, thanks for the confirmation
He didn’t address 21st century matters. That is truly astounding.
Yes!
Sorry for the one word response. I get a little lost amongst the back and forth, but I know I agree with this response, Stephen.
Thank you
Michael Hayden has certainly written a clear and forthright response to +Martyn. He quotes +Martyn : ‘Could it be that our disagreements in the Church are something that we must learn to live with?’ Yes, and in fact we already do on other issues some of which are more significant than the current differences over sexuality. He claims differences re sexuality indicate that the ‘Church is divided about the very nature of the gospel.’ But we are already divided in much more profound ways e.g. over double predestination, the nature of the atoning life and death of Jesus, biblical authority and inspiration, the full inclusion of women in all 3 orders of ordained ministry. These are not minor matters about which we can be indifferent and they are deeply painful for many people but they’re not being elevated as this issue is currently.
I am in the Church of England which includes those who believe, for example, in double predestination and the eternal damnation of all who do not believe, which is a fundamental ‘gospel issue’. But I don’t leave for a purer church of true believers who all think like me. I respect and treat as brothers and sisters those I disagree with. It’s not always easy and it would be more comfortable to retreat into a tribe that shares all my views and where we can reassure each other that we’re right and those who disagree are clearly, absolutely wrong and disobedient as well. (We can then label them as . . . well I leave you to fill in the appropriate words.) But I would still receive Holy Communion with those I disagree with.
None of what I say here is to defend everything +Martyn writes, or argue for SSM or to minimise our differences, only to question why other more fundamental differences within the Church of England, which involve radically different interpretations of the biblical texts and really are about the gospel we proclaim, do not lead to this kind of acrimony and division?
Tim: the Church of England teaches ‘eternal Salvation only by the name of Christ’ (Art. XVIII) and ‘Predestination to Life [as] the everlasting purpose of God’ (Art. XVII), so if you deny these doctrines, you are in conflict with the Church of England. Personally, I don’t know ANYBODY in the C of E with worked out ideas on Double Predestination, so I seriously doubt if this is really a problem for you or causes arguments at Sunday morning coffee time.
Have you ever heard a sermon on Double Predestination in an Anglican (or any) church? In over 50 years I have NEVER heard one.
I suspect you are just saying this to provide cover for a matter (homosexual acts) on which Scripture is univocally clear that these acts are sinful (as even proponents of homosexuality like L. T. Johnson, Loader etc admit – something which in the past you have also admitted is true).
Nor is the Church of England “profoundly divided” over the meaning of the atoning death of Christ. The meaning is quite clearly articulated in the Book of Common Prayer, the 39 Articles, and the modern language worship services which embody the same doctrine as the BCP.
If you know individuals who dispute that teaching, the problem lies with them, not the Church’s doctrine.
You fall into the error of equating an individual’s doubts or unbelief as indicating the Church’s division. This is incorrect.
Martyn Snow’s problem is that he is being incoherent and has confused the pastoral office of the Church with its teaching office. You are making the same mistake, Tim.
Indeed James. Double predestination – teaching on it -is not something that is taught in the CoE and the claim that it is a matter of conflict in the CoE equating it to conflict over ssm is straw man fallacy.
Michael’s comment – “It doesn’t get beyond ‘wouldn’t it be nicer if we were all a bit nicer to each other’” – rings so many bells for me as I live in a predominantly liberal diocese – Newcastle. With very little gospel teaching coming from pulpits or from clergy who in the main seem to have limited belief either in Scripture or the doctrines of the Church of England, the message that we generally hear is simply “let’s all be nice to one another and it will be alright in the end”! The irony is that they say “let’s all be nice to one another LIKE JESUS WAS . . “! “Nice” is one word that I never attribute to Jesus! The sad things is that truly being like Jesus – the real Jesus! – is just what the church should be!
Not many people will go to church, then. Being nice to each other is very much what the people outside church already believe in, so those now in church hearing this vacuity can join them.
So your mantra for the Church is basically to be a place where people hate each other and hate the world outside too. What a wonderful winning message for Christ who I mistakenly thought preached a message of compassion for his fellow man rather than loathing of his fellow man!
The word ‘hate’ was where in what I said?
I saw where it was in what *you said.
But do you actually think it is ‘nice’ to affirm people in all circumstances, whether they are doing right or whether they are doing wrong?
You would get a bland or insipid existence in which people had no motivation towards holiness.
What on earth has that to do with Christ? Or with the adventure that is life?
If anyone brought up their children that way, it would be a total disaster. If anyone took that approach to a friendship, that too would be a disaster.
Whatever one thinks of Christopher’s post … this is a totally illogical post in response. It does not follow in the slightest.
However…Jesus life and preaching cannot possibly be reduced to “be nice”. That’s ridiculous.
“Go into all the world and preach niceness “. You protest too much I fear.
He was certainly crucified for ‘being nice’?? People couldn’t be having with such.
Sanders made this point.
James, thanks for your response, but please read what I write and understand the point before you respond in so acerbic and , frankly patronising a fashion. As it happens I do know people who hold to double predestination. And I specifically said I was not defending +Martyn. I would be amazed if you hadn’t come across a divergence of views on the atonement which are related to quite different understandings of the Trinity. Not major differences?. And a significant number deny the reality of women’s priestly ministry. Not a major difference?
Part of the dilemma re sexuality is that there are real, serious and ongoing differences over how to read scripture. Simply repeating the claim that there are no potentially valid and weighty challenges to the ‘traditional’ view won’t do . Some highly intelligent, thoughtful and prayerful people find, at the very least, that they call into question the current teaching.
Again, I’m not arguing for SSM or asking anyone to change their mind about it but suggesting that the singling out of this issue is puzzling. And the absolute, cast iron 100% certainty for all times and places that some display is not as justified as they claim. Just raising a small question mark, that’s all.
Tim, when you speak of ‘how to read scripture’, do the differences you claim arise among those who know the biblical languages and culture or among those who don’t? And if so, what is the relevance of the latter? Thank you.
Tim is aware that liberal scholars usually teach that the NT’s opposition to homosexual acts is based on ignorance and error. Tim knows that these scholars consider the New Testament to be a human document containing a great deal of truth with some errors that reflect the limited knowledge and biases of that cultural period. This is the basic liberal approach to the NT (famously expounded in ‘Jesus Christ and Mythology’).
Tim is aware that just about all scholars (Johnson, Loader etc) agree on the *meaning of these texts but consider this belief false morally or theologically.
Tim, what is your response to this point? – because it invalidates yours. All you need to do is google where Ian lists Via, Loader, Johnson.
As I have pointed out elsewhere there are plenty of scholars who speak the biblical languages as well as Latin, French and German who would profoundly disagree with your exegesis and hermeneutics.
Let’s cut the endless repetition, stick to the ones you ‘know’, who are ‘many’, and have you name them, so that we can get down to business. I do not know what exegesis and hermeneutics you are referring to, since I have displayed neither any time recently.
Has anyone counted how many times I have so far asked PCD to reveal the identities of her coterie of scholars?
I have listed them before. But here is another list. Try to remember this one:
Deryn Guest
Hugh Pyper
Ken Stone
Joseph Marchal
Douglas Campbell
Patrick Cheng
Linn Tonstad
Louise Lawrence
Dan McClellan
Jonathan Tallon
Jonathan Morgan
Meredith Warren
David Burnett …
I don’t know all of them personally. I have read something from all.
Right. And what points are they supposed to disagree with me on? Surely the list is different for each scholar, isn’t it?
Why do you say, ‘Try to remember this one.’? Is it without question that I have read the complete writings of PCD? Or have you in fact no idea whether the person you are scolding ever read any such list in the first place?
But don’t let’s put a spanner in the works of a good scolding.
Because I have listed them before. And repetition is tedious. As is moving the goalposts. You asked for a list of biblical scholars with a different hermeneutic. I provided one.
I forgot Professor Johanna Stiebert.
Different hermeneutic? Er – yes, if you have different presuppositions you will end up with different results. But all is in vain unless there is extensive justification of the presuppositions. And many such justifications are circular. Anything that does not show us the writer’s intentions is out of court.
But I must repeat – how do you know what my ‘hermeneutic’ is, when I have never espoused one in your hearing? Is it because there is such a thing as a default hermeneutic? – and if so, why do you think that is?
Your hermeneutic is very evident in every comment you make on social media.
I never thought about it. It is just historical-critical like one would expect. If it were not, it would not be sufficiently objective and therefore would not be sufficiently scholarly, and anyone would want to go forward in that respect rather than backwards. It is certainly also holistic and wants to take in the maximum number of dimensions.
Don’t fall for the obvious falsehood that assigning a name to a ‘school’ of ‘thought’ gives it legitimacy.
I am still trying to get my head round the idea that anyone could espouse a hermeneutic that was not historical, or not critical.
As for holistic, that is the only way to cover all bases and avoid dishonesty or bias. I was thinking for a moment that you were going to say that some of your preferred scholars employed a ‘queer’ hermeneutic. That would mean screening out not only 99.9% of angles but also 100% of angles relevant at the time of writing. When all the while interpreters are trying to make sure they do not forget or leave out any angles relevant at the time, in their quest to encompass 100% of them rather than leave out 100% of them.
Together with which point (a) about 100% of angles screened out or screened in, there is point (b): that it is of course arrogance to think that we ourselves can just select a hermeneutic – that puts us in charge of the text, yet (i) the text preexisted us and also (ii) we as interpreters should be serving it. (iii) If we DID select one, there would be the temptation to select one that was in our own self interest. No. – (c) selecting means employing selectivity, which is bias; so we should be holistic and see the maximum number of relevant angles; (d) the relevant interpretative stance is determined by, and implicit in, the nature of the text itself (so it is not, of course, determined by us): its cultural milieu, its language, its genre, etc etc.
Just see, above, how many and complex knots we would otherwise be tied in.
Firstly, you seem to believe that assigning legitimacy to the historical critical school is fine, as if that approach is free of all ideologies.
Secondly, who decides the cultural context, historicity, genre etc of a text? Scholars with prior ideological commitments, that’s who. Interpretation is never free fom bias, and never pristine.
Very few, if any, biblical scholars speak koine Greek or ancient Hebrew, but the competent ones do read them. Very few disagree that the NT is uniformly negative toward homosexual acts. Those who do disagree (e.g. Bailey) have sometimes argued that Paul is only condemning pederasty and coercive relations in Romans 1, but this viewpoint is now largely discarded. Where liberal scholars (Via, Loader, Johnson etc) do disagree is over the *theological character of these passages, which they treat as human opinion and error, not the Word of God.
As you know, Johnson is very clear on this.
For liberal scholars, the Bible is like a flask of polluted water that must first be filtered and purified before it can be consumed. I think that is your understanding as well.
What twaddle. I don’t know a single biblical scholar who doesn’t know koine Greek and Hebrew.
The twaddle was your assertion that biblical scholars *speak koine Greek and biblical Hebrew. I don’t know any who *speak these dead languages but many who read them (as I do and have for most of my life). Read what you wrote.
Tim: read carefully what *I wrote. My style is not patronising, but it is direct and to the point.
1. I said I have NEVER heard a sermon in an Anglican church on Double Predestination and I seriously doubt if you have either. I said I have NEVER heard of an Anglican church being divided on this question and I seriously doubt if you have either. The reason is obvious: the Articles have no teaching on the subject. So what if you know some individuals who may believe in DP? That makes no pastoral difference. The comparison you seek to draw with SSB and SSM is fallacious. But I think you knew this already.
2. I said the C of E’s teaching on the Atonement is clearly presented in the BCP and its services of Holy Communion: that Christ’s death was a freely chosen sacrifice to take away the sins of the world. If anyone doesn’t believe this, that person shouldn’t be in a teaching office in the C of E. This is what ordination vows mean. What part of that do you find difficult?
Similarly, if anyone doubts the Niceno-Constantipolitan Creed and the Chalcedonian Definition on the Trinity and Incarnation, that person is in conflict with the doctrine of the C of E. Do you disagree with this statement? Do you think people who deny the Atonement or the Trinity should be preachers in the C of E? I don’t.
3. You are mistaken in your assertion that “there are real, serious and ongoing difficulties over how to read scripture” if by that you mean “the meaning of the texts is really unclear”. The *meaning of the texts (as they relate to sexual conduct) is actually pretty clear to NEARLY ALL competent NT scholars, whether liberal or conservative, who understand koine Greek, ancient history and basic exegesis- that is why I cited the liberal scholars Luke T. Johnson and Bill Loader and I could mention a sheaf of others. They ALL agree on what the texts mean – and Johnson, Loader etc all say the texts are teaching ERROR about homosexuality, either moral or theological. (They can say this because they do not believe in a strong sense in the inspiration of Scripture but see Scripture as a mixture of truth and error. But you knew this already. Do you share Johnson and Loader’s view of Scripture?)
I am sure you know this and I am surprised you are now saying (in contradiction to what you said in the past) that the texts are “unclear”.
4. You say “the singling out of this issue is puzzling”. But it isn’t puzzling to most of us because a person’s sexual behaviour and relationships is not at all like a trivial matter such as whether one should wear robes in divine worship. That is obviously adiaphora because Scripture shows no interest at all in this question. But a person’s sexual behaviour and relationships touch very centrally on whether he or she is living a life befitting the New Creation in Christ: the NT makes this clear in scores of passages, In other words, it’s a salvation issue. But I imagine you suspected that already.
You could try reading some of the scholars listed above instead of weaponising Johnson and Loader every time you mention the word ‘liberal’.
Yes, I could wander into the wild weeds of “Queer Theology” and read (again) the bizarre homoerotic “readings” of Ken Stone, Deryn Guest and co. But that would be just to make my point above, that these writers don’t think of the Bible as the Word of God (and that goes for Hugh Pyper as well) but as a fascinating, polysemous cultural artefact. To the homosexual “interpreter”, homosexuality is everywhere. It certainly is for Ken Stone.
What you will have no doubt noticed that a number of bright fundamentalist Christians (by background) with same sex attraction will go on to adopt “queer theology” as the lens for seeing the world and the Bible as well as Christian theology. Lesbians like Guest and Tonstad also throw feminism into the mix. The result is something far removed from orthodox catholic theology and therefore of little interest to me. But this is what happens when Foucault takes over in the academy and the Bible becomes a plaything.
So far so dodgy, but more importantly, which of these writers sees homosexual sexual practice as being commended or ok in the Bible?
Christopher: as far as I can tell, most of these writers claim that Paul was a victim of false consciousness and injected his mistaken ideas onto the “message of Jesus”.
“Queer Theology” sees homosexuality as being commended through a method of “retrieval”, that is, reconsstructing stories that have been supposedly suppressed and distorted by a homophobic and misogynistic patriarchy. This is standard in secular American academia and also in the UK. It’s
a spillover from literature and sociology departments. This conflict, suppression and retrieval model is largely where Penelope is coming from.
Jonathan Tallon’s work has been discussed on this site before.
Tallon argues that the texts taken to condemn homosexuality have been misunderstood (for 3000 years) and they really refer to gang rape, pederasty, and Cybele worship. Tallon also assumes Jesus disagreed with the consensus of first century Jewish culture. Tallon thinks the Bible writers knew nothing of loving, consensual same sex partnerships.
A very long and irenic review by Martin Davie, referencing John Nolland, Harrison’s ‘Flame of Yahweh’ and Gagnon answers all these questions in great detail. Tallon makes some serious errors about first century (and earlier) homosexuality that any knowledge of Petronius’ Satyricon and Plato’s Symposium would have corrected. Too many wrong historical assumptions and textual misunderstandings in his own irenic work.
No doubt they would all be in danger of losing their jobs if they said anything different.
Or in fact would never have been appointed in the first place.
Christopher
Priceless once again!
I cite a number of scholars who don’t hold a ‘conservative’ hermeneutic. And you, without any serious academic reflection on them or their output, declare that they only hold their posts because otherwise they would be in danger of losing their jobs. Although many conservative scholars do work in Academy and write prodigiously.
Even funnier is the fact that at least two of the scholars listed don’t hold academic posts! If you want to discredit them you’re going to have to try a lot harder. At least James is trying.
Well James, Ill give you credit for trying, unlike Christopher. You seem to think that all the scholars I cited are queer scholars. They are not. Furthermore, you accuse at least two of them of being ‘feminists’ as if obe couldn’t be a feminist scholar amd also perfectly catholic and orthodox. Like Christopher, you seem to believe that conservative scholars write with absolute neutrality and objectivity. They don’t. If Dale Martin (another scholar I missed) writes from a ‘homosexual’ viewpoint, it is equally clear that Gagnon writes from a ‘heterosexual’ stance. Martin Davie, whom you cite, is one of the most ideological writers on theology writing currently.
As for my own work – utilising queer theory rather than queer theology, my reflections on how the church should reflect on difference by dwelling in the Wordlessness of Holy Saturday, is perfectly orthodox.
And James, I’ll gove you credit for one criticism of queer theology: its tendency to replace the heteronormative with a queer ‘norm’. That simply reinscribes the patriarchal norms of the original text – if God has a female dimension, then he is actually male. Both Althaus-Reid and Tonstad criticise such readings and I avoid them. Which is why I prefer queer theory to queer theology, on the whole. So it’s not at all where Penelope is coming from. Sorry to disappoint you
The error here is that I declared nothing, but said ‘no doubt’, which was speculation. Many people were already in post; anyone actually appointed in peak woke years like 2018, or on short term contracts, may have been watching their back and/or keen to be ‘with it’ just like very many people are all the time. Having taken the temperature of BNTC in that period I think that attitude was found in the younger members. It’s impossible to generalise.
Wow, two credits from Penelope! Easter has come early this year!
So, for the sake of completeness and accuracy, those NT scholars and writers who affirm same-sex relationships fall into three broad groups:
1. Those liberals who affirm the NT is against same-sex sex but say the relevant texts are mistaken morally or theologically (Johnson, Via, Loader etc – in fact, the great majority of liberals);
2. Those who claim the texts have been wrongly understood for 2000 years and are really about pederasty and Cybele worship; further, they believe that Jesus disagreed with first century Judaism on this (Jonathan Tallon, relying on Bailey and other writers in the 1970s – I think David Runcorn uses the same arguments);
3. ‘Queer theologians’ who ‘retrieve’ stories celebrating homosexuality that have been suppressed by hateful ‘heteronormatives’ (Stone, Guest, Tonstad etc).
The first group falls into more traditional liberal Protestantism (that includes Johnson, who is a Catholic layman).
The second group certainly sounds more orthodox but it fails as exegesis (see Harrison, ‘Flame of Yahweh’ on creation, erotic love and marriage in the whole biblical narrative, and Gagnon’s monumental and exhaustive scholarship) and is historically mistaken at many points about the first century Greco-Roman world (consensual homosexual relations were very well known in that world, as anyone familiar with Catullus, Eurylus and Nisus in Aeneid bk 9, and Petronius knows, as well as the Greek novelists Longus and Chariton, very familiar in Roman aristocratic circles) and Judaism (as Nolland demonstrates). As Martin Davie demonstrates, Tallon’s arguments are full of special pleading and wrong historical assumptions.
The third group is another version of the ‘hermeneutic of suspicion’ and is the very opposite of orthodoxy. It is a particular version of the psychological-cultural Marxist view of history (so sharply analysed by Carl Trueman in ‘Triumph of the Self’), with persons with SSA playing the role of the oppressed. One thing should be clear: if you use ‘queer theory’ as your lens for seeing the world, you will end up with ‘queer theology’. Ken Stone’s writings show this. He may have started life as a fundamentalist but he moved far, far away, into an erotic fantasy world.
Christopher
It’s never impossible for you to generalise.
More Easter treats. I agree with your points 1 and 2. And I think that most scholars who follow these lines are mistaken. With one caveat: there is no evidence that 1st century Jewish writers (even Hellenistic ones) were familiar with Plato. On this I trust Professor Helen King more than Martin Davie.
I think you are wrong on point 3). As i have explained Tonstad is a robust critic of the sort of queer theology you describe. Furthermore, there are scholars, of whom I am one, who argue that no biblical text speaks of homosexuality, as we understand it today, nor are there any texts which speak to our contemporary understanding of marriage. Which means careful, attentive reading of scripture. And attentive readings include those which come from a feminist, liberation, or queer hermeneutic. After all, we are reading ancient Western Asian texts which are over 2000 years old, yet some scholars interpret them as if they were written from a 19th century northern European perspective. It’s the motes and beams of ideological commitments. Conservatives so often call out the specks of particular hermeneutics without regarding the logs of their own white, heteronormative, modern assumptions. I have noticed some recent comments on how biblical marriage and the family are. Have these people ever read the New Testament? There’s a lot of retrofitting of contemporary mores back into scripture, I’m simply pointing out that it’s not just happening on the ‘liberal’ side.
Penelope: actually Philo of Alexandria (fl. 20 BC) made extensive use of Plato and interpreted the Torah in a markedly Platonic way. Whether other Jews knew of Plato’s Symposium is not really the point; rather, the fact is that many Greco-Romans did and not a few shaped by the Academy would be familiar with its celebration of consensual homosexual love as the highest form of love. Centuries of Christianity have obscured this memory. And as one who has read most of Catullus, Horace, Vergil and Ovid, as well as most ancient Greek novels (from the 1st and 2nd centuries AD) and much of Petronius, as well as knowing about the historical Spartan education of boys, I can tell you that educated (and uneducated) Greco-Romans were largely familiar with consensual homosexual relationships (Petronius is full of them) and not negatively so. What distinguished Jews from Gentiles here was their uniform hostility to homosexuality. So I disagree greatly with one of your assertions. Read Petronius and Catullus, or Vergil’s Georgics. Did Greco-Romans understand how homosexuality arose? No. Neither do people agree today.
Your description of the New Testament as “Western Asian” reads rather oddly. Syria-Palestine was part of the Roman Empire and had been hellenised since 330 BC. And much of the NT was written in Europe. In the first century Jews lived everywhere in the Roman Empire as well as in Mesopotamia and beyond. That was how the Gospel spread in the Mediterranean world – through the Greek language as well.
As I said, “queer hermeneutics” is an offshoot of the “hermeneutic of suspicion” which grew out of the Frankfurt cultural Marxists of the 1930s whose ideas matured in American academe in the 1960s. In its fundamental ground motives it is humanistic, psychological and atheistic, not theistic and spiritual. I operate from entirely different ground motives (classical theistic, Christian and the Bible as the revealed Word of God) and can only conclude that “queer hermeneutics”, like cultural Marxism in general, only leads into deep error. Sin affects all of human life, including the intellect, and the fundamental error of Marxism is its atheism. As for that shocking word “heteronormativity”, that is just like saying only women can have children, or water and air are essential for life. There is no other way the human race can continue to exist, because that is the way God made us. (That’s natural law rearing its head again …)
Paul wasn’t Philo. Read Helen King.
Heternormativity doesn’t mean that people can reproduce. Most animals can do that. Heternormativity is the idol of marriage, family, patriarchy. An idol which others those, like Jesus, who don’t perform it. Most of the NT is perfectly clear that this is an idol.
Penelope: I never said “Paul was Philo”. I was disputing your claim that no first century Jew was familiar with Plato.
Philo was very much so, and there are many writings (Chadwick, Frederiksen etc) who see links between Philo and Paul. But in any case, I have referenced many first century Greco-Roman works which clearly describe consensual romantic homosexual love – and not just pederasty or Cybele frenzy, as Tallon claims. (You only have to consider what Suetonius wrote about Paul’s contemporary, the Emperor Nero and his sexual predilections.- or ewhat Caesar’s soldiers said about him.) The idea that a highly educated Jew who travelled all around the Mediterranean and did not know this phenomenon is very unlikely.
The word ‘heteronormativity’ was created by an American gay scholar as a boo-word to stigmatise the biblical teaching that God created men and women to be sexually attracted to each other and to form and raise families – another example of atheist cultural Marxism attacking Christianity. But I subvert it by using it positively: the Bible is clear that marriage is God’s will for most people. Some people are not called to marriage – Jesus wasn’t married, neither was John the Baptist or the prophet Jeremiah – and some people for a variety of reasons are not equipped for marriage. Celibacy is certainly God’s calling for some.
Some religious people believe that God *created some people to be same-sex attracted but I cannot find any scientific or theological evidence for this extraordinary claim, any more than I believe that God created some people to want to be the opposite of their biological sex (transgenderism). Again cultural Marxism has morphed into this present fixation (in a way that would have astonished ‘queer theorists’ in the 1990s).
Hermeneutics follows on from the doctrine of scripture, which follows the doctrine of God.
But we return to the question of vows and the public pronouncement of a false witness.
Sure we may not know what scripturally, theologically untaught lay people may actually believe or think, but that is not the point. It is what believed and taught by those accepted and ordained into leadership, that is being misrepresnted maybe even dishonestly lied over that is at the heart of this chasm. Why would anyone have cause to trust such persons.
I know what my ministers subscribe to theologiclly, scripturally and that is preached and taught.
And if this is followed through to the installation of a new ABoC on what will the CoE be based- it’s underpinning ethos, in its cultural iteration.
The idea of “difference” on this topic as a distinctive gift of the Anglican Church is contrary to Jesus’ desire in John 17 for us to be one as he and the Father are one, and further contrary to Paul’s instruction that the Church should be harmonious in the Spirit (1 Cor 12 and 13).
To be charitable, it seems as though those who advocate for PLF or even for equal marriage are seeing as through a glass dimly; they have a sense of God’s love but are forcing it to fit the image they have imagined rather than allowing their imagination to be transformed and renewed by God’s love. Now they see dimly, some day they shall see clearly and I pray that this will not be to their detriment.
To be less charitable, the Church is like fig tree which is full of leaves Our Lord will search those leaves for fruit and if he does not find it then we shall be judged accordingly. To say we have the appearance of a tree in full bloom but have no fruit is a disasterous place for us to be in.
Being instead brutally honest, the Church as the People of God is to be holy as God is Holy, perfect as God is perfect; to affirm within that holiness and perfection that which is categorically defined as sinful and in opposotion to God is itself sinful. We can imagine a future together, but it’s a future which is contingent on repenting and believing the Gospel. We are all sinners, and those advocating for PLF are no worse than the rest of us; but they must also journey through forgiveness and die to the passions of the world, being united with Christ in his sufferings and his death so that we might all share in the fullness of his resurrection and the etenral love and joy of God in the new creation.
Or, as Jude’s letter concludes:
17 But you must remember, beloved, the predictions of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ. 18 They said to you, “In the last time there will be scoffers, following their own ungodly passions.” 19 It is these who cause divisions, worldly people, devoid of the Spirit. 20 But you, beloved, building yourselves up in your most holy faith and praying in the Holy Spirit, 21 keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ that leads to eternal life. 22 And have mercy on those who doubt; 23 save others by snatching them out of the fire; to others show mercy with fear, hating even the garment[g] stained by the flesh.
Now to him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you blameless before the presence of his glory with great joy, 25 to the only God, our Saviour, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority, before all time and now and for ever. Amen.
Let’s imagine that the Church of England does arrive at a compromise that is designed to allow traditionalists on the issue of SSM to continue to flourish. Such a compromise already exists on the issue of the ordination of women. And yet the attacks on the Society and the Five Guiding Principles are getting louder and louder. Surely the same would happen with any compromise that seemed to guarantee the position of traditionalists on the subject of SSM, whatever the ”structural provision” that may be sought and even granted. One has only to look across the Atlantic to see how traditionalists on both these issues have been treated in TEC. Talk of ”rights” trumps any theological or scriptural arguments, and any promises will before long be regarded as merely temporary concessions.
The C of E doesn’t even now allow SSM, PLF is itself a compromise
Well, I know Greek. I’ve taught it for years and think Simon is quite correct. Lk 14.33 is not contextual at all: whoever does not give up everything that he has cannot become a disciple. (outos oun pas ex humon hos ouk apotassetai pasin tois heautou huparchousin ou dunatai einai mou matetes). Sorry, the interface doesn’t seem to allow me to type in Greek.
The early Christians famously had everything in common. Poor Ananias and Sapphira were even struck dead for lying about selling their possessions (Acts 5.1-11).
As Penelope said. Scripture is clear until it’s nuanced, you couldn’t make it up.
Lorenzo, what is preventing some bits being clear and some bits being nuanced?
There are 1200 pages there. Plenty of room for ample amount of clear material and also ample amount of nuanced material as well.
That’s why I don’t understand your point. You are saying there is one thing called ‘Scripture’ ALL of which has to be either clear or nuanced.
Please explain.
Lorenzo, I know Greek as well. I assume you have also read earlier in Luke 14.
Following verse 26, do you hate (misei) your mother and father, and your brothers and sisters?
Have you carried your own cross and come after Jesus?
If not, why not?
Or do you have a nuanced understanding of these passages?
Did Ananias and Sapphira die for holding back on some of their property or for “lying to” or “tempting” the Holy Spirit? Acts 5.9 indicates it was the latter.
Christopher:
Lorenzo is having some difficulty in using his computer to reply to you because he has just read Matthew 5.30 and cut off his right hand and gouged out his right eye. He insists he will have nothing to do with nuance.
I am urgently trying to get in contact with him before he gets to Matthew 18.8.
No, these are indeed metaphors, but the call to leave all possessions behind was taken literally by the early church.
Lorenzo: by some desert hermits in the 3rd century, not by the NT church. It’s obvious from Acts snd the Pauline epistles they had jobs, houses and (some) money.
What do you make of Acts 4
32 Now the full number of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own, but they had everything in common. 33 And with great power the apostles were giving their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. 34 There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were owners of lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold 35 and laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need.
Not exactly interpreted literally by people who claim that their reading is apostolic.
This is a narrative, not a set of instructions. Interpreting it ‘literally’ means believing it happened—which I do. Nowhere does any apostle (or Jesus) say ‘Everyone must sell all they have to follow Jesus’.
But evangelicals do take these examples seriously.
When I was single and worked in business, I gave away 40% of my income. When we inherited on the death of a relative, we gave away 30% of that to enable someone to enter the housing market.
TEAR Fund is a major relief agency. The E stands for Evangelical.
The largest homeless project in Nottingham (and it is large) was started by and is run by Trent Vineyard, an evangelical church.
Lorenzo: yes, some in Jerusalem did that, but there was no compulsion, as Peter told Sapphira. It was certainly not the general practice of the New Testament church.
The call was directed to some, not all, and was taken literally by some of those to whom it was directed, though not all.
Ian i don’t want to decry your genuine generosity, but God killed Ananias and Sapphira for less.
“Ian i don’t want to decry your genuine generosity, but God killed Ananias and Sapphira for less.”
Penelope has trouble reading the New Testament. Peter says they died because they ‘lied to the Holy Spirit’.
(Although I rather suspect that Penelope doesn’t believe God did any such thing.)
James
Yes, well I rather prefer Halvor Moxnes’ exegesis of that passage.
You thin preferring something (liking it better) will make it better than alternatives??
Penelope: I suppose halvor moxnes is better than none.
But the only reason to “prefer” an understanding is because it is true.
Given your expressed ideological commitments, I rather doubt that you believe God struck down that couple.
Lorenzo,
There is no command to sell (not give!) away all your possessions in the New Testament to form a Christian commune, and the context in which this was done (Acts 4:32-35) was Jerusalem shortly after Pentecost, when 3000 Jews had been added to the church (Acts 2:41). Many of these would have been visiting Jerusalem for the festival and lived elsewhere in Judea and Galilee; they stayed on for a while at least to taste the new faith, and needed support. Some would obviously take the new faith back to their wives and children, whom God would not expect them to abandon. That is not the context today.
Your puns are worse than Christopher’s.
I prefer his interpretation because it seems more authentic in light of the praxis of the early Jesus movement.
Exactly
T1 is a literalist! Not getting the underlying point or principle on which it. is based. Here Jesus put his finger on what was most important in the life of the rich young ruler, that he couldn’t renounce, on which his life, status and identity were based.( And no doubt, his friends and community, society).
What is most important, that functions, operates,
as god, more important than God Himself , that we put before God- a counterfeit god.
Money, material goods, may be one. Career, qualifications, marriage, children, status, security, identity, may be others that we put before God.
Sexuality is another.
BTW,
T1, Lorenzo,
Have either or both of you made public ordination vows?
Lorenzo is a Catholic priest, AFAIK. I don’t think T1/Simon is ordained. If he is, he must have skipped all the classes in Biblical Interpretation.
I thought he was.
(And did?)
I am not ordained, I just attend a rural C of E church
I am not.
I believe that Lorenzo Fernandez-Smal is the vicar of St Luke’s (Anglican) Church, Battersea.
‘Not getting the underlying point or principle on which it…’ So there we go, hardline evangelicals can spin and nuance scripture when they wish
What does ‘nuance’ mean other than to read and interpret accurately?
It doesn’t mean ‘to ignore its obvious meaning’.
Why do you ignore the NT texts against homosexual acts?
Why are hardline evangelicals obsessed about same sex acts, even amongst same sex couples in lifelong unions, in their private bedrooms? Yet rather less obsessed about divorce, which Jesus condemned except for spousal adultery, or women priests, which Paul opposed, or the achievement of perfection by giving their possessions away to the poor to follow Christ as he suggests?
Simon: you may have a point about divorce – but take a look in the mirror and ask: why are liberal Anglicans like yourself indifferent to divorce when you know that Jesus condemned it, at least in most circumstances? Why don’t you, Simon, care about it?
I know two men in my church who are divorced and remarried and even though many years have passed since their divorces, they both feel pain about it, not least because they felt abandoned by their first wives. My own understanding is that when one party refuses to be reconciled, the other has been abandoned and is not bound. I am open to correction on this understanding.
On women clergy, evangelicals understand that women had many ministries in the New Testament, including teaching (Priscilla), prophecy (Philip’s daughters) and faith sharing (Lydia). Evangelicals care about godly order but don’t see a woman ministrring as a salvation issue. It is Catholics who reject women priests. Evangelicals think every Christian is a priest.
You continue to repeat your misunderstanding about possessions and don’t seem to have understood my explanations, so I will not repeat them here. Instead I will ask you: why are you, Simon, not doing this if you really think you understand the point? You are very slow to understand.
But I think d*****e is the worse sin of the two, so why are you saying that?
Firstly, I am not that liberal an Anglican, if I was I would still be pushing for same sex marriage in the C of E not PLF and for no opt outs for Parishes which don’t want to have women priests and bishops and don’t want PLF. I would also be pushing for remarriage of all divorcees no matter the circumstance for the divorce.
Some evangelicals don’t believe in women priests, Southern Baptists for example. The Church of England as a church with bishops of Apostolic Succession and formal ordained ministers only able to administer Holy Communion is not merely an evangelical church of all believers either.
And once again Simon completely fails to answer my simple questions. I think it would be easier teaching a cat how to write than to get Simon to understand and answer, as I have.
T1/Simon
“Why are hardline evangelicals obsessed about same sex acts,….?”
I don’t think we are. Simple fact – God created sex and in the Bible he has said quite a bit about how it should be used, and that certain uses o sex are inappropriate and in effect insisting on doing those inappropriate things will putting it mildly compromise your relationship with God. Any serious Christian would want to do God’s will and not do the inappropriate ….
One thing which has given the issue excessive prominence has been the unbiblical (unapostolic, unChristian, antiGod) practice of having churches which are established in the state – such churches almost inevitably ended up criminalising many sexual behaviours and inappropriately enforcing them by state power. One of many reasons that establishment should not happen…. We are kind of living in the backlash from that with the LGBetc movement aggressively asserting itself to ban people disagreeing with them and criminalising those who do disagree.
A comparison I’ve used is of a couple of rather ordinary Belgian farms, La Haye Sainte (“The Holy Hedge”?!) and Hougoumont. These were nothing very special till Napoleon met Wellington at a nearby place called Waterloo. British troops occupied the two farms and essentially that massively messed up Napoleon’s plans – he had to capture the farms or the diversion of his troops to contain the British presence would lose the battle; as we know, he lost. In our time, the sexuality issue has become rather like that – it is where the battle is currently being fought between world and Church, and we are having to pay it unusual attention. We aren’t ‘obsessed’ with it – but we know we have to win that part of the battle.
If you were ”pushing for” all that, you would be an off the wall secularist.
Oh I did answer them, just once again not with the answers you wanted
If the sexuality issue was so relevant you would be pushing harder against pre marital sex with multiple partners, heterosexual as well as homosexual, rather than against committed and faithful same sex partners in lifelong unions. The established church point is also irrelevant, homosexuality was illegal in most western nations until the last century and in GB Scotland, which has no established church, legalised homosexuality after England which does. The Christian majority nations in Africa where homosexuality is illegal, like Uganda, have no established church either but hardline evangelicals in power
T1/Simon
“If the sexuality issue was so relevant you would be pushing harder against pre marital sex with multiple partners, heterosexual as well as homosexual, rather than against committed and faithful same sex partners in lifelong unions”.
What makes you think I don’t push against pre-marital sex where appropriate? Thing is, that is basically not controversial – whereas with same-sex sex we have supposed Christians vehemently arguing for something God has rather clearly said is wrong. And which does not suddenly become right by doing it in a ‘faithful lifelong union’.
An established church having supported the criminalisation of homosexuality is definitely relevant and plays a major role in the ‘backlash’ I mentioned. Ironically I with an anti-establishment view would have opposed the criminalisation by the church you support….
Christ of course never said same sex couples in faithful, lifelong unions were wrong, just that marriage should be reserved for one man and one woman, ideally for life.
Virtually every church supported criminalisation of same sex relationships until the last century. Now of course the few remaining nations with established churches like England and Denmark not only have legal same sex relations but same sex marriage.
By contrast where same sex relationships are still criminalised is in African Christian majority nations without established churches but strong hardline evangelical churches like Uganda and North African and Middle Eastern and South Asian majority Muslim nations
T1/Simon
1) Jesus didn’t need to personally comment on same-sex relations – he only had to – and does – affirm the status of Scripture as word of God. It would be a different matter if he had commented in a way that changed things, as he did with sabbath law.
2) Essentially, ‘virtually every church’ from the hijacking of the Church by Rome c400CE was working with some form of establishment, and ipso facto would be involved in their ‘Christian’ state’s enforcement of Christian standards. Many ‘non-conformist’ churches WANTED to be themselves the established church – Presbyterians would be a major example and were the establishment in many countries. Churches in places like Uganda may not BE established but are often derived from former establishments and are still thinking ‘establishment-style’.
If he was so aggressively anti same sex couples in faithful relationships Jesus would have spent much more time preaching against them.
The point remains that the only Christian majority nations where homosexuality today is illegal are ones with no established church and mainly driven by hardline evangelicals
That is such a bad argument. Do you think he would preach a lot about a niche matter (among 1000s of other niche matters, when so many more matters were far more central to the specific culture, and the percentage of possible topics contained in his teaching is naturally a low percentage) which moreover he (unlike Paul) would have been vanishingly unlikely to encounter in the lands where he travelled, given that in sexual matters the Jews were proud to stand diametrically opposed to the gentiles.
Can you respond to this point?
Where exactly in the first century Holy Land would he have found the 21st century concept of something called ‘faithful same sex couples’? Is the idea that these same points are reiterated ad infinitum, people pretend the answers already given have not been remembered, and then we all die?
T1/Simon
As others have also pointed out, Jesus’ lack of preaching against homosexuality is because it was almost unknown among Jews who followed the basic implications of OT teaching that sex is for males with females.
When the gospel went out among the Gentiles where homosexuality was common, Paul, an apostle very purposely chosen and appointed by Jesus, did preach aggressively against homosexuality. Are you suggesting that Paul was not faithfully carrying out his commission as an apostle?? (You after all are the guy who is keen on ‘apostolic succession’ – true successors to Paul would pass on his teaching, surely, and there is not the slightest reason to believe the other apostles disagreed with Paul on this….)
What ‘gays’ do is an improper use of sex which does not become proper just by being ‘lifelong and faithful’.
On the other bit, places where Christians are criminalising homosexuality are mostly places where the church was established even if it isn’t now. Such criminalisation should not have happened where Christianity was not established and remained voluntary.
Christ is all knowing about what is and will be and prioritised his message accordingly
I repeat, not one of the Christian majority nations which make same sex relationships illegal have an established church, albeit they are hardline evangelical heavy. Uganda had an Anglican church but never an established church
T1/Simon
“Christ is all knowing about what is and will be and prioritised his message accordingly….”
And therefore did not contradict the OT teaching by suggesting that the abomination of gay sex was somehow all right after all…. Simply ‘not to mention’ the subject would be – and indeed is – totally inadequate to contradict the clear OT statement that same-sex sex is wrong. And as I say, Paul – you know, the APOSTLE – definitely does say same-sex sex is wrong; are you daring to suggest that Paul preached and taught against Jesus?
“I repeat, not one of the Christian majority nations which make same sex relationships illegal have an established church, albeit they are hardline evangelical heavy. Uganda had an Anglican church but never an established church”
Putin’s “Orthodox” heavy Russia doesn’t quite make the private sex illegal – but otherwise it is a place you wouldn’t want to be gay… “Anglican” churches in the former Empire are still ‘thinking established’ to a large extent.
The significant thing to my mind is that a church still wanting criminalisation c1970 is now in the early 2000s pro-SSM – and it looks to me that the main motivation is not good theology but an attempt to appease the world in order to hang on to the rags of establishment despite now being less than 2% of the population in which the CofE is supposedly the national church….
So? Paul also preached against women priests, again not mentioned by Jesus and the C of E has had women priests for decades. Unlike the Roman Catholic church or the Baptist church the C of E does not follow everything Paul says if Jesus doesn’t clearly say the same.
Even Russia doesn’t make same sex relationships illegal like hardline evangelical Uganda now does for instance. Non established churches like the Methodists, Quakers and Church of Scotland and Lutheran church of Sweden and Scottish and US episcopal churches on the other side perfom same sex marriages unlike the C of E. Of course once you include those attending weddings, funerals, baptists, carol services, concerts and Remembrance and Easter and Midnight Mass and Christmas Day Services rather more than just 2% use their local C of E church or cathedral.
Simon, first you complain about Jesus not thinking about 21st century issues, then you say that Paul believed in priests in the church.
He never mentions them. The NT mentions the high priesthood of Christ, the Old Testament sacrificial priesthood, and the priesthood of all believers.
You are being far too decisive for someone not well acquainted yet with the New Testament.
T1/Simon
“Christ of course never said same sex couples in faithful, lifelong unions were wrong, just that marriage should be reserved for one man and one woman, ideally for life.”
He also of course never said they were right. And I think you ail to realise what a major gap that is. The compilation of the Bible took some 2000+ years from Abraham to the NT. During that period there must have been thousands of ‘gay people’ in Israel who surely needed to know that same-sex sex was perfectly all right so long as it was faithful and lifelong; and their fellow Israelites needed to know it was OK and to be suppported. Meanwhile of course all around them pagans were doing same-sex sex of all kinds including faithful and lifelong (NT Wright has come up with the evidence). But for Israel, God’s own people, not a word. Just a few very clear statements that same-sex sex is an abomination to be punished by death (which note translates into new covenant terms as ‘you risk spiritual death by such acts). A very comprehensive law code contains no provision for gay marriage and all the other legal consequences that might flow from it. And with such a massive gap surely causing major injustice if such relationships were OK, Jesus doesn’t mention it; he simply affirms that the OT is God’s word and on one occasion makes comments affirming that sex is for male with female.
Can you really not conceive the obvious – that this ‘faithful lifelong same-sex sex’ stuff is “not mentioned” because in God’s eyes it is NOT MEANT TO BE. And if you want to believe in it, you’re also going to have to believe in a different God, not the God of the Bible. IF such lifelong faithful relationships were OK, it is literally incredible that God fails to mention them throughout the entire Bible.
Is that the content of the sermons you are hearing. Have you ever heard a sermon at your church on that scripture that proclaimed your understanding – what you say it means?
Though an orthodox, evangelical Christian, I have spent time in association with Jesuists (they were very gracious of my being a ‘hot prot’!). On the whole I find senior Roman Catholics distinguished from their CofE counterparts by being theologically literate (even in disagreement) and considerably brighter than our bishops (viz. Stephen Croft).
Catholic priests spend much, much longer in their training than Protestant clergy typically do, and they usually spend years studying Thomist philosophy. By contrast, Protestants often have little background in philosophy or moral theology, and are often ill-equipped to engage in apologetics.
In my experience, Catholic priests vary a lot in their biblical expertise and knowledge of biblical languages.
I’ve already posted this elsewhere during this diversion started by T1/Simon. (Who BTW should note that I – and Tyndale who I quote – am interpreting the word ‘literal’ here precisely in the sense originally devised by medieval Catholics!)
https://stevesfreechurchblog.wordpress.com/2013/01/31/a-brief-word-on-biblical-interpretation/
Short version – in the context of biblical interpretation ‘literal’ was never meant to mean ‘stupid’…..
“Literal” historically meant the natural or normal meaning a word had “in letters”, how the first users understood and used a word or saying in context. This included figurative use. An exampld is Hebrew ‘yad’ which typically means ‘hand’ but also ‘by means of’ or ‘through’.
The literal meaning (as some people somewhat cumbersomely call it, as though it were a curiosity) is usually ‘the meaning’ or occasionally the main meaning – of course, there is rarely more than one actual meaning, so to talk of ‘main’ is slightly misleading. This is more so in literal genres, though (commands and laws; letters; nonfiction narratives).
Christopher, please put your money where your mouth is. What is the ‘meaning’ of ‘run’?
And if you could possibly illustrate your comment about ‘literal genres’, that might be helpful.
And maybe go back to the Doug Moo article I pointed you to a while ago. Remember the title? Something about Barr and ‘we still don’t get it’. James, you might benefit from that as well. Just sayin’
Bruce, it has already been said that Barr’s central point is basic. I am now repeating that.
But because Barr said that the sentence rather than the word is the relevant unit, then your question’what is the meaning of ”run”?’ is too simplistic. It will have generally just one meaning, but to see what it is on a given occasion, we will have to see it in context. My point is that words in context generally have one meaning. If the writer intends ambiguity, then they have two (or more).
A literal genre? But I already gave 3 examples – why should I give more? Whereas non literal genres are things like parables, fables, fiction, many poems.
Christopher, you persist in the idea that ‘words *have* meaning. Do you not understand Barr’s criticisms?
And recall (maybe) that I asked you to explain what you meant by ‘literal genres’. Don’t you find it interesting that the example of so-called ‘metaphorical language’ that Geoff and James had fun with, about ‘plucking out eyes’ is found in a ‘command’ of Jesus? And ‘A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho and was attacked by robbers etc’ is found in a parable? So which is it that you find hard to understand or explain? ‘Genre’, ‘mood/mode’, ‘metaphor’ or ‘linguistic’ thinking/argumentation generally?
Dogmatic generalisation that words have not the slightest meaning. 0%? No nuance here?
How long is the Greater Oxford Dictionary? 20 vols?
Bruce says that not a single word of it is valid.
Who agrees?
Christopher, why would I say that a 20vol history of the use of English words is not valid? What I might say is that even my 18month old granddaughter has little use for that work in acquiring and using English as is the case for most other people using English to communicate. And what I would say is that yet again you show little understanding of what linguistics (the study of language) is about.
Nor did I say ‘words have not the slightest meaning’. What I am saying is that ‘meaning’ is not something that individual words *have*, but that in communicating we understand each other through whole utterances to be understood in context. You can look up any and all the words in the utterance “Coffee will keep me awake” in your 20vol OED but you will not thereby ‘correctly’ understand what your friend, in saying those words, is communicating**. And no ‘metaphors’ or ‘figurative language’ in sight.
Have you given up on your ‘genre’ argument?
**Example comes originally from Daniel Sperber & Deidre Wilson.
Linguistics is only one of an enormous amount of meta subjects which lie behind all we say and debate. We could get bogged down in it, but why not in one of the other 20 meta sbjects. Either way, no debate would ever even start. You have only randomly pickeld linguistics because it is your own favourite, not because it needs to be anyone else’s priority. As to the point about words acquiring meaning within a sentence, (a) you know very well I have already affirmed this more than once, so why make the point? (b) it is all or noting, and therefore incorrect. Words have some meaning intrinsically, which they bring into their sentence before we even know what the sentence is (otherwise all words would be the same as each other and all would be blank slates) and context affords them more. Having worked that one out, we have by now contributed zero to the debate in hand.
‘Words have some meaning intrinsically, which they bring into their sentence before we even know what the sentence is (otherwise all words would be the same as each other and all would be blank slates) and context affords them more. ‘
So words come first in communication rather than utterances!!?? Yet again, Christopher, you show that your understanding of how language works in human communication is seriously and unreflectively deficient. As is what you think the *linguists* are doing.
Scholars *reflect*, Christopher. You don’t. Go figure!
Thank you, Michael Hayden, for your joined up comments.
What seems quite clear is that many, and I include some of our erstwhile clergy, is that there seems little evidence of them being able to think, read or speak joined up speaking.
As is also evident in co-responders who think that brevity is a mark of a higher intellect.
Yes Jesus did not make specific comments on many things, however He did reverence and uphold the Law and came to fulfill it not to abolish it.
He knew that the law and prophets are the clear mind of God and are foundational.
In fact, he exhorted his disciples when speaking of the “teachers of the Law” to “do as they say but not do as they do”.
I think that the revisionists are attempting to “lay another foundation” of no foundation, aka “building a house on sand”.
How do we “imagine” a future of the Church, well what foundation will it be built on?
And what structure is to be built on it,
perhaps one where Christ is but a mere cypher?
Thank you, Michael Hayden, for your joined up comments
What seems quite clear is that many, and I include some of our erstwhile clergy,
Is that there seems little evidence of them being able to think, read or speak
joined up speaking. As is also evident in co-responders who think that brevity is a mark of a higher intellect.
Yes Jesus did not make specific comments on many things, however He did reverence and uphold the Law and came to fulfill it not to abolish it,
He knew that the law and prophets are the clear mind of God and are foundational.
In fact, he exhorted his disciples when speaking of the “teachers of the Law” to
“do as they say but not do as they do”.
I think that the revisionists are attempting to “lay another foundation” of no foundation, aka “building a house on sand”.
How do we “imagine” a future of the Church, well what foundation will it be built on?
And what structure is to be built on it,
perhaps one where Christ is but a mere cypher?
The thing that infuriates me is that although opposition to same sex marriage and relationships is something conservatives are passionately opposed to, it’s *not* the biggest barrier to LGBT+ people worshipping in the Church of England.
Things like:
False assumptions about LGBT+ people, inc homophobic or transphobic statements
Conversion therapy/exorcisms
Sexual and physical abuse
Political campaigns against basic human rights for LGBT+ people
Calling for or tolerance of the death penalty for same sex sex
Opposition to LGBT+ people having any sort of romantic expression and/or friendships
Are far worse and, on paper, most conservatives in the CofE will say “well of course we dont support those things”, but when push comes to shove, these are STILL the reality in the CofE after well over a decade in which conservatives were supposed to have been listening to LGBT+ Christians.
When push comes to shove, just who are this cohort seeking to worship? There is a clue in what is mentioned as being first and foremost, uppermost in its constituents minds and concerns that is claimed by PJ as if it is one uniform group: counterfeit gods, replacement gods, sovereign in their own determinative will.
Thy will be done:
https://learn.ligonier.org/podcasts/things-unseen-with-sinclair-ferguson/on-earth-as-it-is-in-heaven
God, Geoff. I think you’ll find it’s God.
There is no evidence in the comment about which God only matters on the human level that function as god replacements. There has been no indication of seeking to worship the Triune God of Christianity.
Any semblance of the doctrine of God is missing as is the doctrine of scripture, the doctrine of revelation, on which it is based as is the doctrine of humanity.
It is humanity, humanity, humanity, front and centre.
Most of the inclusive Christians I know worship the Triune God of Christianity. A few probably don’t. A few evangelicals don’t.
That they worship a false god is simply your opinion. Not fact. Not truth. Just your view.
PCD,
You miss entirely the point about idolatry, operating as functional counterfeit gods to be worshipped, devoted to before and in place of God Himself.
No. I don’t miss it at all. I simply don’t agree with you.
Some conservatives have marriage and the nuclear family as idols. I think they are wrong, theologically, I don’t think they are unsaved.
PCD,
So now you get it, though dismissed as only a matter of opinion, to which you now agree. It’s good to have you on board!
Who mentioned salvation?
Now that you have, maybe that could be discussed.
It may be a matter of salvation. In essence, it may be a life lived, functioning in opposition to the first Word.
What is salvation? Who, how, why, when, where?
PCD,
And while we are at it, let’s also delve into sanctification, holiness, without which we will not see the Lord.
Salvation is the incarnation, crucifixion and resurrection. We can respond, but we cannot appropriate it.
PCD,
Salvation: that response is notable for its thinness from a bible teacher. It still doesn’t address, with definitions, in the round, all of the questions asked.
It is nowhere near the 39 Articles in its cumulative response.
Firstly, I am not a ‘Bible teacher ‘.
Secondly, you don’t need 39 articles to explain salvation. St John managed in a few short sentences.
PCD,
Yet another absence of content.
Bit harsh on St John!
PCD,
Just who is this sanctified John of yours? Sanctified how, why and when?
There is a saint John in our church.
You know the one who wrote the Fourth Gospel?
So which bits are myth or are story-line parables ?
How do you know Jesus is really and spoke any of the words, as a mere human construct,
PCD?
After all this time, you think opposition is based on ‘passion’??
Passion will not weigh much in any argument, will it?
Naturally it is right to be extremely passionate about things that matter, and keeping families running smoothly matters more than anything. However, the opposition is based on the facts and the logic of the situation.