Andrew Goddard writes: Reflecting on the recent July Session of the Church of England’s General Synod and considering where we now find ourselves on the Living in Love and Faith (LLF) questions of sexuality, marriage and identity I was struck by the fact that we seem to be engaged in a game of episcopal Jenga.
The current situation in the Church of England can be viewed as a rather precarious tower of Jenga bricks: falling attendance, giving and vocations, a massive trust deficit, multiple safeguarding failures. In this context, the LLF story resembles bishops pushing with varying degrees of force at eight Jenga bricks, essential structural elements within the Church of England’s identity crucial for its cohesion, stability and unity.
The first brick that the bishops decided to push was that of liturgy, proposing Prayers of Love and Faith in GS 2289 back in January and February 2023 and being supported by Synod. By July, however, it was clear (in GS 2303) that the planned commending of prayers faced major problems and so authorisation was being seriously considered instead. In October the bishops agreed that while they would commend the prayers for use in regular services where the prayers would not be the focus, what they now called “standalone services” would need to be approved by General Synod under Canon B2, requiring two-thirds majority in all 3 Houses in order to be authorised. This proposal (GS 2328) was opposed by those wanting change and in November 2023 Synod passed an amendment asking
the House [of Bishops] to consider whether some standalone services for same-sex couples could be made available for use, possibly on a trial basis
without having to wait for the Canon B2 process. The bishops then reverted to their original plan and proposed to this July’s Synod that “standalone services” now simply be commended. This was described as being “for a trial period” but that makes no sense given commendation is simply an episcopal judgment the prayers are already legal and it was admitted during the Synod that once commended they were highly unlikely ever to be withdrawn. This is now likely to happen shortly after February 2025 despite this liturgical change being so far from “common worship” it will require delegated episcopal oversight for parishes who object to their bishop supporting the prayers and perhaps for parishes wishing to use them whose bishops oppose the prayers.
The main reason for objection to PLF is that it is now clear that the bishops are also pushing, increasingly strongly, a second brick in the wobbly Jenga tower: doctrine. This is a major development in the process. When the prayers were introduced it was clearly stated that they were compatible with the church’s doctrine of marriage and there was no intention to even touch this brick. This was passed by Synod in February 2023 (what is known as the Cornes amendment) and restated by the bishops in July (“The bishops are upholding the Doctrine of Marriage and their intention remains that the final version of the Prayers of Love and Faith should not be contrary to or indicative of a departure from the doctrine of the Church of England”, GS 2303, para 20).
By November, however, the bishops acknowledged the prayers did not pass the latter “indicative” test, although they claimed that due to new insight into doctrine they were nevertheless within the canons’ looser doctrinal test (GS 2327, Annex A, Para 17 and para 26). It is now clear that the doctrinal brick is probably going to need to be pushed even further if (as many bishops want) clergy are to be allowed to enter civil same-sex marriages. The July 2024 paper (GS 2358, paras 36-46) and the motion passed by Synod calls for theological work “to provide clarity around how doctrine can develop or change within the Church of England” and the lead bishop acknowledged a number of bishops are now willing to change or develop the church’s marriage doctrine.
This doctrine brick is now being pushed because of another crucial, third brick: the church’s understanding of holy orders. The Church of England has repeatedly been clear its doctrine of marriage means clergy should not be in any sexual relationship other than marriage between a man and a woman and they should not enter a civil same-sex marriage. The February 2023 motion made clear that the existing Pastoral Guidance (from 1991) would be replaced but not its content and a draft incorporating changes to the current discipline was drawn up over last summer. In October 2023 the House of Bishops voted
that further work be done on part 3 (Ministry) of the Guidance for issuing as soon as possible with the intention that it remove all restrictions on clergy entering same-sex marriages, and on bishops ordaining, licensing and granting permissions to officiate to such clergy.
There has, however, been no further progress due to a growing realisation that this creates major problems (set out most fully to the February 2024 General Synod in GS 2346 Annex B) given the church’s current doctrine. It’s also clear a significant number of bishops are unwilling to accept this change and likely to refuse to move from the current discipline. A decision by the bishops is now likely to be brought to the next General Synod in February 2025.
These episcopal differences over clergy in same-sex marriage highlight a fourth Jenga brick: episcopal collegiality. The first sign of this brick being moved came early in the discernment process in October 2022 when, while the bishops were seeking to find an agreed way forward together, the Bishop of Oxford published his own proposal in favour of change. Then, in January 2023, the bishops’ decision was leaked to the BBC before it was announced (there have since been several further leaks), the Archbishop of York went far beyond what had been agreed, and a statement defending the received doctrine of marriage was released by 14 bishops. Despite these developments, in the February 2023 Synod the bishops were almost 90% in support of the proposals (voting 36 for, 4 against, with 2 abstentions).
Private letters from bishops expressing opposing views were leaked in July and, following a meeting of the House on 9th October, 12 of those present issued a dissenting statement. That meeting also overturned – at the request of the Archbishop of Canterbury—the wishes of the majority of the wider College to authorise standalone services experimentally (using Canon B5A) alongside using Canon B2. Shortly afterwards a group of 44 bishops from the wider College issued a statement supporting same-sex marriage for clergy. By the November Synod, bishops were proposing competing amendments to the House’s motion, most bishops reversed their October vote to move straight to B2, and in the final vote the House of Bishops was reduced to 70% support with the majority falling from 32 to 13 (23-10-4).
Earlier this year, the bishops were so divided about the proposed “reset” presented to the February Synod that the motion could not come in their name. In advance of this Synod, the College initially rejected the proposal after its morning discussions only for the House to decide to proceed with it in a modified form. In June there followed statements expressing concern from 11 mainly evangelical bishops and the bishops of the Society. At Synod in both questions during the presentation and the debate, the Bishop of Bath and Wells, who had not previously publicly critiqued the process, made clear he was now opposed. In the final vote the bishops’ support fell below two-thirds to a majority of only 10 with 17 unable to support the House’s motion (22-12-5).
The fifth Jenga brick also relates to episcopacy but is one which, until now, the bishops have been unwilling to apply any pressure to at all, while those pressing for change insist it needs to be moved quite significantly if episcopal pressure on the other bricks is not to lead to total collapse. During the February 2023 Synod debate it was acknowledged (most powerfully by the Archbishop of York) that there would need to be “pastoral reassurance” for those opposed to the changes and this provision became one of the three key elements (alongside PLF and Pastoral Guidance) of a way forward. It is, however, one the bishops have been most reluctant to consider and the most recent proposals were resisted by many bishops. The plans were only passed by the House later that day because of changes watering down the proposed provision and removing (see para 10) the previously highlighted development of “three spaces, one church”.
The Synod paper notes that whether and how much to move this brick will be a major question moving forward with calls for transferred episcopal jurisdiction should clergy enter same-sex marriages (para 27). Current proposals for delegated oversight (of an unclear scope and having no secure legal basis) have been rejected as insufficient by those to whom they are being offered. In the words of Helen Lamb in the Synod debate, for them
that the power that the Bishops hold as ordinaries is non-negotiable whereas the doctrine of the Church is negotiable is a hard thing to hear from our bishops.
There have also been repeatedly raised concerns about a sixth feature: the way bishops have been seemingly willing to disregard constitutional, legal and other aspects of due process. This has been a central feature of the concerns raised by a new network of networks called The Alliance whose letters speak of “the illegitimate and unconstitutional nature of the process”. The 12 bishops’ October dissenting statement stated “we believe that bishops must have due regard to the obligations of good and proper governance”. At the heart of this is the initial refusal to use the Canon B2 Synodical process, now reinstated after being modified in November. In February 2024 it became clear that legal advice drawn up in September was not shared with the bishops until December, despite meetings of the College, the House, and the Synod during those months making key decisions related to it. Legal and other advice has not been published, with Synod members receiving only the bishops’ own selective summaries.
Earlier legal advice in 2016 (in Annex to GS 2055), never withdrawn, made clear the constraints on proceeding with the sort of developments now being proposed and this has made many concerned that legal advice is either being ignored or subtly adapted in order for the bishops to do what they want, on policy and political grounds, to do. There is also widespread disquiet that it only became clear in February that very significant decisions relating to the process and its intended outcomes (in relation to same-sex civil marriage and clergy) were taken by the House of Bishops in the October 2023 meeting but concealed from General Synod’s November meeting. These process failings, particularly the repeated failure to fulfil promises to treat all three elements of prayers, guidance and provision together as a package (critiqued in this Synod by Alianore Smith) seem to be endemic even after the “reset” as shown by the significant criticisms of the process leading to the latest proposals by 11 members of the Working Groups supportive of current teaching and practice.
The relationship between the bishops and General Synod and the lack of a strong consensus is a seventh Jenga brick. General Synod has now three times passed motions relating to LLF/PLF, but those motions have only selectively been implemented (most notably the disregarding of the Cornes amendment) and the majorities have been small among the clergy and laity and diminishing among the bishops. The crucial amendment that became the basis for abandoning the use of Canon B2 was passed by a majority of just one in the House of Laity. Between February and October 2023 the majorities in each House fell by over half (from 32 to 13, 26 to 7, 11 to 4) to be only 51.8% to 48.2% among clergy and 51% to 49% among laity (compared to 57:43 and 53:47 in February).
At this latest Synod the aim had been to avoid a repetition of these narrow margins by presenting a motion that would gather greater consensus and enable some settlement. Instead, support among bishops fell and the division among clergy and laity remained almost unchanged (52.9% to 47.1% among clergy and 51.1% to 48.9% among laity). Many in Synod asked what bishops would do faced with a clergyperson continuing to press forward with controversial proposals in their parish when faced with such deep division. They suggested most bishops would be concerned about the lack of wisdom being shown and the real danger of complete pastoral breakdown.
These seven “Jenga bricks”, indisputably significant for securing the cohesion and stability of Church of England structures whatever one’s views on LLF/PLF, are currently being pushed about in order to secure the pre-determined outcome desired by the Archbishops and a majority of bishops. For most opposing that outcome, the proposals also represent an attempt to remove an even more important and foundational eighth brick in the Anglican tower: Scripture’s authority.
The imagery of the church as a building is biblical: we are
built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord (Ephesians 2:20-21).
The seriousness of the situation is evident from the fact that the canon at the centre of the controversies (Canon B30) is the only one claiming its content is “according to our Lord’s teaching” making disregarding it in practice or changing its statement as to the teaching of Christ of the highest significance. Much opposition to the changes is based ultimately on the conviction that they can only be viewed as pushing away the foundational brick of the teaching of the apostles and prophets. This inevitably has implications not only for the Church of England but also for the wider “whole building” to which it is joined, particularly the Anglican Communion.
Many did not know whether to laugh or cry at the title of the latest proposals: “Moving Forward As One Church”. That this was far from the reality became crystal clear when an open letter to the Archbishops from leaders of the Alliance stated that
If the further departure from the Church’s doctrine suggested by the Synod papers does go ahead, we will have no choice but rapidly to establish what would in effect be a new de facto “parallel Province” within the Church of England and to seek pastoral oversight from bishops who remain faithful to orthodox teaching on marriage and sexuality. We will encourage all church leaders who are in sympathy with The Alliance to join the parallel Province.
Synod’s voting figures confirm that even if we limit “One Church” to the Church of England we are very far from moving forward together as one. The serious effects on the wider church were already clear last February when a dozen Primates stated that “The GSFA [Global South Fellowship of Anglican Churches] is no longer able to recognise the present Archbishop of Canterbury, the Rt Hon & Most Revd Justin Welby, as the “first among equals” Leader of the global Communion”. The implications of the latest developments are also clear: after Synod GSFA signalled their support for the Alliance statement, and so it seems that not only the Church of England but the wider Anglican Communion is being pushed to the brink of total collapse by Church of England bishops, led by the two Archbishops.
The opening session of the LLF Course encouraged reflection on Matthew 7:24-29 with its warning about building on sand rather than rock: “The rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell—and great was its fall!” Many cannot in conscience do anything other than oppose the proposals because they see them as a call to move from building on the rock to build instead on sand. That understanding is, of course, rejected by those supporting the changes. The question the image of episcopal Jenga raises, however, is how anyone, whatever their view of the proposals, can seriously think it wise for the the bishops to continue pushing and pulling at each of these major Jenga bricks that contribute to Anglican identity and unity or believe that doing so can lead to any other outcome than a similar “great fall” for the Church of England and wider Anglican Communion.
Revd Dr Andrew Goddard is Assistant Minister, St James the Less, Pimlico, Tutor in Christian Ethics, Westminster Theological Centre (WTC) and Tutor in Ethics at Ridley Hall, Cambridge. He is a member of the Church of England Evangelical Council (CEEC) and was a member of the Co-Ordinating Group of LLF and the subgroup looking at Pastoral Guidance.
This article was first published on Living Church here, and is reproduced with permission.
Buy me a Coffee
One wonders if our ‘revisionist’ bishops have ever read 1 Corinthians 3.16,17. Enough to make us all very cautious of playing ‘church Jenga’.
‘Don’t you know that you yourselves are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in your midst? If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy that person; for God’s temple is sacred, and you together are that temple.’
The bishops have no fear of the Lord, and no wisdom.
You have forsaken your first love. Remember the height from which you have fallen! Repent and do the things you did at first. If you do not repent, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place.
Oh, what a tangled web Satan weaves
When Christ’s faithful he practises to deceive.
The LLF is a manifesto for syncretists and what is emerging in response is a Reformation not a schism. From an Evangelical perspective I agree with Jonathan Perkin that this is a 1 Corinthians 3:16, 17 issue, although I have a much more radical paradigm shift in mind, similar to the Puritan Councils.
Wisdom has built her house; she has carved out her seven pillars.
Proverbs 14 v 1 1Every wise woman builds her house,
but a foolish one tears it down with her own hands.
Prov.9:17 Stolen waters are sweet, and bread eaten in secret is pleasant.
9:18 But he knoweth not that the dead are there; and that her guests are in the depths of hell.
At the risk of repeating myself, I don’t think anythings going to change until we get on with the task of rewriting Issues in Human Sexuality. Little wonder it feels like a nightmarish game of jenga to some if one of the foundational blocks isn’t actually in place.
That Issues needs to be replaced is in fact a point of consensus – at the last Synod, Robert Thompson wanted it replaced, and so did Charlie Skrine. You don’t hear anyone actually defending keeping it, rather the concern (see Cornes) is to make sure it really is replaced and not simply deleted which would leave us with nothing.
Getting into the replacement of Issues would, I strongly suspect, change the voting patterns in Synod (perhaps quite significantly). We may have a narrow majority for PLF, but I wonder what the votes would like on questions like whether people can describe themselves as gay, whether they should expect change in orientation, whether they should be encouraged into straight marriages, whether those in same-sex marriages should be told to divorce, whether we should reverse the decision to allow clergy to have civil partnerships, whether celibacy is a rule to be prescribed or a calling to be discerned, etc. etc..
Whilst I expect we’d find more agreement and maybe consensus than we realise, it would also clarify the point at which we disagree and whether a suggested third province would be maintaining current teaching and practice or doing something rather different, and therefore what those being sold such a province are really being asked to sign up to: bans on civil partnerships, requiring gay couples to divorce, expecting sexual orientations to be chosen or changed etc. etc.?
One more creative way to do it would be to split the proposed replacement of Issues in order to have a motion in parts – start with the most basic questions around orientation and build up from there and see how far along Synod can get.
The most basic question isn’t about orientation; it is about marriage. That is where we need to start. (Except we did some time ago…!)
Isn’t the most basic question about sex?
“What is sex for?”
“What are the intrinsic purposes of our sexual desires?”
“Is there a natural design to sex that we ought to reverence?”
Well, that’s actually three questions!
Good questions!
Those are good questions, but they come after you’ve established whether you think sexual orientation is a real thing, whether your sexuality can be chosen or ought to be acknowledged and accepted (and what does that mean?).
Why?
Would you care to explain whether this should apply to any other area of the law? If you have ‘diagnosed kleptomania’, are you exempt from the Eighth Commandment and may you be allowed to shoplift at will? What about serial killers who claim to be acting on strong compulsion.
The principle is exactly the same.
Ian,
Well it occurs to me that if you think sexual orientation isn’t real, or is something you can choose to change at will, then all the other questions become much more simple to answer. But if you haven’t dealt with the sexual orientation questions answering the other questions don’t get you that far: you’re still left with challenging stuff to think through because the answer you have is, at best, incomplete. Avoiding the orientation question is, for too many I fear, because they know this. And they worry that either their views on sexual orientation have little support if openly expressed, or that they have no real answer for how gay people can order their lives but would rather just pretend we’re not here.
Adam, what do you mean by ‘real’? Part of the interesting thing about the biblical texts it’s not so much that they don’t consider orientation as “real”, but they don’t appear to consider it of material importance when thinking about sexual ethics and holiness in the light of God’s creation of humanity as male and female. This is a key part of biblical anthropology.
Dan,
It’s a daft comparison. In a marriage, you’re not simply taking a wife as if she’s a passive thing put there to be a repository for your sexual drive like some awful flesh-and-bone rutting post. You marry her and, just as importantly, she marries you. St Paul makes this very clear I think in 1 Corinthians 7 where he draws a very equal view of marriage: the wife’s body belongs to the husband, and in the same way, the husband’s body belongs to the wife and they are not to deprive each other.
So in this conversation about gay people, we’re not talking about whether a man is allowed to take another man for sex. We’re talking about whether two gay men can be in a relationship with each other and marry each other. That’s different. And has no comparison to theft or murder.
Jesus in Matthew 22 tells us that to love God and love your neighbour are the two commandments on which hang all the law and the Prophets. St Paul explains this in Romans 13 telling us that love is the fulfillment of the law, because love does no harm to a neighbour. If you kill someone you’ve harmed your victim. If you take their property you’ve harmed the owner. If you commit adultery you’ve harmed the spouse. When we’re talking about two gay people forming a faithful and committed relationship the harm is much harder to see. Who is the neighbour being harmed? In a previous era where we might expect such people to be in a male-female marriage anyway, and any gay relationship was inherently illicit or on the side, then there was harm (the Greek and Roman idea of married men having male/boy lovers who don’t count as adulterous affairs). Or if you thought that no one is really gay, they’re just overflowing with sexual desire and having sex with everyone and everything, like a latter day Emperor Nero corrupting all around them, there’s harm. But that’s not what we’re talking about is it?
Ian,
That’s an interesting interpretation. It might be good to see how you got there: where are the gay people treating their sexuality as a minor concern (or being told to)?
By real I mean that there are people who are gay and straight, not just male and female (for example). I mean that sexuality is not a social construction that can be molded, changed, or discarded at will. People aren’t lying about themselves and it’s not a delusion. Nor is it a kindof excessive overflowing of the sex drive, like some Roman emperor having sex with everything that moves (and some things that don’t) because they’re just out of control.
Your argument seems to be slightly different (but related). If I understand you, you’re saying that people might be gay, but their sexuality is unimportant in how the choices they face about ordering their lives. This trivialization of sexuality, I would suggest, stands in contrast to say the Catholic Catechism which argues: “Sexuality affects all aspects of the human person in the unity of his body and soul. It especially concerns affectivity, the capacity to love and to procreate, and in a more general way the aptitude for forming bonds of communion with others.”
I can see how downplaying sexuality helps simplify things. If it’s unimportant, then we can tell a gay man who finds the loneliness of celibacy an intolerable burden, or the temptation to gay sexual encounters too overwhelming, that there’s no real problem, he should just find a wife to marry. The trouble is when we’ve actually applied that we got the disaster and wrecked lives of the ex-gay movement. I’d also suggest it finds no support in CofE teaching, at least if Issues in Human Sexuality is anything to do by. That perhaps shouldn’t surprise us: a Church that allows not just ordinary clergy, but Bishops to marry, and it’s so commonplace that to not be married is unusual, is hardly one which can argue sexuality is unimportant.
But I’d agree that you on this: we are talking about a key consideration. That’s why I think it ought to be one of the first things we tackle in the replacement of Issues. What you think about this is vital to answering everything else we’re trying to resolve.
Jack, old chap, if Ian Paul will permit a brief off-topic from me, you might like to inform regulars at your own blog that Adrian Hilton re-activated his dormant blog to repost articles he has had accepted (typically every few months) by the Spectator, Telegraph etc. He permits comments beneath them.
Where?
adrianhilton dot com
Thanks, Anton.
Not sure he’ll want HJ returning though!
And this might be the root of the disagreement…
Well yes. But it is not a cause of lack of clarity in Anglican formularies. It is just that a lot of clergy, who claimed they believed this teaching, and promised to uphold and teach it, do neither. Include many bishops. As long as that continues, we are not going to find a settlement.
The most basic question isn’t about marriage. It is about the Bible. Are we under it, or do we just use it?
“We know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully, knowing that the law is… made… for” – pick your translation of “arsenokoitai”….
Christians have, from the birth of the church always accepted God’s intention, revealed in biological reality and made certain by consistent biblical teaching, that the purpose of human sexual relations is fulfilled between one man and one woman. Moreover, sexual activity has, for all normally balanced people, been a private matter: parading of proclivities, discussing details with all and sundry, or prying into other people’s personal business have no place amongst mature people, let alone within the hearing of young children. On the other hand, and as far as I know, neither God nor God’s people have ever suggested that bedrooms should be policed beyond taking prompt action upon the revelation that vulnerable children or adults have been assaulted. It’s a freedom that God allows people to work out for themselves but Christians have been given the unambiguous steer that loving Jesus involves keeping his commandments.
God’s people really do need to leave it at that. What we all need like a hole in the head is more lengthy documents from bishops resulting from repeated turning of the same ground, pushing over fences in search of golden nuggets which might offer new pleasures which God forgot to place within the original boundary. The whole point of Andrew Goddard’s piece here is to make plain the shocking level of destruction which we, as a church, have already brought upon ourselves through the madness born of our human failure to accept with gratitude but also obedience the great gift which God has given us within the realm of our procreative activity. Perhaps most concerning of all is the effect this destruction has had, and threatens to make permanent, on the Church of England’s spiritual health, its witness on behalf of the gospel, and its salt-like benefit within a nation that currently borders on social, economic, and political chaos.
Thank you Don. Beautifully put.
Well said, Don.
And Evangelicals ought to have refused to play the game. The Gospel has the only unshakeable foundations which were not staunchly defended and proclaimed from the very start of all this business. The liberals laid the agenda’s foundations and Evangelicals have played along – they should have refused at the outset. We are not called to discuss how to save a denomination but to proclaim without fear or favour the one true foundation of the revealed truth of God in the Scriptures.
In what way have evangelicals ‘played along’? Mostly have we not been sufficiently engaged with the structures—we haven’t been on the field of play.
Failure to screen ordinands properly a generation ago.
Well, I suppose you don’t need to wear fancy dress to play Jenga – but it probably helps.
Some people seem to think it helps in your claiming that you are building the tower when in fact you are knocking it down…
That’s the high church crowd, not the liberals.
More liberals in the C of E are now high church than low church, many of the conservatives who were high church became Roman Catholic after ordination of women priests and bishops
Do you get your categories by pulling words out of an ecclesiastical jar at random?
Amen. None of the “fancy dress” stuff is important. Let the Anglican church go the way of the Methodists.
For some of us, dark suit and tie at the front is fancy dress…..
The Methodists are low church, they have never done ‘fancy dress’
Conservative evangelicals have got to realise they are members of an established church of a nation in which same sex marriage is legal. Homosexual parishioners married in English law are therefore perfectly entitled to have a blessing in the local Parish church of the established church, indeed divorced parishioners can not only get a blessing but remarried in that Parish church.
The Archbishops are also perfectly entitled in liturgical changes to propose services and standalone services for blessings such as PLF as long as they do not contradict doctrine of the C of E. As PLF did not approve same sex marriage in C of E churches only prayer services there has been no change in doctrine which would have required a 2/3 majority of Synod to approve. Indeed provided they don’t get married in church only civilly no change of doctrine needed for same sex married C of E priests and bishops either. Given there are already divorced and remarried C of E priests and bishops again it is not incompatible with holy orders.
A comfortable majority of the bishops voted for PLF too, as indeed did a majority of the houses of clergy and laity. Pastoral reassurance has already been granted with conservative Parishes, evangelical or Anglo Catholic, opposed to PLF able to opt out exactly as they could do with remarriage of divorcees or women priests. If there are flying bishops as were given for traditionalists opposed to women bishops and priests too remains to be seen but is not impossible.
Given same sex marriage was not proposed there was no change in doctrine and no need to use the B2 process either, indeed liberals like Ozanne left the C of E for the Methodists precisely as they offer same sex marriages in Methodist churches now but the C of E still doesn’t. Given Brexit was forced through with just 52% support, the majorities for PLF are in the same ballpark and higher in the house of bishops and entirely valid in a democratic system. Indeed Trump was even elected in 2016 POTUS with no popular vote majority at all, as was Bush in 2000 and Trudeau in Canada at the last Canadian election and Ardern in NZ in 2017.
As for scriptural purity, if that was key the C of E should never have allowed remarriage of divorcees either except for spousal adultery nor women priests and bishops as both Jesus in the case of the former and St Paul on the latter are strict on that. However as established church it has moved with the times in modern England and reflected the nation it serves (with opt outs for those who disagree). Those who want scriptural purity on everything could join a Roman Catholic church for example, given RCs still do not allow same sex marriages, women priests and bishops nor remarriage of divorcees except with annulments. Baptists also don’t recognise same sex relationships either and often don’t remarry divorcees or have women priests and Pentecostals are also strict in opposing recognition of same sex couples.
As for the Anglican Communion it is a relatively recent invention of the 19th century at the height of the British Empire. The Church of England existed for over 300 years perfectly happily until the Anglican Communion came along but the British Empire has now gone and if the Communion is to survive it will only be as a very loose relationship like the Commonwealth, with leadership rotating amongst leaders of provinces rather than solely being led by the Archbishop of Canterbury as Prince William has said he does not want to be head of the Commonwealth when he becomes King but to rotate its leadership amongst Commonwealth heads of state.
Even if the C of E had stuck with no recognition of same sex couples as remains the position of most African Anglican churches the Communion would still have been divided anyway as the US Episcopal Church and The Scottish Episcopal Church already perform same sex marriages in their churches and the Anglican churches in Wales, New Zealand and Canada and some Australian states already allow prayers of blessing for same sex couples
Simon, please can you desist from repeatedly posting these dogmatic assertions which are not true, and which you do not defend from obvious criticism of their errors.
TLDR – except the last five lines. Are you aware – I am sure you are – that the SEC and the Anglican Church in Wales, New Zealand and Canada are ALMOST DEAD? SEC has about 10,000 uSa, Wales about the same, NZ doesn’t keep records of attendance but it can’t be more than 30k, and Canada maybe 60k. In the C of E, great numbers of parishes will just collapse in ten years because of the age of the congregations and the 40% drop in ordinands.
You need to get up to date with actual facts about western Anglicanism. It is on death’s door.
No, given there are 3 million members of the Anglican church in Australia, 300,000 members of the Anglican church in New Zealand, 290,000 members of the Anglican church in Canada, 30,000 members of the SEC and 40,000 members of the Anglican church in Wales and 1.5 million members of The US Episcopal Church. The C of E has 26 million baptised members and £8 billion in investments and assets it can put into Parishes too.
Western Anglicanism is also certainly not going to revive by rejecting any recognition of same sex couples in its Parishes when in almost every western nation same sex marriage is legal now and the vast majority of the population in western nations back same sex marriages and unions. If you do reject any such recognition then the Baptists or Pentecostals already offer a hardline anti homosexuality line anyway and the RCs and Orthodox churches also currently offer no services for same sex couples either
You don’t appear to understand the word ‘member’. People who were baptised as children and never go to church are not ‘members’.
They are members of the established church, indeed all residents of the Parish can be counted as members of the established church. It is this rejection of responsibility to and connection with wider members of the Parish beyond those who go to church every Sunday which is why you and some other evangelicals are basically Baptists or independent evangelicals more than members of the established Church of England, it is just a vehicle for you
Again, Simon, I have no idea where you get your understanding from.
The electoral roll form makes it quite clear: a member of the Church of England is someone who was baptised and “attends regularly”. Even a basic understanding of Christian discipleship confirms this.
Rejecting your rather ill informed claims does not mean rejecting responsibility: it is evangelical churches who exercise their responsibility by proclaiming good news to those in their parish and inviting them onto a journey of transforming faith. It is those churches who do not do this who are failing in their responsibility.
After all every resident of the Parish or person baptised in the Parish church has a right to be married in the Parish church or a funeral there even if they never go to church on Sundays or at most for Christmas and Easter only
Marriage is not a rite of Christian discipleship
It is for an established church
Simon, you are just repeating nonsense, which is why nobody treats you seriously. The NZ Anglican Church has no ‘members’ at all.
There are not ’26 million baptised members of the Church of England’.
What people put down on a census form is largely meaningless.
T1
“The C of E has 26 million baptised members….”
Almost all of these are baptisms of infants who of course have had no choice, and have increasingly been carried out for social reasons rather than real faith. Not to mention that things have changed from my childhood when baptism/’christening’ was common – what is the figure for current baptisms per head of the population? The significant statistic is not that rather artificially inflated figure but the number who actually bother to regularly attend a CofE church – around 2% of the English population.
The Church’s biggest missionary asset is that it offers the world something different – the more we are like the world, the less reason the world has to bother with us. Indeed a willingness to change our beliefs to accommodate the world is likely to be seen as dishonesty – which of course it is.
I have to agree with you, mind, that “Conservative evangelicals have got to realise they are members of an established church of a nation in which same sex marriage is legal”. The big problem with that is that there is a major dissonance for evangelicals in being ‘established’ when the Bible itself does not teach establishment but a rather different way of doing things. It looks odd to be fussy about obeying the Bible on sexuality while disobeying it on the major Anglican idea about church and state.
Having said that, T1, I hope you realise that a CofE which gives up a scriptural position on sexuality will be yet further emptied; and how long will God continue to support a body that increasingly disregards him??
No it is not, as the C of E is the established state church. The Vatican of course counts all baptised Catholics Catholics for life even if they never attend church again or even become atheists. The Church of England was founded to be a part of the world, the English national church with the King as its Supreme Governor offering parish ministry to all that is part of its role.
The C of E is the state church, open to all, not just those who attend services each week and evangelicals who don’t want that I agree can find another church. It also has £8 billion in assets and investments, regardless of congregation size
Among the numerous problems with and factual inaccuracies in your post, a significant one is your use of the language of “blessing” to refer to a service of thanksgiving etc after a civil marriage when one or both parties have a divorced partner still living. This is specifically NOT a service of “blessing”, it is carefully entitled “An Order for Prayer and Dedication after a Civil Marriage”. At no point is God’s blessing invoked on the couple’s marriage, though of course a blessing is asked for them as individuals and on them as a couple.
So it is simply wrong to state that, ‘divorced parishioners can get a blessing’ as a reasoning for justifying doing the same with same-sex marriages.
Divorced couples can even get remarried in C of E churches now, let alone a blessing or thanksgiving service. Same sex couples still can’t get married in a C of E church, only a service of prayer after a civil marriage
We measure the intelligence of people by how many separate occasions they cannot grasp the point, grasped by primary school children, that two wrongs do not make a right.
But over and above that, we measure their honesty by how many separate occasions they ignore this point.
And then return to voicing it as though nothing had happened! Which has even further implications for both their intelligence and their honesty.
Persons not up to speed on the present controversy might find useful the 5 minutes it takes to view this summary before proceeding on to Andrew Goddard’s more detailed version above:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=639Ee_ivyOs
The party of faith in this matter is still thinking and writing as if this is all some grotesque misunderstanding and muddle that will, with enough goodwill and effort, come right.
It won’t. This is a spiritual battle, and the enemy of the faithful church is a deadly one, Satan. He never sleeps, and he is behind everything that seeks to bring the faithful church down. The senior leadership of the Church of England are letting themselves be used by Satan. They are unaware that he is behind it, but their wanton deviation from holy scripture in the matter has no other source. They must be told so, courteously but clearly, and told to repent and desist. That the decay has gone so far that this can now be done only by their juniors in the Church of England’s worldly hierarchy is no reason not to issue this rebuke. The faithful have Christ on their side and cannot lose if they fight properly. I do not know which side will emerge with the title deeds of the Established church and its worldly assets, but that must not deter the faithful, for otherwise the entire system will go apostate.
Obviously the liberal side as that is the direction the state and King will support too for the established church and is also the majority in Synod who voted for PLF
If so, the resulting rump will soon die.
Not all of them, the state church will still be used for royal weddings, royal and major PMs and generals and public figures funerals. coronations, remembrance services etc. Plus it will have billions of investments and assets to sustain it regardless of how many regularly are in its congregations
Do you really think that a secular government will tolerate an empty church with billions of assets doing things like crowning the sovereign?
Of course, it is part of the ritual of government and even now far more like the King and certainly the Prince and Princess of Wales than voted for Starmer or are evangelical Christians. As historian David Starkey said in the Church of England historically worship of the monarch has been as important as worship of God and Christ since Henry VIII created it to replace the Roman Catholic church as national church. It will be doing Charles’ funeral, William’s coronation and George’s wedding in future decades to come. In fact the C of E has a role in the nation not miles off Shinto in Japan and the life of the Emperor and imperial family
‘worship of the monarch has been as important as worship of God and Christ’
Simon, what are you smoking? Is this a spoof trolling account…??
The Lutheran churches of the Scandinavian monarchies play a similar role too
Thankyou Anton for this engaging link[s]
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=639Ee_ivyOs
Which led me to the next video, an interview featuring Charlie Skrine.
I imagine that the dilemmas of Charlie Skrine and All Souls L P. will be played out in many or even all of our local Parish Churches, PCC’s etc.
As was pointed out in the interview the intervention of John Stott whist Martin Lloyd Jones was speaking in the 1960’s calling Evangelicals out of the CofE Is ironically, in of all places, his old pastorate, realization has dawned. MLJ’s sentiments have been almost realized and vindicated.
Charlie is hoping that the Orthodox Evangelicals have a united
stomach for the fight today.
Whatever the outcome, as Skrine points out, whether God will abandon the Cof E to it’s demise, or resurrect/recall it to Holiness.
What is sure is that God will not abandon his faithful obedient people.
SEE Where is God in the silence? @ cslewisinstitute.org
OR, God’s Megaphone@ cslewisinstitute.org
Alan K
On the MLJ controversy, this was my take on my blog
https://stevesfreechurchblog.wordpress.com/2013/10/13/a-controversy-re-visited-martyn-lloyd-jones/
“The forms of Christianity best adapted to a secular future are probably the most distinctive and uncompromising. Elaborate rituals and unfashionable moral ideas are, paradoxically, the key to survival.”
James Marriott
(From an article I cannot read because it is behind a paywall)
In a non established church reliant on big congregations funding it to survive maybe, not in an established state church with billions of assets and investments built up over centuries to sustain it
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens.
All the riches of God Kingdom in Christ Jesus, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, is never usurped or replaced a by any state church and its worship of mammon, and knows nothing of the eternal riches of and in Christ Jesus.
T1
umm…. reductio ad absurdum – in spades…..
Elaborate rituals…are the key?
Form without substance, without more, is a sham, pretence? A church which excludes God in Christ, is not Christian.
Which one is justified, the Liberal Pharisees of today or the publican? The moral ritualist, formalist, or the publican?
The Moralistic- Therapeutic-Deist or the publican?
That was meant to be a rejoinder to David Wilson’s comment.
It is not my quotation. However, what is interesting is that according to the originator, blending in with society and its mores is not the key to survival.
I agree that form without substance is not good. However, that does not mean that the form cannot have substance. I’m feeling my way a bit here, as ritual is not really my thing. I suspect that when well-done, good ritual provides a means for people to connect with a reality outside of the everyday. Perhaps sensory and symbolic means are actually better at this than reasoned discourse. This gateway out of one’s present, immediate world has connection to other cultures and times. The Eucharist has been celebrated on a hundred thousand Sundays.
I suppose the point is that the Church should be ‘other’, in the world but not of the world. Are Christendom and an ‘established’ Church problems. Probably.
David,
I agree that there is a profundity to liturgy formulated by people of a different era that knew God. It is that which is made redundant by rote form and look-at- me garb and which closes down interest and listening to the modern ear and optic.
It can be a barrier to the purpose of church meeting together- to worship the Triune God of Christianity.
I recall court advocacy training where it was impressed not to dress to impress. It only distracts from the weight of the contents of the words.
How did Jesus dress, even as he attended synagogue, the festivals, and amongst the community?
If most people in a congregation know God then liturgy is superfluous. You meet according to 1 Corinthians 14.
He wore a prayer shawl with tassels.
The early church seems to have had no problem with elaborate vestments – Polycrates writes that St John wore the sacerdotal plate as a priest in Ephesus.
From The Times?
I’m not sure what Marriott means by a secular future. One where the nation has no agreed religious framework, doesn’t accord religious leaders a particular right to the public forum, or willingness to hear public policy debated on religious grounds, well maybe. But if it’s way of saying the vast majority of people will be atheists, I’m much more sceptical. If you’ve ever watched the Pilgramage shows on the BBC you’ll get a little insight into Britain’s religiosity: it’s less a march to atheism, and more a slide to spirituality with a wariness of the dreaded “organised religion”.
Every age has it’s questions, preconceptions and hang-ups, that the Church is required to confront. You can see right from the beginning, with St Paul preaching in Athens and engaging with Greek philosophical ideas because that was the crowd he was preaching to. John Stott in the 50s and 60s saw he was in a country going through social change, and brought evangelicals back to social engagement. What Marriott sees as paradoxically uncompromising, is I think really just confidence. If we can confidently respond to people, they’ll listen. If we can’t, why would you take someone seriously who wasn’t confident in what they were saying? And if someone’s not responsive, doesn’t that make them irrelevant?
If we’re in an age of spirituality, there is a vast, rich tradition within the Church to draw on. Confidence in that and in Christ our Saviour will see us right.
AJ, by 2050 Britain will be 20% Muslim – in some cities, they will be the majority. Have you thought about that? I hope not to be alive then (terrestrially) but I do wonder and worry how it will be for our children.
It isn’t going to go well.
James – I get the impression that Muslims have been given a bad press. Sure, there are some serious headbangers who do awful things in the name of that religion, but I don’t think it’s worse than some of the extremists who have a perverted view of Christianity.
I don’t think that the headbanger who tried to kill Trump was associated with a religious sect, but he was white.
Going back to the middle ages and the crusades, I get the impression that my own faith would have more in common with the Muslim religion than with the pagan superstition that passed for Christianity at that time.
If you take the view that God created male and female (and you don’t take the view that ‘gender’ is somehow elastic) and if you take the view that marriage is between one man and one woman in life-long union, then you may well find that Muslims are allies rather than adversaries – moreso than your co-religionists within the C. of E..
‘one man and one woman’ – I understood that the ideal was one man and up to four women in many streams of Islam.
Paul – maybe – but we don’t actually see this in the UK.
don’t we? if we do its because the current UK law is firm on that matter. However:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15032947
I’m sure there is a lot that flies under the legal radar in closed communities.
Paul – I agree that what is being related in the bbc article you point to is very disgusting; the men who take two wives are forsaken of God and headed for the eternal fire, likewise the women who agree to such an arrangement.
All I would say is that this does not correspond to Muslims whom I have met in real life, who tend to be monogamous, sober and socially conservative.
I’m also suspicious of the bbc – while the organisation claims to be the paragon of integrity and independence when it comes to journalism, they didn’t call out the lies which set the conditions for the USA/UK invasion of Iraq. Also, I agree with Peter Oborne (The Fate of Abraham: Why the West is wrong about Islam) that Muslims have been given a bad press – and this suits certain agendas.
Bottom line: the ‘bad stuff’ is stuff that I read about in the newspapers and see on television – and it doesn’t correspond to real ‘live’ Muslims whom I meet, for example, at work.
Jock,
The Anglican Communion has a history of taking a slightly more nuanced view on this (it’s been a practical issue for some of the African Churches):
https://www.anglicancommunion.org/resources/document-library/lambeth-conference/1988/resolution-26-church-and-polygamy?subject=Marriage&language=English
What is this anodine and amorphous so called age of ‘spirituality’? Syncretism, pluralism, New Age, age of Aquarius, secular, atheist spirituality.
It is sub and in some instances contra, anti Christ in opposition to the self revealed Triune God of Christianity.
Modelled by the Cathedral Helter Skelter or disco.
2 Timothy 4:3-4
Agreed,
It was God himself who designed and ordained the elaborate dress of the Priests and all the structures, times and dates of all the ceremonies.
Subsequently Jesus manifested in his person the true characteristics of the priest the prophet and the king, which if we have indeed “Put on Christ Jesus” will
exhibit the same in our character in our common garb.
This manifestation was inculcated by God in the Prophets hence:-
HOS.6:6 For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.
Micah 6:6-8;
6:6 Wherewith shall I come before the LORD, and bow myself before the high God? shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves of a year old?
6:7 Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil? shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?
6:8 He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?
Isaiah 1:11-15,
1:11 To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the LORD: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats.
1:12 When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hand, to tread my courts?
1:13 Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting.
1:14 Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth: they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them.
1:15 And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood.
1:16 Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before my eyes; cease to do evil;
1:17 Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow.
1:18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.
1:19 If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land:
If bishop and priest serve God acceptably, with a pure [unmixed, in spirit and in truth] heart
They will not be “play actors”, High handed or deceitful in their common garb.
thanks. But I am really not sure we need posts of long texts of scripture. We all have Bibles!
I see that another irregular service has been held, at St Helen’s. Amongst other heterodox proposals some men are being licensed for lay presidency. Isn’t it about time that this sect, to which some of the commenters here appears to belong, admits that it has no ecclesiological nor theological affiliation with the CoE, nor is it prepared to be obedient to its bishops.
The honourable solution must surely be to schism formally and to leave the faithful members of the CoE to follow their bishops and the decisions of General Synod – even when they do so with some reservations.
The Alliance and now, it seems, CEEC have clearly abandoned the CoE. It would be heartening to learn that they have some rectitude.
What an odd comment!
People who believe the doctrine of the Church, and uphold it, have ‘no theological affiliation with the C of E’ whilst those who don’t, do?
There is an honourable debate to be had about lay presidency, since we allow lay preaching—but of course that is not what they are doing. People have broken bread and remembered Jesus in informal ways in house groups since the 1960s. Keep up!
Many liberal bishops have clearly abandoned the Church of England, not believing its doctrine, not teaching the faith, and creating schism—all against their ordination vows. It would be heartening to learn that they have some rectitude, and did the honest thing by giving up their palaces and stipends.
As we have said as nauseam, PLF do not change the doctrine of the CoE. Some of us might wish that they did and might argue for a development in doctrine. But they don’t. So we follow Synod and our bishops faithfully and hopefully.
The commissioning of ‘overseers’ and lay presidency is completely outwith CoE ecclesiology and far more heterodox than blessing people (not relationships). They may be acceptable/correct/virtuous in other denominations, but not in the Church of England. If William, Rod Thomas, Julian Henderson and John Dunnett wish to firm their own sect they should have the courage and integrity to do so. Perhaps John Scott was wrong after all. On a lighter note, I’m sure St Helen’s could fund a nice comforting sect.
Stott. Even I know that.
An honourable debate about lay presidency?
Don’t tell me there’s another doctrine that you want to develop, just not change in any essential matter…
AJB,
There is no doctrinal issue for Anglicans because, as Ian notes, there is no prohibition of ‘lay preaching’ in the C of E (in fact, it is actively encouraged), and Anglicans (or evangelicals at least) don’t exalt the sacrament over preaching. Therefore ‘lay presidency’ cannot be against the doctrine of the C of E, since no doctrine specifies that only ordained presbyters may ‘preside’ at communion.
Evangelicals have been reluctant to do this before only out of a sense of collegiality and a concern for the conscience of High Church Anglicans who think the eucharist is a sacrifice (in fact, a re-presentation of the sacrifice of Calvary) and the presbyterate is a sacrificing priesthood – which is exactly the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church.
But this has never been the doctrine of the Church of England. Meanwhile the Bishops are intent on changing the doctrine of marriage.
Some saying about straining out gnats and swallowing camels comes to mind.
And to think some people say the Ordinal is one of the particular places Anglican doctrine is found.
AJB, tell me what is theologically wrong in what I say.
Where is the error in my reasoning?
Does the Ordinal state that lay people may not preside at communion?
Are you an Ordinal fundamentalist?
Is the rejection of robes in evangelical churches against doctrine or the Ordinal?
The Ordinal from Common Worship nowhere states that ‘presiding at communion’ is exclusively for the presbyterate, rather, it is a #bible-focused pastoral ministry:
“Priests are called to be servants and shepherds8 among the people to whom they are sent. With their Bishop and fellow ministers, they are to
proclaim the word of the Lord and to watch for the signs of God’s new creation.9 They are to be messengers, watchmen10 and stewards11 of the Lord;
they are to teach and to admonish,12 to feed and provide for his family, to search for his children in the wilderness of this world’s temptations, and to
guide them through its confusions, that they may be saved through Christ for ever. Formed by the word, they are to call their hearers to repentance and to
declare in Christ’s name the absolution and forgiveness of their sins. With all God’s people, they are to tell the story of God’s love. They are to baptize new disciples in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Spirit,13 and to walk with them in the way of Christ, nurturing them in the faith. They are to unfold the Scriptures,14 to preach the word in season and out
of season,15 and to declare the mighty acts of God.16 They are to preside at the Lord’s table and lead his people in worship, offering with them a spiritual
sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving.17 They are to bless the people in God’s name.18 They are to resist evil, support the weak, defend the poor, and
intercede for all in need.19 They are to minister to the sick20 and prepare the dying for their death. Guided by the Spirit, they are to discern and foster the
gifts of all God’s people,21 that the whole Church may be built up in unity and faith.22”
“Take thou authority to preach the Word of God, and to minister the holy Sacraments in the Congregation, where thou shalt be lawfully appointed thereunto.”
That of course is somewhat different to the Deacons, who get:
“Take thou authority to read the Gospel in the Church of God, and to preach the same, if thou be thereto licensed by the Bishop himself.”
There’s an interesting bit in the preface though:
“No man shall be accounted or taken to be a lawful Bishop, Priest, or Deacon in the Church of England, or suffered to execute any of the said functions, except he be called, tried, examined, and admitted thereunto, according to the Form hereafter following, or hath had formerly Episcopal Consecration or Ordination.”
They aren’t, if they were they would have proposed full same sex marriages in C of E churches to Synod
In their smart and confiratory bias, some of the commentors here have conveniently overlooked the corroborative and cumulative weight of evidence set out in detail and length in all the articles on this matter written by Andrew Goddard-Truth that is being held hostage, by those of the SRP, Schismatic Revisionist Party.
How far down the pan the CoE is being driven is further evidenced by Ian Paul’s latest article above on FFA.
Adam, you ought to read this: https://grovebooks.co.uk/product/w-208-lay-presidency-an-anglican-option-2011/
I just knew there’d be a Grove booklet…
Penelope
Of course such a schism would mean leaving the UNfaithful members of the CofE following UNfaithful bishops who if they had any rectitude would not be still in the CofE.
I have some reservations about the irregularities of Alliance and CEEC at this point but they do at least express some hope that a biblically faithful CofE can continue rather than a further descent into heresy. They at least do have ‘theological affiliation’ to the original stated beliefs of the CofE. It is only a matter of time I suspect before they will be forced to formally break away – but be careful what you wish for; the more unfaithful the CofE is to the Word of God, the less they will have support from the God of the Word. (And I don’t think God will be fooled by what sometimes looks like an attempt to get round the unfaithfulness by transposing the Bible etc into Orwellian ‘Newspeak’…..)
Lay presidency and commissioning ‘overseers’ is about as far away from the ‘original’ CoE as you can get. I’m not saying they are wrong. They are simply not in any recognisable form the Church of England.
The Office of Reader in the Church of England was established in 1866 but I think churchwardens have been authorised to lead Morning and Evening Prayer in the absence of the vicar since the 17th century.
I think the Reader office simply introduced lay preaching to the C of E, which had always been a feature of Methodism and the Non-conformist churches.
Leading a communion service under the authority of the vicar is simply a logical extension of the office of Reader. It isn’t a doctrinal innovation because nowhere do Anglican formularies state that “presiding” at communion can only be the province of the presbyterate, any more than preaching must be.
If we were Roman Catholics or Orthodox, that would be a different matter. As you know, Roman Catholic doctrine is that the eucharist is a re-presentation of the Sacrifice of Calvary in a bloodless form, and the Catholic Priesthood is a sacrificing priesthood instituted to offer the real Body and Blood of Christ under the aspects of bread and wine. Some, perhaps many, Anglo-Catholics have believed this about the Anglican ministry, but this has never been the doctrine of the Church of England.
Don’t authorised lay members take the elements of communion, to those who may be house-bound, in care or hospital?
Geoff – yes, although they don’t “consecrate the elements”.
House group communions are reasonably common. I heard of one bishop who was asked about this. He said: ‘If you do this, don’t let me know!’
Stephen
I don’t for one moment believe that PLF are a departure from ‘biblical teaching on sexuality’.
But, that wasn’t my point. William Taylor et al have departed from the doctrine and discipline of the CoE. They are free to do so. But they should not pretend to be a part of a Church whose ecclesiology they flout, nor should they be supported by it’s resources.
James, I’m aware of that practice in liberal diocese in a local parish.
Penelope,
There are a number of absolutes, shoulds, in your claims.
The burden of proof is yours and so far you have not responded to the comments made by James to even marshal some semblance evidence to support a prima facie case.
Surely the revisionists are not going to resort to Court proceedings to prosecute their claims.
“they are to sustain the community of the faithful by the ministry of word and sacrament, that we all may grow into the fullness of Christ6 and be a living sacrifice acceptable to God.”
Ordination of Priests.
The Eucharist is a sacrament.
If you want lay presidency fine. Either get elected to Synod and argue for a change in doctrine which will require a two thirds majority. Or leave the CoE.
But don’t pretend your beliefs are foundationally Anglican.
If you want same-sex marriage fine. Either get a vote in Synod or leave the C of E. But don’t pretend your beliefs are Anglican.
Penelope, if you think William Taylor has broken the laws of the Church of England you are perfectly entitled to make a complaint to his bishop and to request a CDM to have him suspended or deposed from the ministry of the C of E. Why don’t you do this?
Ian
The Eucharist is a sacrament.
Marriage isn’t.
Penelope
OK, two wrongs don’t make right – but what do you think is more important to God, the anyway largely human organisational structures or the deliberate disregard of fundamental teaching about sexuality?
Sorry. Replied above.
I hope someone within his diocese does call for a CDM. I don’t really care about him breaking Canon Law. He’s not in communion with his Ordinary anyway.
I do care very much about him being resourced by the CoE and spitting in the face of faithful Anglicans, especially queer ones.
Penelope, you don’t have to live in London diocese to lodge a CDM complaint ageinst William Taylor. You can do it, why don’t you?
Stephen
The paramount need of all people everywhere is to hear, believe and obey two vital messages:
The terrible warnings, some from Christ’s own lips, to flee from the eternal retribution from God which the unsaved will face on the Day of Judgment; and the wonderful and sincere invitations and promises to all, some from Christ’s own lips, to repent and submit to Christ in his atoning death and life-giving resurrection, and to obey him for the rest of their lives.
This paramount need is surely more important than the same-sex disagreement, very important though that is!
There is a danger that members of the Alliancecofe.org will agree about the same-sex disagreement but not about the terrible warnings about eternal retribution.
Phil Almond
Phil
Unfortunately the mindset of theological ‘liberalism’ does not take seriously the idea of divine judgement. Wonder if they would listen to the different approach suggested by John 3; 19ff, that
“…this is the verdict/judgement, that the light has come into the world, and people have loved the darkness more than the light. .. everyone who practices evil hates the light, and keeps away from the light…”
What happens to them is their own responsibility and they risk in effect getting exactly what they want, not being thrown into the ‘outer darkness’ but choosing it for themselves….
Stephen
Eternal retribution is inflicted by God. Matthew 13:36-43
‘Then he left the crowd and went into the house. His disciples came to him and said, “Explain to us the parable of the weeds in the field.”
He answered, “The one who sowed the good seed is the Son of Man. The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the people of the kingdom. The weeds are the people of the evil one, and the enemy who sows them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the harvesters are angels”.
“As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age. The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Whoever has ears, let them hear”.
My concern is that not all members of the Alliance believe and preach that retribution is eternal; some believe in final annihilation.
Phil Almond
Yes we do. We simply pay more attention to what scripture says we will be judged for.
“They at least do have ‘theological affiliation’ to the original stated beliefs of the CofE.”
Do they? I didn’t think they were intending to uphold Issues in Human Sexuality. Maybe this is a question yet to be resolved for them.
AJB
Isn’t “Issues in Human Sexuality” already a departure from the original beliefs?
What do you think were the original beliefs?
AJB – the original beliefs of the C of E are in the Book of Common Prayer. ‘Issues in Human Sexuality’ is a great declension from that.
Very well said, sir… For confirmation, you don’t have to look any further than the huge mess in the UMC (actually no longer United Methodist Church) following their recent General Conference.
AJB
How far do you want to go back? As I understand it back when I was born (late 1940s) the basic CofE position was that they approved of homosexuality being a criminal offence. So presumably they weren’t very happy with it…? I ended up in the early 1970s disapproving of the establishment which made the criminalisation possible while still believing that in Christian terms gay sex is sinful.
I don’t think the Alliance is going to start arguing for criminalising homosexuality.
AJB
Missing the point a bit? The point being that same-sex marriage does not appear to be a traditional Anglican position by a long way. And a further side point that how things were then does show one of the problems of being the ‘established’ church.
Stephen, it was you who started talking about the Alliance being affiliated to the original stated beliefs of the CofE. When asked, it was you who suggested that was that homosexuality should be criminalised.
AJB
Just making rather emphatically the point that the original beliefs of the CofE saw homosexuality as sinful, contrary to the will of God; and of course they were right about that. They were wrong in being established and associated with the criminalisation which they back then were not exactly protesting about…
They weren’t, the whole point of the Church of England is it is the established church. That was what Henry VIII created it to be and as an established church it will also move with the changes in English social law
This is pure racism. Because it is *English, it exceeds the importance of the international church and it exceeds the importance of its international founder Jesus? says T1.
Bonkers.
There was only 1 international Church at the time the Church of England was created, the Roman Catholic church headed by the Pope. It was created by Henry VIII, around the same time as the Lutheran church was founded on the continent, precisely to reject Papal authority and to enable the English church to decide its own doctrine based on how most English Christians interpreted scripture
No, not ‘English Christians’ Reformed Christians. There were many connections between reformed Christians in England and on the continent.
Many of those who were ‘reformed’ Christians on the continent would have been considered dissenters or nonconformists in England, certainly until the mid 19th century and outside the Cromwellian Protectorate period
So you are saying that ‘English’ trumps international.
Firstly, that proves my point.
Second, it is illogical, since English is part of international already, so how can the part trump the whole?
Third, it is potentially racist. The English, the English, the English are best, as Flanders and Swann had it.
AJB,
That is an interesting snippet. Being raised in your formative years in the era of the sexual revolution and permissive society were your views and embrace of ssm/s/b formed by the culture, and rejection of sexual activity outside of m+f marriage as being sinful. And it was that cultural lens rather than a study of scripture that cemented that belief, a lens through which you now support a revision of scripture and ultimately doctrine from which it is derived.
It would be interesting to hear of your conversion to Christ in this sexual malestrom culture. Was a change in beliefs wrought in conversion to Christ. Or was Christ Jesus subjugated to the sexual culture, then, and as intensified and magnified today.
Phil Almond
I take divine retribution seriously too; just suggesting that to get through to some of the liberals that other and also biblical take on the issue might be useful…..
Stephen
yes thanks for that
Phil
Phil,
You may find a robust critique of evangelicalism, which starts with a denunciation of sceptic teachers of Christianity and draws to a close with a robust critique of evangelicalism as the talk draws to a close.
“Who Is the Truth?” from Ligonier Ministries https://renewingyourmind.org/2024/07/27
AJB,
Consquences for sin is a separate matter and a distintion is to be made between civil and criminal law. And morals.
Forication and adultery, and all sin listed in Romans 1 , are not crimes but hark back as the outworkings, manifestations, of Adam’s sin which at heart is rebellious and idolatry resulting in God advance notification of judgment, of causal consequences bringing the certainty of death to all following after Adam in his likeness contrary, in opposition to the attributes and will of God.
Yours is a repeated fallacy.
Penelope, you can lodge a CDM complaint if you wish:
https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2020-10/clergy-discipline-measure.pdf
I stated that I didn’t want to. And, as a priest has helpfully pointed out on Twitter, CDMs aren’t for doctrinal matters.
It’s not about doctrine, it’s about breaking “the laws ecclesiastical” and “conduct unbecoming a clerk in Holy Orders”.
If he has violated 8.1.a or 8.1.d , you can send a letter (or email of complaint) to his Bishop:
8 Misconduct
(1) Disciplinary proceedings under this Measure may be instituted against any
archbishop, bishop, priest or deacon alleging any of the following acts or
omissions –
(a) doing any act in contravention of the laws ecclesiastical;
(aa) failing to comply with the duty under section 5 of the Safeguarding
and Clergy Discipline Measure 2016 (duty to have due regard to
7
House of Bishops’ guidance on safeguarding children and vulnerable
adults); 4
(b) failing to do any other act required by the laws ecclesiastical;5
(c) neglect or inefficiency in the performance of the duties of his office;
(d) conduct unbecoming or inappropriate to the office and work of a
clerk in Holy Orders
It’s about both doctrine Nd ecclesiastical law.
Penelope – I hadn’t heard of William Taylor until I saw the comments on this thread. Can you tell us: who is he? and what has he done?
Penelope, you are perfectly free to email the Bidhop of London to complain about William Taylor contravening ‘the laws ecclesiastical’ and to request a CDM to be imposed upon him. You don’t have to be in the Diocese of London.
If he has broken the law, you have him bang to rights.
Hello Jock,
Look up St Helen’s church, Bishopgate, you’ll find him there.
He is a Rector and part of the Alliance opposing ssm/b.
As for what he’s done, you have to be an insider to be in the know.
So I don’t know, except I think this link, refers to what has made Penelope hot under the collar:
https://www.anglicanfutures.org/post/public-commissioning-ten-questions
T1
“They weren’t, the whole point of the Church of England is it is the established church. That was what Henry VIII created it to be and as an established church it will also move with the changes in English social law”
So in God’s Church, changes in English social law count for more than the expressed will of God in his word? Your position gets increasingly both absurd and blasphemous. Though thank you for reinforcing my call to the evangelicals to take the esablishment issue more seriously….
Penelope, you are perfectly free to email the Bidhop of London to complain about William Taylor contravening ‘the laws ecclesiastical’ and to request a CDM to be imposed upon him. You don’t have to be in the Diocese of London.
If he has broken the law, you have him bang to rights.
Somebody asked … who is William Taylor? Here he is … watch this and see how what he says here is pertinent to this debate. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWnI5_rZgCs
Some high profile people leading this, including bishops, a Church Commissioner and leaders of New Wine, some of the largest Anglican churches in Britain, and members of General Synod.
The next step has to be to press on to create a National Province.
Time to select and appoint orthodox bishops who will not try to chsnge the New Testament doctrine of marriage.
There are already ‘orthodox’ ‘flying’ male bishops for those who don’t agree with women bishops or priests in the C of E so just add on a few churches which disagree with PLF to those existing flying bishops as their conservative views will largely overlap with those already under alternative episcopal oversight. After all those who don’t want any women in ministry very often also don’t want any recognition for gay and lesbian couples in the C of E either
The steamrolling revisionist goal is for ssm, backed-up with ordination selection to those who subscribe to liberal skeptic teaching, theology, with the concomitant embrace of sss/m.
Bob Marsden – thanks! it does look like a step in the right direction – a push back against the forces of evil that seem to have taken over the C. of E.. Very encouraging.
So, Penelope, if you want to make a complaint against Rev William Taylor to the Bishop of London (bishop. london.correspondence @london.anglican.org) asking for a CDM against him for breach of the laws ecclesiastical and conduct unbecoming, please make sure to request similar action against Bishop Pete Broadbent, Bishop Julian Henderson, Rev Charlie Skrine, Rev Vaughan Roberts, Rev Paul Perkins and others present who participated in this event.
You can cite the above video as evidence of unlawful conduct.
An email will only take a couple of minutes.
Somewhat at a tangent to this specific discussion, I’m intrigued (and surprised) at the gender split both in the first vote on LLF at Synod and those commissioned at All Souls’ and at St Helen’s.
The gender split among the 189 clergy is startling. In Synod just over half of the clergy in favour of the motion were female (approx 47 men – 50 women) whilst the overwhelming majority of those clergy opposed were male (approx 76 men, 9 women.) Among the laity there was more of a balance (approx 40 men in favour, 55 women in favour; 54 men against, 37 women against.) Similarly all the bishops opposed were men, and 8 of the 10 remaining women bishops were in favour. Is this voting pattern representative of the wider evangelical constituency in the Church of England or is something else going on here? Is it to do with the type of person who puts themselves forward for election to Synod? Or perhaps the kind of male clergy who are sponsored compared to the women who are sponsored? Is there a significant age difference e.g do younger male clergy tend to support one side and older women clergy another? Or are the women elected more prone to see different sides of an argument and compromise, whilst male clergy are more likely to take a stronger/less equivocal view and believe that compromise is impossible? Or is it also a reflection of well organised voting blocs and pre-synod agreements? As a non participant in Synod who has never before looked at voting in this way I am genuinely surprised. Does this split occur on other issues or is it specific to LLF?
There is an even stronger gender imbalance among those commissioned in the 2 subsequent services: there were very few at All Souls’ and at St Helen’s there were none at all. And the public leadership is overwhelmingly male, too. Can someone explain why there is this gender divide? Thanks.
Yes, Tim, this has long been noticed. ‘Hierarchalists’ have claimed that this shows that women cannot be trusted to uphold and teach doctrine. It is certainly the case that women are consistently more ‘liberal’ than men in the Church.
This is a source of frustration to evangelical women, and it is a reason why I think that, though theologically women can minister at every level, the change the Church of England made was a political mistake. At a time when the Church was becoming more evangelical, it suddenly (particularly in its leadership) lurched to the liberal. It is one of the reasons why there is so much mistrust.
Why are women more liberal? Many experienced what it was like to be marginalised, and so they have natural sympathy with those who now claim marginalisation.
Do you have any theories?
I have been saying this for some time – that women’s ordination beginning in 1994 suddenly injected a strong liberal element into the clergy of the C of E, even though the C of E as a whole has steadily been becoming more evangelical. I think there are several reasons for this.
1. Theologically conservative people, both evangelical and catholic, have rarely been enthusiastic about female ordination because the New Testament clearly shows a male-led church. This doesn’t deny that women had some leadership role, but women weren’t in the Twelve and they were not among the church-founding Apostles and missionaries. And this male leadership was the practice for hundreds of years.
2. Hundreds of catholic-minded clergy and laity left the C of E after the ordination of the women, making the pool more liberal.
3. The ‘liberationist’ argument goes that just as women were ‘oppressed’ and ‘excluded’ by a male hierarchy, so too gays and lesbians were ‘oppressed’ and ‘excluded’. Liberal women are very supportive of this argument.
4. Women now make up half the numbers being ordained – the change has been immense in under thirty years. Large evangelical churches have women on their pastoral staff but very rarely as vicars. Ordained women usually end up in small liberal parishes. Because the clergy as a whole constitute a House of the General Synod, there are simply more liberal women in the voting pool and more get elected to that body.
Speaking more generally about society, it is a fact that women are notably more left-wing or socially liberal than men – a big change from the 1950s when women were the bedrock of the Conservative Party. As families got smaller in the 1960s, births out of wedlock began to rise (as did abortion figures after 1968), ever more women entered the work force, and old-style industry collapsed in the 1970s and 1980s, women changed in their political sympathies toward the left. This phenomenon has been noticed all over the western world.
I think your final point is important and is backed up by the research done by people such as Linda Woodhead on the impact of social and economic change on both men and women. Or maybe we should put the question the other way around, why are male clergy drawn to more socially conservative values?
Exactly Tim. Not ‘why are women more liberal?’ but ‘why are men more conservative?’
Actually, in the C of E, that is not the questions.
The recent debates about changing the doctrine of marriage are considerably more liberal that we have seen in the last 30 or more years. And all the women bishops in the House have voted for moving towards this.
So it is a question of the Church becoming more liberal, and more women being in favour of this kind of change.
There’s an distinction though between whether women are more liberal, and whether the ordained women tend to be the more liberal members of the clergy.
Whilst the male members of the clergy are capable of reflecting the full theological diversity of their sex (because no one thinks there is a barrier to the ordination of men), the female members of the clergy are by definition drawn from those women who think female ordination is fine. So there are, statistically speaking, some “missing” women amongst the ranks of the clergy – women who think women can’t be ordained. And you might expect those “missing” women to tend more towards being anti-LLF if you think conservative attitudes tend to correlate.
Interesting discussion – thanks. I think it would take some pretty sophisticated empirical research to get below the surface on this. Anyone for a PhD? I have no new theories about why this is the case but I’m sure that the huge changes in social roles, employment, family structures and sizes have all played their part. Maybe it will take longer for more ‘conservative’ evangelical parishes to catch up and send equal numbers of men and women forward for training.
My anecdotal experience over many years is that women are often better than men at truly collaborative leadership, as opposed to leadership that uses the language of collaboration but is still top-down and frequently quite authoritarian. (It takes different outward forms in catholic and evangelical parishes but it seems to me it amounts to the same thing: ‘I’m the vicar/priest and I know the answer and I will decide.’) Or to put it differently, women may understand leadership/ diakonia/priesthood differently. (Does anyone know any studies of this?) There used to be quite an ‘officers [clergy] and other ranks [congregation]’ ethos in theological education years ago. I also observe that women clergy often ( but not always) listen better than men and can see others’ points of view more easily, so that even when they disagree they do so more courteously and with a greater willingness to amend their views. They seem to leave more space for disagreement to be lived with, but others’ experience may differ. I suspect there’s a lot of social psychology involved as well but we would need a expert in that field to help us to explore that.
But there must I think also be other factors to do with who offers themselves for election to Synod, how they organise themselves into blocs, and the dynamics that inevitably arise in tightly-knit groups with strong identities.
If I have a speculative theory it’s that I wonder if the previous academic training of clergy shapes their theological style and there’s still a divide between men and women in some academic areas. Is there a distinction between clergy who’ve previously studied e.g. natural sciences, maths, engineering, medicine, and those who’ve studied e.g. philosophy, English, history, sociology, psychology? They inculcate quite different mindsets (C P Snow’s ‘Two Cultures’) which may then lead to different approaches to theology and in turn the level of certainty we can expect, how change is handled and the methods we use. Of course we choose the subjects we do partly because of our existing mindset, as well so it’s circular and self-reinforcing.
This is all tentative but given the effect it has on voting it’s also worth exploring further.
But to return to my initial question: Can someone explain why there is this gender divide among Synod clergy? Why are male clergy so much more likely to support the approach of the CEEC and female clergy to oppose it or to seek a compromise which the men regard as unacceptable? I’m still unclear why this should be the case on this specific issue. Plenty of men fully agree with women’s ordained ministry at every level but oppose the LLF proposals, so it isn’t simply that (though of course it’s virtually unimaginable that someone who opposed women’s ordained minsitry would be pro LLF.) Do the men on Synod perceive truth in a different way or read the Bible or Christian tradition differently from the women, and if so, why is that? To use categories often used in this discussion, is it an innate difference or one that is socially constructed?
Hierarchalists – that’s a new term to me. Is it the same as complementarian?
I don’t read the leadership point in quite the same way. What strikes me is how many bishops are now evangelicals compared to when I was a student or ordinand. Evangelicals used to leave the hierarchy for others (with a few exceptions such as Maurice Wood, David Sheppard, Donald Coggan and Stuart Blanch) and concentrate on parish ministry but now lots of episcopal appointments are evangelicals/charismatics. E.g. Carlisle was always a ‘middle of the road’ diocese but the last 2 bishops have been evangelicals as is the current suffragan. What has happened simultaneously, I think, is the diversification of evangelicalism since the days of Dick Lucas, Jim Packer and John Stott so that it’s now very broad, which leads to the discussion about who is a true evangelical.
I use it as a term to designate those that are commonly called “complementarians” because the latter term doesn’t accurately describe what people believe. I believe that women and men are complementary, that is, they are not the same or interchangeable, but I don’t believe there is a hierarchy between them. Those commonly called “complementarians” do believe that there is a hierarchy between men and women so I think this is a better term.
Thanks for the clarification. I’ll remember the distinction!
“I believe that women and men are complementary, that is, they are not the same or interchangeable, but I don’t believe there is a hierarchy between them.”
I am not sure what this means. If men and women are different (they are) and not interchangeable (they are not), then what is the difference between them?
Answer: men are fathers, women are mothers.
Men are the primary defenders against the hostile world and the primary providers of the wherewithal for living, and the role models in manhood to their sons.
Women are the primary carers and nurturers, and role models in womanhood to their daughters.
What is the significance of these facts in the pastoral ministry?
Interesting use of language James.
‘men are fathers, women are mothers’
Yes, indeed.
But then you use ‘defenders’, ‘providers’, ‘carers’, ‘nurturers’.
And you leave us to decide what you mean by these. Now, have you watched any ‘mother’ kangaroos or plovers recently? Or are you aware that in a number of societies, women are the gardeners? So I’m not sure what distinctions you are wanting us to see in your four terms, or if there actually are any distinctions.
So, how would you answer your own final question regarding pastoral ministry?
At last the beginnings of a discussion that recognises real difference and differentiation without the language of equality.
It seems to be a little paradoxical that IP now sees ordination of women as something of a ‘political error’ as opposed to a theological error.
Parking the question of family life and children, is there not a real distinction and difference between father and mother as it moves into the realms of theology and church? Which has little or nothing to do with hierarchy in relationships and structure, but with roles?
And sticking with the language of politics, isn’t it a bit odd to vote in a ‘party’ when it is not known what they stand for and their primary affliations? Their ecclesiolgy?
Geoff – I noticed that bit about ‘political error’ as well, and would reply that ‘political truth’ (how the household of God should be run) and ‘theological truth’ cannot be in conflict.
And I concur with your second comment about the difference between a father and mother and how this translates into church life.
The Catholic and Orthodox instinct that calls the presbyter/priest ‘father’ actually grasps an important point of New Testament pastoral theology that evangelicals have tended to ignore.
Sometimes perforce single mothers have to do the work of fathers – in fact, far too often in the western world today where there is an epidemic of marriage breakdown and half of all children are born out of wedlock. But it is never desirable in principle and it leaves boys without proper role models of adult Christian males.
The ordination of women has only feminised further the church, made the ordained ministry more socially liberal and theologically indifferent – and further alienated boys and men from the Church.
It was a great own goal.
Bruce, clearly you don’t underetand how language works, or you don’t read carefully. You miss out my use of the word “primary”. And my use of “defenders”, “carers” etc is not mysterious. I was always the main physical protector of my wife and children: if their security was ever in danger, I knew my body was on the line. I also always did the heavy and unpleasant physical jobs in the home. There is a reason why men have on average twice the upper body strength of women and smell ten times as bad. The beautiful 95 pound cops who throw 20 stone thugs exist only in American TV. Women play an essential suport role in the IDF (as they do in the US Army) but they are not really frontline ttoops. A male soldier’s instinct will always be to protect women.
And there is a reason why over 90% of early years teachers and the vast majority of primary school teachers are female; the work is essentially an extension of motherhood nurture (the French call them ‘ecoles maternelles’). Men would be hopeless at this task.
( Or even worse. What do you think was going on in the mind of that revered Christian face of the BBC, Huw Edwards? Media sorts like Jon Sopel and Owen Jones once jumped to his defence but have gone strangely silent now.)
Boys need Christian fathers to show them how to be Christian men, girls need Christian mothers to show them how to be Christian women. That’s what St Paul told Timothy and Titus.
I do not think rational human beings made in the image of God should look for lessons in life from plovers and kangaroos. Or from black widow spiders and praying mantises.
The answer to my last question should be obvious, especially to anyone who has read the Pastoral Epistles and John 17: it is the primary responsibility of men as vigilant soldiers of Christ to defend the family of the Church against the world, the flesh and the devil.
It’s great, James, that you ‘always did the heavy and unpleasant physical jobs in the home’. I suspect though that that didn’t include childbirth. Jus’ sayin’.
The ‘meaning’ of individual words is always dependent on context. But, that aside, there is nothing ‘mysterious’ about suggesting that ‘defender’ ‘carer’ etc. are very much overlapping concepts. That’s why I suggested looking at plover parents and mother kangaroos. And I’m puzzled about why ‘rational human beings made in the image of God’ should not look at plover parents. Isn’t there a text that suggests that some of us should go and look at ants?
James, I notice that you take people who are paid to go and kill others as a (primary?) metaphor for Christian ministry! So following *your* division of labour between men and women, how do texts like John 13, John 21, 1Thess 2.7, 1Peter 2.2 actually work? You might reflect on the 1Peter text in relation to your ‘Men would be hopeless at this task’.
It seems that there is rather more to the ‘biblical’ picture of Christian ministry than just some texts from the Pastoral letters.
Your illustration of Huw Edwards is, again, ‘interesting’ in that it shows that a code model of language in human communication is totally inadequate. You have obviously provided ‘clues’ (such as just mentioning some names) for your readers to access the assumptions to understand and interpret what you said. But this particular reader can’t because he cannot infer the context necessary to do that. The question for biblical interpretation is: can we always adequately infer the context necessary to understand ‘have authority over’ or ‘head’?
PS and it’s interesting that Paul did talk to Timothy about his mother and grandmother — even named them 🙂
But I note that a disproportionate number of primary school headteachers are men who have all previously been classroom teachers and, presumably, successful ones. I don’t think their work was ‘essentially an extension of motherhood nurture.’ The more men we can encourage into the vital work of being primary school teachers the better.
To avoid any possible misunderstanding I need to say that my view is that there is an infinite difference between ‘eternal retribution from God’ and ‘some retribution from God followed by annihilation by God’ which is the view of some evangelicals who on other doctrines would agree with those like me whose view is ‘eternal retribution from God’.
On the assumption that all ordained Church of England Ministers do not believe and do not preach that the unsaved face eternal retribution from God on the Day of Judgment I find it utterly astonishing that those who do believe and preach that terrible but true warning have spent so much time on the sexuality disagreement (important though that is) and are prepared to set up a ‘third province’ rather focus on this infinitely more important disagreement.
Phil Almond
Hi Phil, I completely agree. The differences on doctrine that you mention (plus among others e.g total depravity, atonement and the Trinity, election, sacraments) are massive and far more central to the faith IMHO than the issues around sexuality, gender and anthropology, very significant though they are. So it’s puzzling why the current split has become so central in the Church of England when we have lived with these other deeper and more fundamental differences and yet continued to recognise each others ministries and the authority of our bishops for decades (centuries?) It cannot be simply a ‘conservative’ vs ‘liberal’ divide because that’s been clear since (at least) the separation of the Cambridge CU from the SCM in the early C20 and has been clear across the range of doctrines you and I have mentioned.
Tim – it isn’t ‘puzzling’ at all. Affirming that same-sex desire and sexual acts are ‘good’ and ‘holy’ actually reconfigures the doctrine of creation in the most profound way.
I’m surprised you don’t grasp this point.
The west’s current obsession with transgenderism, ‘queering’ everything, is no accident but flows directly out of validating same-sex sexual desire and rejecting our given creation as male and female.
That’s why a compromise isn’t possible.
James, you miss my point, I think. Please read what I have written. I did not say that current issues over gender and sexuality aren’t important, nor did I state that same-sex desire and sexual acts are good and holy, nor did I say that I couldn’t understand why there are divisions. My point (which was also Phil Almond’s, too) was that other very major doctrinal differences at least as or more important than this have been recognised and lived with for many decades within the Church of England. They often e.g. express radically different understandings of the atonement and therefore the Trinity, (you can’t get more fundamental than the doctrine of God) and yet we managed to rub along together and even learn from one another. Sometimes we had to compromise and some of us will think that to have been a bad thing, others that it has been a strength of the Church of England. We have had to work with those of many different views and learn to discover the presence of Christ with one another. So why this (undoubtedly very important) issue rather than the plethora of ones which have been at least or more important over a long time?
Tim
My point is different from yours as you will see if you read my posts carefully.
Phil
Tim, you are quite mistaken in what you assert. All Anglicans are united – at least publicly – in believing in the Holy and Undivided Trinity and in the atoning work of Christ taking away the sins of the world. These are baked into the Anglican liturgies and declared in our creeds. If anyone teaches otherwise, he or she should be removed from the ministry. It is actual heresy to deny the Trinity. Are you not aware of that?
I do not know of any Anglican minister who publicly denies the Trinity or the atoning work of the Cross – although I am certain that privately there may be quite a few who deny these doctrines. In the 1970s it was more common for such unbelief to be expressed – we had ‘The Myth of God Incarnate’ and then the double-talk of David Jenkins. But we don’t hear that now. So you are mistaken in your claim.
What we do hear are people like Steven Croft and Stephen Cottrell trying to change the doctrine of marriage through the Trojan Horse of LLF.
This is the point you have failed to understand.
James (August 2 12.08 pm)
In my view some (many) ordained Church of England Ministers do not believe and do not preach that the unsaved face eternal retribution from God on the Day of Judgment. Are you really saying that they all do believe and preach that doctrine?
Phil Almond
James, please read what I have written carefully before you tell me I am ‘quite mistaken in what [I] assert.’ And I think I am aware that ‘It is actual heresy to deny the Trinity.’ No one is doing that.
I suggest that you have missed my point. We all believe in the saving life, death and resurrection of Christ and in the Trinity. What we believe about the former shapes how we understand the latter. But how he ‘takes away the sin of the world’ is understood in very different ways by different people and has been throughout the history of the church. Which does not mean that those who hold those different understandings don’t believe in the atonement or the Trinity. Can I ask you please to read what I have written and respond to that. My point is not about the rightness or otherwise of LLF but trying to understand more deeply why that issue is more important now than all the other ones that have been mentioned on this blog .
I suggest we now draw this thread to a close.
Hi Tim
Thanks for that.
However, we differ in that my view is that the church should never “have lived with these other deeper and more fundamental differences and yet continued to recognise each others ministries and the authority of our bishops for decades…” I want the Alliance to stop so “living and recognising” and all of them to commit to “believe and preach that terrible but true warning” (we all face eternal retriburion from God) unless we repent and submit to Christ.
Phil Almond
Hi Phil,
Yes, in late night haste I worded my comment badly so apologies for any confusion. I realise that your point is different from mine but I think we do agree that other more serious differences have somehow been ignored for a long time.
Tim
Hi Tim
I accept your apologies. And yes “we do agree that other more serious differences have somehow been ignored for a long time”.
Phil Almond
Phil Almond says:
“James (August 2 12.08 pm)
In my view some (many) ordained Church of England Ministers do not believe and do not preach that the unsaved face eternal retribution from God on the Day of Judgment. Are you really saying that they all do believe and preach that doctrine?”
Phil, I am sure there are numerous universalists among the ranks of C of E clergy (as well as many liberal clergy who are secretly extinctionists), but the only one I have heard express this idea openly was Paul Oestreicher, many years ago in All Souls London. He was giving a talk, interestingly enough, about Karl Marx to a young adults group in All Souls called ‘Midweek’, in the course of which an acquaintance of mine told him that ‘Karl Marx is in hell.’ Oestreicher retorted that ‘Nobody is in hell’ but nobody challenged him on this at the time.
Myself included, as I later visited him for lunch in his vicarage and he told me about his life.
In my experience, almost nobody in the C of E ever preaches about ‘eternal retribution’, other than to mention it in passing (the things Christ has saved us from). That includes those who clearly believe in the reality of hell (as I do).
(Incidentally, the ‘Midweek’ group, which frequently featured non-Christian speakers on interesting topics of the day, was discontinued later as not fitting into All Souls’s mission.)
James
If I understand this your latest post (August 2 1.26 pm) correctly, it appears that you agree with me that “we all face eternal retribution from God unless we repent and submit to Christ”. If so, shouldn’t all the members of Alliancecofe believe and preach that terrible truth?
Phil Almond
Wasn’t John Stott an annihilationist?
If so he was mistaken
Phil Almond
I’m not sure CEEC and friends are going to be denouncing John Stott any time soon.
John Stott did incline to annihilationism, as did John Wenham (of ‘Elements of New Testament Greek’), and I think this is the likelier meaning of Scripture (but I cannot be more definite about it). Jim Packer held to the traditional understanding of hell.
Why not – if all CEEC members believe and preach that the unsaved face eternal retribution from God?
Phil Almond
Who says there are no annihilationists in CEEC?
There’s a lot of slippery talk around this. For example, rejecting universalism is not the same as believing the unsaved face eternal retribution. Because there’s still the possibility of believing annihilationism. Even universalism is, in practice, a confusing shorthand for a number of different beliefs. Likewise arguing that no one is currently in hell, isn’t the same as believing there won’t ever be anyone there. Someone might believe that the judgement of the living and the dead hasn’t happened yet, and the eternal retribution is yet to come.
‘Eternal retribution’ means punishment that lasts for ever – but whether that punishment is conscious or not is another matter. My problem with an eternal conscious hell is that I can’t see what good purpose God would achieve by having some part of his creation eternally hostile to him. (Of course, the fault may be with my own understanding.)
Traditional eschatology teaches a particular judgment at death and a general resurrection and judgment at the eschaton. Advocates of ‘soul sleep’ (‘psychopannichia’) think nobody has been judged yet, but that view seems to be confined to groups like the Seventh Day Adventists. ‘To depart and be with Christ’ suggests enjoyment of his presence. Perhaps this world and the afterlife operate on incommensurate time schemes.
‘psychopannichia’ actually means ‘not soul sleep’ but ‘all night feast of the soul’, but Calvin’s title was taken to mean what he was attacking, the Anabaptist belief in ‘soul sleep’.