Martin Davie writes: According to a report in the Church Times, during the Religion Media Festival on Monday this week the Archbishop of Canterbury responded to a question about whether the Church of England was ‘ too apologetic about its positions on sexual morality.’ His answer was to say that he entirely agreed with the questioner’s concern and that:
We were talking about it in the College of Bishops last week and I think we do need to be more open about the basic rules, the basic understanding of sexual morality within Christian thinking. Without sounding as though we are lecturing, but just to be unapologetic about saying . . . sexual activity should be within permanent, stable and faithful relationships of marriage as that is understood in each society.
At first sight the archbishop’s answer could appear completely anodyne, since he might seem to be saying what the Church of England and the Christian Church has always said, namely that sex should be confined to marriage.
However, on closer inspection his final words, ‘as that is understood in each society,’ make his answer anything but anodyne. This is because they would seem to say that the Church is willing to endorse any and every understanding of marriage that society may accept at any given time and to say that it is fine for sexual activity to take place within them.
This would mean for example that the Church would be willing to endorse:
- Forced marriages
- Polyamorous marriages
- Marriages between adults and children
- Marriages between humans and sex robots
All these are forms of marriage that have been, or could be, accepted within human societies. Presumably, one hopes, the archbishop and the rest of the College of Bishops would be unwilling to accept any of these potential forms of marriage. However, if this is the case it would mean having to revise the archbishop’s answer to say that sexual activity should only take place within marriage understood in a particular way, rather than in any way accepted by society.
In current British society, of course, marriage has been understood since 2014 as a relationship that can exist between both opposite-sex and same-sex couples. This raises the question of whether the archbishop’s answer means that he (and the College of Bishops) think that a same-sex relationship can be a marriage and that it is therefore fine for sexual activity to take place within this context.
If this is indeed what they think then this would seem to be in conflict with the repeated statements by the bishops that they are not proposing any change in the Church of England’s existing doctrine of marriage. Either they think that the Church’s existing doctrine of marriage already encompasses same-sex as well as opposite-sex marriages (which it clearly doesn’t), or they think it should (in which case why are they not proposing a change in doctrine via amendments to the Book of Common Prayer and Canon B30)?
One way they might try to get round this point would be to say that the Church’s existing doctrine applies only to Holy Matrimony (understood as marriages solemnised in church), but that the Church can also recognise other forms of marriage that are not ‘Holy Matrimony.’ This would mean, for example, that when the notes to the press release from the recent meeting of the House of Bishops say that the Prayers of Love and Faith proposals ‘would not change the Church’s doctrine of Holy Matrimony’ this still leaves space for the recognition and liturgical celebration of same-sex marriages without any formal change of doctrine having taken place.
The problem with this approach is very simple. It is that neither the Book of Common Prayer nor Canon B30 distinguish between ‘Holy Matrimony’ and other forms of marriage. In these two doctrinally authoritative sources ‘Holy Matrimony’ is simply a synonym for marriage. For the Church of England there has always only been one kind of legitimate marriage, that instituted by God at creation involving two people of the opposite sex, and the terms Holy Matrimony, matrimony,, marriage, and wedlock have all been used to refer to this kind of relationship.
The question of where marriage is entered into has been seen as irrelevant to the question of whether a marriage has taken place. The Church of England has recognised, and continues to recognise, marriages that are in line with the form of marriage instituted by God at creation as genuine marriages (i.e. forms of ‘Holy Matrimony’) regardless of where a marriage has taken place (which is why those already married in a registry office could not then have a second marriage ceremony in a parish church). The reason why the Church of England has not hitherto recognised same-sex relationships as constituting genuine marriages (i.e not forms of ‘Holy Matrimony’) is not because they have not been entered into via a service in church, but because they are between two people of the same sex. As such they are not true marriages (regardless of what the state may call them) and therefore they are not a legitimate setting for sexual activity.
What all this means is that the Archbishop of Canterbury urgently needs to clarify what he meant by his answer on Monday. Did he really mean to say that he thinks any form of relationship accepted as such by society is, or can be, a legitimate form of marriage? If the answer is ‘yes’ then he need s to be clear about the point and explain why he holds this opinion. If the answer is ‘no’ then he needs to retract what he said and explain that what he should have said that is that ‘sexual activity should be within permanent, stable and faithful relationships of marriage as instituted by God, which means marriage between two people of the opposite sex.’
Dr Martin Davie is a lay theologian who is a theological consultant to CEEC.
This short piece by Martin Davie is coherent and beyond any serious argument. It’s a highly relevant example of how simple clarity naturally emerges if you work through logically from the starting point of whatever it is you are trying to understand.
Our Christian story (and everything else!) starts with ‘In the beginning God…’ I have no idea how many millions or billions of words must have been spilled in the last decade or two about sex and marriage but most of them would have been unnecessary if only people, not least Christians, had a clear understanding in their minds that normal, heterosexual marriage was an essential component of God’s creation blueprint. There’s not the slightest evidence that he has changed his mind and decided to offer alternative versions.
Quite so. What I regret is that evangelical Anglicans seem to think this mess has come about by accident, and speak of it only as a tragedy. At all times and in all places there is a deadly and coherent plot against the church by Satan, who is kept at bay simply by believers living out the scriptures regardless of personal cost. Contradicting the scriptures will always give the enemy a foothold. That people who take a large salary to run the Church of England are promoting heresy within it should make evangelical Anglicans feel deep, godly anger. This is indeed a tragedy, but tragedy does not motivate action. Righteous anger motivates action. Of the armour described in Ephesians 6, the offensive weapon is the sword of the Spirit – words, sharp uncompromising words, spoken in contexts that cause maximum embarrassment to the Church of England’s bishops. They are overwhelmingly bureaucrats who have no personal qualities of leadership, of the type willing use the power gained by virtue of their position to bully those who disagree with them, but who fold under concerted pressure. Time to exert it. We wouldn’t even face persecution from wider society for a campaign against the bishops. If evangelicals don’t do this then they have only themselves to blame if their church capitulates to the world.
Are we approaching that stage where it will be :
” Now, or never”,
for any strong English, Evangelical Anglican backlash ?
It’s screeching hysteria. Archbishop Welby might be endorsing sex robots and paedophiles? Give me a break. This sort of manufactured outrage is nauseating at the best of times. When it’s conveniently timed to distract from how CEEC and GAFCON have responded to the behaviour of the Church of Uganda is particularly repellent.
Archbishop Welby might be endorsing sex robots and paedophiles?
Read the article again. The whole point is that Welby clearly wouldn’t endorse sex robots and paedophiles, but that what he said logically would allow those things to be valid marriages. Therefore Welby must have misspoken (not surprising, as it was a unprepared off-the-cuff answer) so he needs to clarify the limits of what forms of marriage ‘as that is understood in each society’.
In other words he needs to come out and say ‘obviously we wouldn’t accept paedophilic marriages or marriages to sex robots and this is why’ and give a coherent logical reason.
If it’s clear that he wouldn’t endorse sex robots and paedophiles, then there’s nothing to clarify. It is, as you say, clear.
If it’s clear that he wouldn’t endorse sex robots and paedophiles, then there’s nothing to clarify. It is, as you say, clear.
No, it’s not clear, because the principle he stated does include marriages to sex robots and children. So obviously there are exceptions to the principle he gave, so he needs to clarify what classes of are excepted, and what the reasoning is behind those exceptions.
Imagine if I said, ‘people should be able to say whatever they like.’
And then said, ‘so you think people should be allowed to falsely shout ‘fire!’ in a crowded theatre.’
And I said ‘of course not’
Well then I hadn’t been clear, had I? Because my original statement includes that thing that I obviously did not include.
So I need to clarify my statement with something like, ‘ people should be able to say whatever they like except where that would be deliberately putting others in imminent danger’.
That is, I need to clarify what’s excluded from my previous statement and why.
So similarly Welby needs to clarify what is excluded from his previous statement and why.
So when you said he clearly wouldn’t, you didn’t mean he clearly wouldn’t, because you weren’t actually clear that he clearly wouldn’t, despite clearly saying he clearly wouldn’t.
You’re not being very clear, S…
So when you said he clearly wouldn’t, you didn’t mean he clearly wouldn’t, because you weren’t actually clear that he clearly wouldn’t, despite clearly saying he clearly wouldn’t.
I mean it’s clear that he wouldn’t but it’s not clear why he wouldn’t.
So he needs to clarify his reasoning, because at the moment his stated position, which is that marriages to sex robots and children would be perfectly fine, is at odds with his actual position, which is that they aren’t.
It’s perfectly obvious so if you continue to affect stupidity it is you who will look stupid, not me.
It’s not his stated position though. That’s just your fevered fantasy.
So, no, the Archbishop doesn’t need to clarify anything. As you originally said, he clearly wouldn’t endorse sex robots and paedophiles.
It’s not his stated position though.
Yes, it is. His stated position is ‘ sexual activity should be within permanent, stable and faithful relationships of marriage as that is understood in each society’.
There have been societies in the past which understood marriages between adults and children as being valid; forced marriages as being valid; polygamous marriages as being valid. So Welby’s stated position is that all these could be valid, because they are included in ‘ marriage as that is understood in each society’.
One could imagine a future society in which marriages between humans and sex robots were understood as valid. So these would be included in ‘ marriage as that is understood in each society’, so Welby’s definition includes them.
So Welby’s stated position of ‘ marriage as that is understood in each society ’ includes paedophilic marriages (as these have been understood as marriage in past societies) and may include sex robots.
So if he doesn’t actually think these are valid he needs to clarify his position by saying ‘ marriage as that is understood in each society except for’ and then give a logically coherent principle or set of principles for outlawing certain forms of marriage which have been understood by societies as valid.
(And not ‘ marriage as that is understood in each society except for an ad hoc list of exceptions that are disagreeable to moderns sensibilities for no reason other than they are so disagreeable’ is not a logically coherent principle)
You originally said, “Welby clearly wouldn’t endorse sex robots and paedophiles”. Now you’re rowing back on that and becoming hysterical. I suggest you calm down and go to bed.
You originally said, “Welby clearly wouldn’t endorse sex robots and paedophiles”. Now you’re rowing back on that and becoming hysterical.
As above; affecting stupidity just makes you look stupid, not me.
The Church of Uganda (and I worked for them for 4 years) is particularly sensitive to criticism of their stance on marriage. On same-sex relations/marriage, a popular dictum there is ‘the blood of the marytyrs is the seed of the church’ and is applied specifically to the (male) martyred Christian slaves of the Kabaka (Luganda king) who, on grounds of Christian conscience, refused to submit to his demands for sex and were executed en masse in 1885-87 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uganda_Martyrs).
On marriage more widely, as the gospel was first accepted by Ugandan nationals. it immediately encountered the issue of polygamy which was common amongst most tribes at the time. Most clergy were encouraged to require Christian (male) converts to specify one wife as their spouse and retain any others within the household as the equivalent of sisters-in-law (in effect, home helps recompensed with bed and board including for any pre-existing children). This unfortunately had the effect of ostracising the non-spouse women from church.
Polygamy is still legal in Uganda (i.e. polygamous marriage is an example of “marriage as that is understood in each society”). More recently, some dioceses have tried an ‘all are welcome’ policy (to allow men and more particularly women who come to faith and who remain in polygamous marriages to be baptised) but it has caused much controversy. In essence, if ++Justin were to require the Church of Uganda to apply his new “rule” and to recognise polygamous marriages as authetically Christian, it would cause outrage. He really does need to clarify this statement.
Will no-one rid us of this turbulent priest?
Talking off the cuff is not at all easy. It always raises questions that were not thought of at the time by the answerer, simply because there are so many dimensions to consider.
You could be right Christopher. Nevertheless it remains to be seen whether “off the cuff” is in reality “in the cassock”.
To Christopher –
We hopefully await any clarifications from the ‘The Most Reverend Primate, the Archbishop of Canterbury’, in due course.
I’ve thought this through. Ultimately it’s no skin off my nose because I’m not a committed Anglican – I just happen to worship in an Anglican congregation as the best one reasonably near me – but there is plenty that can be done with the sword of the Spirit (see my post just above). Evangelicals could withhold ‘parish share’ from liberal bishops; table motions of No Confidence in their bishop at Diocesan synod or refuse to pass a diocesan budget; speak openly that their bishop is a heretic and a schismatic. Hold repeated peaceable demonstrations outside bishops’ residences with placards asking “Does this bishop believe in God?” Slips of paper could be handed out explaining in brief and simple language the incompatibility of liberal theology with the Christian faith. Included would be the bishop’s salary, quotes from his (her?) liberal writings and speeches set against scripture, pointed questions about hypocrisy, and statistics for the number of administrators in the diocese and the number of regular Communicants during recent decades. (A website could maintain this information for every diocese.) Similar demonstrations could be held before services outside every church at which these bishops – and archbishops – give a sermon, and also at their other public engagements; local media could be alerted.
This will all have to be coordinated nationally and be a grassroots movement. Evangelicals have so far been reluctant to declare open spiritual war on people calling themselves Christians in their own dioceses. They are going to have to, or abandon this sector of the bride of Christ to the wolves.
To Anton –
That kind of proposed action, Anton, may also lead to other Christian denominations to help in some way. There is a national need to raise the general profile of biblical Christianity.
Blackmail. The authentic Christian response to a diversity of views.
Where to start? You seriously think that a ‘view’ is worth any more than the evidence it is based on? Since there is always a diversity in quality of evidence, it follows that not all ‘views’ are created equal. Like my ‘view’ that a little man turns on the fridge light. It is an example of a ‘view’ that ranks pretty low.
But the main point is that it is pointless to repeat this, since such points are never digested, by accident or design.
Blackmail is a threat to make public something that is private about somebody which would embarrass them. Is it a secret that bishops have been padding their bureaucracies while worshippers drop? No! Is it a secret that they have abandoned holy scripture over the issues raised above by Martin Davie above? No! I merely advocate greater publicity for what is already in the public domain. But I’m glad you agree that they’d find it embarrassing.
Dear Penelope;
It all depends on how one defines an :
” authentic Christian response ” ;
and whether it is in keeping with the First century C.E., Apostolic Faith that was :
“delivered to God’s holy people once and for all time.” (cf. Jude 1:3).
God bless you, Penelope.
Christopher: as so often happens you miss the point of the discussion. Anton is proposing blackmail. Penny calls that out. All you can do is make your usual generalised comment. At least on this occasion you don’t include a shameless plug of your chapters in a self published book.
Andrew: Apparently you too fail to understand the meaning of ‘blackmail’. Regarding the bloating of diocesan costs as worshippers dwindle, and the inconsistency of liberal-theological advocacy with scripture, these things are already in the public domain and I am merely advocating wider publicity. If this is embarrassing to bishops, why is that? If you mean the witholding of parish share or non-cooperation at diocesan synods, those actions are not inconsistent with the constitution of the Church of England. If you consider them not unconstitutional but unethical then let us by all means let us discuss ethics, but let us also include the actions of the bishops in taking a hefty salary from the faithful in order to peddle doubt and heresy.
Blackmail in UK law: a person is guilty of blackmail if, with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another, he makes any unwarranted demand with menaces.
Anton, your suggestions certainly constitute menaces.
But I wasn’t speaking on that topic. I was speaking on the quite different topic of people still thinking that there is any virtue (or meaning) in ‘a diversity of views’. The marks 0/10 and 10/10 are diverse; and my opinion that a little man inhabits the fridge is a ‘view’. How that accords the marks or the view any authority is beyond anyone intelligent.
Andrew: Blackmail under Section 21 of the Theft Act 1968 is indeed “committed when a person with a view to gain for themselves or another [person] or intending to cause loss to another makes an unwarranted demand with menaces.” See
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/theft-act-offences
which, if you click on ‘blackmail’ in the table of contents at the top of the page, goes on to clarify gain, loss, unwarranted, demand and menace.
First, there is no intent to cause loss to anybody, but merely to get a change of course. Potential financial loss is the means of applying pressure, not the intent. Otherwise nobody would legally be able to inform a charity that they are terminating a direct debit as a result of that charity’s new policies. The idea that the ending of a voluntary payment in such circumstances is menace is implausible.
Second, it is highly contentious that the change of course sought is unwarranted in view of the stated fidelity of the Church of England to the scriptures.
Third, my proposal seeks a change of policy of a corporate body, namely a church diocese or archdiocese, not an individual. To see this, notice that if the bishop retires and is replaced by another then the proposal is unchanged.
Blackmail in UK law: a person is guilty of blackmail if, with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another, he makes any unwarranted demand with menaces.
In cannot possibly be a ‘menace’ to threaten not to give to someone something of yours which they have no right to.
Clearly if I have a regular standing order to a charity and they do something I don’t like and say ‘unless you change course I will cancel my standing order’, that can’t be blackmail, because I give the money out of my own generosity; the charity has no right to expect it, and I am perfectly free to keep my money or give it to another charity as I wish, for any reason.
Similarly it cannot be blackmail for a parent to tell an adult child that if they don’t change their ways they will no longer support them financially. The child has no right to their parents’ money so threatening to withhold it can’t be a ‘menace’.
Same applies to congregational giving. It’s not money to which the diocese is entitled, it’s a free-will offering made freely by the congregation, and so threatening to stop giving it cannot be a ‘menace’.
Third, my proposal seeks a change of policy of a corporate body, namely a church diocese or archdiocese, not an individual. To see this, notice that if the bishop retires and is replaced by another then the proposal is unchanged.
This isn’t relevant — ‘person’ in the law includes a corporate person. For example you can blackmail a supermarket company by threatening to put poison in their food stocks unless they give you money, or blackmail an online shop by threatening to hack their website unless they pay you.
But the key point is that withholding money isn’t like either of these things. It’s more like threatening the supermarket that if they don’t change their policies you will boycott them and go shop at their competitors instead, which is obviously not blackmail.
This will all have to be coordinated nationally and be a grassroots movement.
Would it not be better just to split?
Perhaps, S. The reason that the big fight has come later in England than in other parts of the world where the Anglican Communion has gone liberal is that both sides are scared of losing the assets of the Church of England – a historic building in every parish, extensive lands and properties, extensive investments, and the right to call yourself the Established church.
My own view is that these things are so far from the apostolic church that the evangelicals will probably lose as God restores his church to the original pattern, most likely by persecution some years down the line. Theologically speaking, it wouldn’t concern me if the liberals win (although I acknowledge that many Anglican evangelicals would be in deep pain, which should not be treated lightly by nonconformists). I comment here about what evangelicals should do because I do not like to see the forces of darkness on the ascendant.
both sides are scared
Ain’t that the truth.
a historic building in every parish,
Of course, if the Christians left the Church of England, chances are they’d be unable to pay for maintenance of the buildings. They’d have to sell a lot of them off. So the splitters might not be without historic buildings for long. Can you say ‘distressed sale’?
the right to call yourself the Established church.
Never seen the appeal.
Anton and others here may not be aware that strategies like withholding money have been critically assessed by conservative thinkers. https://www.anglicanfutures.org/post/anglican-myth-4-we-can-bankrupt-our-diocese
They call the effectiveness of this approach to enforcing views on the wider church when you disagree with them – ‘a myth’. It is has to be said the article ignores the very real ethical issues around the withholding giving. But the rest of this piece is well informed.
David,
Did I ever say that it would bring a diocese financially to its knees? It is one facet of a campaign. I’d add, though, that it is ethically wrong in itself to give money to a diocese that is behaving antiscripturally.
Anton. The title was theirs not mine. I thought you might find it interesting. This piece comes from your side of the wadi and it is reasonable they are addressing issues folk are discussing.
Not you apparently. OK.
Meanwhile, if you and your campaigners are planning to park your tanks and hammer placards into my lawn (for yea, I do dwell in the tents of the ungodly), do let me know and I will put the kettle on.
David,
Tanks are not mentioned in Ephesians 6.
David, I would agree with you and AF that this is not a very effective strategy. But it was also argued that sanctions are not effective in bringing down unholy regimes.
There is quite a different issue: do you want to contribute your money to a Church which is turning its back on the consensus teaching of the church catholic? I think that is a question for many.
For Christians this is simple; as per Jesus in Mark 10 and the Matthaean parallel, God made humans male and female, designed to become ‘one flesh’ via complementary anatomy – ‘one flesh’ both as a couple and in a different way in the children which may result. Same-sex couples clearly are not designed to do that, and what they can do sexually together is simply inappropriate. Christians should trust God about this and follow that teaching.
Some people are not Christians; some essentially do the same thing that Christians do, others do different things. The question – and it is far wider than just sexual relationships – is how Christians relate to these people of different beliefs and different philosophical worldviews?
One answer – not in the New Testament but arising about 400 years later – has been to try to set up ‘Christian states’ in the world in which Christians enforce their views on others, often through wars and persecutions. Anglicanism originated as such a ‘state church’; over centuries they have gradually been forced to be increasingly tolerant and accept others disagreeing with them – at first other Christians but eventually other religions and atheists/agnostics and the like. Unfortunately they have not been willing to give up the position of being a state religion and the result is confusion. Some in an attempt to justify their privileged position have been willing to compromise the faith to remain ‘for everybody’ by accepting ideas like same-sex marriage or at least blessings. It’s a nicer position than criminalising and penalising dissenters – but it is absolutely NOT a Christian position.
Go back to the New Testament and you will find there a very different view on how Christians relate to the surrounding world – of course to do things the New Testament way Anglicans will have to give up ‘establishment’, but since God never wanted that anyway….
Excelente, Stephen.
Excelente !
Please make more comments on Ian’s site, again.
God bless you.
‘Inappropriate’? Since the same acts are often enjoyed by mixed-sex couples, are they inappropriate then?
Since the same acts are often enjoyed by mixed-sex couples, are they inappropriate then?
Some are, some aren’t. Not everything enjoyable is good.
Yes, good comment.
In pragmatic terms there’s a good case for evangelicals and orthodox friends reorganising (astutely) for a final time for the coming votes in the July/November General Synods. I suspect the finality and destruction of the decision(s) involved may sharpen minds and possibly even bring the same sex blessings project to a juddering halt. That would be an interesting development. I wonder how many compliant bishops would secretly welcome such an outcome!
If, on the other hand, no such miracle happens, it surely tells us that our state church here in England no longer figures in God’s plans as it once seemed to do. It’s then time to shake the dust and walk away, although the timing might be very variable at the individual level. The ‘best boat to fish from’ mantra has always implied use of sound pragmatic judgement rather than blind loyalty to the institution in perpetuity.
Ultimately the Christian’s life is always a case of ducking and diving (honourably!) according to circumstances and where God happens to lead us. Just think of St Paul’s missionary journeys. The Church of England has provided a remarkable but highly unusual period of stability for many Christians in England. If that has now come to an end, so be it; praise be to God; and welcome to the lifelong experience of millions of Christians around the world who’ve never known the luxury of what we once enjoyed.
To Don –
You mean there can be spiritual life beyond the Church of England ?
A few comments.
Firstly, the idea that there is a simple understanding of marriage as given at creation is not something that is actually reflected in the extended narrative of the bible. There are several different understandings of marriage. There may be a creation ordinance that male and female should join together for the purpose of procreation and mutual flourishing. But that would not preclude other forms of relationships.
Secondly, in Jewish understanding there is no outright prohibition on premarital sex. Judaism has often been lenient in this matter and sex during betrothal has been considered quite normal. So the OT texts are not reliable in forming a single opinion.
Thirdly, it is very difficult to construct any outright ban on sex before marriage from all of the biblical texts.
Fourthly. The ministers of the marriage are the couple themselves and not the Church. The Church provides a place for the sacrament to be solemnised.
Fifthly, it might be argued that a couple who intend to marry contract that married in stages rather than at one point in time. The sexual relationship is one aspect of that and by focussing on that part of the marriage alone, the Church neglects the responsibility it has to couples in other areas. If the CofE were to be bolder, as Martin suggests it should be, in simply enforcing a strict code of no sex before marriage, it would be negligent and puritanical in the extreme. A couple of who are in the process of marrying may undertake an entirely holy sexual relationship at a variety of stages in the process.
Andrew,
I think it would be a useful exercise if to would provide just a few Biblical illustrations of what you describe as “the extended narrative of the bible”! For example, I have always been fascinated by King Solomon’s copulatory configurations as outlined in 1Kings11.
Hi Colin
I think this article is helpful in answering questions about the extended narrative of the bible on marriage
https://www.believeoutloud.com/voices/article/biblical-marriage-unmasked/
How does this author deal with the papyrus Se’elim 13 from around Rabbi Akiva’s time? It is a Jewish statement of divorce by a woman.
Andrew, you write
There may be a creation ordinance that male and female should join together for the purpose of procreation and mutual flourishing. But that would not preclude other forms of relationships.
There was no law against murder immediately after the Fall but that does not mean God considered it OK, does it? You can get God’s opinion of various other relationships from what he describes as toevah>/i> in Mosaic law.
in Jewish understanding there is no outright prohibition on premarital sex.
There is no explicit command in the Pentateuch stating that an unmarried man and an unmarried woman should not have sex. Does that mean it is acceptable before God? First, there was no need for such a law in ancient Israel, because women simply did not behave like that, out of fear of pregnancy. There was no effective contraception and no welfare state handing out money to single mothers, and her family would disown her, after which her only option if she were not to starve would be prostitution. God gave laws only about things that were troublesome within the ancient Near East. So the only single women who habitually had sex were prostitutes. Although prostitution was not explicitly prohibited outside Levite families, it was certainly a disgrace (e.g., Leviticus 21:9). If a virgin was seduced by a man then he had to marry or support her (Exodus 22:16). To God it was so important that a woman be a virgin when first married that the death penalty could be applied to brides who were found not to be virgins (Deuteronomy 22:20-21). There simply should not be any unmarried women who were not virgins (apart from widows and, sadly, deserted wives).
The ministers of the marriage are the couple themselves and not the Church.
On that, we agree. Marriage has been nationalised ever since Lord Hardwicke’s Act of 1753.
Which is precisely why the Jewish translators of the Hebrew scriptures into the Greek Septuagint used ‘virgin’ for the Hebrew for ‘young woman’ – the two went hand in hand.
They did if the word for young woman signified ‘young unmarried woman’.
You’re talking about ‘almah’ (Heb.),
and ‘parthenos (Gk.);
PC1.
But Jesus explicitly spelled out his understanding of ‘marriage’ by referring to the creation story of male and female. So your first point doesnt make sense unless you choose to ignore Jesus’ understanding.
On your second point, again it seems clear that Jesus had to correct the Jewish rabbi understanding/interpretation of the OT scriptures on a number of occasions, so we shouldnt assume the ‘Jewish understanding’ correctly represents God’s actual view. It is clear that Joseph and Mary were keeping themselves for marriage, and why Joseph was horrified when he initially thought Mary had had sex with another man when she was betrothed to Joseph, and they would only have sex once married.
Someone else with a better knowledge than me can address your 3rd point.
4th – you seem to be implying that if the couple themselves decide they are married, then they are regardless of any minister or church official officiating. I doubt that is true as even in civil marriage it has to be officiated and recognised. Otherwise they are simply co-habiting.
Apart from a betrothal or engagement period, Im not sure what ‘stages’ you refer to. As evidenced by Mary and Joseph, the betrothal period is supposed to be without sexual union. I would assume the church would not focus on non-sex before marriage but that it would be part and parcel of its overall teaching and expectation of those who call themselves ‘Christians’.
Peter
Dear Peter, Your first paragraph sums up one of the major points which Andrew has failed to address; particularly in his statement:” There are several dirfferent understandings of marriage”. My tongue-in- cheek reference to Solomon was specifically to highlight (based upon the evidence of 1Kings 11) that in his case it is highly unlikely he was formulating a new “understanding”. The end product here was idolatry and in the case of the 10 northern tribes assimilation.
There has been a failure in some quarters to distingush *divine prescription* from *human description”. The teaching of Jesus Christ (albeit specifically on divorce) brings us back to the divine prescription . Attempts to bypass or override Genesis 2: 24 are simply programmes to make the “prescription” fit the needs of “patients” who are perennially in search of a universal panacea.
Colin what did you make of the link I posted which amply illustrated the extended narrative about marriage in the bible?
largely guilty of what I have just said!
Fifthly, it might be argued that a couple who intend to marry contract that married in stages rather than at one point in time.
It couldn’t be coherently argued, though, even from a secular legal point of view. There has to be, legally, a moment before which the couple can separate without any legal involvement and after which if they want to separate they have to go through a divorce process. And from a Christian point of view, the couple either have become one flesh,, joined together by God, and therefore man is not to put them asunder; or they haven’t.
There simple aren’t ‘stages’ of marriage. Just like you can’t be a little bit pregnant, you can’t be a little bit married. You either are or you aren’t.
Andrew, you write: “A couple of who are in the process of marrying may undertake an entirely holy sexual relationship at a variety of stages in the process.” What you seem to forget is that we are talking about an institution which came into existence long before the contraceptive pill and the welfare state. Unless she got carried away by her senses, the woman would not have sex with the man until he had given a commitment to support her and any children they might have. And that’s the unambiguous point at which the couple are married. Of course there is a time after it has been agreed that they will marry and before they do, known as betrothal or engagement.
Anton what you write here simply illustrates how marriage has moved well beyond what was thought of by marriage in various parts of the bible. Unless you think we need to go back to concepts of men owning or being superior to women?
Andrew – not as far as Christians are concerned. What Anton didn’t point out is that nowadays Christians do not resort to ingesting chemicals so that they can have sexual relations without having children. These chemicals do have side effects; no Christian woman would agree to take these drugs for purely recreational purposes and no Christian man would be favourable towards his wife/fiancee/girlfriend taking them for recreational purposes.
(I have heard that these drugs are used for treatment of genuine serious medical conditions – in which case it is correct to follow medical advice.)
There is nothing about ‘owning’ or ‘superiority’ in a couple waiting until they are sure they’d be able to look after a child together before engaging in sexual relations together – although I’d agree that Anton expressed it in a way that could draw such criticism.
I ingested chemicals to prevent pregnancy. So do many Christian women.
I ingested chemicals to prevent pregnancy. So do many Christian women.
Being a Christian does not stop one from sinning. But you repented, presumably.
Jock, where does it say – outside of Roman Catholicism – that Christian women would not use the contraceptive pill? The Lambeth conference of 1930 concluded that it was right for Christian women to use artificial means of contraception.
The Lambeth conference of 1930 concluded that it was right for Christian women to use artificial means of contraception.
No it didn’t. Resolution 15 of the 1930 Lambeth Conference:
‘ Where there is clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, the method must be decided on Christian principles. The primary and obvious method is complete abstinence from intercourse (as far as may be necessary) in a life of discipline and self-control lived in the power of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless in those cases where there is such a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, and where there is a morally sound reason for avoiding complete abstinence, the Conference agrees that other methods may be used, provided that this is done in the light of the same Christian principles. The Conference records its strong condemnation of the use of any methods of conception control from motives of selfishness, luxury, or mere convenience.’
Let me repeat that:
‘ The Conference records its strong condemnation of the use of any methods of conception control from motives of selfishness, luxury, or mere convenience’
There seems to be a depressing common theme in the Church of England of some conference, Synod, or other body saying that something might be permissible in exceptional circumstances, for good reasons, and with strict provisos; and then people like Andrew Godsall declaring that this means that the thing has been declared to be perfectly fine in general.
This happens repeatedly and yet the Church of England never learns, always seeming to think that it can take one step onto the slippery slope and then by sheer force of will go no farther, despite the infiltrators in its own ranks standing sniggering ready to yank it right to the bottom.
Andrew – you’re showing your legalistic tendency. My starting point isn’t really ‘what does it say somewhere or other’ – my starting point is what is good for you. A Christian isn’t supposed to damage their own body just for pleasure – that (surely) is the starting point. It is known (in admittedly a very small number of cases) to cause blood clots – which can lead to death. I know of one woman (daughter of one of my colleagues) who was in hospital for several months because of this.
I therefore take the view that the behaviour that Penelope has confessed to is ball-breakingly stupid, because it can (admittedly very small proportion of cases) have very damaging side effects – and to take this risk purely for pleasure doesn’t seem very sensible to me.
Jock
Frequent pregnancies carry far greater risks to health than the modern contraceptive pill.
In any case, living involves engaging in a series of calculated risks. I drive which is, again, probably far riskier than taking the pill. I continue to drive where I probably only took the pill for about fifteen years.
And, it was definitely worth the risk!
Frequent pregnancies carry far greater risks to health than the modern contraceptive pill.
There are ways to avoid pregnancy other than taking contraceptives. Abstaining from sex, for example. From the Lambeth conference resolution: ‘ The primary and obvious method is complete abstinence from intercourse (as far as may be necessary) in a life of discipline and self-control lived in the power of the Holy Spirit.’
Penelope – I never see a distinction in your mind between ‘the way of the world’ on the one hand, and what one would expect from a Christian on the other.
You are (of course) correct that the world contains head-bangers for whom such drugs and chemicals would seem to be necessary, because otherwise the result would be multiple unwanted pregnancies. For society-in-general, probably useful that such things are available.
But we’re not discussing society-in-general here; we’re not discussing the way-of-the world; we’re discussing the behaviour of Christians towards themselves and each other. The Christian mind is simply not disposed towards self-harm, harm of others for purely recreational purposes.
Your statement ‘Frequent pregnancies carry far greater risks to health than the modern contraceptive pill’ is – of course – correct, but has absolutely nothing to do with the matter under discussion. But the problem here is that I never see in the comments you make a distinction in your own mind between the way-of-the-world and the Christian way.
Married couples should just abstain from sex? What a spectacularly unScriptural view.
AJBell – that (of course) is not what I said – unless (of course) you have a mind that is so sick that you see contraceptive pills as some sort of necessity for a healthy marriage relationship. Are you trying to say that mankind had to sit around all these millenia until scientists came up with this in the 1960’s before they could enjoy a happy marriage?
Jock you are correct that being legalistic is not the right way forward. In any case the CofE moved well beyond the 1930 conference in later writings. You probably don’t know the CofE marriage service but early on it contains this sentence:
The gift of marriage brings husband and wife together
in the delight and tenderness of sexual union
and joyful commitment to the end of their lives.
Now for some Christians that delight and tenderness will be expressed 3 or 4 times a week. For others 3 or 4 times a month. For others 3 or 4 times a year. That is for the couple to work out and we don’t make windows into other people’s marriages or all the decisions other Christian people take stupid unless we are prepared to do things like stop driving, which is much more risky than contraception.
Married couples should just abstain from sex? What a spectacularly unScriptural view.
It isn’t. You’re going to quote 1 Corinthians 7:5 which says ‘do not deprive each other’, but it’s not depriving someone if you agree to abstain by mutual consent for a good reason, such as that a pregnancy would be medically dangerous.
Jock
I am super impressed that you do not do anything which involves the risk of self harm.
You are therefore childless, sober, and a non driver. You do not travel by bus, train or aeroplane. You never ingest processed food which contains harmful chemicals and carcinogens. You never sit in the sun. You never take any drugs or have vaccines which cause side effects. You never visit cities where you might inhale toxic fumes. You never swim or cycle.
A blameless, if slightly boring, life.
Penelope,
I asked you to “explain to me how you could tell from the Old Testament that women were owned like slaves, rather than being under a man’s protection. I am asking specifically for verses by which you could distinguish the one from the other.” In response, you give a link to a reference and state: “This is an article on women as property in the Hebrew Bible. Slaves, children and women were regarded as property in the Torah, belonging to their masters who were either fathers or husbands (there is no word for husband).” This statement is merely repetition of your claim. If you have mastered the argument you wish to make and if you wish to conform to the courtesies of academic debate then you will summarise succinctly the reasoning that backs up your claim (including giving verses as I requested), and use the online reference merely as backup giving fuller details. Anybody can use google to provide an avalanche of citations.
I shall expend a paragraph on Sauder’s essay in your link, however. She misunderstands the quote from Job; he is not making a formal legal statement but a rhetorical comment in his deep distress, stating what he would deserve from his wife if he commits adultery against her: that she in turn commit adultery against him, in effect lex talionis in the sphere of personal morality. Sauder also grumbles that the Decalogue is directed at men. Lucky women, then – they can murder anybody they like with impunity! But the worst facet of Sauder’s essay is its complaint that the Old Testament is written by men and by implication is chauvinistic. A genuine believer reckons it to be written by God through men, and God is wiser than men and women.
In regard to the specific verse you (and Sauder) cite, “Do not covet your neighbour’s wife.” If an ancient Israelite desires his neighbour’s wife and she desires him and succeeds in getting her husband to divorce her so that she can marry him, there is no concept of ownership of anybody involved, is there?
Claiming that this is ‘Jewish’ but not scriptural is both anti semitic and anachronistic.
You had better charge the prophets with antisemitism then, because they sharply criticised the ancient Israelites for their neglect of the written laws of Moses and then, after the Northern Tribes had been carried off, criticised the Jews for the same thing. Then lay the same charge against Jesus Christ for his scorching criticisms of the religious leaders of Israel in his day because of their hard-hearted approach to those laws.
Talmud contains some horrible statements about women, of a type notable by their absence from the Old Testament – e.g. The voice of a woman is filthy nakedness (Tractate Kidushin). Some further chauvinistic statements from Talmud (including section reference) can be read in this Jewish online magazine:
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/belief/articles/daf-yomi-147
False analogy, Andrew. Nor is there any suggestion in Old or New Testament that a wife is owned by her husband, or that he is superior to her (in what way?) You can find some of that in Jewish tradition, sadly, but not in the Bible.
Literally, the tenth commandment!
1930 Lambeth Conference
Penelope: The 10th Commandment simply means do not lust after your neighbour’s wife.
I have no problem with marital contraception. Contraception was associated with prostitution since time immemorial, which is obviously why the church condemned it. Once it became reliable and not too unpleasant and respectable married couples started using it in an era when a far larger percentage of babies survived, Canterbury wisely began a rethink. Rome didn’t. One might discuss the theology of barrier methods and non-barrier methods but marital contraception per se is fine by me. Society has yet to come to terms with the availability of the Pill to single women, who were thereby enabled to behave as badly as men have always done. I condemn all non-marital sex.
The contraception argument was yo Jock.
The things you (men) mustn’t lust after or covet are things owned by other men – wives, servants etc.
Your comment above about the recompense for rape/seduction demonstrates that women were property.
Penelope,
You are mistaking women being under the protection of a man – her father then her husband – with ownership. Protection by somebody who cares about you was not a small thing in the Ancient Near East. It was a harsh world.
*You* are making the assertion so you do the work of backing it up – kindly explain to me how you could tell from the Old Testament that women were owned like slaves, rather than being under a man’s protection. I am asking specifically for verses by which you could distinguish the one from the other. Unless you can provide these, there is no reason to prefer your view over mine.
I accept that women were viewed as owned by men in the pagan ancient near east, and that Jewish *tradition* says some similar things. I deplore that situation. My concern is to vindicate the author of the Old Testament, whom I take to be God in the form of the Holy Spirit, as taking a high view of womanhood.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://scholars.wlu.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D1039%26context%3Dconsensus%23:~:text%3DPerhaps%2520one%2520of%2520the%2520most,%253B%2520Deuteronomy%25205%253A21).&ved=2ahUKEwinrI236Mz_AhX2gf0HHZv0Cy0QFnoECBQQBg&usg=AOvVaw247wXm0WCTAITHKYcqWscw
This is an article on women as property in the Hebrew Bible. Slaves, children and women were regarded as property in the Torah, belonging to their masters who were either fathers or husbands (there is no word for husband).
Claiming that this is ‘Jewish’ but not scriptural is both anti semitic and anachronistic.
The Judahite religion of the Torah is not the Judaism of today.
The HB commends all sorts of appalling things such as ethnic cleansing. We have to live with that tension in our scriptures.
Anton
I have given one example: the tenth commandment.
You have given another: recompense paid to a father of his daughter is raped (like recompense if someone damages your car which is your property.
Women, children and slaves were property and continued to be well into the Christian era.
Prophets inveighing against faithless Israelites is not anti semitic. That would be like claiming the Chief Rabbi would be anti semitic if he preached to his community.
You have given another: recompense paid to a father of his daughter is raped (like recompense if someone damages your car which is your property.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/06/us/ikea-dresser-lawsuit-settlement.html
That’s an example of recompense being paid to parents for the death of their child in California. Are you saying that this means California treats children as their parents’ property?
Or is your issue that the damages for rape are paid to the father and not the daughter? Surely that’s just because in that society the father held all the money in trust for his wife and children. Again this doesn’t mean that the wife and children were his property.
Of course in some societies children were regarded as the property of their father; Rome, for example, where children could be disposed of as father wished, even left to die of exposure if he wanted.
Of course there are some in society who want to restore the idea of children being the property of their parents even to the point that parents can kill them if they feel like it. We’ve heard a lot from them over the past week with regards to that woman who received a jail sentence for killing her child.
Penelope,
As you have seen, I posted a reply to your preceding post in this subthread in the wrong place, above. I’ll now update it in light of your reply immediately above.
I am asking you to “explain to me how you could tell from the Old Testament that women were owned like slaves, rather than being under a man’s protection. I am asking specifically for verses by which you could distinguish the one from the other.” In response, you gave a link to a reference by Laura Sauder and state: “This is an article on women as property in the Hebrew Bible. Slaves, children and women were regarded as property in the Torah, belonging to their masters who were either fathers or husbands (there is no word for husband).” You now add: “Women, children and slaves were property and continued to be well into the Christian era.”
Sauder grumbles that the Decalogue is directed at men. Lucky women, then – they can murder any other woman with impunity!
In regard to the specific verse you (and Sauder) cite, “Do not covet your neighbour’s wife”, if an ancient Israelite desires his neighbour’s wife and she desires him and succeeds in getting her husband to divorce her for something so that she can marry him, there is no concept of ownership of anybody involved, yet the 10th Commandment is violated. The ancient papyrus Se’elim 13 even implies that women could initiate divorce proceedings in Israel. Hardly property.
A slave in ancient Israel had rights – killing him or her counted as murder, which was not the case in ancient Rome. Slaves got the Sabbath day off. And exposing of newborn baby girls would count as murder.
I would like this discussion to become both more general and more specific. More specific in the sense that I request your criteria for whether or not something is ‘property’. Otherwise we’ll talk past each other. And more general, in my asking: Do you not agree that the tenor of Tanakh (Old Testament) and Talmud about women are very different? (Please see my post above for quotes from Talmud about women, including a link.) Please give an answer to this question.
I jointly run a prayer group for Israel that often hosts Messianic Jewish speakers, and I frequently affirm that the Jewish people still have a special role in God’s plan for the world and that Isaiah 11:11-12, referring to a second return of the Jews to the Holy Land from all parts of the globe, is speaking of the Zionist era. So it’s rather a novel experience for me to be labelled anti-semitic. Criticism of a people can be made either out of love or out of hate. That is the true criterion for whether a critical comment about ancient Israel is anti-semitic, not whether the criticism comes from a Jew or a gentile. This criterion is obviously difficult to apply, because you have to judge what is in somebody’s heart based on their words and deeds. Can you (and should you) judge what is in my heart?
Anton what you write here simply illustrates how marriage has moved well beyond what was thought of by marriage in various parts of the bible.
You need to distinguish between what was thought of as marriage by some of the people whose actions are recorded in the Bible, and what us thought of as marriage by God, whose Word the Bible is.
Oh wait, you don’t think the Bible is God’s Word, do you? You think it’s just a collection of disparate books written over a period of centuries by various fallible human beings. So to you, the depictions of fallible human marriages in the Bible are all there is, because you don’t see that God is the one ultimately speaking through His Word.
And that’s the heart of the problem. Nothing to do with sexuality; you just have a totally wrong idea of what the Bible is, an idea that is incompatible with being a Christian. And as long as you have that wrong idea you and actual Christians will never be able to agree on anything.
‘There may be a creation ordinance that male and female should join together for the purpose of procreation and mutual flourishing. But that would not preclude other forms of relationships.’
Yet it does. While there may be different forms of cultural marriage ceremonies and covenants, the marriages we read about in the Bible are *always* between a man and woman and never between people of the same sex. I don’t think you can make that inference when it comes to sexual relationships.
When same-sex sexual relationships are mentioned in both the OT & NT it is always in a uniformly negative manner. Most liberal scholars of SSM would admit of that.
If you want to make the case for other forms of relationships that include SSM then you will need to affirm that the Bible is simply wrong on this matter, appeal to wider notions of love and justice, and that in our day and age, we know better than the ancients did.
That is a more honest approach from a liberal point of view.
If we want to talk about dishonest approaches, the “conservative” discourse on this topic really takes the biscuit. It’s remarkable to what extent people go to quite some lengths to avoid saying what they think gay people should do. They’re incredibly keen on saying we can’t marry each other, but after that it all gets a bid murky. Are we to marry people of the opposite sex (because sexuality isn’t real or maybe just doesn’t matter)? Or can we form covenanted friendships which have some of the same commitments as marriage, but there’s no sex (and how do we define what counts as sex)? Are we to live communally, as a form of modern-day monks and nuns, supporting each other in our celibacy? Or are we to live lifelong celibacy, but as a form of quiet martyrdom, hidden, unspoken and unchosen?
Scripture seems to be silent on this precise point. But there are some pointers to consider.
Firstly, Scripture looks to be fairly clear that it doesn’t regard same-sex sex as trivial. There is no Greek or Roman morality code here where having a homosexual affair is fine and doesn’t count as adultery (for a modern example of this ethic go to rural Afghanistan where it is still accepted practice for married men to be able to have sex with boys).
Secondly, Scripture warns repeatedly against seeing a commendation of celibacy as a command to celibacy. Jesus in Matthew 19 rejects the idea that he is telling his followers not to marry, and recalls marriage as laid out in Genesis as a response to sexual desire. St Paul in 1 Corinthians 7 is explicit that he is not commanding people to be celibate even when he says it is best to be celibate. He is clear that it is better to marry than burn with passion, and underscore the importance of married couples recognising that their conjugal relations matter and they gave authority over their bodies to their spouse.
Thirdly, Scripture tells us we need to think about the purpose of the law. Jesus repeatedly does this in his teaching – e.g. pointing our that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. As St Paul points out in Romans 13, love is the fulfilment of the law. When Jesus tells us to love our neighbour, than isn’t a new commandment or an overriding one, it’s the lens through which to see and understand the law and its purpose. Love is the fulfilment of the law, because love does no harm to a neighbour. You do harm to your neighbour, and do not love them, when you steal from them. You do harm to your neighbour, and do not love them, when you betray them with adultery. Is it harm or is it love to enforce celibacy rather than allow a same-sex couple to marry who wish to?
Is it harm or is it love to enforce celibacy rather than allow a same-sex couple to marry who wish to?
But the whole point is the conservatives doesn’t think it’s possible for two people of the same sex to marry. To say it’s about ‘allowing’ is to totally misunderstand the whole point. To a conservative talking about whether to allow same-sex marriages is like talking about whether to allow people to levitate or digest rocks. It’s not that it’s not allowed, it’s that it’s not possible.
Quite. Would you say it is an example of a category error S?
Would you say it is an example of a category error
I try to avoid clichés.
S
How can you say it’s impossible for gay couples to marry when so many have been happily married for a long time now? And seem to have a lower divorce rate than straight couples?
Why not look at the words of some same-sex attracted evangelicals on the subject, such as Rev’d Vaughan Roberts or Rev’d Sam Allberry? It is a privilege to acknowledge these men as full brothers in Christ. Who you fancy doesn’t matter; it’s what you do about it that matters.
But you’re oddly reticent about saying what we should do.
Unless you’re suggesting that gay men are, by definition, called to the priesthood – is that it? Are we all to follow Vaughan and Sam’s examples? What about the lesbians?
The Church of England before its bishops went invertebrate was not reticent at all: it stated that one should not sin, that the Bible categorises sexual activity between males as sin, and that people should be treated with courtesy. Any evangelical will tell you the same. I chose to direct you to references by two people who know far more about it than me. They can add a great deal of personal experience of how it works out. They are being sanctified. Can that be said of persons who sin?
You complain repeatedly about the lack of pastoral advice from the evangelicals. Reticence is hardly surprising in a public forum in the era of so-called hate speech laws, is it? Do you think that having sex is a human right?
Your pastoral advice would be so hateful it might be a criminal offence? Really?
I attach the same importance to sex (and corresponding caution about celibacy) as does Jesus and St Paul. Do you disagree with them?
I attach the same importance to sex (and corresponding caution about celibacy) as does Jesus and St Paul.
You don’t. Because your argument that people should be allowed to have sex if they want logically implies that it would be okay for a woman who couldn’t find a man to marry to use a prostitute in order to fulfil her sexual urges. St Paul would clearly have regarded this as wrong. So you and St Paul are most definitely not on the same page, sex-wise.
Dear AJ Bell: I have their best interests at heart. I want them to be justified and sanctified. Will that happen if they do what the Bible calls sin?
What is your view, please? Are you a believer in Jesus Christ? Do you consider the scriptures authoritative?
Re the perceived Greek/Roman morality code that homosexual relationships were fine (in fact, largely a myth), see
(1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbOKIsMuNWU
(2) Juvenal satire 2 (Roman poet early 2nd century AD) – homosexuality is presented as an aberration and men marrying men described with scorn.
Juvenal satire 2 (Roman poet early 2nd century AD) – homosexuality is presented as an aberration and men marrying men described with scorn.
Which proves that it was known to occur.
Jesus never said a word against homosexuality. Jesus did say words against divorce except in the case of adultery by the other spouse. Yet the Church of England has remarried divorcees for use without barely a murmur and has merely voted to bless, not even marry, homosexual couples
But isnt it obvious why he didnt explicitly mention same-sex sex? No Jew would have queried it with him because there was no debate.
T1
Jesus never said anything about crack cocaine, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera..
T1 why do you keep repeating false claims, then ignoring the evidence when I point that out?
Jesus rejected Hillel-style ‘any reason’ divorce, and sided with Shammai that there needed to be a serious cause, such as infidelity. That is exactly the basis on which the C of E now operates.
He deliberately went back to the creation principle—that marriage is between one man and one woman. That has a bearing on same-sex relationships.
Yes, so as I said Jesus rejected divorce except for spousal adultery. Yet the Church of England has married divorcees for years even when no spousal adultery against the teachings of Christ.
Yet you have no problem with that, only blessings NOT even marriages in church of homosexual couples despite Christ never teaching a word against homosexual unions
Yet the Church of England has married divorcees for years even when no spousal adultery against the teachings of Christ.
So your argument is that two wrongs make a right?
So, Matthew trumps Mark and Luke?
Could you be reading texts selectively?
The archbishop’s comments as reported here reminded me of an article by David Gitari that I read in Transformations 1/1 from 1984 (available at https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/epdf/10.1177/026537888400100102). Gitari is addressing the issue of polygamy in Kenyan society and the church’s response to those in polygamous marriages who join a congregation. In my memory it was a thoughtful and carefully balanced article, and in it Gitari discusses the appropriateness of the church recognising a marriage made in accordance with tribal customs even if that does not conform to Church teaching, all the while while recognising the Scriptural injunctions for marriage as being normative.
I realise that Gitari’s article is discussing a different situation, but I wonder if there is scope for moving beyond the–to my mind–scaremongering tactic of declaring “This would mean for example that the Church would be willing to endorse: Forced marriages; Polyamorous marriages; Marriages between adults and children; Marriages between humans and sex robots” in favour of a more nuanced discussion.
While I am a traditionalist in terms of sexual ethics, I would be hesitant about insisting on the sundering of a relationship (especially if there were children involved) that was committed and stable even if it lay outside the “one man and one woman” norms to which I think Christians should conform.
Timing it seems is everything.
I’d take the breathless demands that the Archbishop of Canterbury needs to “urgently” clarify his remarks more seriously if I hadn’t seen CEEC’s somewhat belated response to the goings on in Uganda. It seems that when it comes to criminalising same-sex relations and executing people for it, a rigorous stand against cultural relativism goes out the window.
CEEC say they oppose the criminalisation of consensual homosexual behaviour. But they have no words of criticism for the Church of Uganda and Archbishop Kaziimba taking the opposite view. Instead CEEC commit to further reflection on these matters, and engaging privately so that we will learn from each other in our diverse cultures.
That I suppose is one step better than GAFCON whose response was to have not one word of disagreement with the views expressed by Archbishop Kaziimba, and instead to decry any criticism of an African bishop as a form of neo-colonialism.
In which case let the African Anglican churches go their own way, if only endorsing criminalisation of homosexuality will keep them in the Anglican communion what is the point? The Anglican communion was only founded in the 19th century after all, over 300 years after the Church of England was founded in the 16th century. It will only work as a very loose alliance of Catholic but Reformed churches which use some form of BCP or BCP based worship. It will not work if all Anglican nations try to rigidly follow the same doctrine like the Roman Catholic church.
In any case Synond in England did not even vote to perform homosexual marriages (like divorcees can now get married in Church of England churches) or bless homosexual marriages but just to bless homosexual couples married in English civil law.
In any case Synond in England did not even vote to perform homosexual marriages (like divorcees can now get married in Church of England churches) or bless homosexual marriages but just to bless homosexual couples married in English civil law.
That’s not at all what Synod voted for. The resolution passed by Synod doesn’t even mention homosexual couples married in English civil law. Have you even read the resolution?
In practical terms the vast majority of those homosexual couples who will be blessed in Church of England churches from July after the Synod vote will be Christian homosexual couples already married in English civil law in English registry offices
In practical terms the vast majority of those homosexual couples who will be blessed in Church of England churches from July after the Synod vote will be Christian homosexual couples already married in English civil law in English registry offices
Look at those goalposts move.
Simon there will be no July Synod vote, and it is not clear there will even be proposals brought in November. The groups appear to have made zero progress, because their task of squaring the circle is not actually possible.
Synod voted 250 to 181 in February to bless homosexual couples. The vote has already been passed. July is just final confirmation for the prayers. I know in my diocese churches, especially liberal Catholic ones, are already taking bookings and preparing to bless homosexual Christian couples in services from the end of July and will do so
Synod voted 250 to 181 in February to bless homosexual couples.
No it didn’t. Read the text of the resolution that was passed.
I know in my diocese churches, especially liberal Catholic ones, are already taking bookings and preparing to bless homosexual Christian couples in services from the end of July and will do so
I thought you said they had already been doing so illegally.
“their task of squaring the circle is not actually possible…”
That’s precisely why we need a ‘unity in diversity’ outcome, so that those priests who believe in blessing (and later, marrying) gay couples can do so, and those priests who don’t want to don’t have to.
What could be more reasonable than that?
After all, that’s the set up in Scotland.
Yes it did ie by a 58% to 42% vote Synod voted to bless homosexual couples.
Nonetheless a compromise was given to you evangelicals to ensure holy matrimony was reserved only to heterosexual couples and also that your evangelical churches would not be forced to conduct homosexual blessings.
If you reject even that compromise and still claim homosexual couple blessings are illegal, then be assured Liberal Catholics are prepared to take full control of the Church of England. The Synod vote showed 58% of Synod are Liberal Catholics (with a small minority of liberal evangelicals) and 62% are hardline evangelicals. So Liberal Catholics have the votes to take control of the C of E and its assets if needed and drive through homosexual blessings in C of E churches whatever the evangelical opposition
Yes it did ie by a 58% to 42% vote Synod voted to bless homosexual couples.
Nonetheless a compromise was given to you evangelicals to ensure holy matrimony was reserved only to heterosexual couples and also that your evangelical churches would not be forced to conduct homosexual blessings.
If you reject even that compromise and still claim homosexual couple blessings are illegal, then be assured Liberal Catholics are prepared to take full control of the Church of England. The Synod vote showed 58% of Synod are Liberal Catholics (with a small minority of liberal evangelicals) and 42% are hardline evangelicals. So Liberal Catholics have the votes to take control of the C of E and its assets if needed and drive through homosexual blessings in C of E churches whatever the evangelical opposition
That’s precisely why we need a ‘unity in diversity’ outcome, so that those priests who believe in blessing (and later, marrying) gay couples can do so, and those priests who don’t want to don’t have to.
This is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the conservative position. It only works if you think conservatives are against blessing same-sex sexual unions because they find the idea icky and therefore don’t want to be involved in it rather than that they are desperately trying to save the Church of England from making a very grave error.
What could be more reasonable than that?
What would be more reasonable is to stop trying to pretend that you can have both people who think the Bible is the Word of God and people who think the Bible is the writing of a bunch of fallible human beings who quite often got things wrong, in the same church. You can’t.
Ian I have been part of this group process. So have my wife. You have not ‘Zero progress’ is a completely misleading summary. You are not reliably informed. No one is trying to square a circle. Has it been formidably hard work. Exhausting! Has there been significant meeting and productive discussion across differences? Yes there has. Is it offering a way forward for synod and beyond. Yes it is.
Yes it did ie by a 58% to 42% vote Synod voted to bless homosexual couples.
No, it didn’t. It voted for the Bishops to revise the Prayers for Love and Faith such that they do not depart from the doctrine of the Church of England.
It was a classic wrecking amendment.
If you reject even that compromise and still claim homosexual couple blessings are illegal, then be assured Liberal Catholics are prepared to take full control of the Church of England.
Go on then.
The Synod vote showed 58% of Synod are Liberal Catholics (with a small minority of liberal evangelicals) and 42% are hardline evangelicals. So Liberal Catholics have the votes to take control of the C of E and its assets if needed and drive through homosexual blessings in C of E churches whatever the evangelical opposition
I thought that a two-thirds majority was required to change doctrine. So 58% is not enough votes to ‘drive through’ any change in doctrine.
Plus you don’t know how many of those 58% only voted for the motion because the wrecking amendment got it, and would have voted against without that. So the true number prepared to vote to change doctrine could be even farther from 67%. It might be around 51-52%.
Yes it did. It voted for blessings of homosexual couples to be integrated in Prayers the Bishops will approve next month.
58% did not ‘change doctrine’, as already mentioned holy matrimony was reserved for heterosexual couples in lifelong unions.
Be assured if evangelicals try and block even these compromise blessings of homosexual couples there will be full on civil war in the Church of England and liberal Catholics will not take it lying down but drive through the Synod vote result no matter what
Yes it did. It voted for blessings of homosexual couples to be integrated in Prayers the Bishops will approve next month.
Only if a way can be found for the prayers to not imply any change in Church of England doctrine. Which includes the doctrine that any sexual activity, no matter the sexes of the participants, outside marriage is sinful. So if the prayers imply that, then they can’t be approved
58% did not ‘change doctrine’, as already mentioned holy matrimony was reserved for heterosexual couples in lifelong unions.
The distinction between ‘marriage’ and ‘holy matrimony’ is obviously bogus, and won’t survive any legal challenge.
Be assured if evangelicals try and block even these compromise blessings of homosexual couples there will be full on civil war in the Church of England and liberal Catholics will not take it lying down but drive through the Synod vote result no matter what
Bring it on.
(Indeed even if it were not bogus the distinction between ‘civil marriage’ and ‘holy matrimony’ would itself be a change in Church of England doctrine, which has hitherto maintained that they are one and the same (in contrast to Roman doctrine, which is why someone who has a civil marriage which is dissolved can re-marry in a Roman church). So if that distinction is accepted then it means the prayers ipso facto violate the requirement that they not indicate a change in doctrine.)
‘The distinction between ‘marriage’ and ‘holy matrimony’ is obviously bogus, and won’t survive any legal challenge.’
Of course it will, the Church of England Synod has approved the changes as has the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishops with the support of the King and they govern the Church of England not evangelicals alone.
‘Indeed even if it were not bogus the distinction between ‘civil marriage’ and ‘holy matrimony’ would itself be a change in Church of England doctrine, which has hitherto maintained that they are one and the same’
No it wouldn’t, even the King married his second wife Camilla in a civil marriage at Windsor Guildhall and then had a blessing in St George’s Chapel Windsor by the Archbishop of Canterbury. No different to the blessings that will be performed for homosexual couples in Church of England churches after their civil marriages in registry offices
Of course it will,
No it won’t. And your baseless assertion doesn’t change that.
No it wouldn’t, even the King married his second wife Camilla in a civil marriage at Windsor Guildhall and then had a blessing in St George’s Chapel Windsor by the Archbishop of Canterbury. No different to the blessings that will be performed for homosexual couples in Church of England churches after their civil marriages in registry offices
That’s exactly the point. The blessing of the wedding of the then Prince recognised that the Prince and Princess had entered into holy matrimony. If there is no difference between that and the blessing of a same-sex couple in a civil marriage then logically that must also be recognising that the same-sex couple has entered into a state of holy matrimony.
But saying that same-sex couples cam enter the state of holy matrimony would be a change to Church of England doctrine. Therefore it would be contrary to the amended resolution passed by Synod. So it can’t happen.
To get around this the Bishops are trying to claim that the Prayers for Love and Faith are doing something very different to the service of blessing for the Prince’s marriage. But as you have just pointed out, in fact they would be ‘no different’.
Which means you yourself have pointed out that they would be contrary to the resolution and therefore can’t happen.
Thank you.
No it didn’t. They were 2 adulterers with each other who had divorced their previous partners against the teachings of Christ. Hence their civil marriage was NOT holy matrimony and never could be. Hence too the Queen did not attend their civil marriage but only the blessing. The same sex couple are equally not entering into holy matrimony when they are blessed, that remains reserved for heterosexual couples in lifelong unions.
Hence their civil marriage was NOT holy matrimony and never could be.
That is not Church of England doctrine.
T1 :
What’s the Bible got to do with it ?
What’s the Bible got to do with it ?
T1 doesn’t think God has anything to do with the Church of England (https://www.psephizo.com/sexuality-2/the-prayers-of-love-and-faith-and-the-call-to-a-holy-life/#comment-425389 et seq) so I don’t think the Bible figures at all either.
AJ, then you are completely mistaken, and fail to be able to read.
CEEC and members of it have been speaking against criminalisation since at least 2006.
How very big of them.
I literally said CEEC oppose criminalisation.
But it is striking that despite that stance they will not criticise Archbishop Kaziimba or the Church of Uganda for taking a sharply opposing stance calling for the execution of gay people. Does CEEC think this something on which we can disagree well (unlike same sex marriage)? CEEC’s response to the Church of Uganda is to reflect, engage privately, and seek to learn from each other in our diverse cultures is it not? Or is there some other statement about the Church of Uganda that I have missed?
I think both the CEEC response and the GAFCON response are very poor. Thank you AJBell for your comments on them.
I don’t think Welby’s was much better.
TEC decides to marry same-sex couples = SANCTIONS
Ugandan church supports criminalisation of homosexuality = long silence, followed by reflection and wringing of hands.
Clearly it’s better to burn than to marry.
There’s no culture of valuing life in the anglican communion. Any response to decades of sexual abuse or advocating for state sanctioned murder has to be pulled out like hens teeth, yet condemning gay people for marrying and/or raising children is easy
I keep asking, is Christian marriage a social category or is it a definition? ‘We’ keep muddling these up with each other.
Christian marriage is a social construct.
Christian marriage is a social construct.
God’s creation intent is not, though.
Martin Davie’s article is not refuted by filibustering revisionist re-iterative tropes and some preposterous flinging around accusations of blackmail, by yhose who have no idea of what it is and isn’t.
Either. Welby knew what he was saying, after all it’s not as if the subject is new, hadn’t thought it through, or it was porly reported.
Sadly, he commes across as someone who’s voice carries little to no authority on any matter of social, moral, ethical, policitical or spiritual import.
And jt is not necessarily down to him. Or is his role determined by the culture he is in. Does he speak truth to power, at all or only selectively. Is his voice an echo of culture, constrained by it? And conformed to it?
What exactly is Church? Christian Church? And what is it for? Why Church?
‘The Church of England has appointed its first transgender Archdeacon in a move hailed by LGBT+ campaigners as “a beacon of light and hope”.
Revd Canon Dr Rachel Mann has been appointed Archdeacon of Bolton and Salford, and is now believed to be the most senior trans member of the clergy within the Church.’
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/16/church-england-transgender-archdeacon-appointed-rachel-mann/
Is that on point? Does it answer the question posed?
Is it the Good News Evangel the Church is to proclaim?
Not that you been able to give one iota of confirmation that you know, understand, what it is, let alone believe.
I wonder how this approach reads to people here? Bishop Peter Carrell is Bishop of Christchurch, NZ. Since 2018 his province has allowed the blessing of ss couples. He fully supports those of his clergy who choose to bless, while not able to do so himself. Challenged to explain his position he writes:
“As Bishop of Christchurch I have committed myself, to permit a priest or bishop blessing a same-sex civil marriage or civil union. I have also committed myself to not conduct such blessings myself because I do not read Holy Scripture as supporting such blessings. Clearly, logically, I accept the possibility of a different reading of Scripture existing within and being applied in the life of the church (without fear of discipline, as ensured by the decisions of our General Synod in 2018). In response to a question why, given my own view, as bishop I nevertheless permit another view within my Diocese, I said something like this: I lack conviction that I am completely right and those who wish to conduct blessings are completely wrong. That is, I am comfortable having space for different views on this matter in our church. My sense of comfort is enhanced by my concern that to exclude the possibility of different views, and to shut down the possibility of blessing same-sex civil marriages and civil unions is to make our church an unbearable place for gay and lesbian members.”
It is this kind of wise, gracious and principled approach I pray for, and long to find, in the Church of England at this time. From all sides.
(from his blogsite http://hermdownunder.blogspot.com/2019/06/clarity-or-not.html
He fully supports those of his clergy who choose to bless, while not able to do so himself.
Does he also support those who do not recognise such unions as valid marriages? If not then his ‘support’ is quite one-sided, isn’t it?
Peter Carrell’s way forward in NZ would seem to be the only sensible way forward in the UK. Whether individuals are watertight certain that their own view is right, on either side, or not 100% certain…
…the reality is that Church of England members are divided roughly down the middle on whether intimate gay sexuality is alright with God or not…
That’s the ‘de facto’ reality and there’s not much anyone can do about that. So really the only way to ‘square’ Ian’s circle is to accommodate both views – showing respect for conscience, not ‘bulldozer’ domination of one group’s conscience by the other group’s.
Then, if any individuals feel so strongly that they still want to impose their view on the other half of the Church, and are unwilling to ‘live and let live’, seek grace to keep loving each other, and work together on all the other pastoral needs all parishes face (where sex is not the only concern people have)…
…those unwilling to abide with the Church of England in accommodating diverse views with grace… obviously have the option of leaving to find a new building, new organisation, new set up where their ‘first order’ issue can be upheld with purity. That would apply to both those who affirm gay sexuality and those who oppose it.
This is the way that reflects the reality of the divided church. Many in the Church of England would see this as reasonable, tolerant, grown up, conciliatory, and respectful of diverse conscientious views on gay sex.
No priest/minister would be obliged to go against his/her conscience. But equally no priests/ministers would be allowed to dominate other people’s consciences on the issue.
I think that’s pretty close to the Peter Carrell model. It’s also pretty close to the Scottish model.
In addition, I believe most people (the large moderate majority of people who engage in their parish life) would prefer a ‘via media’ option like this, because for them parish life is about much more than sex, and they would prefer to accommodate diverse views than carve the Church down the middle. They just want to get on with parish life.
In terms of ‘damage limitation’ it may be necessary for a smallish number, who absolutely won’t tolerate the opposing view on sex, and insist on their view dominating, to make the free choice to leave. That also applies to absolutists who demand a ban on preaching against gay sex.
But for everyone else, parish life in the Church of England would carry on, and I think that’s the ‘de facto’ reality of what most people in the pews would want, and the realpolitik of how it’s likely to pan out.
Accommodation of people with different views, as long as they don’t want to dominate other people… respect for conscience… and above all grace in co-existence, because we are taught to love each other, and this country has pitiful needs which need meeting with local, pastoral care in the parishes. They are too urgent and pressing for this attritional divide on sex to drag on much longer.
No priest/minister would be obliged to go against his/her conscience.
You still haven’t explained how this could possibly work. Say a minister does not think that same-sex unions can be valid marriages. A same-sex couple who have been married by a different minister who believes differently turns up to the first minister’s church.
Is the first minister obliged to treat the same-sex couple as if they were validly married? If so then she is being obliged to go against her conscience. But if not then you’ve created two classes of marriage, one of which is universally recognised and one of which is only recognised in some churches, and I don’t see how that’s sustainable.
I have asked you before how this could possibly work and you never provided an answer, so can you now?
“Is the first minister obliged to treat the same-sex couple as if they were validly married?”
What do you mean by “treat”?
Of course the couple are married. That would just be a legal fact.
What is you hypothetical priest going to do? Deny them communion?
How about – just treat them nice?
What do you mean by “treat”?
Well, say there’s a regular Bible study for married couples only where issues of relevance to married couples are discussed, and they say they want to come. Can the minister say, ‘No, you can’t, because I don’t regard you as a proper married couple’?
If the minister can’t say that, then her conscience isn’t being respected.
But if she can then you have, as I say, created two classes of marriage.
I can’t see how you can resolve this. Either you say all ministers (and, indeed, all members) have to regard ‘married’ same-sex couples as validly married, in which case you aren’t respecting their consciences, or you don’t, and you have two classes of marriage.
Or what about, can the minister explain her view that marriage is only between a man and a woman during a sermon? Again if she can’t her conscience isn’t being respected, but if she can the couple might feel like they were being got at.
Because ‘respecting conscience’ doesn’t stop and start at just the one single act of standing at the front when a same-sex couple is being ‘married’. If you’re going to respect someone’s conscience you gave to respect it all the way along.
Or, obviously a member of a cohabiting unmarried opposite-sex couple would not be allowed to be a youth group leader in any church as it would set a bad example for the members of the youth group.
What if one if the ‘married’ same-sex couple wanted to be a youth group leader?
From the minister’s point of view, as their ‘marriage’ is not valid, they should be treated the same as the member of the unmarried opposite-sex couple, right? So to respect her conscience she should be able to bar them from being a youth-group leader on those grounds.
But again if this is allowed, it creates two classes of marriage.
So which is it? Is the minister’s conscience to be respected in this case, or not?
S,
Marriage is marriage. The recent accentuation of a difference between secular marriage and ‘holy matrimony’ is spurious nonsense. It’s a political juggling trick. I trust you are intelligent enough to agree with me on that. So if a couple are married, they are married.
A marriage is valid in the UK if the UK law says it’s valid. The minister can disagree with the principle of some people marrying others, but he/she doesn’t get a say in that fact. It’s just a fact.
The ‘right of conscience’… and freedom of speech… should extend to what they believe, and what they say they believe. However, it should not extend to preventing other people from affirming the same couple combination in the Church of England.
That principle – of not being able to dominate other people’s consciences – is the pivotal principle that trumps how individuals feel or believe about something.
The domination of conscience has to end.
Now of course there are all kinds of other issues where consciences comes into play. But if the Church of England decides to ‘allow’ both contrasting positions on gay marriage, then the ONE thing a priest can’t do is prevent another priest from following their own conscience on the issue. The principle, once established, *allows* priests/ministers to bless gay couples if that’s what they believe in. Other groups in the organisation don’t get to stop them.
As to whether a priest can express opposition to gay sex from the pulpit, I would say absolutely ‘yes’. Can they stop a gay couple from marrying in their parish church. No. The Church of England would be allowing them to do so, as a right of living in the parish, but they might have to be married by another priest/minister. That would – whether the conservative priest likes it or not – be a legal marriage and a Church-sanctioned/blessed marriage. Thus it might well be problematic for such a couple to be excluded from a group based on married couples. I’d say at that point: tough. But being realistic, why would a gay couple even want to, if they felt they were disrespected?
So the multiplicity of issues you reasonably raise should be seen as supplementary scenarios to be worked out if they arise. The key issue which all ministers should be required to accept is that the Church will allow those who wish, to bless (later marry) gay couples. And if that is unacceptable kind of allowance and accommodation… then there is a door marked ‘Exit’.
That is the future I propose.
Freedom of conscience when it comes to blessing and marriage of gay couples. That should be the make or break issue, and everything else has to be decided (ultimately) by the bishops.
If a priest or minister is unwilling to obey their bishop and the decisions of the Church as a whole, then in their own good conscience they might have to leave the Church of England.
But really, they are being allowed to believe what they want, they aren’t being forced to marry someone against their will. That then addresses the accommodation of some in the Church to affirm, bless, or ultimately marry gay couples.
That should be the fundamental deal. I think the majority in the Church of England will ultimately ‘buy’ into that. For a probably quite small number of people who say “Then we’ll leave the CofE” because there’s too much we find difficult…
then I’d say: fair play, adios, farewell…
…because there’s a lot that LGBT people find difficult too.
Fact: their marriages are a legal reality.
Fact: if allowed to be married in the CofE those marriages would also be a legal reality.
Fact: marriage is marriage, whether civil or religious.
Fact: no-one in this outcome I propose would be forced to marry anyone.
That’s pretty much the best workable offer apart from schism and departure.
Most people really don’t want to abandon ship. They value their parish life, and are not so obsessed about the sexuality issue that they would want to leave and start afresh somewhere else. Some people would. They might have to, because they are obliged to operate within the authority of the bishops and what the Church of England finally decides.
I get the feeling some conservative priests/ministers are unwilling to submit to authority, if accommodation of plural consciences on the specific issue of gay blessings (and later, marriage) does happen in the end. The process is not there yet. But based on the tone of what some priests/ministers write – they might decide to leave the Church of England. Or be suspended, if they refused to accept the authority of the bishops and the Church of England’s decisions.
We need to frame the conscience issue around the right of a minister to bless (later marry) gay couples or not to. Why? Because the Church of England has to resolve this issue. Reality… and realpolitik will kick in… and it may happen over several years… but the direction of travel is towards ‘allowing’ plural consciences.
However much people at the fringes insist that only their view on gay sexuality MUST prevail. That completely ignores the de facto reality that the Church of England is divided roughly down the middle, so to insist on only one view is to dominate the consciences of those who hold the opposite view.
Accept respect for conscience on this issue of gay marriage itself… or leave.
But really, they are being allowed to believe what they want, they aren’t being forced to marry someone against their will.
But they are being forced to treat someone as married against their conscience. So your ‘freedom of conscience’ is really nothing of the kind. It’s ‘you must accept that same-sex marriages are valid or get out of the Church of England’.
Thank you for being honest, but don’t be surprised if people aren’t as grateful as you seem to think they should be for such a non-starter of an offer.
to insist on only one view is to dominate the consciences of those who hold the opposite view.
Which is exactly what you’re doing: insisting that only one view (that same-sex marriages are valid) is permissible in the Church of England and that anyone (clergy or non-clergy) not prepared to go along with that must leave.
I think you will find resistance to your attempt to dominate people’s consciences.
(It’s really quite bizarre that you still haven’t got it through your head that the issue is not whether particular ministers have to officiate at same-sex marriages. The issue is whether the Church of England continues to be a Christian denomination, which means holding to the Bible as the Word of God, or abandons that. You have stated that your view is that the Bible is wrong on this issue. For the Church of England to accept that the Bible can be wrong on such an issue as an acceptable view would be for it to to cease being a part of the Christian Church. That is the issue at stake. It’s got absolutely nothing to do with who officiates at same-sex ‘weddings’.)
S,
These debates go on and on. Thanks for engaging. I happen to agree that the Bible does not seem to endorse gay sexual relationships. However, I think that’s because the religious communities within which the texts were written were culturally hostile to the idea of sex between men, not because they had authority or insights to define it as wrong for all societies for all time.
You are right to identify that the lead debate the Church faces is the nature of the biblical texts and how they should be read, interpreted, and understood… rather than the gay sex issue per se.
However, the gay sex debate is likely to get resolved in pragmatic terms, because of the pastoral urgency of resolving it.
We shall see what unfolds.
It’s nearly one on Sunday morning and I will treat Sunday as a day of rest (when I wake up!). From Monday to Friday I am trying to avoid religious forums because they distract from a huge writing project I am involved in. That leaves Saturday. Might look in again then.
Sleep well.
PS: Did Ian accidentally ‘out’ your name on this page? I always suspected you were female. I will continue to address you as ‘S’.
S
I know that one of the frustrations of gay people in the CofE is that often, actually in *most* circumstances, unmarried hetersexual cohabiters are treated with near equality to married couples and treated better even than single gay people.
I may have said this before, but I really do think that if the CofE could treat gay people as well as remarried divorcees or even unmarried cohabiters then there would be a lot less friction and difficulty on these issues
David, Peter Carrell appears to accept that ACNZ no longer has a doctrine of marriage, or, if it does, that clergy no longer have to uphold it.
That could not work in the C of E without either changing our doctrine (which we have decided not to do) or changing the ordinal, which to my knowledge no-one has proposed.
The Church of England was founded so Henry VIII could divorce Catherine of Aragon and marry Anne Boleyn after the Pope and Roman Catholic church refused. The idea the Church of England has always had a rigid approach to marriage is laughable. It now not only blesses but marries divorced couples and has correctly now decided to bless homosexual couples married in English civil law too
The idea the Church of England has always had a rigid approach to marriage is laughable
So what’s https://www.churchofengland.org/about/leadership-and-governance/legal-services/canons-church-england/section-b#b44 then?
No-one is claiming the Church has a ‘rigid’ view of marriage. But it has consistently believed marriage is between one man and one woman. This doctrine was reaffirmed at Synod.
His conviction and his resulting practice would appear to be basedon his lack of conviction, his equivocation, his uncertainity that scripture is not clear
And at the same time ignores the question of sin, condoning, and holiness.
And it, his stance, is no different from that exemplified by ABoC, who wouldn’t, and ABoY who would.
“Double minded” whether being found in one person or two is still being “double minded”.
His conviction and his resulting practice would appear to be basedon his lack of conviction, his equivocation, his uncertainity that scripture is not clear
We really need to know exactly what it is he thinks he might be wrong about.
Basically there are two arguments the pro-same-sex marriage side can make: either the Bible is not clear, or the Bible is clear but it’s wrong. There are nuances but it all boils down to those two.
If he isn’t convinced that the Bible is right then he is obviously not suitable to be a member of the clergy at any level let alone Archbishop and he must resign forthwith.
If he thinks the Bible is not clear, then he needs to specify exactly what argument to that effect that he thinks might be convincing, and let people judge whether it is reasonable for him to be so unconvinced.
You do love a straw man.
You do love a straw man.
A straw man is when someone refutes a weakened version of their opponent’s argument, rather than the argument that their opponent actually advances.
If you think that is what I have done you must specify exactly what weakened version of the argument I have refuted and how it differs from the actual argument.
Try to do that and you will find that I have not, in fact, advanced any straw man arguments at all.
Must? Sorry to pop your ego, but this isn’t your blog and you’re not in charge.
Must?
Yes, that’s how argument, as opposed to baseless assertion, works.
S
You can certainly support same sex marriage believing the Bible is unclear or wrong, but you can also believe the Bible is irrelevant (which is what most atheists would say) and you can believe the Bible *is* clear that gay people should be allowed to marry (biblical endorsement of pseudo same sex relationships, love your neighbor as yourself, prohibitions on banning people from marriage, parable of the talents etc) a huge part of scriptural interpretation on issues that are not dealt with directly is deciding which verses apply and which verses are most important.
Sorry but it is a strawman for you to define your oppositions viewpoints within a few limited options, when other options exist
You can certainly support same sex marriage believing the Bible is unclear or wrong, but you can also believe the Bible is irrelevant (which is what most atheists would say)
But no Christian would and we’re only talking about Christians here.
and you can believe the Bible *is* clear that gay people should be allowed to marry (biblical endorsement of pseudo same sex relationships, love your neighbor as yourself, prohibitions on banning people from marriage, parable of the talents etc)
Given that this involves setting some bits of the Bible against other bits that on the face of it say the exact opposite, this amounts to saying that the Bible is not clear.
a huge part of scriptural interpretation on issues that are not dealt with directly is deciding which verses apply and which verses are most important.
But this issue is dealt with directly.
Sorry but it is a strawman for you to define your oppositions viewpoints within a few limited options, when other options exist
But it is not a straw man to accurately categorise your opponents’ arguments, which is what I did.
I disagree that, say, reading all of scripture through the lens of “love your neighbor as yourself” or considering the consistency of required singleness for gays with all of the Canon is saying the Bible is unclear
1. This is the method of theology that Jesus taught we should use.
2. It seems backward to me to say that considering all of scripture on an issue instead of a few isolated verses is saying the Bible is unclear. Surely its the people who are refusing to consider the whole Canon who are less confident in biblical support for their theology?
S
It’s ridiculous to claim that the issue of same sex marriage is dealt with in scripture. Firstly there’s not really that much about marriage at all, secondly it’s as anachronistic as to say the Bible deals directly with autism and, most importantly, if scripture did deal directly with same sex marriage then priests and theologians would be able to point to where it deals with it and be able to explain the reason for teaching on it.
if scripture did deal directly with same sex marriage then priests and theologians would be able to point to where it deals with it
They can: Matthew 19:4-6.
and be able to explain the reason for teaching on it.
They can: the reason is that God created the human race divided into two sexes, in His image (as recorded in the bit of Genesis that Jesus refers to). So when those two sexes come together as one flesh, that completes the divine image. Two members of the same sex coming together does not complete the divine image in that way. That’s why only a male and a female can become one flesh, ie, can marry.
Matthew 19 is a warning against divorce and against embracing a command of celibacy. That’s literally what Jesus is asked about.
The idea that single people are incomplete images of God has no basis in Scripture. Was St Paul incomplete? Was Jesus somehow not quite fully human as envisaged by God? What nonsense.
Matthew 19 is a warning against divorce and against embracing a command of celibacy. That’s literally what Jesus is asked about.
Yes. He is asked about divorce and in order to answer he goes back to the first principles of why marriage exists. What He’s saying is, if you have a question about marriage, the way to answer it is by going back to the first principles of why marriage exists.
So if we want to answer the question ‘can two people of the same sex form a marriage?’ we have to do the same thing as Jesus did when asked ‘under what circumstances can a marriage be dissolved’; ie, we have to go back to first principles of why marriage exists and then work forward.
The idea that single people are incomplete images of God has no basis in Scripture.
I never suggested that single people are incomplete images of God. A single person is a complete image of God. A male and a female coming together to make flesh is also a complete image of God, just in a different way. They are two different images of different aspects of God, but both are complete images.
Exactly – what is the purpose of marriage. In Genesis it comes about because God says it is not good for man to be alone. That idea gets picked up again in Ecclesiastes 4 (“Two are better than one… a threefold cord is not quickly broken” etc.). 1 Corinthians 7 is Paul’s discussion of the purpose of marriage, to avoid falling into sinful behaviour (it is better to marry than to burn with passion) and is careful to ensure married couples are not undermining this by enforcing abstinence on each other. Jesus also roots marriage in sexual desire in Matthew 19.
The completing image idea (which is more reminiscent of Plato than anything in the Bible) falls apart if you think single people are already complete images. If two single people are two complete divine images, them coming together doesn’t complete the divine image – it’s already complete.
Exactly – what is the purpose of marriage. In Genesis it comes about because God says it is not good for man to be alone.
No, it doesn’t. It comes about because God said, ‘Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness’ and ‘in our likeness’ includes ‘male and female’. That’s the primary reason for marriage, the one Jesus goes back to. You’re thinking about Genesis 2.
But actually Genesis 2 makes the same point. When the man needs a companion, God doesn’t just make another man. Instead God splits the man into two parts by taking the flesh and bone out of his side; so the suitable (in this sense) companion for a man is not another man but the taken-out-of-man, or ‘woman’. Another man, created afresh, would not be ‘flesh of my flesh, bone of my bone’; but the woman is.
So then the two parts of the man, which had been one, and were parted, come back together to re-unite as one flesh. So again two halves, the two sexes, come together to form one complete whole.
That idea gets picked up again in Ecclesiastes 4 (“Two are better than one… a threefold cord is not quickly broken” etc.).
Well that’s clearly not about marriage then is it, unless you think God is saying that polygamous marriage is better than monogamous marriage because three is stronger than two (and presumably ten would be even stronger).
Jesus also roots marriage in sexual desire in Matthew 19.
No, He doesn’t. He roots marriage in the Genesis 1 point above (Matthew 19:4 ff).
The completing image idea (which is more reminiscent of Plato than anything in the Bible) falls apart if you think single people are already complete images.
Obvious rubbish. There are lots of things which are complete in themselves but which can come together with something else to make a new thing which is also complete. Take a knife, for example. A knife is a useful tool, complete in itself. But put it together with a fork and it becomes part of a set which is also complete, and also useful, in a different way.
Or take the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Each is complete in itself; and also each is part of the Trinity, which is also complete.
S
Matthew 19 doesn’t address same sex marriage.
Your reason ignores biologically provable human diversity. It’s not an explanation for the ban on gay people marrying, it’s a denial that gay people exist. You may as well just bury your head in the sand
Matthew 19 doesn’t address same sex marriage.
Yes it does.
‘ “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?’’
How does that not address same-sex marriage? It says that the reason marriage exists is because at the beginning the creator made them ‘male and female’.
Genuinely don’t see how you can think that doesn’t address same-sex marriage.
Your reason ignores biologically provable human diversity.
No it doesn’t. How does it?
It’s not an explanation for the ban on gay people marrying,
There is no ban on gay people marrying. A gay person can marry someone of the opposite sex; though in most cases that may not be a good idea, there’s no ban on it.
And there’s no ban on two people of the same sex marrying each other because there’s no need to ban something that just isn’t possible. It would be like banning people from levitating.
it’s a denial that gay people exist.
Assuming by ‘gay people’ you mean ‘people sexually attracted exclusively to other members of their own sex’, no it isn’t. Nobody has denied such people exist in a Fallen world.
You may as well just bury your head in the sand
Look, this whole thing was just to address ‘if scripture did deal directly with same sex marriage then priests and theologians would be able to point to where it deals with it and be able to explain the reason for teaching on it’
https://www.psephizo.com/sexuality-2/does-the-church-endorse-marriage-as-defined-by-culture/#comment-427006
I have pointed to where scripture deals with it — given chapter and verse — and explained the reason. You may not agree with the reason, but I have given you the reason. You are now going to ignore everything I have written, yet again.
Which one of has their head in the sand?
I think in practice two simultaneous things have happened
1. The church has repeatedly failed a basic morality test in the many sexual abuse scandals the leadership has consistently been seen to protect perpetrators and demonize survivors. To be taken seriously on issues of sexual morality the church leaders have to be seen as sexually moral.
2. On most other issues, in practice the cofe has followed culture, even in conservative circles. Sometimes the theology stays, but the theory doesn’t match the practice.This then makes teaching against gay sex hard to defend or explain. If your teaching is that sex is only for procreation, but you only apply thar for gay people you won’t be taken seriously.
2.
Peter – so if the church is such a disaster (and I agree with you that it is) – then why on earth do you want it to bless your marriage? Wouldn’t it be better if the church simply didn’t involve itself in marriage? When I got married (to a woman) I didn’t need any church person telling me that it was somehow OK – and we didn’t darken the doors of any church (we got married in a registry). We are Christians – and we both thought that church involvement looked highly suspect.
Jock
I oppose these blessings
I want the church to behave better. I want the church to stop abusing people. I see a very clear link between the failure to provide substantive teaching on LGBT people and the pretty widespread sexual abuse of children and adults by church leaders. Its no coincidence that the leaders who get caught often seem to be those who particularly pushed purity culture.
I want my friends who are CofE priests to have the option of marriage.
I want the Anglican communion to stop persecuting gay people worldwide. In the UK its pretty obvious that the government has not banned conversion therapy because the church wants to continue practicing it.
So when St Paul said, ‘now we know in part … now we see only a reflection as in a mirror … now I know in part … (1Cor 13.9-12) was he being uncertain, double minded, lacking conviction about scripture?
So when St Paul said, ‘now we know in part … now we see only a reflection as in a mirror … now I know in part … (1Cor 13.9-12) was he being uncertain, double minded, lacking conviction about scripture?
Paul clearly didn’t think that knowing in part should stop him making firm judgements on moral matters, because Paul made a lot of firm judgements on moral matters. If you want support for a mealy mouthed ‘well maybe this, maybe that, it’s impossible to know, so let’s let everybody do their own thing’ stance then you can’t get it from the man who wrote the letter to the Romans.
No. It essentially a repetition of the truth expressed in Deut. 29:29.
That passage needs to be read as part of a sustained argument, by Paul, that runs through chapters 12-14. It is not a go-section for biblical unknowing, or biblical revision.
1 Corinthians 12: 1-2 offering bodies as living sacrifices, holy snd pleasing to God – this is your spiritual act of worship.
Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of mind, then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is – his good,pleasing and perfect will.
So the contrast is having a transformed mind which is not conformed to the pattern of the world and being double minded.
And it also contrast a renewed mind with 1 Corinthians 13:11-14
Geoff
This may seem a facetious question, but its serious. Who gets to decide which verses may only be used as part of a sustained argument and who gets to decide when they can be used in isolation? There are heaps of examples, not least on this topic, where verses are used in isolation widely,but doing so at least subtly changes the meaning.
For example Paul’s description in Romans 1is not to condemn those people, but to make sure the early church know they are just as evil as those people and should not consider themselves better than them. Fast forward to the 21st century and Romans 1 is used as justification for vilifying gay people…many of those quoting it having never read Paul’s letter!
Hello Peter,
It’s called reading and understanding scripture in context. Or what used to be known in English exams as comprehension. Quaint, I know.
(Just as it would be reading and understanding law, in context.)
And to be clear it would include the context of the whole of 1 Corinthianssns, including
1 Corinthians 6:9 -13
It is also to be read in the context of sll the pastoral letters including:
1 Thessalonians 4:1-8
And in the context of all of the NT.
And in the context of the whole canon of scripture.
But David Runcorn is Bible teacher and would know all of this.
And presumably he agrees as he’s not seen fit to counter my reponse to him.
I’m abundantly happy to allow the entire Canon of scripture to inform interpretation of scripture, but my point is a huge proportion of anti gay theology involves doing the opposite of that- taking carefully clipped verses in isolation and claiming they speak for themselves.
I think it’s really hard to approach scripture objectively, but I really hope that more Christians will be challenged to do so and try to read it more fairly
Peter,
Daid Runcorn has done that by citing scripture out of context and selectively.
Other revisionists (actually, I’ve not seen it cited, certainly on this site nor on other Christian sites by bible believing followers of Jesus, only by bible revisionist) have cited the same text entirely in isolation out in context to justify change in scripture and ignorance of God and his revealed will. It’s been cited by people who don’t accept what scripture actually is, who who don’t believe the Jesus said what is recorded. Who have no measure outside their own subjective interpretation – for to them it is all a question of their nterpretation, not a one of objective truth revealed by God, his reliable, trustwothy, Word.
It is a strategy employed by some who were trained in Higher/Historical biblical criticism who now drink from the shallows of postmodernism and utilise either to whichever bests suits their purpose. I’d suggest they are modern day vestiges, disciples of the Jesus Seminar now drenched by post- modernism and dried off in the heat of their own post- postmodernism, absolutism.
Did God really say? Now where have we heard that?
Geoff
I’m not David Runcorn.
Apologies, to clarify and correct.
Pauls arguement runs through 1 Corinthians chapters 12 – 14
The verses cited by David R are not go-to verses for biblical unknowing, ignorance or revision.
In fact it is the opposite, as Paul makes clear, yes makes clear, not himself being double minded, in
Romans 12 :1-2 and
Romans 13:11-14.
Continuing to be conformed in the ways, patterns of the world is being double minded….
Which is where we came in with the question in the title of the Article and the article itself.
And with my points, ignored, unaddressed, about sin and holiness.
Carrell’s position is rooted in Paul’s pastoral guidance in Roms 14-15 to the deeply divided church of Rome – Jew and Gentile. It is notable that he does not respond on the basis of right and wrong belief. It may be summarised this. “If other Christians hold views we disagree with, and may even consider totally inappropriate for genuine believers to hold, as long as they have arrived at their position in conscious submission to the rule and teaching of Christ, and hold it with clear conscience, in thankfulness to God, and aware of coming Day when must give account to God, then it is our bounden duty to welcome them in same way Christ has welcomed us – graciously, warmly, unreservedly! For if Christ is that person’s Lord, not me, it is Christ’s responsibility – not ours – to convict that person of what is an obedient response. So Paul counsels loving, but principled, tolerance between disputing parties in church as a way of recognising the supreme Lordship of Christ.” (Christopher Marshall)
Carrell’s position is rooted in Paul’s pastoral guidance in Roms 14-15 to the deeply divided church of Rome – Jew and Gentile.
Advice which Paul right at the start of it says only applies to ‘disputable matters’. So if Carrell wants to rely on that justification he needs, as I wrote above, to state exactly what it is he is not convinced of and why he thinks it is a disputable matter.
For example it is not a disputable matter that the Bible is the Word of God. That’s a foundational matter. So Carrell needs to be clear that he is not saying that that would be a disputable matter in which he would allow different opinions.
Submission to the “rule and teaching of Christ”? How is that known, where is it found, and what does it look like in a life lived ?
Does it include questions of temptation, sin, holiness: reptance; the Lordship of Jesus over and in every aspect of our lives.
Does the rule and teaching of Christ include the whole of scripture?
It could be added that Romans chapters 1 -11 set out the indicatives, facts, doctrines of Christianity.
The following chapters are to be understood and interpreted, applied in the light of those chapters. It is not to be reversed.
Romans 11:33-36
Ends with a Doxology.
Romans 12:1-2
Starts with a “Therefore”…( In the light of all I’ve written in chapters 1 -9)
And this includes a reminder and reinforcement, if one is needed, a closure of a bracket that opened at the start of chapter 1, of chapter 1 of God’s. wrath and giving over in judgement of sinful desires of their (our) hearts….
This feels all too familiar. I’m here for a discussion. This is instant opposition. So I’ll leave you both to guard the site.
I’m here for a discussion.
And yet you never discuss. Odd.
See my comment @ 4:45.
We are in discussion. Responding. Run away if you want. Don’t discuss questions of sin and holiness
It is indeed all too familiar.
I had a land law lecture who didn’t believe you understood unless you agreed with him.
The Bishop you cite has been in discussions on this site.
There has been no movement, no change, from him nor it.seems in the discussions you have been privvy to with the Bishops, if your you reference to Bishop PC is anything to go by.
David Runcorn,
You stated earlier that IP has been misinformed about progress in the HoB discussions, and being involved in the process (with your wife whom I understand is a Bishop), think he is mistaken. You also acknowledged that nobody is trying to square the circle, yet you hint that while it has been hard work, the discussions have been productive and offer a way forward beyond Synod.
Could you shed any more light on this please? Has anything that may be thought of as progress been mooted that has not already been examined or discussed in the public domain, and may expect to be put forward by the Bishops?
Christopher. Thank you for your question. Here is a brief factual outline as I understand it.
The feedback from the six year Living in Love and Faith process in the CofE indicated a clear desire for the fuller inclusion and welcome of LGBTQi people in the church. In response to this the bishops commended some specially prepared prayers/services. These included prayers for people entering forms of celibate ‘covenanted friendship’ and prayers of blessing for gay couples who had previously been legally married in civil ceremony (making explicit this was not ‘Holy Matrimony’ in the traditional understanding of the CofE). This was presented for debate in the February 2023 General Synod which voted to accept them.
To take this forward three ‘Implementation Groups’ have been at work with/on behalf of the bishops (as referenced by Ian and of which I was a member). The work of the groups is now complete, and the continued tasks return to the Bishops. The prayers are commended for use. The Pastoral Guidance group was doing what the name suggests – preparing advice to replace ‘Issues in Human Sexuality’, written in 1991. The third group was working on Pastoral Reassurance. This concerns the need for folk on all sides to be able to use the prayers, or not, according to conscience and theological conviction, without facing discipline or legal penalty. This is obviously essential for all sides. Such provisions are already in place in Anglican provinces that support blessing/marriage of gay couples.
Being part of the group work has been a privilege – often tough, always prayerful, and very hard work under great pressure. People of all convictions have been fully part of the groups and the processes.
The way ahead: In July, General Synod will receive a report and presentation and be able to ask questions on it all. The Pastoral Guidelines and Pastoral Reassurance work will be finalised for the November Synod as I understand it. I hope that clarifies, Christopher? Thank you again for asking.
Thank you David. That was my understanding of the timetable. I was astonished at Ian’s remarks about the groups in his comment.
These included prayers for people entering forms of celibate ‘covenanted friendship’ and prayers of blessing for gay couples who had previously been legally married in civil ceremony (making explicit this was not ‘Holy Matrimony’ in the traditional understanding of the CofE). […] The prayers are commended for use
So the Bishops have simply ignored the many people who have pointed out that this distinction between ‘marriage’ and ‘holy matrimony’ is novel and spurious? How do they intend to deal with the inevitable legal challenges?
How do they intend to make sure that the prayers in their final form are neither contrary to nor indicative of a departure from the doctrine of the Church of England, as required by Synod?
To David Runcorn :
Yes, but – Where does the Bible actually fit into all this ? That’s what I want to know.
Pellegrino – I’m sure you’ll find that John 17:3 tells you everything you need to know about gay marriage.
I don’t think your sacred text appears to be the Christian Bible, Jock.
Pellegrino if you look at the Living in Love and faith material you will be able to see a lot of biblical material that was background to the groups that David is referring to.
Thanks, Andrew.
Pellegrino. I do not understand the question. Have you been involved in any of the process of Living in Love and faith over the last six years? If you have you will surely know that scripture is central to all these discussions – as it is at the centre of all Anglican faith and practice.
Thanks for your comments, David.
I’m pleased to hear that Scripture is central to the discussions.
God bless you.
Thank you David. That is very helpful.
David, thank you for your detailed response. May l also ask if the Bishop’s have considered what they will do if their proposals are rejected at Synod bearing in mind their original ones pleased nobody on both sides of the debate? Are the Bishop’s able to override Synod if no consensus can be reached?
Chris. These proposals have already been passed by Synod last February. If they pleased no one they would surely not have been? The Prayers are commended for use. There will be no overturning vote.
David, that is not true. What was passed at Synod was a process of further discussion and exploration, along with a reaffirmation of the Church’s teaching on marriage, that it is between one man and one woman, and that this is the only appropriate place for sexual intimacy.
The prayers tabled were only draft ideas, and in fact were deeply problematic because they did indeed appear to be indicative of a departure from this doctrine.
We have no idea what prayers will in fact be tabled, how they might be used, or what actual pastoral guidance will be proposed. Given that this doctrine has not changed, and that clergy take vows to believe, teach, and uphold this doctrine, it is hard to see what the guidance can say except repeat IHS.
David that is how l understood the vote – not as a done deal of the principle of commended prayers but as an exploratory process. That is why l think it passed. That there consequently appeared to be a huge groundswell of dissent on both sides indicates that whatever emerges is not going to past muster unless some kind of theological rabbit can be pulled out of the hat. It seems to me that only the CEEC has engaged pragmatically and proposed a form of structural difference. Are you able to tell us if this was also considered at the recent meeting of Bishops which you are privy to, and has this notion been rejected by them?
David that is how l understood the vote – not as a done deal of the principle of commended prayers but as an exploratory process.
Reading the resolution (it’s at https://lawandreligionuk.com/2023/02/09/church-of-england-general-synod-approves-same-sex-blessings/) Synod has certainly approved the principle of commended prayers but not that the specific draft of the prayers presented can be commended ‘as is’ — paragraph (e) ‘welcome the response from the College of Bishops and look forward to the House of Bishops further refining, commending and issuing the Prayers of Love and Faith described in GS 2289 and its Annexes;’ clearly envisages ‘further refining’ happening before ‘commending and issuing’ and then paragraph (g) refers to ‘ the final version of the Prayers of Love and Faith’ which means that the draft presented to the Synod must not be this ‘final version’.
What’s less clear is whether a further vote of Synod is needed to approve the final version, or whether paragraph (e) authorises the College to revise, commend and issue entirely under the authority of that paragraph without further reference to Synod. But if this interpretation of (e) is taken, that Synod has given the College authority to revise, commend and issue without further reference to Synod (and I think it’s a reasonable interpretation, actually) then paragraph (g) must be seen as setting out the terms under which Synod granted that authority.
So if the College were to use the delegated authority of paragraph (e) to commend and issue prayers which don’t meet the conditions of paragraph (g) then they lay themselves open to legal challenge of acting ultra vires.
So get the popcorn in, it’s going to be good.
Ah – I stand corrected S. Thanks for the link. Its what’s going to be in them is where the fireworks start.
It is suggested that David Runcorn has given an indication that it is reckoned that the prayers will be validated no matter any opposition and that strategies snd scripts are being prepared to make it happen.
The question of ultra vires will be ignored, or certainly denied.
The authority to draft prayers was conditional. The conditions could not be unilaterally met, self validated by the Bishops, but by the delegating authority- Synod.
To repeat, David Runcorn has let the cat out of the bag, it seems, although it was foreseeable from the way the last Synod was orchestrated and factional punditry that followed.
It is suggested that David Runcorn has given an indication that it is reckoned that the prayers will be validated no matter any opposition and that strategies snd scripts are being prepared to make it happen.
Yes, the strategy will be to commend and issue the prayers, claiming that Synod approved them in the February resolution and that the ‘holy matrimony’ equivocation satisfies paragraph (g).
The hope will be that the conservative side will either be too disorganised to challenge, or will want to find some less confrontational response than outright challenge. This will allow time for the prayers to begin to be used and to conduct a media campaign based on ‘now the Church of England blesses same-sex marriages’ to fix that idea in the public consciousness . Then the change becomes a fait accompli, and reversing it becomes politically difficult (they hope, impossible).
Then when the House of Bishops reports back after five years as specified in paragraph (f) they will say that the blessings of same-sex marriages have been a great success, that they show the Church of England now fully accepts ‘ LGBTQI+ people’, and that as a mere administrative matter it just remains to update the doctrine, expecting that the new Synod elected in the meantime will be more compliant and pass the doctrine change.
The behind-the-scenes promise of this long-term plan is what will be used to keep the pro-change side on board to avoid any repetition of the debacle where both sides attacked the proposals, and make the conservative side look more isolated. So expect those who attacked the proposals as not going far enough last time to all come out in favour when the final versions are published, saying that they represent a great step forward and an indication of the direction of travel but there is much farther to go.
If there’s to be resistance it needs to be aware of this plan and ready to act. Once the blessing starts to be rolled out the game is probably up.
Or, the Christians could just leave the Church of England, shaking the dust from their feet as they go.
I continue to find this an almost impossible place to have constructive discussion across the differing views on this subject. The settled residents here are wholly opposed to any move towards inclusion. Ian claims that the Implementation Groups are making ‘zero progress’ and the task is impossible anyway. But then at other times he has told me and others holding including views we are not an evangelicals and should join the Church of Wales. So it is not easy to find any positive commitment to the present process at all from those in this corner of the room. Am I wrong?
Thankfully there are still other places where this is happening in love and faith. But I see little point in trying to contribute here.
David, I am not surprised that you find this a difficult context for conversation. There is no sense at all in which the frequent commenters here are representative of anything; they are entirely self selected. I am not sure any of them are (for example) members of CEEC or of there DEFs—in fact, many are not even Anglican.
But it is a shame that you misrepresent me. I have not ‘claimed’ that the groups have made no progress; I have been informed of that by members of the groups, and members of the HoB.
Neither have I ‘claimed’ that the task is impossible; Andrew Goddard has argued this very carefully. If you think he is in error, then you need to engage with his careful arguments to demonstrate why he is mistaken.
Again, I have not baldly asserted that you are ‘not evangelical’. I have pointed out that your arguments bear no relation at all to past evangelical arguments or evangelical ways of reading scripture, and that (for example) your piece recently posted on Inclusive Evangelicals actually contradicts key beliefs of both evangelicals and Anglicans. The question then is on what basis you assert that your view is indeed ‘evangelical’.
When I have pointed any of this out, your response has been to get cross and unfriend me on social media. I do not intend to reply in kind; I believe in open discussion.
And I have not said ‘You should join the Church in Wales’. I have asked why you seek to change the doctrine of the C of E, and thereby push out those who hold to that doctrine, when there are other churches in the Communion you could join. Why should we be the ones to leave?
So it is not easy to find any positive commitment to the present process at all from those in this corner of the room.
I suppose the question here is: what do you see as the end, or purpose, of the ‘present process’?
If you specify that then people can say whether they are committed to it.
“Thankfully there are still other places where this is happening in love and faith. But I see little point in trying to contribute here.”
David thank you for your comment here and at other places in this thread.
This blog has become a place where a small number of people comment and either say the same things or make trolling comments. It has become tedious and impossible to have any serious conversation most of the time. It is an echo chamber for an ultra conservative viewpoint.
David Runcorn,
You protests that you come here to have a discussion. I don’t see that. You come here to press your POV.
In this presenent thread, it seems to me that you’ve not made any direct contribution to a discussion on Martin Davie’s article.
Rather you have made a comment to pass on information.
Now if you really want to open up a discusion publish the draft prayers.
Ultimately and from the outset this whole process of LLF has not been about open discussion but a one for schismatic activists to pressure change – a long game.
And it will continue with appoinent systems filtering out the none compliant.
And if the CoE Heirarchy,is replete with theist, deists, synchronists, pluralists, atheists, disaffected catholics and Quakers to the exclusion of protestants who are *compliant* with the Evangel there is no hope, nor need for its existence. Other than self serving, self preservation and state pomp, as it has made a covenant of compliance with the state and culture.
Which returns us to Martin Davie’s article.
So in summary … and then off on retreat with limited wifi …
What do I seek from this process?
Firstly, I regret that a debate about marriage was taken off the taken in the Autumn. I think. that was a failure of nerve. It simply delays something we need and has made this present process much more complicated. But here we are. The way must be forward. Attempting to claim Synod has voted to never change this are is simply wishful thinking. The question will not go away.
But from here …
I pray for the provision of blessing in church or privately, for gay couples legally married in civil law and wishing to confirm their decision before God, in the context of worship, prayer and loving Christian community. I support married gay clergy. I likewise support the use of the prayers for various expressions of committed celibate living and covenanted friendship. All should be honoured.
I support a process whereby ministers and churches can choose whether they bless or not – and without any fear of legal sanction or discipline against them – either side. That is that we are working towards. Forms are in place in other Anglican provinces.
I do not support proposals for kinds of parallel church structures or ‘choose your own bishop who agrees with you’ – Davie et al. They are impractical, incoherent and I find no biblical or ecclesial mandate for that. We walk together in mutual respect.
Finally Geoff’s latest response on this thread to me illustrates the problem of trying to engage here all too clearly. Others may find it acceptable. I do not. Andrew says it for me.
David, I think taking marriage off the table was not a failure of nerve; it was a manipulation of process. Those bishops wanting change suddenly realised that it would not get through the front door of honest discussion. So they have been working on a back door root, bypassing due process, twisting legal advice, appealing to the wrong canons, and proposing something that will not square with unchanged doctrine.
The claim that ‘something must change’ and ‘the question will not go away’ is just a power play. There are many, many churches which are growing and attracting young people in my city and across the country. Every single one of them believe the doctrine of marriage as the C of E currently formally states it. They are doing fine without change.
Your desire for the provision you set out makes it clear that you do not believe, teach, expound and encourage others to live by the current doctrine of the Church as expressed in Canon B30. I don’t know if you can help me understand how your position here is compatible with the vows you took at your ordination.
I support a process whereby ministers and churches can choose whether they bless or not – and without any fear of legal sanction or discipline against them – either side.
Okay, so the issue here is that you have pre-judged the whole issue of doctrinal change. You seem to be coming from the position that doctrinal change is necessary and inevitable, and you see the ‘present process’ as trying to come up with a way to manage that change. You see the destination as settled, and the only questions remaining bring how to get there without bringing the whole Church of England crashing down in the process.
Is it any wonder then that you have trouble engaging with people who disagree with you on the destination, when all you are prepared to talk about is the route?
That’s the fundamental issue you have here.
S You asked me ‘what do you see as the end, or purpose, of the ‘present process’? So I have taken the trouble to tell you. You now accuse of me of completely pre-judging doctrinal change it all. But there is no doctrinal change in these proposals. And nothing is inevitable. That is your word not mine. I am just not that powerful! I said a debate is needed we have not yet had. S – I have just shared my hopes – as I thought you requested.
You asked me ‘what do you see as the end, or purpose, of the ‘present process’? So I have taken the trouble to tell you.
Yes, and I thank you. Perhaps I misread. It seems to me that you think the purpose of the present process is to figure out a way to get to the state where ‘ministers and churches can choose whether they bless or not – and without any fear of legal sanction or discipline against them – either side’ without destroying the Church of England.
Is that not correct? Have I misunderstood you?
I have just shared my hopes – as I thought you requested.
I did and thank you. So now we can discuss whether the things you hope for are the correct outcome or not. That is the whole point of having a discussion.
S Thank you. Yes, the choosing to opt in or out is important for all sides if this is to be possible. The main purpose, of course, as I seek it, is to become a church where gay folk, in their discipleship, gifts, callings and relationships may know themselves fully, blessed, welcome and wholly included .
Yes, the choosing to opt in or out is important for all sides if this is to be possible.
Okay. Now do you see why that is a problem for the conservative side? Because that is effectively saying that the Church of England would have no official doctrine of marriage; instead it would be saying that everyone is allowed to hold their own doctrine of marriage. You can see that, right?
Ian: “There are many, many churches which are growing and attracting young people in my city and across the country. Every single one of them believe the doctrine of marriage as the C of E currently formally states it.”
Perhaps you would care to refine that statement, Ian, because you know and I know (for a fact) that’s not actually true. Of course there are some liberal churches that are growing.
There is another issue.
Say a conservative church attracts 40 young people by telling them gay sex is wrong…
Look at the numbers of young people nationwide who disagree with that (millions). For every young person you attract with that teaching, how many young people are alienated from the Church by that view.
The overall effect for the Church is minus not plus. Young people generally find the condemnation of gay sex shocking (that’s just a statistical fact). They associate that teaching with the Church.
They may not go to a socially liberal church either. The whole brand is tarnished. But telling young people their gay friends or uncles can’t get married in church really doesn’t help. It disgusts them.
I know. I’ve been a school nurse for 1200 teenagers. The dominant belief among young people is that gay sexual orientation is fine. Peers from conservative churches almost need protection for criticising gay sex in class discussion, because they are so out of line with most young people, and most young people are protective of gay friends, family, etc. They get outraged if someone tries to criticise them. Because the mainstream view is that gay sex is fine.
The continuing conservative position is alienating a whole generation (apart from a tiny, tiny %).
The very liberal and inclusive church where my wife and I celebrated our marriage – a church on an estate with much deprivation – has been growing numerically, including in the numbers of young people.
But across the country as a whole, the general population has felt increasingly alienated from the Church of England, which is perceived as abusive or homophobic or out of touch with the real world. The perceptions may not be completely fair, but they are the reality. Young people just aren’t buying the condemnation of gay sex (as doctrine stands as of today) except for a small %.
Not “every single” conservative church is growing either. Far from it. The country at large does not accept what you say. It simply doesn’t. Your message about gay sex is losing the crowd, not gaining it. It’s alienating a lot of good people. In 2017, 68% of people in the UK were found to believe “there was nothing wrong with gay sex” – and views among young people are far more marked, even than that.
So please don’t suppose that most young people are queuing up to join churches that condemn what they believe. The vast majority are not and for them, this teaching becomes a stumbling block because they’re not having any of it.
Of course there are some liberal churches that are growing.
Name six.
Peers from conservative churches almost need protection for criticising gay sex in class discussion, because they are so out of line with most young people
Christians were burnt and thrown to the lions in Rome, locked up in psychiatric hospitals in the USSR, and even today are being slaughtered in places like Nigeria. So don’t worry, I think we can cope with a bit of teasing.
The continuing conservative position is alienating a whole generation (apart from a tiny, tiny %).
As Christian teaching has always done. Wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.
Your message about gay sex is losing the crowd, not gaining it.
You know who else lost a few crowds in His time? John 6:66.
Hello Susannah.
There seems to be a huge assumption in your comment to Ian, and that is that the question of marriage in evangelical churches is preached, taught as a discrete topic.
When I’ve been present marriage, along with identity, sexuality, gender, singleness has never been presented outside, separated from the Gospel; never separated from scripture; never been presented as the destination but as signpost to Jesus as groom and consummation of all of human desires and longings, for His people, His church, to whom we belong, blood bought.
It is the Gospel that transforms. The substance of hope for the hopeless in every generation. It is the Gospel that is mocked. It is the Gospel that is the power of God for salvation, even as it is dismissed as irrelevant for life and excluded from within the walls of some church buildings of all denominations.
The Gospel doesn’t go with the flow.
And your reply is indeed an answer to the question posed in the title to Martin Davie’s piece.
I agree with you Suzannah. Ian has been challenged before on his use of numbers and majority to claim something must be ‘right’. The asseertions here are wildly generalised, self-serving and actually unverifiable. But since when are majorities always right? More to the point, where in the Bible, is size a measure of truth? More often the God of the bible deliberately works through minorities. Assumptions from size and power come with a health warning. But while we are on the subject, when it comes to statistics it an indisputable fact that for most of church history ‘every one’ of the growing churches that attracted young people in droves were led by men? Ian’s conclusion from that?
The canons are a summary of church belief and practice. When they need to be revised the church does so. Divorce/remarriage rules and ordination of women are the two most recent examples. Like Ian, I trust, I am faithful to the canons of the church but am also part of a church that (mercifully) allows, and needs, open debate and questioning as we journey with Christ in faith and practice. This blog site is an example of that. So are my views on marriage.
Well quite, David. I cited the liberal church on an estate where my wife and I were invited to celebrate our marriage. The present priest there has worked tirelessly to reach out into the very deprived community, often to the point of exhaustion, though supported by a team of church members. They were determined to be inclusive of all, and their sheer love and compassion has seen the church grow significantly in numbers, including young people. But it’s not all about numbers. What’s also happened is that the parish community as a whole (inside and outside the church building) has deepened and broadened, and *together* they have built a network of support, shared in projects, to the extent that people on this estate know they can turn to the church for help, and do. And it’s all been built around inclusion and the Love of God in Jesus Christ. I feel so proud of what they collectively are achieving. And the people coming to church really think they belong and are on a mission, striving alongside the secular community around them, with its knife crime, its tragedies, as well as taking pride when their young people achieve things.
Of course a Church tradition may evolve. It should. Of course it is fine to ask questions and consider change. David, there was an insinuation in this thread that you might be a disobedient priest, unworthy of your promises, if you question the status quo on sexuality. But if I turned that on its head, would a very conservative minister submit to the bishops and Synod, if things do evolve, and the approach to marriage broadens? Would he or she obey then, or would that minister refuse? Would they leave the Church if the view they asserted was not imposed on everyone else? It works both ways.
I absolutely believe you are faithful to the canons of the Church of England, David. That doesn’t mean canons can’t be reviewed, revised, changed. When there are profound pastoral needs, it’s pretty much a duty to look at biblical texts, and also listen to the Holy Spirit, who addresses our consciences and continues to open our hearts and minds to the compassionate Love of God.
And to pray for each other too, not just those we agree with. In our Church there are demonstrably very divided views. But with love and grace and patience perhaps we can find a way forward that does not insist on just one view, but helps build a diverse church, with diverse expressions… not in the silos of extra ‘provinces’… but in co-existence and parish life as it operates now. Not building up walls between ourselves, but in shared longing to serve our secular communities and live alongside them… not all in exactly the same way… but trying to open to the flow of compassion and love.
would a very conservative minister submit to the bishops and Synod
A minister’s duty is to submit to God and His truth, not the church hierarchy. When the hierarchy abandons the truth then it is a Christian’s duty to either bring them back to the Bible or to leave, not to submit to falsehood.
That’s what the Reformation was about. You’d think a member of a Protestant denomination like the Church of England would realise that.
Ian
I think it’s extraordinary to claim that every church growing in England believes the current marriage doctrine of the CofE. And what does that even mean? I’d argue even in churches that oppose same sex marriage and are open and honest about that position there will be a significant number of members who disagree
Why should liberal Catholics who live in England join the Church in Wales or SEC? You may as well say evangelicals who oppose even the prayers of blessing for homosexual couples the Bishops and Church of England Synod have approved (which their churches still have an opt out from) should leave the Church of England and join their nearest Pentecostal or Baptist or charismatic evangelical church where they can be as anti gay marriage and anti homosexual sexual relationships as they wish. While the established church reflects the fact the nation it serves has legal homosexual marriage now by blessing homosexual couples married in English civil law
‘the prayers of blessing for homosexual couples the Bishops and Church of England Synod have approved’
Simon, you are bordering on trolling again. I think I will start deleting your comments. As I have repeatedly pointed out to you, no prayers have been approved. Repeating these false claims, knowing they are false, is not acceptable here.
Why should liberal Catholics who live in England join the Church in Wales or SEC?
Because they agree with the doctrines of the Church in Wales and the SEC, but they don’t agree with the doctrines of the Church of England. Seems fairly obvious to me. There are other denominations too if there isn’t one of those churches near you — the Methodists or the URC.
So far it seems to me that the strategy of ignoring questions of substance persists with full steam ahead while rearranging the chairs on the deck of a sinking shiip.
While in the officers cabins motivational scripts are being written as the ship goes down and lifeboats are reserved for themselves. with the rest clinging to the wreckage.
As it sails on Cupitt’s Sea of Faith.
It is certainly a “rum business”,
when one strays far from an exegetical orbit of ‘Sola Scriptura’.
It’s a lot easier being a Catholic!
Marriage can only exist between one man and one woman is a doctrinal truth taught with infallible (and thus unchangeable) certainty by the Catholic Church. To endorse any other kind of union (same-sex, group, inanimate objects, etc.) as a form of marriage is for that person to be “opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church”.
Moreover, as the Divine establishment of marriage as uniting one man and one woman is a “revealed truth”, then a Catholic’s endorsement of any other kinds of unions as “marriage” is actually heresy.
There’s some certainly some good things about the Roman Catholic Church, Happy Jack.
One is the very good point that you mention, and a couple of others are ‘The ‘Jerusalem Bible’, and the ‘The New Jerusalem Bible’. There’s some very ‘smart cookies’ in the Roman Catholic Church – and I say that as a Protestant.
God bless you, Happy Jack ! 🙂
It is a poisoned chalice to laud Rome for its authoritarianism, for it works fine when Rome gets it right but is disastrous when Rome gets it wrong, eg the trash about Mary. Rome, of course, claims it is inerrant. Anybody can do that!
The Church of England was founded so Henry VIII could divorce Catherine of Aragon and marry Anne Boleyn after the Pope and Roman Catholic church refused. The idea the Church of England has always had a rigid approach to marriage is laughable. It now not only blesses but marries divorced couples and has correctly now decided to bless homosexual couples married in English civil law too
Sorry, that is nonsense. The issue at hand was whether the Pope and teaching of the Catholic Church determined doctrine of marriage, or Scripture.
It happened conveniently for Henry that Scripture supported his cause, but this was just the opportunity for the Reformers to see the Church in England join the Reformation that was sweeping across Europe.
The Church has not decided to bless homosexual couples. You really need to pay more attention!
It happened conveniently for Henry that Scripture supported his cause, but this was just the opportunity for the Reformers to see the Church in England join the Reformation that was sweeping across Europe.
But when your entire historical research consists of reading 1066 and All That…
You really need to pay more attention! /i>
I think T1 is hoping that if they repeat it enough they will convince someone it’s true. Themselves, possibly.
“It happened conveniently for Henry that Scripture supported his cause … ”
Just how did scripture support Henty VIII’s annulment from Catherine of Aragon?
Well said, nothing in the words of Christ or the Bible supported Henry’s having grounds to divorce Anne Boleyn.
To Happy ‘Jubilant’ Jack;
Henry thought he had biblical justification for his divorce to Catherine, in Leviticus 20:21.
Pelegrino
Leviticus 20:21 was seemingly contradicted by Deuteronomy 25:5. According to standard biblical exegesis, these two texts had to be
reconciled harmoniously in some way, and clearer minds usually sought a synthesis that would explain the two verses without negating either.
The correct manner of harmonizing Deuteronomy and Leviticus was to see Deuteronomy as the one exception to Leviticus; that is, marrying the wife of a brother is always prohibited as stated in Leviticus 20:21, except in the circumstance described in Deuteronomy 25:5, when a brother dies without offspring. In such a case, the dead man’s brother has a positive obligation to marry the widow and raise
up children for the dead brother.
Many Christian thinkers had studied the two texts and come to the same conclusion. The Old Testament and the weight of traditional Christian was exegesis against the king and he had to come up with another spurious argument, i.e., the impediment of affinity.
Thanks, HAPPY JACK;
for your interesting information.
Well, quite. Whether Henry genuinely believed that God was denying him a son with Catharine of Aragon because of the circumstances of their marriage, nobody can know. But I am sceptical, and had a boy been born who lived then I don’t believe Henry would ever have thought of dumping Catharine of Aragon, although he might have taken mistresses on the side.
In regard to Rome’s attitude, two issues deserve to be disentangled: how scriptural was Rome’s doctrine of marriage; and would Rome apply it impartially?
Regarding the first of these, Rome was fond of trumpeting that Christians are better than the Jews and we are not under Mosaic Law. Odd, then, that it became interested in Mosaic Law when it was convenient. Catherine claimed that she had never been married to Henry’s late older brother because he had not consummated. Only she can know the truth of that, but she was not disinterested. There is also the fact that consanguinity was unscripturally taken much further by Rome in its prohibitions than by ancient Jerusalem.
But the idea that Rome could reliably apply its own principles, regardless of how biblical those were, is po-faced twaddle. The Medici Pope Clement VII, a bon viveur, simply sat on Henry’s annulment petition. Why did he do that and why did Henry lose patience? Not because he had got Anne Boleyn pregnant: kings regularly got mistresses pregnant. The point is that Clement had just granted an equally questionable annulment to Henry’s sister Margaret (whose husband had merely reneged once on an agreement to marry a woman); the papacy had also granted another questionable annulment to the king of France in 1498, during Henry’s lifetime. Such petitions could be made only by senior aristocracy, and Rome paid close attention to its alliances in how it dealt with them. Clement feared the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, whose mother was Catharine of Aragon’s sister. That’s why he sat on Henry’s petition.
It is difficult to imagine a more worldly story. But Clement was every bit as worldly as Henry in it.
Errr that wasn’t the issue at hand. The issue at hand was whether the King or the Pope was head of the Church in England.
And Scripture really didn’t back Henry in his “Great Matter” (see Deuteronomy 25, Matthew 22, Luke 20, and Mark 12 for starters).
The issue at hand was whether the King or the Pope was head of the Church in England.
That might have been the issue for Henry. But it wasn’t the issue for, say, Cranmer and Cromwell, and they were the ones who did the real founding of the Church of England, not Henry.
S
You’ve got that back-to-front. Henry considered himself a faithful Catholic. It was Cranmer and Cromwell who wanted to end the the authority of the pope in the English church.
It was Cranmer and Cromwell who wanted to end the the authority of the pope in the English church.
Only as a means to an end though. The issue for them wasn’t that they wanted the King to have authority over the church, but they wanted to reform the church’s theology; and removing the pope’s authority was s necessary step on that way.
Scripture didn’t support his cause, Catherine of Aragon never committed adultery. So he did not meet any of the grounds for divorce Jesus set. At most he should have had a blessing when he married Anne Boleyn as per the proposed blessing for homosexual couples the C of E Synod has voted for as per the plans the Bishops proposed (even if you evangelicals want to put your fingers in your ears when liberal Catholic churches across England start blessing homosexual couples from the end of July after their civil marriages once the Bishops approve the final format of the prayers)
At most he should have had a blessing when he married Anne Boleyn
So you’re saying that the founding of the Church of England was wrong?
I thought you liked the Church of England, and now you’re saying it was founded on an error and so it shouldn’t even exist?
You are so confusing.
The reasons for it were not founded in scripture. Pope Clement VII was correct to refuse King Henry VIII’s request to divorce Catherine of Aragon as she had not committed adultery.
I am a liberal Catholic, if the Catholic church allowed blessings of homosexual couples and women priests many liberal Catholics would happily be full on Roman Catholics however they don’t. So the Church of England is fine for me. I like its Parish tradition and historic churches too since it became the established church in the 16th century and took over from the Roman Catholic church as the national church (also adding the King as its Supreme Governor with the Pope no longer head of the national church)
The reasons for it were not founded in scripture. Pope Clement VII was correct to refuse King Henry VIII’s request to divorce Catherine of Aragon as she had not committed adultery.
So you think that, if we accept your view of why the Church of England was founded, it was founded on an error and a lie? Therefore it should not exist?
How can you happily be a member of something you think should not exist, that you think was founded on an error and a lie? Is that not massive hypocrisy?
TI
His case for an annulment (not a divorce) rested on a spurious interpretations of the Old Testament and not the New Testament.
Indeed they did, there were no clear Biblical grounds for them
T1
.I think his claim for annulment was that Catherine was his dead brothers wife and it was considered sinful to marry your brothers wife at the time. Henry felt he might be being punished by God with a lack of a male heir because he had married his brothers wife
There is nothing in the Bible against marrying your dead brothers wife, provided it was done after he had died. Henry married Catherine after Arthur’s death
T1
Well there’s nothing in the Bible about forbidding gay couples to marry either
Wow! The Bible does not use currently nonexistent concepts that are in addition foreign to its thought world. Who does? Who knew?
Dear ‘S’;
Re : ” I think T1 is hoping that if they repeat it enough they will convince someone it’s true. Themselves, possibly.”
The term for making oneself, and/or others, believe in falsehoods through repetition is called the ‘illusory truth effect’ or the ‘familiarity principle’. It is a cognitive bias that develops due to people being more likely to believe something that they have heard before – regardless of whether it is true or false. 🙂
Marriage is, of and in itself, as revealed in this article and comments, an idol, a Christ replacement.
Marriage does not ” complete” us; neither does singleness, denude, or diminish us. Neither is our true destiny, destination, fulfillment.
In their different ways both reveal the depth of our sin and our true need.
(See Ian’s following article on Matthew 10 to counter contemporary church views on Jesus and flourishing.)
Marriage does not ” complete” us
I hope this isn’t supposed to be a semi-veiled suggestion that anything I wrote implied that it did.
No S, it is not.
It applies to all of us, does it not, including me, who is married and has been for over 4O years?
This is a Gospel matter, rooted in Christ, is it not?
it is not.
That’s all right then.
Good to see you two chaps as friends again !
The discussion has been clarifying – it is clear (now) that the dividing lines between the opposing sides do not seem to be on the gay issue per se – you can determine which side people will take on this issue by eliciting their views on heterosexual marriage. The anti-blessing-gay-marriage side seem to be those who think that a happy and fulfilled marriage was indeed possible prior to the 1960’s (when chemicals to inhibit pregnancy were introduced), who think that the Good Lord gave a Christian couple everything necessary to enjoy married life before this came along and that such things are unnecessary and indeed undesirable for a Christian couple. The pro-blessing-gay-marriage side seem to be those who think that the possibilities offered by such chemicals add a vital component to married life and enrich it.
I accept that the ‘usual suspects’ who comment here (myself included) are a self-selected group who don’t represent anybody at all other than themselves – but among those posting here, I don’t find anybody here – on either side of the gay-blessing question who deviates from this characterisation.
opposing sides do not seem to be on the gay issue per se – you can determine which side people will take on this issue by eliciting their views on heterosexual marriage.
Oh much deeper than that — the fundamental determining factor is their view of sin and the Fall. Basically is it the Christian view (total depravity, all have sinned and therefore deserve eternal death) or the view of Moral Therapeutic Deism (human beings are basically good and God wants them to fulfil themselves (which is the main goal of life); sometimes they do bad things, but as long as the good they do outweighs the bad God will see they deserve Heaven and reward them).
Obviously there’s also a difference in views of the Bible but I think that’s downstream of this fundamental difference — the God of MTD is incompatible with the Bible, so to reconcile the two you have to assume the Bible was written by humans trying to make sense of their experiences, but often making errors because they were blinded by their cultures, unlike us who are able to see clearly because we live at the pinnacle of history and can look down on all that went before because we understand the truth of MTD.
I don’t find anybody here – on either side of the gay-blessing question who deviates from this characterisation.
Me. On the basis of the Bible I don’t believe God acknowledges gay marriage, and I have no problem with marital contraception in principle. (One might discuss further the ethics of barrier and non-barrier methods.) Anglicans are not Catholics, are they? The ghastly sexual revolution is a consequence of the Pill allowing single women to behave as immorally as single men have always done. But that is about non-marital sex. Nothing else.
I have no problem with marital contraception in principle.
Do you mean that you have no problem with married couples using artificial contraception to determine the number and timing of their children? Or do you mean you would be fine with a married couple, who would otherwise be perfectly able to have and afford to raise children, deciding to use artificial contraception every time they have sex in order to ensure they didn’t ever have a child because they do not want the drop in living standards and loss of freedom that a child would mean?
Those are very different positions (as can be seen by the 1930 Lambeth resolution mentioned elsewhere on this page which firmly takes the former and not the latter). Which is yours?
And, where do you stand on sin? (Other than agin it)
I doubt that a fertile Christian married couple will use contraception in order to have no children whatsoever. As for non-Christian husband and wife, it is not up to me to tell them how they should behave. It is my job to introduce them to Jesus Christ.
I don’t understand your question about sin.
I doubt that a fertile Christian married couple will use contraception in order to have no children whatsoever.
So what exactly is your point of disagreement with Jock then?
Dear S: He said that one’s opinion on contraception withing marriage correlated perfectly among respondents here with their opinion on gay marriage. I am an exception, as are many Anglicans. That correlation is perfect only among traditionalist Catholics.
Re sin: Jeremiah said that the human heart is deceitful above all things, and I take him to be voicing God’s opinion.
He said that one’s opinion on contraception withing marriage correlated perfectly among respondents here with their opinion on gay marriage. I am an exception, as are many Anglicans.
Are you really an exception? You wrote ‘ I doubt that a fertile Christian married couple will use contraception in order to have no children whatsoever’.
Is that not the opinion that Jock says will correlate with being conservative on same-sex marriage (as opposed to those in favour of same-sex marriage, who almost universally would have no problem with a Christian couple choosing not to have children and using any method they wish to bring that end about)?
Ask Jock. i’ve said what I believe and don’t want to go round in circles.
I believe and don’t want to go round in circles.
Not used the inter-net much have you
S – I think you’re correct – and there is more agreement than disagreement on this matter between me and Anton (although I certainly don’t think that use of chemicals – or mutilation – as proposed by Penelope – is something that one would expect Christians to consider within their own marriages).
No need for rudeness, S. I actually run a part-time business on the internet. I’m simply not interested in the fineties of a “I said, you said, he said” debate.
I actually run a part-time business on the internet.
You have my sympathy
Lots of LGBT people, including me, oppose the blessings because they are mere virtue signaling. They don’t give us equal treatment in the church and they make the conservatives even more hostile towards us.
I’m certain some marriages were happy prior to 1963. I think life is harder now if you are gay and was much much harder then if you were gay.
Peter – personally, I take the view that there should be no problem about gay couples living together in a celibate relationship – and even adopting children (I’m aware of a situation – that I pointed out before – where this worked well). I recall that Jeffrey John stated openly that he was in a *celibate* relationship with the man he was living with – and they were wrong to block his appointment as bishop for that reason.
I’d agree that gay people have been given a hard time,
The reason I raised the question – it does seem to be all about sex – and you can see it in Penelope’s response – where she seems to have the underlying assumption in the back of her brain that, for a heterosexual couple, the secret to a good relationship seems to be lots of sex – and for her vasectomy (for the man) and/or Pill (for the woman) seem to be a necessary and integral part of a happy marriage.
I’m pretty much libertarian in my outlook to life in general – and I’d be strongly against policing what consenting adults are doing with each other in the privacy of their own bedroom. What I fail to understand is why sex as a purely recreational activity is considered to be of such vital importance. I thought that a Christian mind had put aside the sensual desires and was focused on different things.
Jock, as I explained in a post earlier in this thread, the C of E marriage service is clear about the purpose of sex within marriage.
“The gift of marriage brings husband and wife together
in the delight and tenderness of sexual union
and joyful commitment to the end of their lives.”
Sex is not simply something for the purpose of childbirth. It is of vital importance for the health of a marriage and the marriage service recognises that.
It will be up to the couple whether they wish to be sexually active 3 or 4 times a week, 3 or 4 times a month, or 3 or 4 times a year. Or anywhere in between or above or below. And it is nobody else’s business. It will then be up to that couple, and nobody else, how they plan their family. The CofE does not specify that particular forms of contraception are to be considered immoral. Things have moved on a long way since the 1930s.
What is immoral is the self righteous interference by some of the making of windows into the marriages of another. The Church has a duty to support marriage and couples and not to undermine them.
Sex is not simply something for the purpose of childbirth.
It’s not simply for the purpose of childbirth, but neither can it (legitimately) simply be for the purpose of pleasure either.
It will be up to the couple whether they wish to be sexually active 3 or 4 times a week, 3 or 4 times a month, or 3 or 4 times a year. Or anywhere in between or above or below. And it is nobody else’s business.
Is it not God’s business?
Things have moved on a long way since the 1930s.
They’ve moved, certainly. But in the right direction? Maybe some things, but in general, doubtful.
What is immoral is the self righteous interference by some of the making of windows into the marriages of another. The Church has a duty to support marriage and couples and not to undermine them.
The only marriages the Church of England seeks to ‘make windows into’ are those of clergy, and isn’t that legitimate as clergy are supposed to be setting an example?
For instance, do you not think it would be reasonable for the Church of England to state that clergy were not allowed to be in an ‘open’ marriage?
Things have moved a long way since the 1930s. It is fundamentalism to assume without argument that all movement is progress. Logically (given the amount of movement that takes place) it is far more likely that some is and some isn’t.
‘S’: “It’s not simply for the purpose of childbirth, but neither can it (legitimately) simply be for the purpose of pleasure either.”
So a couple who get married at the age of 60 because they love each other should not have sex because ‘it can’t be simply for the purpose of pleasure either’?
C’mon!
So a couple who get married at the age of 60 because they love each other should not have sex because ‘it can’t be simply for the purpose of pleasure either’?
Such a couple would not be taking any deliberate action to frustrate the natural result of sex, would they?
The issue is couples who would otherwise be able to have children who deliberately make themselves infertile by surgery or chemistry or any other method.
Some people, tragically, are born blind. Some are blinded by injury. That doesn’t make it okay for someone to deliberately mutilate their own eye.
Some people become barren because of a medical condition; some because of age. That doesn’t make it okay for someone to deliberately make themselves barren.
Andrew – much of what you write sounds good and holy – particularly the end bit that what goes on inside somebody else’s marriage is nobody’s business except the married couple’s (provided, of course, that what is going on is by mutual consent and doesn’t harm anybody else).
In the context of what we’ve been discussing, though, I have a serious problem with what seems to me to be a ‘Frankenstein’s monster’ approach of taking magic drugs or having surgery purely for pleasure. The magic drugs almost look to me like the sort of thing that Robert Louis Stevenson was writing about in his ‘Jekyll and Hyde’ – irrespective of how safe scientists have made the drugs and how safe the surgery is.
‘S’ about sex: “neither can it (legitimately) simply be for the purpose of pleasure either.”
That statement says you can’t have sex simply for pleasure. Personally, I think that’s balderdash.
I’m 70 and I assure you I can have sex simply for pleasure (and also to express intimate tenderness and devotion). My previous comment (which you side-stepped) was that say a couple fell in love at the age of 60 and decided to get married… according to your statement which I have now quoted twice, they can’t have sex, because you can’t have it “simply be for the purpose of pleasure”.
You are smart enough to know your comment requires revision!
Have a nice day.
That statement says you can’t have sex simply for pleasure.
Not can’t, oughtn’t.
according to your statement which I have now quoted twice, they can’t have sex, because you can’t have it “simply be for the purpose of pleasure”.
And I explained why your interpretation is wrong. It’s about intent. The elderly couple aren’t intending to have sex only for pleasure. That it is is a result of their circumstances, not their choice. It’s the intent that makes the sin.
You are smart enough to know your comment requires revision!
But if you’re not smart enough to understand the explanation I really don’t know what more I can do.
Sex is simply for the purpose of (fairly passionless) pleasure according to St Paul.
He wasn’t in the least interested in procreation. Not is the NT generally.
And ‘conservatives’ accuse ‘liberals’ of cherry picking scripture!!
Chaps – there’s always vasectomies. No ‘artificial’ chemicals and just two days of feeling like you’ve been kicked in the balls.
Penelope – you mean Alessandro Moreschi style?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLjvfqnD0ws
A bit extreme, but it does enable one to hit the high notes.
No. I mean perfectly ordinary, safe vasectomies.
No drugs, no coils, no more pregnancies.
Certainly less mutilating than childbirth.
No. I mean perfectly ordinary, safe vasectomies.
Surgically damaging a perfectly functional organ without a medical reason is mutilation. It’d be the same as having a healthy eye removed, or an arm amputated for cosmetic reasons.
Do you cut your fingernails?
Do you cut your fingernails?
Cutting fingernails doesn’t interfere with their intended function. In fact it can help them perform their function better because they don’t get caught on things and tear.
Cutting the vas deferens prevents it from carrying out its intended function. So it’s mutilation.
You cut your fingernails so you don’t scratch someone’s eyes out.
You have a vasectomy because you decide it is in the interests of your wife’s health and happiness not to bear 16 babies. That is an act of love and care for the woman.
The very simple surgical procedure is far less tricky and dangerous than childbirth.
And the use of the term ‘mutilation’ is packed with connotations from zombie movies. It is just emotionalism.
A shame it is only men here who are vilifying vasectomies. Brings to mind catheterisation on the hospital ward. A straightforward procedure in the interests of well-being, and women rarely made a fuss with me, but oh! some men… you would think a procedure to do with their priceless (though not always impressive) manhood was virtually murder.
Vasectomies may mutilate some people’s dogma… fair play. However, to call a rational and simple medical procedure ‘mutilation’ is just a teeny wee bit hysterical!
Susannah – you honestly can’t think of other ways to prevent your wife from having 16 babies? Really? Is having-it-off on a regular basis really so fundamental to a happy marriage that any alternative is inconceivable to you?
1) there is a medical reason
2) it’s not ‘mutilation’
Jock
Yes, regular sex is vital to many happy marriages. As St Paul recommended. Though he preferred it to be fairly passionless.
Evangelicals are always going on about sexuality as a gift from God in marriage.
Though, to be frank, I can’t see that you have made any theological or biblical case against artificial contraception and/or sterilisation.
You cut your fingernails so you don’t scratch someone’s eyes out.
I don’t. In order to not scratch someone’s eyes out I simply choose not to scratch their eyes out.
You have a vasectomy because you decide it is in the interests of your wife’s health and happiness not to bear 16 babies. That is an act of love and care for the woman.
As pointed out there are other ways to avoid pregnancy that don’t involve taking a perfectly healthy body organ and stopping it from performing its function.
The very simple surgical procedure is far less tricky and dangerous than childbirth.
The trickiness isn’t the issue.
And the use of the term ‘mutilation’ is packed with connotations from zombie movies.
What other term is there for taking a perfectly healthy body part and deliberately making it non-functional? You would agree that an unnecessary amputation of a hand would be a mutilation, yes? What’s the difference?
there is a medical reason
Then what is it? Note that a desire for life to be more convenient is not a medical reason.
it’s not ‘mutilation’
It’s the deliberate destruction of a body organ so it can’t perform its function. Why is that not mutilation? It would certainly be mutilation if the organ was an eye, a hand or a womb. What’s the difference?
A shame it is only men here who are vilifying vasectomies.
Exactly the same applies to fallopian tubal occlusion.
Penelope: Where does the apostle Paul say that “fairly passionless” marital sex is preferable?
Gregory I (‘the Great’), the first monk to be Pope, condemned ‘immoderate intercourse’ within marriage (Pastoral Rule III.27), clearly adding – in context – to scripture (to 1 Corinthians 7:5a); although one wonders quite what Gregory had in mind. But Paul?
Anton
1 Thessalonians 4.4.
Not the NIV!
Anton
And 1 Corinthians 7.5.
Paul wishes all were as he is – celibate.
But he recommends (passionless) sex as a prophylactic.
Not exactly a joyful theology of marriage. But at least spouses aren’t to deprive one another. So not entirely ascetic. (Some of the Corinthians may have been super ascetic, just as some may have been the opposite!)
Penelope,
I already mentioned 1 Corinthians 7:5; did you miss that? It is about a little temporary abstinence for purposes of prayer. The only other verse you cite, 1 Thessalonians 4:4, is about controlling one’s urges in holiness and honour, ie don’t visit the brothel, of which there were plenty in the ancient Greek world if a man – married or not – wanted a quickie. There is nothing in Paul exhorting married couples not to enjoy the act of sex, as your words would suggest. If you want to find that, look to some later unbiblical church traditions.
Anton
Paul says it by way of a concession. Better to marry than to burn, but best to be celibate.
In 1 Thess. he tells men to possess their vessels (wives) in holiness and without passion. Most English translations are very bad. The word is passion, not lustful passion. And vessels are wives, not bodies.
‘Vessel’ there refers to their own bodies Penny.
You may believe that Ian. Not all reputable scholars would agree with you.
Such as, Penelope?
“Really? Is having-it-off on a regular basis really so fundamental to a happy marriage”
Jock, please would you refrain from this silly school boy bike shed expression? It’s demeaning for everyone.
And as the CofE marriage service makes clear, sexual union is indeed fundamental to a happy marriage.
Andrew Godsall – in the context, the language I used was appropriate. How else to deal with someone who thinks that the alternative to using contraception is to have 16 babies – and for whom abstaining is completely, totally and utterly out of the question? With this level of absurdity, the response was appropriate.
(Although I agree that in other contexts I’ve probably used this phrase far too much – but certainly not here)
Jock
I don’t think abstinence is out of the question. I think it’s a choice. I also believe abstinence is unbiblical and theologically a bit iffy, cf. The marriage service and St Paul.
But if that’s what couples choose, who am I to oppose it?
I don’t think abstinence is out of the question. I think it’s a choice.
But is it the right choice? That’s the question.
I also believe abstinence is unbiblical and theologically a bit iffy, cf. The marriage service and St Paul.
St Paul says not to deprive your spouse of sex. But a mutual agreement to avoid pregnancy isn’t depriving anyone.
And I think you’ll find that the marriage service isn’t in the Bible! You shouldn’t be taking theology from it! Only the Bible is a source for theology!
But if that’s what couples choose, who am I to oppose it?
You do see that some choices couples make are right and others are wrong, yes? The question is what couples ought to choose.
Susannah
Hysterical describes quite a few of the comments here from men. Ironically.
Testerical??
Ew!
Behave…
Chaps – there’s always vasectomies.
You think God approves of self-mutilation?
S – she clearly does – I’d say that taking drugs that are potentially harmful purely for recreational purposes is also self-harm – albeit not to the same extent.
What ‘The Church’ used to do to get high pitched voices in their choirs was very sick.
Yes. He mandated circumcision.
He mandated circumcision.
That is the best argument I have ever seen you make.
Though exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis.
“You think God approves of self-mutilation?”
“Yes. He mandated circumcision.”
You just won the internet.
🙂
And I suggest that if you don’t know the difference between a vasectomy and castration, you refrain from commenting on sexuality until you have
a) grown up
b) done some serious reflection and research.
And I suggest that if you don’t know the difference between a vasectomy and castration
I know the difference. You apparently don’t.
(In case anyone’s interested, a vasectomy involves the surgical mutation of a bodily organ called the vas deferens, such that it can no longer perform its proper function.)
And that is such vas deferens between male and female as my O Level female biology teacher joked. ( So much hateful nonsense. Should have been sacked.)
Yes, the Church has already endorsed marriage based on culture.
It already endorsed modern definitions of marriage (consumerist dating culture, marriage based on being “in love”) and family (small nuclear families with 2.5 children). Accepting premarital sex, cohabitation, and gay marriage is just the logical next step.
Which Church has ‘endorsed’ these things? Mine hasn’t.
(It might have, through it sin and failure, colluded with it, but that is something different.)
Does the Church of England endorse large multigenerational families, agrarian life, and arranged marriages among teenagers?
The Church of England has already conformed to modern definitions of marriage already. The vast majority, if not all, of the people getting married in the Church of England got married relatively late in life (compared to ANE/Hebrew culture), got married because they chose to instead of having their marriage arranged by their families, and got married because they were “in love”.
It’s not neccessarily a bad thing that the Church has conformed to modern culture in this way. People just need to recognize that it’s already happened and that accepting premarital sex and homosexual couples is not some radical break with Christian tradition. The radical break already happened during the Sexual Revolution. Marriage for love is just as much a product of the Sexual Revolution as casual sex was.