Andrew Goddard writes: Following my recent article on where we should be going on LLF I had a few brief exchanges with David Runcorn on my Facebook page. This made clear that he and I were viewing the current situation in quite different ways but, as he commented, “that needs a long conversation”. I was therefore pleased to see his recent post on the new Inclusive Evangelicals site which gives a much clearer sense of his understanding. Sadly, it confirms we find ourselves disagreeing not only on how to interpret Scripture but also on how to interpret the recent past and the LLF process.
Although I agree with David’s account of LLF in some respects, in key areas I believe it is flawed. I think it offers a misrepresentation of what LLF was doing, what we can say about the responses to it, the discernment process, and what all this means for where we are now and how we might best proceed. In what follows I explore three areas he highlights: the findings of LLF; the speed of the discernment process; and the place of General Synod.
I want to begin with the common ground. LLF was indeed “a challenge to familiar approaches [to] learning in ways we have perhaps yet to recognise”, “a radically new discernment process for seeking the mind of the church” and “a challenge to traditional expressions of leadership”. Some of our current challenges are undoubtedly due to some people not understanding this reality. Others to people understanding but rejecting these features of the LLF project.
The current difficulties are, however, also, I believe, due in part to the fact that, since September, many features of that earlier process are much less evident. In my experience on the Co-ordinating Group from summer 2017 to when the resources were released in November 2020, LLF had commitments which it largely kept to such qualities as:
- transparency;
- truth-telling;
- theological rigour;
- administrative excellence;
- widespread ownership of a good, participative, accountable process;
- building personal relationships and trust between participants;
- taking time to address tensions and conflicts over both procedural and substantive issues;
- “journeying collaboratively” across fundamental differences.
Looking back, LLF was doing its best to adhere to what became the Pastoral Principles that the Pastoral Advisory Group developed and call us all to:
- Pay Attention to Power;
- Speak Into Silence;
- Admit Hypocrisy;
- Acknowledge Prejudice;
- Cast out Fear; and
- Address Ignorance.
Regrettably, many of the qualities of LLF and the Pastoral Principles have become less characteristic of the process in the experience of many of those involved in it and in what is perceived by many only able to observe it from a distance. Those experiences and perceptions, in the context of wider mistrust, inevitably make the current process of discernment and decision-making much more difficult to navigate.
What did we learn from LLF?
My major disagreement with David is in what he presents as “recapping – the outcomes of LLF”. He talks of these being professionally summarised and the results being published in September 2022 with four things being “very clear”. However, the four things he lists are not, as the innocent reader of his article might conclude, part of the professional summary or the published results. They are – almost word for word – taken from the summary analysis which he notes. This is not the official report but an account by Nic Tall, a General Synod member and “part of The Campaign for Equal Marriage’s organizing group”. I want to focus on the first and most significant:
The majority want the acceptance of same-sex marriage or blessing of same-sex partnerships.
David stresses this is the fruit of “one of the largest consultation exercises the church has ever held with its members” and emphasizes the size of the sample (around 6400 responses compared to the 1000-2500 in samples used to discover the mind of a population of millions).
This summary sentence is expanded in Tall’s analysis where he claims that…
there is a strong view from the majority who hope LLF will lead the church to accepting same-sex marriage or blessing same-sex relationships, with only a small number voicing opposition.
He concludes
The Church of England has done what it has been asked to do and it has spoken clearly. Now it is time for our leaders to lead.
This is evidently also David’s view and the basis and the basis of his article. Were it be true his case would have significant weight. But is it?
Nic Tall offers no explicit supporting evidence but it sems to be this statement on p. 76 of “Listening with Love and Faith: Gathered responses from churchwide engagement”, the official LLF feedback report
A persistent theme in the survey answers was same-sex marriage. Most of the comments on this theme expressed hope that the LLF Course might contribute to the “acceptance of same sex marriage” or “blessing of same sex partnerships”. This came up in focus group discussions as well. A smaller number presented the opposing view, speaking against such a change in doctrine.
The more detailed statistical analysis repeats this (p. 54) but also offers no figures.
It is clear that the “smaller number” reported by LLF has been reduced by Tall to “only a small number” and the majority has become “a strong view”. The problems are, however, even more serious.
The only place the detailed analysis gives figures on these matters is in relation to church responses submitted independently from the formal questionnaire (p. 111). They tell a quite different picture from the “only a small number” compared to a clear majority:
Across the 65 churches who had engaged with the course, those who explicitly stated they were in favour of change to the Church’s current teaching and those who were not in favour of change were almost equal in number. There were three more submissions in favour of change although these included requests for any change to the current teaching. For example, alongside requests for same-sex marriage in churches, some asked for liturgical provision to bless same-sex relationships or discretion for churches and clergy to make their own decisions at local level. Some wished for immediate change but others were in favour of a longer, more careful process.
There are also further problems with both the two main planks of David’s case:
(a) making claims about what the LLF questionnaire responses show about the views on blessings and same-sex marriage of the over six thousand respondents to the survey and
(b) making claims that the responses then show what David calls “the mind of the church expressed through the outcomes of LLF”.
(a) What did the LLF feedback show?
In addition to the lack of any specific figures from the 6,400 claimed to have given their opinion there is the deeper problem which likely explains the lack of these figures. The detailed report includes the LLF questionnaire as Appendix 1 (pp. 143-152). None of its questions asks about people’s support for same-sex blessings or same-sex marriage. This is despite the fact that, as with other questions, a slider could have been used to get a reasonably accurate, non-binary response.
The responses that led to the report’s conclusion that “most of the comments” pointed in an affirming/inclusive direction is signalled in the use of “comments”. These were write-in responses initiated by participants, perhaps under Q18 (“How do you hope the church-wide engagement with this course will make a difference in the national Church?”) or Q22 (“If there is anything else you would like to tell us about your experience of engaging with the Living in Love and Faith resources, please add it here”). There were almost certainly well short of 6400 responses on this subject.
In short, LLF although “one of the largest consultation exercises”, did not consult on the question it is now being claimed it offers a definitive answer to on the mind of the church.
The data and report on feedback presented by LLF was critiqued from a conservative perspective by Church Society. In a response to this, Brendan Research was quite clear that:
The open questions within the questionnaire allowed respondents to freely volunteer their thoughts and feelings about the course. Themes emerged across the answers to these questions and the selected quotes illustrate these pervasive themes rather [than] looking at each question in isolation. The quotes selected are not accompanied by figures suggesting the proportion of views they represent. This would have been an ill-advised handling of the nuanced language and meanings present in the data. Moreover, as already stated, the purpose of the survey was not to quantify opinions on the subject matter. Rather, the qualitative survey material served to capture the diverse range views and reflections offered by respondents (p.2, emphasis added).
Given this, it is not clear why the “most of the comments….a smaller number….” summary was given on p. 76 of the report in relation to blessings and same-sex marriages. However, this clear statement by the researchers warns against the use now being made of it by David Runcorn.
(b) What did the LLF feedback tell us about the mind of the Church of England?
One of the reasons the LLF questionnaire did not ask a specific question about blessings or same-sex marriage is likely related to the problem with claiming that the findings reveal the mind of the church.
David is right to stress the significance of the size of the response. But size is not everything! Representativeness is also crucial. That is why a small carefully selected representative group of 1000 may better inform us of the views of millions in the population than a large group of 6000 may inform us of the views of the much smaller population of Church of England worshippers. There was no attempt to ensure that questionnaire responses were in any sense representative of the wider church. We know, for example, the responses were not representative geographically. The number of responses per 10,000 people on the Electoral Roll ranged from 177.2 in Exeter to just 17.5 in Carlisle (p. 19 of the detailed report). The five top dioceses in terms of questionnaire responses (Exeter, Oxford, Chester, London and Southwark) amounted to 30% of all responses though they represent only 22% of people on electoral rolls. The detailed report explores characteristics important in relation to representativeness and warns, for example, on rural/urban contexts that “it is not possible to determine if this is a representative sample” (p. 22).
This was a self-selecting sample of people. The responders are those who had first engaged with LLF materials. Then, within this, those committed enough to feedback by means of the questionnaire. In relation to blessings and same-sex marriages it was a further self-selected subset: those who felt strongly enough about this matter to write a comment on it when they found no question asking for their views.
The shorter more accessible report is clear that “the numbers do not offer the outcome of a poll or referendum on particular questions” (p 6) and that “this report—like the LLF resources—does not aim to make any recommendations for a way forward the Church” (p 6, emphasis added). But these are how David now appears to wish to use its findings.
The conclusion (p. 4) of the Brendan Research report responding to the evangelical Church Society’s critique needs to be applied also to the claims of affirming groups and David Runcorn: “The Analysis appears to disregard the clearly stated remit and aims of this part of the LLF process….” and in particular that one of things the process was not is “a vote on “whether the church should adopt same-sex Marriage””. Similarly, the Church Army Research Unit is clear regarding the focus groups: “We clearly state…that the report on our findings was not an overview of what the Church of England thinks, but rather a snapshot of views expressed as an outcome of the LLF process” (p. 6, italics added).
As Professor Helen King, Vice-Chair of the General Synod Gender & Sexuality Group, wrote in her response to Church Society’s critique:
It has been obvious, since the point at which the LLF process included a course survey, that the questionnaires and other responses from those who did that course were not going to be simple to interpret. Obvious, not just because not all of those who decided to ‘take the course’ would bother with the questionnaire, but also because that questionnaire was explicitly not asking about what participants thought should happen next, concentrating instead on how they found the course itself. The analysis of the data was never going to come up with ‘the mind of the Church of England’; so, to the Church Society’s (rhetorical) question, “are we really supposed to carry out doctrinal change by SurveyMonkey?”, I’d reply, “Obviously not and that was never the intention” (emphasis added).
Conclusion
To claim, as David does, based on the data produced after the use of LLF resources that
- “the task now facing Synod is how to respond to, and truly represent, the mind of the church expressed through the outcomes of LLF” or
- “the mood of LLF was actually for greater change than is reflected in the proposals under discussion” or
- that we know “the mind of the church expressed so clearly by the people of God through this extraordinary project”
is therefore quite simply to ignore what those who produced that data say about its purpose and limits.
In relation to same-sex blessings and marriage, it is also to make a claim about what the Church of England thinks on
- something not even explicitly asked about in the questionnaire
- on the basis of an unknown number of respondents (likely well below the claimed 6400)
- who added their own comment on the subject and
- were, in any case, not necessarily representative of either self-identified Anglicans or regular worshippers within the Church of England.
Moving too quickly?
David ‘s article also notes that “there are also claims that this process is being unhelpfully rushed”. He points to the large number of reports over six decades (though there have been fewer “significant debates in Synod” than he implies and none of them supported anything like the current proposals). He is also right that “we are now at the point of needing to make some decisions and move forward. We are feeling the pressure of that. So we should be”.
What is much more dubious is his claim that:
We have also just completed an extensive six-year churchwide discernment process. It really is very hard to claim anything is being rushed here!
This is seriously to misrepresent the LLF process. It has now lasted over six years but these were not, in the proper sense, discernment over specific decisions such as blessing or marrying same-sex couples. As already noted, the LLF resources did not make any recommendations. The final part of the book purposefully took the form of exploratory conservations rather than provide possible alternative coherent theological positions.
The LLF feedback report clearly sets out “the four stages of the LLF process” (p. 7):
- Creating teaching and learning resources (2017-20)
- Learning together (2021-April 2022)
- Listening and gathering (April 2022-September 2022)
- Discerning and deciding (September 2022 onwards).
Published less than one year ago, it describes the last stage in these terms:
The publication of this report – and the more detailed version on the LLF website – signals the beginning of the final stage of the LLF journey: discernment leading to decision-making about a way forward for the Church of England in relation to questions about identity, sexuality, relationships and marriage. This part of the journey is still ahead of us” (p.9, italics added).
It explains how “it will be led by the bishops of the Church of England who will meet over three residential gatherings in September, October/November and December 2022”. From September to February Synod is not six years but six months. However, the first of those meetings had to be cancelled due to the death of Queen Elizabeth. Although written responses were gained from the bishops this meant their face-to-face corporate discernment process was significantly curtailed.
By the start of their final (and now only second) residential discernment meeting in early December the bishops were far from a consensus. They were presented with a paper defending the received teaching on marriage from a group of evangelical and catholic bishops and resourced with a briefing paper. There were still seven possible options going forward and the proposal was that in February it would be best to present a number of these with their theological rationales to Synod to test its mind. The legal advice remained much the same as it had been for years as summarised in the appendix of GS 2055 six years earlier. Anything like prayers of dedication or blessing for same-sex couples in a civil partnership or civil same-sex marriage could not treat the marriage as equivalent to Holy Matrimony or sanction/condone a sexual relationship or else it would be contrary to the canons. Such liturgical options would therefore require legal changes and a change in the Church’s doctrine about sexual activity outside Holy Matrimony. Ignoring the question of sexual behaviour would run the risk of accusations of hypocrisy. The step of introducing blessings would require providing some theological grounds for such a ‘development of’ or ‘departure from’ current doctrine and most of the significant options beyond the existing pattern were considered as requiring Synodical processes needing two-thirds majorities in all three Houses.
By early December, little work had apparently been done on the crucial eventual proposal to separate civil same-sex marriage off from holy matrimony. This question was also not considered in any of the LLF work and is only now since July 2023 beginning to be considered by the Faith and Order Commission. Blessing was another crucial subject in the discernment process which received very limited attention in LLF resources apart from a paper by Walter Moberly. Isabelle Hamley’s December paper for bishops on blessing drew heavily on this and asked, “Could we offer blessings of same-sex relationships rather than same-sex marriage, and would this constitute a change in doctrine?”. Rather tentatively, it stated what became, at least initially, a key element in the final proposals:
The idea that it may be possible to offer ‘blessing’ as an option other than Holy Matrimony could be based on an understanding of blessing as the blessing of people, and prayer for growth in holiness (p. 7, italics added).
However, it continued,
A prayer of blessing specifically over the relationship would imply a judgement that this relationship is in keeping with what we understand of God’s divine purposes, at which point one may either declare that this could be just as easily reflected through a marriage ceremony; conversely, it is possible to argue that while the relationship is good in being faithful, stable and permanent, and may be fruitful in hospitality and generosity towards others, it is nevertheless different from Holy Matrimony, (in what specific ways would need to be clearly stated), and needs to be recognised as such and blessed in its difference… (p. 7, italics added)
Then, later, considering “the blessing of a same-sex marriage”, it suggested:
With this option, a couple who have contracted a civil wedding would seek a blessing on their marriage. To offer such as service might be argued to be pastorally hospitable and presumably this would be offered mostly by churches not offering to perform same sexmarriages. If so, it would need to be made clear why a church is willing to bless a same sex civil marriage but not willing to marry same sex couples. So for example it might be that a distinction is being drawn between the goods of a same sex civil marriage (which are being blessed) and the goods of Holy Matrimony. If so, it would need to be made clear in what ways this might or might not apply to opposite sex couples seeking a blessing following a civil marriage.
More widely this position runs the risk of being perceived as confusing (and perhaps disingenuous) in simultaneously affirming and rejecting same-sex marriage. As such, while this option could be seen as a ‘compromise’ or as indicating a direction of travel towards same-sex marriage, the pastoral and theological coherence of the option seems difficult to maintain (p. 8, italics added).
It therefore appears that somehow, over the course of not six years or even six months but roughly six weeks, including Christmas and New Year, all this somehow morphed into the College of Bishops being offered and signing off their final proposals on January 17th. Their proposals were then quickly leaked before being published. Almost immediately, the Archbishop of York and others moved significantly beyond them and the teaching of the church in public statements before they came to Synod in February. In them the bishops recommended prayers that included the two most radical proposals short of same-sex marriage considered in December: “to dedicate and pray for God’s blessing on a couple” (p. 1). Now however, it was claimed that this development was somehow compatible with current doctrine, required no legal or doctrinal changes, and any liturgy did not need to gain two-thirds support in Synod. It is perhaps unsurprising that so many unhappy with these proposals raised objections replicating almost exactly the issues bishops had been alerted to in relation to these options in December. By mid-January, however, the process had apparently either forgotten these difficulties, decided to ignore them, believed they had somehow quickly discovered a plausible and viable way around them, or was determined to carry on regardless.
As significant legal, practical, theological, ecclesial and liturgical questions were raised they received no satisfactory answers in the eyes of those who were concerned. Then, shortly after Synod, the former chair of the LLF project, Bishop Christopher Cocksworth, who had abstained on the final vote in Synod, wrote an important report and reflection. It raised various concerns which appear now to be shared by a significant number of bishops, including some who supported the final Synod motion:
Great care had been taken in producing the resources, encouraging engagement with them, bringing the bishops through a process of discernment to a point of decision. Some form of diversified consensus on key intentions of the provision seemed to have emerged. Then, however, we—and I say we because I am a member of the College and House of Bishops, and I accept my share of responsibility—allowed ourselves to hurry the last and vital stage. We did not give the time and attention to hone the response and scrutinize the prayers with the great care that was needed for documents put into the synodical process and, in so doing, to check whether there was a sufficiently common mind among us to find secure expression in common texts. Furthermore, we promised pastoral guidelines on the practical outworking of the provision, with all their complex legal and theological questions, at a later point, rather than offering them alongside the liturgical provision. The result was that the response and prayers raised more questions than they answered, questions that could not be answered by the entirely reasonable probing of the synod. As well as other consequences, it soon became clear that different bishops had, after all, different understandings of what was being provided.
As David Runcorn notes, the bishops’ proposals are of great significance and a very different response to any in the past: this is “the first time that the Church of England had said anything that publicly affirms same-sex marriages, and the first-time liturgical provision has been made for same-sex couples (whether in celibate covenanted [friendships?] or after civil marriage)”.
As we have seen, there is no basis for claiming this is firmly established as “the mind of the church expressed so clearly by the people of God” through LLF. A key issue is therefore whether such a significant development is demonstrably defensible given this process which has led to it.
- Has there has been an adequate time of discernment, development and weighing up of these specific proposals?
- Has sufficient theological reflection on the proposals been undertaken?
- Has sufficient theological justification of the proposals been provided to the church?
- Or does more attention need to be given to the warning of Oliver O’Donovan in the conclusion of his November 2020 review of the LLF book?
The bishops, meanwhile, must be encouraged to give the reception the time it needs, and not to be in too much of a hurry to “lead the Church of England into making whatever decisions are needful for our common life,” as they express themselves rather busily in their concluding note. The atmosphere of “needful decisions” is not one that will help the careful pondering and mutual appreciation that LLF has sought to model. The commission has worked with admirable patience. The church is being asked to learn new skills of mutual patience. It would be a tragedy if the whole attempt foundered on impatience in the House of Bishops.
By-passing Synod?
Finally, David challenges those raising concerns about the by-passing of Synod. He accuses us of making “repeated attempts to unhelpfully slow all this down” (italics original). His sense of urgency—“We need to do this now”—and his anxiety—“We will not get a second chance at this” (why not?)—are palpable.
In his defence he rightly notes that Synod has not been totally bypassed: “after a long debate in February 2023, Synod welcomed these proposals by a clear majority (57% in favour. 41% against)”. This, however, fails to acknowledge at least two key facts.
Firstly, as he himself admits, what we are looking at is “the first time liturgical provision has been made for same-sex couples” including “after civil marriage”. Liturgical provision—especially of something for the first time and something so controversial and relating to an area of doctrine—requires not simply a clear majority in Synod on a general motion. It requires careful synodical scrutiny by due process of liturgical business (under canon B2) and ultimately two-thirds support in all three Houses of General Synod. There was not that level of support in the Houses of Clergy or Laity (which was basically 52:48). It also appears that the House of Bishops now has significantly more than the four who voted against in February who are concerned and there may be approaching a third who believe the prayers should proceed using B2.
Secondly, the Synod was also clear that the prayers should (as the canons require) not even indicate a departure from the church’s doctrine. As recently as December last year the bishops were seemingly advised that to dedicate or bless same-sex marriages would require a change at least in the doctrine concerning sexual activity outside Holy Matrimony. Doctrinal conformity in relation to liturgy is central to the identity of the Church of England. This should be a determination of Synod requiring more than a simple majority.
In conclusion, I am sure David will dislike and reject this analogy but towards the end of his article he sounds to me surprisingly like a populist Brexiteer. General Synod “struggles to be a body that accurately represents the mix and diversity of the Church of England”. In contrast, “the LLF project represents a much larger, more extensive, pastorally and theologically grounded process of discernment than Synod could ever claim to offer”. And so, he concludes, “The challenge facing Synod is how to honour and give due weight to the mind of the church expressed so clearly by the people of God”.
That all sounds admirable. But what if—as has been argued—
- the LLF process never clearly expressed the mind of the church in the way he claims,
- the LLF process of discernment—leading to the unprecedented proposals from the bishops reversing much of their past statements including from as recently as December 2019—is not really a six-year process but one of barely six months with hurried and significant last-minute changes in the final six weeks, and
- the proposal David and many others welcome is, as a “first-time liturgical” development, something the church’s law and past precedent wisely determine requires—for the sake of the unity and health of the church—a two-thirds consensus across each House of Synod.
If even one of these three objections to David’s case is accurate then Synod members wishing to act “faithfully and wisely” in November will need to think very carefully before taking the path he urges on them. They will indeed need to consider “the relationship between Synod, the LLF process—and what that process has revealed of the ‘mind of the church’”. In doing so, however, they need to be properly informed about the relevant evidence, history, politics, and legalities. They would do well, in becoming so informed, not to be brow-beaten by the demand from David and others (including it would seem our two Archbishops and the Bishop of London) that “we need to do this now”. Much better to seek to find a way “to learn new skills of mutual patience” as Oliver O’Donovan urged.
As David has acknowledged, along with leaders of other ‘inclusive’ organisations, taking more time does not deprive any clergy of any existing freedom and authority under canon B5 to use prayers such as the proposed draft Prayers of Love and Faith if they so wish. Would it not therefore be better to continue in an ongoing “pastorally and theologically grounded process of discernment”, properly informed by the important but complex and time-consuming academic theological work only just commissioned from the Faith and Order Commission? If we are to “pay attention to power” should we not ensure the church follows due legal and constitutional processes for proposed liturgical and doctrinal developments? These may have developed further by October and none of them will have been open to corporate and synodical scrutiny by then for more than nine months. Taking the time would also, finally, allow us all to continue to listen carefully to the reactions to the proposals from parishes and networks across the Church of England, the wider Anglican Communion, and our ecumenical partners. This surely is what is faithful to the spirit and processes of LLF and also an essential discipline if we genuinely wish to find the best way forward for the whole church of Christ so we can “walk together” as closely as possible with integrity despite our disagreements.
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 a member of the subgroup on Pastoral Guidance, which has now been closed down.
NOTE: I am giving notice that from 16th August I will no longer allow anonymous comments. All are welcome to publish under pseudonyms if you wish, but you will need to make yourself known to me from then if you wish to continue commenting.
The consequences of another consultation with a 52:48 split in the vote should encourage the CoE to be cautious in moving forward….
😉
You think…?!
As a confessing, attending, and active member with the C of E (Chester Diocese), if this is pushed forwards, together with a change in the Lord’s Prayer, I’m out. I’ll move elsewhere.
C of E is becoming a coffee-and-cake Christianity club, left/liberal leaning, and seems wholly focused on sociology.
I think it might be true to say that some people in the C of E are in that direction.
But it is not true of the C of E as an institution, since according to Canon A5 its doctrine continues to be found in the formularies of the Church. It is odd that so many appear to have forgotten that.
Perceptions, perhaps, Ian.
Those of us at the ‘coalface’ may need some reassurance from the purple socks.
Well, I am doing what I can, but my socks are a different colour.
I agree that reassurance is needed, and that it is slow coming. An article drafted for next week is about how to speak up well to challenge things!
Ace. Looking forward to it.
@ Dave
Many of the socks are now “rainbow” coloured!
Yes, Justin Trudeau and what they all say in Canada, eh?
(What is it with Justins?)
But if the ‘practice’ is to affirm same-sex relationships in a public service in a church by way of a ‘blessing’, then does it really matter what ‘canons’ say?
Changing the Lord’s Prayer?
Well your choice, Baptist and Pentecostal churches and the Roman Catholic church remain as resolutely opposed to performing homosexual marriages or blessings as ever so you could go there. However given the Church of England already not only blesses but marries divorcees, even when no spousal adultery involved in some Parishes, it is somewhat hypocritical to not at least bless homosexual couples. After all the Church of England is the established church in England civil marriages of homosexuals are now legal in English civil law.
There will be no compulsion on evangelical churches to perform blessings of same sex couples, just as conservative Anglo Catholic churches can still refuse to have women priests and bishops in their Parishes. It is a fair compromise
“the purpose of the survey was not to quantify opinions on the subject matter”
This is a good point.
However, the fact remains that LLF did make clear that there are very substantial numbers of people in the Church of England who believe in conscience and faith that gay sex should be affirmed, and very substantial numbers who believe gay sex is wrong.
Even if I were to dismiss David’s belief that the ‘affirming’ group is now in the majority (I don’t), nevertheless another fact remains:
One group of unknown numerical support are dominating the consciences of the affirming group, as they have throughout these 60 years of often intense debate.
There is NO one ‘mind of the Church of England’ on human sexuality… and yet the views of one group are imposed on the consciences of the other.
The reality is that, among the members of the Church of England, there are TWO minds (at least) and though LLF did not set out to be a measuring stick, it did at least demonstrate that this is the case.
That being the undeniable case, I fully understand and appreciate David’s perception that calls to delay decisions (after 60 years, for goodness sake) may be in part motivated by desire to block and obstruct. In short, to perpetuate the domination of one group over the other group.
Andrew cites Nic Tall. Much as I appreciate straight people championing the interests of gay and lesbian people, I did not approve of the politicking that took place in the lead up to the February Synod to prop up the bishops’ package. The effect was simply to perpetuate the ‘war of attrition’ within the Church, while failing to resolve the fundamental stand off on gay marriage. It played into the hands of people like Andrew who favour delay. It placed a decision on gay marriage 5 or more likely 10 years down the road, if it’s ever addressed.
Being up front, I did not share David’s view on the ‘Prayers’, much as I respect him.
The only way to resolve the continuing ‘Church with TWO minds’, while protecting the consciences of the many, is to take the ‘permissive’ route of accommodating plural consciences, while also ensuring that both groups have a right to live out their faith in the CofE on the basis of conscience, and have that conscience protected.
That does mean an end to ‘my way or the highway’ mentality. And an end to threats. I have argued for a Scottish-style approach all along, and continue to do so.
I do so on the basis of (a) conscience (b) an end to domination (c) to address a pastoral emergency and not perpetuate it (d) enable the Church of England to put more focus on all the other needs that exist in our communities.
If I don’t fully agree with David, I don’t agree with Andrew’s desire to kick the can down the road either. A plural accommodation needs to be negotiated (or imposed via Synod) urgently… because we are talking about people’s lives.
We will NEVER know the statistics of people ‘for’ and ‘against’ gay sex, short of a referendum of everyone on the electoral rolls.
Synod is politicised and potentially unrepresentative of people in the pews. LLF was also subjective in that it’s possible gay people (more immediately impacted) may have been more likely to participate in a self-selecting process.
But David is right to recognise the injustice of a ‘status quo’ where one group’s conscience is dominating another’s, and where the Church has been riven over these issues for long enough. In addition he can draw on the clear signal from LLF that there are very large groups in the CofE on both sides of the ‘divide’ on sexuality. He is right to press for some urgency rather than yet further delays.
Where I differ is if he thinks gay marriage will result from ‘Prayers’ down a slippery slope of change in small steps. Gay marriage is THE issue that needs resolving. That’s the offence to gay people, that’s the hurt, that’s the discrimination.
But Andrew has for years wanted to block any moves towards gay marriage – he wants a Church that imposes uniformity (Anglican Covenant style). So David is quite justified to suspect his intent, and potential desire to block, to obstruct, to delay…
… possibly holding the Church of England to ransom via the 67% rule on doctrinal change forever and a day.
Of course he wants delay!
‘That does mean an end to ‘my way or the highway’ mentality. And an end to threats. I have argued for a Scottish-style approach all along, and continue to do so.’
So it is your/Scottish way or the highway? How is that any kind of progress?
Well then you are advocating domination rather than respect for conscience, Ian.
The Scottish way hinges on not forcing a social conservative like you to celebrate a gay marriage, and not forcing social liberals either. It simply offers choice, and respect for conscience.
You don’t want to marry a man? Fine. Then don’t.
You don’t want to celebrate the marriage of a gay couple? Fine. Then don’t.
That’s not ‘the highway’.
What you actually seem to be saying is that you demand the right of those who share your view on sexuality to dominate the lives and consciences of those who don’t. You are apparently insisting on the right to dominate rather than to tolerate diversity of views (which is the reality in the Church of England today).
The Scottish way forces no-one out, but it doesn’t offer a social conservative the right to dominate everyone else (which is the situation in the Church of England today).
Regardless of David’s appeal to LLF to claim support for gay sexuality, while we do not know the exact scale of that support, my personal view is that the largest number of people in the Church (not the Synod activists on both sides, but the ordinary people in the pews who live in their parish and want to stay in their parish…) very probably just want this whole attrition to be resolved.
They are not absorbed about sex. They care about all the other aspects of parish life – the poor, the sick, the lonely, the bereaved etc. I think many and probably most of them, if asked, would accept the Scottish solution just to ‘live and let live’ and get on with the lives they’ve lived, and the neighbours they’ve served, through their lives.
Either way, it comes down to freedom of conscience or domination.
The Scottish way affords individuals, and even local church communities, the freedom of conscience *not* to affirm gay sex.
In a Church deeply divided down the middle, that is progress if it allows things to rest and enable more focus on all the other pitiful needs in our parishes.
The mind of the Church of England on sexuality, based on what people actually believe, is in fact TWO minds. Why should one dominate the other?
If the Scottish way was implemented in England, no-one would be forcing you out. You would only be forced out by your own insistence that social conservatives like you MUST have the right to dominate everyone else.
I don’t think that’s tenable, or in any way pastorally sustainable, and I think – let’s face it – dear Andrew Goddard is fighting a rearguard action in retreat. Delay, obstruct, block in any way possible.
People in the Church of England believe what they believe. David might be right: most people today may indeed be okay with gay sex, or at least okay with allowing differing consciences on the matter. It’s very likely that many people in the pews reflect the social changes in society which have seen gay sexuality being accepted.
What is the alternative to the Scottish way? Schism? Domination of the consciences of half the Church? Continued attrition?
That’s not progress. That’s implosion.
The Scottish way hinges on not forcing a social conservative like you to celebrate a gay marriage, and not forcing social liberals either. It simply offers choice, and respect for conscience.
But it forces conservatives to recognise same-sex marriages as valid marriages, against their conscience. That’s domination.
No it doesn’t. Just valid in some people’s opinions and consciences. It allows different views on the matter.
The LAW decides whether a marriage is valid or not.
Under the Scottish model, you don’t get to ‘police’ other people in the Church but you do get the right to your own views.
But what on earth does ‘views’ mean?
Are you giving equal status to selfish wants or desires as to long-researched positions? After all, both of these are ‘views’. There is nothing special about being a view, only about being an evidenced view.
That idea that different views are effectively equal makes your position not only tenable but the least tenable. That is obvious. So why do you pursue it and never show that you are capable of addressing this point?
Let me put it simply:
Do you think that all ‘views’ should be treated equally, given equal status?
O dear. You don’t want slavery? Then don’t have a slave. Same argument. You don’t agree with abortion? Then don’t have one – just don’t impose your views on others. Wiser minds decided to abolish slavery. Abolition of abortion is still my prayer. Acceptance of sin is no freedom.
Straw man, Leonard?
No-one in the Church of England is advocating slavery (even though there are actually degrees of economic slavery going on to sustain our lifestyles)…
But with sexuality, there is a reality, that the Church of England genuinely has two views, two (or more) consciences on the issue.
With abortion, it’s probably similar. I’d agree the same principle I do with gay sex. Let each Christian have the right to agree or disagree with abortion (it’s of course more complex in detail). But don’t demand everyone must agree with you.
Those are conscience issues.
The right to enslave people is not a debate in the Church of England that anyone is having.
With abortion, it’s probably similar. I’d agree the same principle I do with gay sex. Let each Christian have the right to agree or disagree with abortion (it’s of course more complex in detail). But don’t demand everyone must agree with you.
So you think a Christian should not campaign to have abortion made illegal?
I didn’t say that, S. You do like putting words into people’s mouths.
I haven’t disclosed my personal view on abortion.
I think a Christian may most certainly be allowed to campaign to make abortion illegal.
But to get back *on topic* I don’t believe a position on abortion should be imposed on the whole Church. I believe it should be left to conscience, which is my position with gay sex too.
‘But to get back *on topic* I don’t believe a position on abortion should be imposed on the whole Church. I believe it should be left to conscience, which is my position with gay sex too.’
Wow. Is there anyone else for whom killing them should be a personal ethical choice, rather than the people of God actually having a shared ethic? Does Christian faith have any actually content? Is there anything we actually all believe in your view?
There doesn’t appear to be much…
So ‘abortion’ (killing off little humans) is something where people can have any ‘personal view’ they please.
How big of them.
We should all be grateful for its ‘personal’ nature. Its factual and/or scientific nature would be irrelevant.
I didn’t say that
But isn’t campaigning to have something made illegal exactly ‘demanding that everyone agree with you’ — or at least demanding they act like they agree with you, or go to gaol?
So if you don’t think we should be demanding people agree with us I don’t see how you can think it’s okay to campaign that people do disagree with us and act on it should be sent to prison.
What a bizarre comparison to draw.
The discussion on sexuality is predicated on the understanding that we are talking about two freely consenting adults. The slave does not consent to slavery, that’s why it’s slavery rather than employment. A lot of the argument around abortion turns on whether you think there is another human life involved or not.
To view these moral questions solely as being about whether there is a particular rule governing your personal behaviour (i.e. just an arbitrary rule like “don’t eat sweets before dinner”) is a rather narcissistic view.
To view these moral questions solely as being about whether there is a particular rule governing your personal behaviour (i.e. just an arbitrary rule like “don’t eat sweets before dinner”) is a rather narcissistic view.
Actually the truly narcissistic view is the one that there is just one arbitrary rule ‘anything that adults consent to is okay, anything that is done without consent is wrong’ that governs everything.
Who said that’s the one rule?
Who said that’s the one rule?
That’s what I inferred from:
‘ The discussion on sexuality is predicated on the understanding that we are talking about two freely consenting adults. The slave does not consent to slavery, that’s why it’s slavery rather than employment. A lot of the argument around abortion turns on whether you think there is another human life involved or not.’
That is, you seemed to be saying that the only relevant moral question is whether consent was present or not (sex is okay between consenting adults; slavery is not okay because consent is lacking; options on abortion die according to whether they think that the baby is a human whose consent is required or not).
If that’s not it then what do you think is the relevant moral question(s)?
Well you got that wrong.
I was saying that the starting point for the discussion on gay relationships renders the slavery analogy (in this case) irrelevant.
I was saying that the starting point for the discussion on gay relationships renders the slavery analogy (in this case) irrelevant.
Only if you think that the issue of consent is morally relevant.
If you don’t agree that the issue of consent is morally relevant then the analogy is valid.
‘The Scottish way hinges on not forcing a social conservative like you to celebrate a gay marriage, and not forcing social liberals either. It simply offers choice, and respect for conscience.’
No, the Scottish/your way imposes the notion that this is ‘a thing indifferent’ and essentially asserts that the church has no doctrine of marriage.
And the impact of that on the Scottish churches is to destroy its congregations. I doubt it will exist in 15 years’ time. Have you looked at the attendance figures?
Ian – I’ll explain the ‘Scottish way’ to you in simple terms, just in case you haven’t fully understood the situation. This will clarify for you what Susannah is trying to say.
Once upon a time, not so long ago, Scotland was the ‘land of the book’, but then they rejected God, so God said to them ‘if that’s the way you want it, then that’s the way you’re going to have it’. He has turned them over to a reprobate mind in preparation for the lake of fire.
I say this with regret, because I do come from Scotland, but that’s the way it is.
‘possibly holding the Church of England to ransom via the 67% rule on doctrinal change forever and a day.’
So you think that we should be able to change the doctrine that is rooted in Scripture and the teaching of Jesus, and has stood for nearly 400 years, on the basis of a 50-50 vote by an unrepresentative Synod?
Which would cut us off from the consensus view of the church catholic? Which would finally destroy the Anglican Communion? And which every other single denomination has found has then destroyed it?
Seriously??
Do you think there really is such a thing as ‘truth’?
God is truth.
Opening to that truth in our daily lives, our daily service, involves many things, but certainly the interaction God seeks for us with the Holy Spirit and the exercise of our God-given consciences, and capacity for compassionate love.
As you must know, I do not believe the Bible is an infallible source of truth. It’s people’s efforts to understand truth… to understand divine encounter… but in the end I don’t elevate it to the level of authority you seem to.
But I study it. I listen to those voices from the past and I reflect. And pray. And engage with other people in community.
In the Church of England, two large groups of people have been praying faithfully to discern ‘the truth’ about human sexuality. You know that. Please don’t disrespect that earnest prayer and study of people with different views to yours. Hopefully you don’t.
I think there is such a thing as Truth in the person of God. But we can’t contain it all. We can’t box God up. We need to be receptive to what God says – that is the Living Word of God, alive and active – via the Holy Spirit and prayer, and via multiple inputs including community, experience of others, examples of love and grace.
Ian, you question is a kind of a trap, because it is obviously intended to lead to the next questions: How can you know truth except through the Bible, and do you believe that the Bible is true?
That is a very complicated question, but personally I think that depends on what you attribute to it, how you read and use it, and the degree to which narrator contexts filter or ‘provisonalise’ the things that they say.
God is deep, deep mystery. And God is truth.
So I think there is such a thing as truth, but I believe it is found ultimately in God, with attempts made by Bible authors to understand it.
On sexuality, sincere and devoted Christians have come to very different views with prayer and study and life experience. The experiences of gay uncles, lesbian daughters, LGBT workmates or neighbours. Decent people just living their lives.
Where is truth in all that? What is God saying?
People in the Church of England do not have an agreed mind on that. That’s simply a reality. You ask if doctrine should change on a 50-50 vote. I’ll ask you another: if only 40% or 45% of church membership opposed gay sex, would you STILL think that minority had the right to impose it’s conscience on everyone else’s?
I’d be happy for it to be put to a vote of everyone on electoral rolls, along with a vote on the Scottish option, and the option of keeping doctrine the same. That would at least ‘quantify’ in a way Andrew points out that LLF doesn’t.
And I’m not afraid of a vote like that, because I am not afraid of the truth!
‘As you must know, I do not believe the Bible is an infallible source of truth. ‘
Indeed you don’t. But the doctrine of the C of E does—and says so in the Articles, which are the definition of the doctrine of the Church according to Canon law.
I don’t know what Church you attend at the moment, but you appear to be demanding the the C of E dismantles itself in order to conform to your own personal understanding of God.
I hope you will understand if I decline.
Errrr the Articles do not say that. They say that Scripture contains all things necessary to salvation, so that whatever is not read in them, or proved by them, cannot be required of any man to be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.
Errr ‘it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God’s Word written’.
So Scripture is ‘God’s word written’ and we are not allowed to ordain things contrary to its teaching. Susannah is saying explicitly that she wants to do just that.
“But the doctrine of the C of E does—and says so in the Articles, which are the definition of the doctrine of the Church according to Canon law.”
Just untrue.
Firstly. The articles are not required belief and we have been over this a million times. I am not going over it again. The case rests.
Secondly, the Canons say “The Thirty-nine Articles are agreeable to the Word of God and may be assented unto with a good conscience by all members of the Church of England.” Indeed. They may be.
Thirdly, from Canon A5. The doctrine of the Church of England is grounded in the Holy Scriptures, and in such teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church as are agreeable to the said Scriptures.
In particular such doctrine is to be found in the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, The Book of Common Prayer, and the Ordinal.
Absolutely nothing about the infallibility of the scriptures.
Fourthly. LLF, which we are discussing here, present seven possible ways the scriptures might be considered. It indicates that 1 and 7 are outside Anglican teaching. 2-6 aren’t.
One group of unknown numerical support are dominating the consciences of the affirming group, as they have throughout these 60 years of often intense debate.
You have been explicit in the past, though, that you don’t really mind one group of unknown numerical support dominating the conscience of another group. In fact you are in favour of such domination! You just want a different group to be doing the dominating.
Absolutely not. I want a Church where plural consciences are allowed because that’s the de facto reality of belief among members already, and I want the consciences of both groups to be accommodated. I believe in a Broad Church not a narrow puritan Church.
Indeed, I am unpopular with some ‘liberals’ because I oppose their desire to ban priests/ministers preaching that gay sex is a sin.
I have campaigned for ‘unity in diversity’ and ‘accommodation of plural consciences’ for so long that I am astonished you want to imply I want the opposite.
Absolutely not. I want a Church where plural consciences are allowed because that’s the de facto reality of belief among members already, and I want the consciences of both groups to be accommodated.
But there will inevitably be situations where the conscience of the groups come into conflict, and you have been clear that you think in those situations the ‘affirming’ vote should always prevail and the other group needs to accommodate it.
You phrase this as ‘You would only be forced out by your own insistence that social conservatives like you MUST have the right to dominate everyone else.’
But the reality is that in the ‘solution’ you envisage, those of a conservatives view would be entitled to hold those views, and to preach them (and I appreciate that this makes you less totalitarian than some, who would outlaw even the expression of conservative views); but if they were to act on their views it would be made clear they were unwelcome.
This is not respect of conscience. It is domination.
“But there will inevitably be situations where the conscience of the groups come into conflict, and you have been clear that you think in those situations the ‘affirming’ vote should always prevail and the other group needs to accommodate it.”
I don’t know what you mean (sincerely). Specifically what are these ‘situations’?
“if they were to act on their views it would be made clear they were unwelcome.”
Again, S, I don’t know what you’re referencing. What specific examples of acting on their views?
I don’t know what you mean (sincerely). Specifically what are these ‘situations’?
I have given several examples to you already on pages on this site. I see no need to repeat myself.
(1) Consciences can be uninformed. What right have you to say uninformed ones should weigh the same as informed ones?
(2) If people say their conscience says something, leaving aside that they may not always be telling the truth, let us assume they are being truthful. How did they know it was their conscience speaking?
(3) If people’s consciences always give the same message as their desires, I think we can safely assume that conscience is not in the picture at all.
(4) So-called consciences can just speak with the voice of the wider culture.
You are speaking as though it were a simple matter to define and identify something called ‘conscience’. Since that is clearly not the case, your argument fails.
“You are speaking as though it were a simple matter to define and identify something called ‘conscience’. Since that is clearly not the case, your argument fails.”
So does your argument from conscience about abortion and euthanasia.
The mind of the church ought to be aligned with the mind of God. Where do we find that expressed?
[pause whilst we all think about that…]
@ Anton
Spot on ….
As one Anglican blogger put it:
Then with a touch of irony, added this:
How confused and misleading are the terms being bandied being about in this “discernment process”! We hear about: “conscience”; “faith”; and the “mind of the faithful”. What’s the
Two key questions arise:
1) Do Christian people have a “right” to form and follow their own conscience?
2) Is the opinion of a large number of Christians an adequate expression of the “supernatural sense of the faith.” which cannot err in matters of belief?
Upticks from the Old Days, Jack.
I have not read or seen any proper theology being done in the LLF process. It seems mainly to consist of personal anecdotes, people’s own views and appeals to conscience and lived experience. The Bishop’s appear be guided by populism rather than any strong theological reflection. Where is the theology in all this?
Have you read all the LLF material, including the books and articles cited in the bibliography? And engaged with all the other materials?
Penelope, l cannot say that l have read every single one of them (and l have read a lot on opposing sides) but my impression is that the Bishop’s are not primarily using theology to determine doctrine but popular sentiment, particularly in the eyes of the state to which the CofE is inextricably linked.
I think that is a perception. But I also think that it is incorrect and comes from populist readings of the Bishops’ and Synods’ work
Maybe sometimes…
But in thi diocese (and last year) the Diocesan’s view seemed pretty clear; “we’ve lost the argument in the world’s eyes, so we need to accommodate and move on for the sake of the bigger mission needs”. (my summary but accurate)
Pretty populist I’d say, in reality. And not to risk the charge of being double-minded from any view point.
Ian, they actually said that???
This needs to be made more widely known.
Penny, yes, there is some theological work done in the background papers. One example is the paper on blessing by Isabelle.
But as Andrew points out above, that has been completely trashed by the bishops in the rushed final process.
As Andrew argues …
David argues that the prayers are a response to the promptings of Synod and the LLF process.
The tactic of suggesting that the prayers are being rushed or of disputing about Canons looks awfully like trying to frustrate both the Bishops and Synod.
I don’t think the prayers are perfect, but I don’t believe the Service of Dedication after a Civil Marriage is perfect either. Fortunately commended prayers aren’t set in stone.
‘The tactic of suggesting that the prayers are being rushed or of disputing about Canons looks awfully like trying to frustrate both the Bishops and Synod.’
Andrew does offer a ‘tactic’; he sets out the facts. Sorry they don’t suit you.
Ian
And I’m sorry you cannot admit that Andrew’s ‘facts’ arise from his ideological reading of the situation.
Chris Wright and Oliver O’Donovan have done scholarly input too for the project, and I have little evidence or perception that many have read it or been inclined to advertise it.
Thank you Andrew for your response to David Runcorn.
It’s very interesting, to me at least, that conservatives now seem to be doing that which they have accused liberals of doing for years. That is, manouevering untik they get their own way!
Synod voted in favour of the Bishops’ propsals, with one significant amendment. The Bishops have “joyfully affirmed” those in stable same-sex relationships.
Now you can either think that is not enough or that it is far too much, but you can’t take away a majority (in what is, essentailly, a very conservative Synod), nor can you unwrite “joyfully affirmed”.
So what you are left with is unbecoming nit picking over the use of various Canons (and for every arguent there is, as always, a counter-argument), and casting aspersions on the work of LLF. Oh, and in some quarters the demand for special ‘oversight’.
I don’t know why some think that, if you do the right work in the right way, consensus is magically possible. It is not and never has been in the church catholic. I don’t know why some think consensus is the Holy Grail. It needn’t be. As has been observed before, Christians argue over many things in the church catholic. Some are things indifferent and others aren’t.
I am not sure why sexuality has become the presenting issue, but I suspect that it is something to do with a purified ecclseiology: a defining of who is in and who is out.
I don’t think this is a helpful or authentic ecclesial model.
” I don’t know why some think consensus is the Holy Grail. It needn’t be.”
I very much agree.
Unity is sometimes better achieved through mutual respect and love and grace, rather than imposing uniformity on everyone (as the Anglican Covenant attempted – remember that…?)
It is possible in this whole sexuality debate that God is not wanting us to prove “Who is right?” but is actually asking a completely different question: “Can you love one another, including or maybe especially those you disagree with?”
That may be the real test.
Part of Anglicanism has involved navigating and accommodating different views, different traditions, and yet still to serve in our parishes, alongside people with different views.
That teaches patience, grace, tolerance, kindness – expanding those qualities – in a way that would not be demanded of people in a narrower supposedly ‘purer’ church or sect.
Diversity is part of life on earth. It’s programmed into evolution. It exists – in good faith and conscience – in the Church as well.
We may not reach a consensus on every piece of doctrine, but we can reach consensus on living together – in parish after parish – as a Church with diverse views. We can seek consensus on brotherhood and sisterhood, on helping the poor and vulnerable, on being God’s children, on loving others, on grace in daily life, in prayer together, on kindness, on sacrificial service of those in pitiful need. There is plenty to get on with.
Abstract debating and point scoring over opponents is the easy bit. A few minutes at the keyboard. A few clicks of a mouse. I do it myself. But actually, most of Christian vocation is waiting outside for us, in costly service beyond the church building, in communities in pitiful need, and that’s the Cross really.
The heroes (on both sides) of the Great Sexuality Debate will not be remembered or valued as much as the person who held my hand in hospital when I was afraid, the person who comforted me for my loss, the person who visited when I was depressed and lonely (and listened on and on), the person who spent time after church service listening to elderly people instead of homing in on all the important religious people in the church…
And we don’t need uniformity to get on with 99% of that. We need grace, and love. And then, as a diverse church we need to be able to work alongside very different people as team and community, serving (as God might put it) “the least of these”.
It’s not all about sex.
It’s not all about sex.
Indeed not. It’s not even mainly about sex. It’s about the Bible, and more specifically it’s about Church of England maintaining a boundary about what views of the Bible are compatible with being a Christian and being clear that your view of the Bible is not acceptable within a Christian denomination.
I agree with you that behind the sexuality debate there is a more fundamental issue about what views the Bible holds, how they should be contextualised, and whether they are all authoritative.
But let us not de-rail and diverge on that issue here.
My point is that, for most people in the pews and in their parishes, sex is a less immediate and important issue than meeting the wide range of other needs in their parishes.
Most people may be happy to see the ‘sex’ debate be resolved by a live and let live Scottish approach, especially as many people are okay with gay sex.
You will of course challenge for stats to back up that claim. I’d send that challenge back to you and ask if you can prove that preserving a ban on gay sex really matters as much to the great centre ground of people in the pews as it does to Ian or Andrew.
I think a majority of people in the Church of England would be content with a ‘compromise’ (as they would see it) of a Scottish-style resolution… anything, just to reduce the endless attrition going on and on.
Most people in the pews are not Puritans. They have gay relatives and workmates. They have probably trended towards affirmation or acceptance or live and let live, following the secular social trends of the past 60 years. Can you be sure they haven’t?
@ Susannah C
>>I agree with you that behind the sexuality debate there is a more fundamental issue about what views the Bible holds, how they should be contextualised, and whether they are all authoritative.
But let us not de-rail and diverge on that issue here.<<
But that is the issue, not a “divergence”. It concerns the unpopular concepts these days of obedience, authority and faith.
This is how HJ’s Church puts it but it is relevant for all Christians:
The faithful must pay careful attention to the sacred and certain teaching on matters of faith and morals down the millennia .
Paul “speaks of the ‘obedience of faith’ as our first obligation and teaches that ‘ignorance of God’ is the principle and explanation of all moral deviations. There are certain teachings that cannot be changed and if we deviate from them, we fail in our duty to God, due primarily to our ignorance of Him.
Jack, which Church teachings do you disagree with, but remain obedient to? Does your obedience cost you much?
@ A J Bell
That Sir, is between Happy Jack and his confessor!
Why is that a matter for your confessor? Or is obedience to a Church teaching you disagree with a sin?
@ A J Bell
Happy Jack agrees with all the teachings of his Church and “picks up his cross daily.”
So your obedience, is not so much obedience, as simply agreeing with the argument and consequently not really that costly.
Interesting.
3000 years of scriptural tradition to be jumked on the basis of an idea that has entered the church from secularism?
@ Anton
Because our scientific and biblical knowledge is so much greater than those ancient, tribal people. What did they know? We must free yourself from this prison of patriarchy and heteronormativity.
Don’t you know that the early Christians accepted LGBT+ folk on the same level as their heterosexual counterparts? Plus, we’ve been getting the translations of certain scriptural terms wrong and misunderstanding the context of key passages. And, anyway, failing all that, the various passages just don’t apply today.
I know you are doing irony here, but just to say, I affirm gay sexuality myself, but I do not believe the religious communities involved with writing/compiling the Old Testament and the New Testament were okay with man-man sex. That was so outside their culture, religious framework, social framework.
Their religious culture was different to the more open culture many people embrace today, whether in the context of their church communities or society at large.
And yes, I believe LGBT people should be accepted on the same level as their heterosexual counterparts.
‘Their religious culture was different to the more open culture many people embrace today, whether in the context of their church communities or society at large.’
Poor, benighted Jesus, hemmed in by a narrow bigotry of the Jews which he was unable to challenge in his teaching on marriage. And poor Paul, who followed the same benighted path.
And poor Church Fathers, hoodwinked by both.
And as soon as the oh-so-wise West embraced what you call man-man sex, the cultural advance was so great that a pandemic broke out where this demographic was easily the most vulnerable per head. As indeed it is by far the most vulnerable to most other major sexually transmitted diseases. Which means, obviously to those who think, that it is unhealthy behaviour.
Dear Ian,
I forget the verse where Jesus said gay sex was wrong.
He referred to the sanctity of committed relationships between two people.
In his time, addressing his audience, he framed marriage in a male-female context.
That was simply the context of the day in Jewish religious life.
Nothing about what to do in a future society if two men also wanted to commit in fidelity in marriage.
The important bit in a teaching on fidelity is the fidelity.
‘I forget the verse where Jesus said gay sex was wrong.’
Do you? How odd. In Matt 19.4 he cites Gen 1.27 ‘he made them male and female’ as the basis for our understanding of marriage.
He repeatedly warns about ‘sexual immorality’ porneia which for any first-century Jew would include same-sex sex, drawing on the prohibitions in Leviticus. This was a major point of difference in sexual morality between Jews and gentiles.
See Matt 15.19, Mark 7.21, reiterated in Acts 15.20 and Acts 21.25, and of course an important theme in Paul, going into the gentile world, 1 Cor 5.9, 6.13, 2 Cor 12.21, Gal 5.19, Eph 5.5, Col 3.5, 1 Thess 4.3, 1 Tim 1.10.
Have you read this helpful article by John Nolland? https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/anvil/26-1_021.pdf
‘Porneia is normally translated as ‘fornication’.14 But this translation obscures a simple fact. In the Jewish context of Jesus’ day, and in the Christian context that grew out of it, homosexual coitus would have been automatically embraced within the scope of porneia.’
Does that help your memory?
Ian: “In Matt 19.4 he cites Gen 1.27 ‘he made them male and female’ as the basis for our understanding of marriage.”
Well Jesus doesn’t actually use those words. And he is talking about fidelity and divorce. He is saying that the union of (in this case) a man and a woman is meant to be for keeps. That could equally apply to two men.
By giving the example of Adam and Eve, he is not saying “therefore gay sex is wrong”… he is saying, when two people marry they become as one, and should be faithful…
That can apply as much to two men as to a heterosexual couple. In both cases, the two become emotionally and physically one.
So when you say ‘the basis of our understanding of marriage’ (a) stick to the actual context and subject Jesus is addressing… marital union should be accompanied by fidelity; (b) it’s A basis for AN understanding of marriage… given as example to an audience who did not even conceive of gay marriage in their religious culture.
But if you agree that two becoming one is a good reason for marriage, well that should be a good reason for gay marriage as well.
“He repeatedly warns about ‘sexual immorality’ porneia which for any first-century Jew would include same-sex sex, drawing on the prohibitions in Leviticus.”
Jesus doesn’t cite that specific. You’re reading that specific into it, because it suits your argument. You are also relying on the idea that the concept of what is ‘porneia’ never alters – that it is an immutable.
And yet, many times Jesus is actually ‘revisionist’… ‘You have read… but I say/ I tell you…’
Jesus is not an advocate of a static religious construct. He fires it with the dynamic of love and the Holy Spirit.
Obviously he frames generalities around concepts – whether marriage of porneia or marriage – that his audience would understand, but often with Jesus there is more, in the spiritualising of law… his teaching is pregnant with dynamism and change. It is the opposite of setting the law in aspic.
I repeat: Jesus never mentioned men having sex with men, or what today is understood as gay sex and marriage or (equally possible) the Bible narrators did not choose to report anything he did say.
They were probably incapable of foreseeing the potential for flourishing and devotion that Jesus Himself would be able to. They weren’t ready for that. It wasn’t their religious culture or time.
Jesus didn’t speak to them about computers either. They could not foresee that either.
But what Jesus DID say was: Marriage is a good thing. Fidelity is important.
And that’s why we should encourage gay and lesbian couples to MARRY and be FAITHFUL.
You seem to be making words mean whatever you want.
‘Jesus is not an advocate of a static religious construct.’ Huh?? Jesus believed Scripture were God’s words.
‘many times Jesus is actually ‘revisionist’’ Huh?? Jesus is a reformer taking people back to Scripture and peeling away tradition. He was a Torah-observant Jew.
‘what Jesus DID say was: Marriage is a good thing. Fidelity is important.’ Huh?? No, Jesus said ‘male-female marriage is a good thing’. He cites Gen 2, but underlies that with Gen 1. Marriage is a union of a man and a woman. Why? Because God created humanity male and female. (He also rejects polygamy by citing the Greek LXX ‘the two shall become one.’
If the law changed, and I could marry my dog, your argument would be ‘Jesus said marriage was a good thing; you can have sex with your dog as long as you are faithful.’ You cannot use words as a container to pour your meaning into. For Jesus and every Jew in the first century (and everyone else until about five minutes ago) ‘marriage’ means between a man and a woman.
Jesus never divorces the quality from the form—because of God’s creation.
typo: “whether marriage of porneia or marriage” should just read “whether porneia or marriage”.
Perhaps I should also add two other teachings of Jesus that have tidal importance and high priority:
The overwhelming imperative of love. And God’s desire that we should flourish and know life in all its fullness.
Why would we not want gay couples to flourish, to tenderly love and support each other, to be faithful inside marriage? Jesus taught all these things.
We can be *too* legalistic, in our presumptions of what God wants for people. Devoted love of others, and flourishing are also teachings of Jesus… ones that He actually mentions. He never mentions gay sex at all.
We should be open to ‘the fulfilment of the law’ in the life in the Spirit when we open our hearts to Jesus and all the possibilities that people like the authors of Leviticus could never have conceived of.
Vocation is the continuing call of God to us to be the whole of who we are in Him… and that’s wonderful, because we’re not meant to be something we’re not. Some people are gay. On gay marriage they can be blessed, and flourish, and devote sacrificially… and love.
To use one of your favourite words, Ian, I find it ‘odd’ that you should rule all that out, and the prospect and possibilities it offers, not only to the individuals concerned, but to the communities and neighbourhoods where they may be gifts to others, loved, valued, precious parts of family.
I don’t believe all the authors of the Bible had that prescience – they were time-strapped and culture-strapped in their own religious communities… but many of us believe that Jesus surely did.
Devoted, sacrificial love… fidelity and commitment… flourishing… and community. These things are clearly valued by God. Perhaps we should be open to ways God sees and understands and blesses people… blesses their tender love and sacrifice and faith.
It is not just straight people who can be blessed by marriage, even if they are the majority and we should wish it for them as well.
Ah, Matthew 19 – the verses you were all so content to overlook when the Church decided to relax its views on divorce and remarriage. That was allowed to be a thing indifferent. Why?
Matthew 19 is important, but casting it as Jesus inserting a commandment against gay relationships that we would only pick up on in the 21st century is a stretch to say the least. Better I think to let Jesus words stand as they are, answering the questions asked. Jesus in that passage of course says nothing about having children, casts sexual desire and sexual union as the thrust of marriage, and is swift to correct the disciples when they say it is better not to marry. For some reason, our discussions in this debate tend to overlook all of that.
Whilst there was a difference between gentile and Jewish views on same-sex sex, it’s a bit of a nonsense to pretend that 1st century Corinth resembled 21st century Brighton. Same-sex in the Hellenistic world was not happening instead of opposite-sex marriage, but in addition to it. The difference the Jews had was that they saw same-sex as a violation of the marriage bed (actually, much like we would today – you couldn’t reassure your wife that an affair doesn’t count if it’s with another man). Hence when St John Chrysostom preaches on Romans 1 he is adamant those being condemned for homosexual behaviour have a legitimate sexual outlet – their heterosexual marriages.
So do we really read in the Scriptures? That homosexual and heterosexual sex have an equivalence – they both count. That marriage is driven be sexual desire and union rather than procreation. And that we should avoid the trap of believing that there are commands to avoid marriage.
Sorry HJ but that one doesn’t work for me!
Societies change and vary. Sometimes people in the past may well have had limited views, or discriminatory views, and they certainly had limited scientific views and insights. If the Holy Spirit speaks to us in our consciences, to help inform decisions, then it seems realistic that we should not resist change just to accommodate traditional views of people who lived in very different societies.
Stronger critique of slavery was a good thing. Critique of women’s lives and roles was a good thing. The past is not always a repository of justice.
All that said, I do attend to tradition, to reflect and try to learn from it. As I’ve said previously, I draw greatly on the Carmelite traditions, insights, and practices of late 15th and 16th Century Spain. Stunning.
And yes, there is a communion of saints, and they are part of who we are as Church… but they too might pray for change from a heavenly vantage point, in the light of new knowledge and social change.
Tradition must not be set in aspic, or the Church may risk ossifying and becoming a relic, with diminishing relevance in the opinion of people.
I think GK is overstating to make his point.
@ Susannah Clark
That really depends on just what aspect of Christian tradition one is referring to. wouldn’t you say? Faith is not a sociological issue. There are teachings that transcend cultures and passing fashions.
Paul instruction is, “Stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thess. 2:15), and “If any one refuses to obey what we say in this letter, note that man, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed. Do not look on him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother” (2 Thess. 3:14–15)
The letter to the Hebrews states, “Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God; consider the outcome of their life, and imitate their faith. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. Do not be led away by diverse and strange teachings; for it is well that the heart be strengthened by grace, not by foods, which have not benefited their adherents.” (Heb. 13:7–9). It goes on, “Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account. Let them do this joyfully, and not sadly, for that would be of no advantage to you.” (Heb. 13:17)
Susannah, do you think Jesus actually taught anything about marriage? Do you think he had/has a view?
Does Scripture express that anywhere?
As I have stated in a separate post, I believe Jesus taught that marriage is good and fidelity is good. You know that, because we have been discussing it.
That’s why I think the Church should encourage gay and lesbian couples to marry and be faithful.
Except you have magically changed the content of the word ‘marriage’.
Ian, if you mean that marriage is a framework for procreation, yes for many (but not all) couples it may be. But marriage is also a framework for companionship, for devoted love and care, for stability, for sharing laughter and tears, for intimate tenderness, for partnership in your communities and gift to those communities.
It’s all those things.
If you want to narrow the ‘content’ of marriage down, I think that’s a diminishing of its potential. Instead of boxing marriage in and exclufing some from the blessings or marriage, I think – given all the blessings above – it’s great if society has opened it up wider. Why would we begrudge the blessings of marriage being given to others, so their sexual life is dedicated in a marriage commitment… and all their other care and devotion and what it means to be a couple?
Why lock people out, when marriage is good?
Was it actually a conservative evangelical who intoroduced the split between partnerships and ‘holy matrimony’, with the idea that anything else was unholy matrimony?
It was a Bishop of Exeter. I have no idea whther he was a conservative evangelical.
Er no.
What do you mean by no?
Do you even know which bishop I’m referring to?
I don’t know the answer to that, but I have two related questions:
1. Will this new distinction have any impact on those CofE clergy in opposite-sex marriages who were not married in church but in a register office – and if not, why not?
2. Isn’t this proposed ‘split’ a complete volte-face on the Church’s main argument in the Jeremy Pemberton employment tribunal case?
Jeremy Pemberton should have his PTO re-instated. I very much hope this will become clear when the ‘Pastoral Guidelines’ are released (supposedly in November).
He was a devoted hospital chaplain (and I know how precious that role is, from my own work as a nurse in busy hospitals).
By all accounts he was good at his job. He was then basically stopped from doing good. Because in his completely private life he loved somebody.
Will priests be allowed to marry in civil registry offices (as opposed to this spurious alternative of ‘holy matrimony’? If so, then Jeremy should be allowed to return to his vocation… and if the Church is then saying, ‘Okay, we have changed our view on this and think we got things wrong before’… then frankly there may also be the issue of compensation.
Not that that was what Jeremy sought. He just wanted to carry on doing good, caring for sick and often scared patients, hold the hand of the dying, support and comfort relatives. When he was stripped of all that loving service, that was a terrible thing which was bad for him, bad for his partner, and a loss for the patients.
No. Not ‘loved somebody’.
Your presuppositions are:
(1) It is obvious what ‘love’ means. In which case why does Greek have 4 words for totally distinct phenomena;
(2) One can love only one person (!) – so bad luck to parents, children and friends and enemies;
(3) It is, however, fine to love one person at a time sequentially – so bad luck to the wife of one’s youth;
This is the silliest and most obviously inaccurate list of presuppositions I have ever seen.
Never mind the question of the *mind of the church,* do believers (the church?) have the *mind of Christ*?
How is His Church, to discern and know Christ’s mind? Where is it to be found? And what is it?
Here is an opening gambit:
https://www.gotquestions.org/mind-of-Christ.html
The Mind of the Church? Wrong question. Wrong starting point.
@ Geoff
There ought to be no discrepancy between the “mind of the church” and the “mind of Christ”.
Some pervert the notion of the sensus fidei as a justification for their dissent from traditional teachings. As John says, “But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and all of you know the truth …. As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you.” (I John. 2:20, 1 John 2:27) However, between those verses, John adds: “I am writing these things to you about those who are trying to lead you astray.”
The ‘progressive’, in actual fact, regressive argument is, basically, that this “sense of the faith” expressed by a majority of should dictate Church doctrine. But the concept of this infallibility/indefectibility of the believing Church doesn’t mean that each individual believer is “infallible” and is enabled to create his own “truth”,
Dissent from traditional teachings on faith and morals also appeals to a kind of sociological argumentation which holds that the opinion of a large number of Christians is a direct and adequate expression of the “supernatural sense of the faith.” The Holy Spirit is speaking. (Ask Moses about this when he encountered the Golden Calf).
The opinions of the faithful (assuming faithfulness) cannot purely and simply be identified with the sensus fidei. This sense of the faith, the “mind of Christ”, properly understood, is a property of theological faith; and, is God’s gift which enables one to adhere personally to the Truth; it cannot err. This personal faith is also the faith of the Church, the “mind of the church”, since God has given guardianship of the Word to the Church.
Consequently, what the faithful believer believes is what the Church believes. The sensus fidei implies then by its nature a profound spirit of agreement of spirit and heart with the Church – as in St. Ignatius of Loyola’s formulation “to think with the Church;” or, “sentire cum Ecclesia.”
There’s an indissoluble bond between the “sensus fidei” and the guidance of God’s People by His Church. These two realities cannot be separated. It’s what guarantees the Church’s unity in the Truth of the Lord; to “abide in the truth” in the face of the arbitrary character of changeable opinions and passing fashions
Fidelity to the faith which has been handed on, establishes a deeper freedom which can only come from unity in Truth – not “unity in diversity”, “plural consciences”, or “good disagreement”.
[Here endeth the rant]
HJ,
As the title and a main theme of the article sets out, there is a clear distinction between the CoE seeking to know the mind of the church and it’s evidencing knowing the Mind of Christ. As such there is a chasm, separation between “is” and “ought” and it’s knowing and teaching the Mind of Christ. And if anyone ought to know the mind of Christ and consequently the mind of Christ’s church, they are in leadership, oversight and teaching positions. It is a derogation of duty to doctrine ( and therefore of love) not to have that knowing. It is not to be sought by focus groups and questionnaires, any flawed quantitative analysis based on flawed qualitative analysis. That is an inversion: tail wagging the dog, sub scriptural and in the CoE, appears to be sub Church governance. But I’d add that the main opposition to Christian orthodoxy is less from the bottom up, but from heterodoxy from the top down.
If there were, for example, a “spiritual belief survey” that revealed ignorance, ambivalence, and unbelief of the “mind of Christ” it is not incumbent on those in leadership to change their mind (otherwise in integrity resign) and teaching accordingly, but all the more to preach and teach the Truth of God.
@ Geoff
The Western Christian churches are either giving in to the prevailing culture or failing in their mission to teach the Truth of the Faith to their members and to wider society. The “leading” and “feeding” of the flock and “seeking of the lost sheep” seems to be taking second place to appeasement and a fear of offending.
Susannah Clark & Penelope Cowell Doe
In dismissing the Bible you seem to be advocating humanism and your conscience as your moral compasses; of which you suggest that the Church should function along those lines. How do you know that you are not functioning with a “seared “conscience.?
‘Dismissing the Bible’ is an overstatement.
Personally, I’m a great fan of C.S. Lewis. ‘Mere Christianity’ was a godsend to me as a young Christian looking for a firm intellectual foundation for my faith. I went on to read almost everything he had ever written, and it’s probably true to say that today he’s still my most reliable spiritual guide.
However, I don’t agree with him about everything: specifically, I strongly disagree with his comments on (a) war and peace, (b) women’s subjection to men in marriage, and (c) conservative politics.
Do my disagreements with him mean I am ‘dismissing C.S. Lewis’? Not at all. I just don’t think he’s God.
Lewis himself had a very nuanced view on the infallibility of the Bible. I’ve brought together the relevant passages on my blog (see https://tachesterton.wordpress.com/2014/04/01/c-s-lewis-on-the-bible-2/). I completely agree with him on this. does thi smean I’m not a real Anglican?
@ Tim C
Speaking personally, Lewis’ view of the bible may be “nuanced” but it seems to this chap that it’s perfectly orthodox. Is he questioning Scripture’s inerrancy or our ability to interpret and understand the text and its different genres?
The Holy Spirit, the principle author of each book in Scripture, worked through human authors, preserving and making use of each one’s particular style of writing. The early Church used a musical analogy. They explained that, when a piece of music is played on various instruments, it will obtain a different sound and aural texture from each one, yet each rendition will be the same melody coming from the hand of the same composer.
The Holy Spirit, like a composer, selected different men to be the inspired “instruments” through which the melody of Scripture would be “played.” That’s why the style and elegance of the Greek composition of Luke’s Gospel contrasts with the terse style found in Mark’s Gospel, and the Old Testament books differ widely in their choice of vocabulary and literary style.
If everything the writers intended to assert, the Holy Spirit intended to assert, we cannot attribute error to the Holy Spirit, so we cannot ascribe error to the sacred authors. We can say that the sacred writers did not intend to give a true and strict account of history or of science.
The whole of Scripture, whether it be religious, historical, or scientific, poetic, literal, allegorical, anagogical, or moral, is for our salvation. There is no part of Scripture that does not contribute to our journey of salvation.
You ask: Are you an Anglican?
Jack asks: What is an Anglican?
Here’s what CS Lewis says:
CS Lewis’ Mere Christianity leads people to the “hallway”, not to a [particular “room”.
Hi Alan,
I assure you I am not dismissing the Bible. I study it in detail, and I find amazing insights and profound truths in it. But I don’t take all of it literally. Many, many passages in the Bible help me open up to encounter with God and the Love of God.
It is a fair point you make that we need to be careful about conscience. Conscience is very important, but in exercising it, we need to try to hear what other people feel in their consciences too. Many Christians today, without repudiating the Bible, believe in conscience that social views on sexuality change in different societies, and that was matters is fidelity, commitment, and covenant love.
The Church of England is pretty much divided down the middle about sexuality, some affirming committed gay sex as holy, others insisting it is a sin.
I’m sure you know all this.
We do not all read, understand and use the Bible in the same way but I assure you I regard it as the most profound book in my life.
‘But I don’t take all of it literally.’ Of course not. Who does?
But the prohibitions on same-sex sex are not poetry, so you cannot ignore them by ‘not taking them literally’. What would it mean not to take the prohibitions on theft ‘literally’?
You know that I believe the (fallible) Bible authors did indeed prohibit man-man sex.
Some people like David believe that prohibition (in the New Testament) relates to certain kinds of male sexual interaction, not devoted, tender, committed male intimacy and love.
Others like me take a rather more radical view that, even if the New testament narrators prohibit man-man sex, their views reflect the religious culture *of those times* that they lived in… but that the Bible should be read in contexts, and their view on gay sex may have been filtered by their own contexts… and therefore could be seen as temporarily relevant but not necessarily an eternal edict for all peoples for all time.
To me it’s not about being literal (I recognise the surface literal view of the narrators)… it’s about being contextual instead of rigidly dogmatic and legalistic. In the context of our own times and lives we live, we may feel in prayer and conscience, that God wishes well for gay and lesbian people in their devoted, loving and intimate relationships.
What is the Spirit saying to us today? Are we locked into attitudes (or social prejudices) that were held 2000 years ago in very different times?
I say: consider whether their expressed views on men having sex were coloured by their own religious culture. In one of the classic NT passages cited, the actual subject is ‘holiness’. In their culture (in their times) they considered male sexual love as an example of unholiness. Today we might apply other things as examples of unholiness: greed, social injustice, racism, human trafficking.
Things that are hateful, whereas most people today can see that gay relationships can be loving, devoted, sacrificial, and in addition a valued part of our neighbourhoods, our communities, our schools, our nursing staff, our families.
They may be holier than us!
So no, the prohibitions are not ‘poetry’. They are expressions of their times. Of their own contexts. Then we pray, and ask the Holy Spirit, here, today, can we see goodness in these people, their lives and their love?
Look to the love. Look to the human flourishing. And listen to what the Spirit says, because many people in their consciences have been touched to change their minds on this issue… by gay relatives or friends… and perhaps the real danger is uptight legalism and a kind of puritan judgment of people we put in the unholiness list.
We are talking real people and the most tender and costly aspects of their lives… of who they obviously are… and surely what the Church should do is encourage marriage and fidelity, as a good framework for their lives, both in church and in community, workplace and home.
What of the fact that Jesus affirmed the written laws of Moses as the authoritative command of his Father to Israel?
Susannah, could I just check: are you aware how many words you have written so far on this post?
‘Are we locked into attitudes (or social prejudices) that were held 2000 years ago in very different times?’ So Jesus and Paul were children of their time, and not as enlightened as us, so we are not bound by their teaching?
And the Spirit said the wrong thing to them, but it now giving us the correct insight at last? Why did the Spirit wait so long?
In one of the classic NT passages cited, the actual subject is ‘holiness’. In their culture (in their times) they considered male sexual love as an example of unholiness. Today we might apply other things as examples of unholiness: greed, social injustice, racism, human trafficking.
Lewis coined a term for this kind of thinking: chronological snobbery.
‘You know that I believe the (fallible) Bible authors did indeed prohibit man-man sex.’
Jesus affirmed the Scriptures, and regularly cited them as being the words of God.
Anton says, ‘What of the fact that Jesus affirmed the written laws of Moses as the authoritative command of his Father to Israel?’
And yet ‘he declared all foods clean.’
You can either take Matthew 5.18 at face value (‘literally’, if you like), or Mark 7.19b. Logically, you can’t take both.
Ian
Jesus held very different interpretations of scripture than the religious leaders of the day and said nothing directly on the issue, nothing directly about gay people. I think it is a mistake to assume that he necessarily had the same understanding of Leviticus 18.22 as you and it’s anachronistic to expect too clear an answer from first century writers on this. You may as well claim to know their views on vaccine requirements or co2 emissions.
Jesus held very different interpretations of scripture than the religious leaders of the day and said nothing directly on the issue, nothing directly about gay people.
But you’ve agreed that it is possible to rule out same-sex marriage without saying anything directly about gay people, so the fact Jesus never said anything about gay people doesn’t prove He didn’t rule out same-sex marriage (as indeed He did).
@ Peter J
Jesus never said anything about homosexual sexual activity because in ancient Israel no one disputed it was wrong. Judaism rejected homosexual relations. There was no debate in Jesus’ time and thus it was never an issue or question that was posed to Jesus. If Jesus wanted to challenge this aspect of Jewish theology, He most certainly could have done so.
Jesus does, however, say quite clearly that God created man and woman for each other in marriage. (Matt. 19:4-5) The only time Jesus mentions sexual activity as part of God’s plan is within the marriage of a man and woman. It’s a moral law applicable to all people and not just the Jews bound by Mosaic Law.
Christian theologians have distinguished three types of Mosaic commandments, based on the nature of what they require or forbid.
The first are moral commandments, which convey ethical principles (“Thou shalt not kill,” “Thou shalt not commit adultery”; Exod. 20:12-13). The second are ceremonial precepts that governed the ritual life of Israel (killing the Passover lamb or the distinction between clean and unclean foods. ( Exod. 12, Lev. 11) The third type are often called the judicial or civil commands. These regulated the civil life of Israel. They include things like building codes, and penalties when one has broke the Law of Moses.
Since the Law was given to the Jewish people, a key question is which of these commandments remain binding. One of the first controversies that faced the Church was whether Gentile converts to the Faith needed to be circumcised. The Church quickly determined that the answer was no (Acts 15; 10-11; Gal. 2). It was also established that Christians did not need to keep Jewish dietary laws or observe Jewish feast days. (Col. 2:16; Mark 7:19)
However, Jesus indicated that other commandments found in the Mosaic Law were binding, saying, “If you would enter life, keep the commandments,” and going on to explain, “You shall not kill, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not bear false witness, honour your father and mother, and, you shall love your neighbour as yourself.” (Matt. 19:17-19) All moral laws.
Certain commandments were binding on Christians, but others were not. Since the commandments that Jesus cited were moral in nature, whereas the ones Christians were not bound to observe were ceremonial, the solution is that it is God’s moral commandments that apply to all peoples.
Thus, Paul can speak of Gentiles who do not have the Law of Moses but who nevertheless “do by nature what the Law requires,” for “what the Law requires is written on their hearts.” (Rom. 2:14-15). Since these moral commands are part of human nature, they constitute a “natural law” that all, including Christians, are bound to observe.
In conclusion, Christians are not bound to observe the ceremonial requirements of the Mosaic Law. These requirements pointed forward to the coming of Christ but have now been superseded (Col. 2:17). In their place, Christ has given us other ceremonies, such as baptism, which replaces circumcision and is thus “the circumcision of Christ” (Col. 2:11-12). Christians are thus bound not by the Law of Moses, but by “the law of Christ.” (1 Cor. 9:21, Gal. 6:2) This includes sexual relationships.
Tim,
When Jesus declared all foods clean he was not telling Jews they could eat pork in violation of the Law of Moses. He was explaining that the dietary laws had a differet reason from that which the rabbis supposed.
Anton
Have you any evidence for that spectacular bit of eisegesis?
What you call eisegesis, Penelope, I call a resolution of what would otherwise be a conflict between God the Father and God the Son as reported in scriptures directly inspired by God the Holy Spirit.
Anton says,
‘Tim,
When Jesus declared all foods clean he was not telling Jews they could eat pork in violation of the Law of Moses. He was explaining that the dietary laws had a differet reason from that which the rabbis supposed.’
I don’t even know what that means, but one thing I’m sure of is that it’s not ‘the plain meaning of scripture.’
Anton
And where in scripture do you find this particular resolution?
S
Jesus did not “rule out” same sex marriage. He’s not recorded as saying anything on the issue
Jesus did not “rule out” same sex marriage. He’s not recorded as saying anything on the issue.
He ruled out same-sex marriage by defining marriage as being a union of a man and a woman in Matthew 19:4-6.
You’ve already agreed that defining marriage in such a way rules out same-sex marriage even though it doesn’t specifically mention it, in the same way as it rules out polygamy even though it doesn’t specifically mention it.
Tim and Penelope,
God does not contradict himself. You apparently would have it that he does.
Anton
Maybe not. But scripture does.
And you still haven’t explained why Jesus declaring all foods clean doesn’t mean what we think it does.
Probably want to think a bit about Romans 13 though if you’re going to be talking about what the law is, what it means, and how to apply it.
@ Penelope C D
>>Anton. And where in scripture do you find this particular resolution?<<
It's found here:
“Do not think that I have come to do away with or undo the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to do away with or undo but to complete and fulfil them.“ (Matthew 5:17)
And what does it mean for the law to be fulfilled?
Helpfully, St Paul provided the answer:
“Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no wrong to a neighbour; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.” Romans 13:8-10
Do those words in bold support Anton’s bizarre interpretation?
No.
Susannah, thank you so much for all your comments here, for me they really help with my understanding of this issue and in particular the need to keep things in proportion; there actually are more important issues to be addressed.
I understand one of our bishops suggested an LLF type approach to the topic of money!
Here comes the tired old trope again.
If you bothered to engage with the LLF materials you would find that my views are quite consistent with orthodox Anglicanism.
I simply agree with the bishops (which is a bit of a surprise) in welcoming a generous ecclesial space.
@ Penelope C D
You agree that marriage is reserved for men and women and that sexual activity belongs only within such marriage?
Who’s dismissing the Bible?
We went through this at the start of February (see Article “Last Rites for ‘Living in Love and Faith’”). Ian understandably, and rightly, doesn’t want to see the same debates repeated ad nauseam, but to save you the trouble of going back to look it up, this is what I wrote then:
Celibacy can be a good thing, but we are warned not to prize it too highly:
1 Corinthians 7 – better to marry than burn with passion
Matthew 19 – sexual desire is normal so don’t avoid marriage
1 Timothy 5 – young should marry to stop the Church being reviled
Beware legalism and placing heavy restrictions on each other.
Matthew 12 – Christ desires mercy not sacrifice
Matthew 23 – beware those who tie up heavy burdens on others, but will not move them with their finger
1 Peter 2 – live as people who are free
It is not about what is permitted. It is about what we should do. This is why Jesus fulfills the law, and this is why he so often turns around the Pharisees’ questions about whether something is permitted.
Mark 2 – Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath
Romans 13 – love does no wrong to a neighbour, therefore love is the fulfilling of the law
1 Corinthians 6 – all things are lawful, but not all things are helpful
Marriage is a concession for us to channel our sexual desire, and to find companionship
Genesis 2 – it is not good for man to be alone
Ecclesiastes 4 – two are better than one
1 Corinthians 7 – marriage is a concession, not a command
Hebrews 13 – sexual immorality is what defiles the marriage bed
So, given gay people are not able to change their sexuality, what are they to do if not called to celibacy? Scripture says that if you not called to celibacy, you should be able to marry. Is an opposite sex marriage a healthy concession for channelling sexual desire and avoiding burning with passion and temptation if you’re gay? Would we therefore concede that same-sex marriage is the way to go? Scripture seems to be pretty clearly against commanding celibacy, treats celibacy rather than marriage as the calling, and says if you struggle with celibacy you should be permitted to marry.
I’d like to raise a question mark about a point that is made here from time to time.
Fairly frequently, on this and other conservative sites, people will say ‘(a) Such and such a church affirmed gay marriage, and (b) look at what’s happened since then – their attendance is in free fall.’
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.
The statement implies that (b) is a result of (a). But that’s an assumption.
(b) is actually the result of many different factors, such as (to give a brief selection) the increased secularization of society at large, the huge number of activities that now compete for people’s attention on Sundays, the almost universal reality of both partners in a marriage/relationship being fully employed and so much more needing to be squeezed into a weekend, and the general inability of churches that were formed in a Christendom situation to adapt to a missionary situation where evangelism and disciple-making now become the number one priority.
Speaking for my own Anglican Church of Canada, I can tell you that our ASA was in free-fall for years before we made any move in the direction of LGBTQI+ affirmation. And as a person who has spent his whole ministry for over forty years banging the drum for evangelism, I have to tell you that it’s not hard for me to guess why that would be. The two ways churches tend to grow are either (a) running a ‘seeker-sensitive’ Sunday service aimed at unchurched people, and then getting members to invite people to it, so they can hear the Gospel and turn to Christ, or (b) equipping lay people to share their faith and lead people to Christ in the context of their daily life.
Most Canadian Anglicans don’t like either of those options. How surprising that we are shrinking at the same rate as our older members are dying off!
Tim there is a third way: have babies, lots of them, and bring them as Christians.
That’s actually how churches have mainly grown through history, through natural increase.
But Canada now has a fertility rate of 1.4 per woman and it relies on immigration to keep its population up (like many other western countries). Many of these immigrants are, IIRC, from non-Christian and non-religious backgrounds.
Among ‘western’ countries, only Israel has a high FR (over 3 per woman), especially among religious conservatives.
James – leaving aside the ethics of forcing people to breed like cattle, this simply doesn’t work. You end up with people who are ‘culturally Christian’, with very little evidence that they have been transformed by the renewing of their minds (as Paul was on the way to Damascus). You may end up with a society that has more in the way of ‘Christian values’, but the down-side is that those born into a ‘Christian’ family often do not experience any conversion and then they work hard to conform ‘the church’ to their own expectations, which may well be driven by societal norms.
I’ve seen something of this. My grandfather (mother’s side) born 1895 had 5 children, he brought them all up by ‘the book’. Of these, only my mother was (and still is) a committed Christian – her twin sister was, after the age of 18, a committed atheist who was always outspoken about just how horrible her upbringing had been. The other three had absolutely no interest either. When my grandfather died, my mother’s eldest brother gave her his entire collection of bibles and Christian literature, saying ‘you’re the one who is interested in this.’
My own experience (and family background) gives very little evidence for what you say, although it can lead to ‘bums on pews’, more ‘nominal Christianity’ and situations where so-called ‘conservative evangelicals’ goof off to a public house to sup a pint after evening service.
Hello Jock,
I would have been in general agreement with that until the last decade or so.
In the church I’m now part of, which is mostly young and fecund, a church of rapid breeders with 2-5 child families. The church has an active children’s and youth ministry inside the church and outside with a local RC primary school: 96 for those who like numbers.
That certainly goes against the grain in declining churches. It is a plant of 7 or so years, now with two services on Sundays. The church is also multi – ethnic and adheres to the 39 Articles of faith.
A married minister in training is shortly to arrive with 3 young children. It also supports mission partners in other countries, including a young married family on the African continent working with a well known Bible translation organization. It is a financially giving church, (which can be a measure of devoted faith).
But my main point is that while I’ve not carried out a survey, it seems that many have been raised in Christian, believing families and in turn are raising their children in the faith. I know Christian grandparents who are seeing their children’s children being raised in the faith. It is heart-warming and encouraging, even if the children do not ultimately become Christians, disciples of Christ, the seed is
being sown.
Over the years, I’ve heard so many testimonies from adults, who can say how and when they became believers as children and can *see* their faith in their prayers and midweek groups.
But as an adult convert, not having been raised in a Christian family, I have difficulty in not looking askance, figuratively speaking, when people say that they’ve always been a Christian.
Ooooh it the racist Great Replacement Theory raising its ugly head again.
James
Some of those babies will grow up into gay teenagers. If this is the strategy for church growth then you cannot hide from the gay question.
And some will grow up into terrorists and vegans.
Yes, that’s a very profound point you have there. Not.
Have you ever wondered why homosexuality requires heterosexuality for its continued existence?
It’s called natural law.
You keep saying this. I don’t see your point. Gay people are in a minority. Straight people will continue to reproduce. Some of their offspring will be straight, some gay, some bi, some ace.
But AFAIK the CofE isn’t refusing to discuss terrorism or veganism.
There’s no teaching on gay people beyond “don’t have sex” and the refusal to discuss gay people beyond the topic of sex has led to this appalling argument where gay people only really are allowed to exist in terms of sexual sin. It’s led to widespread abuse, deceit and coverup
It’s really not how the churches have grown through history. For most of Church history we had a substantial celibate monastic movement at the heart of the Church that wasn’t making any babies at all.
And then the other 90-odd% of the country, who were.
So much for the theology of the *evangel* of inclusive seeker sensitive (discipleship?) pragmatism, as a mission methodology, of managing decline. A game of subjective snakes and ladders, likes and dislikes in the mind of the church, it seems to me.
It certainly doesn’t carry any weight in the clamour for change in doctrine, rather the opposite.
Geoff – it does seem to have more than a whiff of the numbers game, doesn’t it? Remember just a couple of threads back we had the loaves and fishes miracle. The important point about that is that, after Jesus had miraculously fed the five thousand (first half of John 6) and they pressed him for more information, which he gave (second half of John 6), when they finally understood what he was saying, what it all meant, they deserted him in droves (John 6:60 and John 6:66).
Perhaps Jesus was guilty of rubbish evangelism? Perhaps he was presenting the gospel message in the wrong way? One thing is clear – he wasn’t playing the numbers game – getting and retaining a huge following wasn’t top of his list.
Tim
And this idea that gay inclusion or liberalism leads to decline ignores the fact that conservative churches are declining as well and doesn’t count all the people who feel pushed out or restricted to the margins of faith because their church is actively hostile to them or a friend/family member.
Hillsong was wildly popular for a few decades, but now we see that popularity was based on deceit and abuse. If you are focusing on truthfulness and human flourishing then it’s harder to draw huge crowds.
Thank you Peter. That is an important point. The reality is that numbers have dropped in the CofE in many churches of all traditions (evangelical, catholic, liberal etc). *Some* evangelical local churches have resisted that tide, but as I say, overall there is continuing decline.
But there is another measurement that comes into play. Why are so many people having nothing to do with the church of England?
There are obviously a number of reasons, but for many people these days it is because they are alienated and repelled (and understandably so). When they have gay uncles, lesbian daughters, gay neighbours, lesbian workmates, and are served by gay nurses, lesbian teachers etc…
…quite understandably they are disgusted that a Church still tells those people, we will marry straight couples but not ‘the gays’ and (in some churches) the message is: gay sex is sin.
So while yes, in pockets of evangelical churches numbers are holding up, it’s worth bearing in mind in those claimed (and generally limited) successes that there is also a numerical cost for the way the Church still excludes and outlaws gay sex and marriage.
For every 5 or 10 new people who attend a conservative church, there are HUNDREDS (maybe more) who are disgusted, repelled, alienated. And it’s the conservative message that often repels them.
So you could argue, numerically, the actual overall scoresheet is:
Liberal Churches: -5 and -5 for being too woolly
Catholic Churches: -3 and -1 for a few people returning to EU after Brexit
Conservative Churches: -1 and -400 repelled by Church discrimination (especially the young).
You may see the sometimes new members here of there that attend. You don’t see the millions in this country who have turned their backs on a Church whose teaching causes them moral offence.
How is that teaching different from the teaching in the preceding 1500 years?
You speak of it as a scandal now, but it must therefore have been an even greater scandal when it was more strongly held to.
All the stranger therefore that no-one remarked for thousands of years on this supposed scandal which energises you so much.
Why should we listen to young people who
-have less experience than those older, just as they themselves soon will have more experience than those younger;
-never grasped even what the counter arguments are, let alone whether they could answer them, or would wish or need to; and could not possibly contribute until they did grasp them;
-were fed one perspective only;
-that perspective being eccentric historically and internationally and biologically and statistically?
Well, the thing is, you see, Mr Shell, that during most of that preceding period of 1500 years, homosexuals, and particularly gay men, were so cruelly and ruthlessly persecuted whenever they were “exposed”, that those who hadn’t been took good care to keep their heads down. The result was, of course, that until about half a century ago, a large number of people must have seriously believed that they didn’t personally know any homosexuals. Still less did it occur to them that that category might include their own sons, brothers, uncles, cousins, friends, work colleagues et al.
Not surprisingly, therefore, their only knowledge of homosexuality was derived from reports in tabloid newspapers of “homosexual offences” committed by strangers, most of which were cases either of flagrant indecency in public places or else of sexual offences against boys (of which the great, and at that time invisible, majority of gay men were innocent). So they probably saw little reason to question what was then the status quo.
The “coming out” phenomenon which began in the 1970s decisively smashed that state of ignorance. You sound to me like someone who would like to turn the clock back and return to the status quo ante, but – if you’ll excuse the mixed metaphors – it’s not possible to put the toothpaste back in the tube. Thank God for that.
Christopher
I’ve been in the church for more than 40 years and I’ve still not really understood what the arguments against LGBT inclusion actually are. Honestly it seems mostly about how church X or leader Y will be seen by other churches and other leaders. The biblical evidence is held together by wishful thinking and pastoral evidence is universally in the opposite direction
Where are you getting your figures for this scoresheet from?
Susannah
I have seen a number of times results from a recent survey on reasons people leave church. I wish I could find the source for it because it is shocking.
The most common reason (24% of people asked) was the church’s treatment of LGBT people. And yet we are continually told the reverse that treating lgbt people as the worst sinners leads to growth
The most common reason (24% of people asked) was the church’s treatment of LGBT people.
What, you think people are going to give the real reason — that they just don’t want to give up their Sunday mornings?
If they really only left over same-sex marriage, they would flock back to denominations that have accepted same-sex marriage. They don’t — because that was only ever a convenient excuse that makes them sound virtuous to their friends, not the real reason.
Happy Jack is hearing “conscience” used a lot on this topic. It’s a a general theme he comes across used by those who have take issue with traditional Church teachings they disagree with.
It is true we have the right to act in conscience and be free to make moral decisions. No one must be forced to act contrary to his/her conscience. However, what if our conscience is badly formed? Then we simply exercise a right to make mistakes – but not to drag others along with us into error.
Consciences must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. It needs to be free of bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, a lack of conversion and charity, and a rejection of the Church’s teaching, These can all be the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.
It’s moral relativism to call for a “plurality of consciences” – “It may be right for you, but it’s not right for me. Respect my ‘right’ to decide. I’ll respect your ‘right’ to disagree. We’ll all get along fine.”
We form our conscience correctly by the Word of God, in faith and prayer, and put it into practice. Scripture itself warns us that it is not easy to form a good and pure conscience that is in accord with the will of God, and that it is easy to go astray. I Tim. 4:16 advises us to “[w]atch your life and doctrine closely.” And I Tim. 1:19 tells us that “[b]y rejecting conscience, certain persons have made shipwreck of their faith.”
So, while we should not force a person to act against his conscience, it does not follow that the person’s conscience has led him to the right choice. Simply having thought about the issues and come to a conclusion based on one’s own personal situation, one’s “lived experience”, needs and desires does not mean one’s conscience is correct.
Moral decisions must be guided by an objective standard. Take the opposite position and see where it leads. Is it okay for a couple to abort their child because “it’s best for them” and they’ve “thought about it” and “prayed about it.” Is it okay to “end someone’s suffering” by killing them? To steal? To commit adultery? What about the rest of the commandments?
What is the standard we should use, then? The teachings of the Church, in concordance with Scripture, provide us with ample guidelines to correctly form our consciences and to behave in moral and upright ways. The problem for most people lies in accepting the authority of the Church to teach in that way, and in accepting the duty and responsibility of obedience to the faith.
[End of second rant today]
HJ – a thinking, robust, High Level Ranter ? A rare but necessary combination in these turgid and timorous church times.
Conscience probably just means Feelings in this context. And those are fallen too.
One of the core questions is: Is homosexual desire part of God’s design plan or a consequence of the events described in Genesis 3?
What have to ask: what is it for? What are the intrinsic purposes of our sexual powers? Is there a natural design to sex that we ought to reverence? The rational, thinking person, on answering these questions, will behave in a way that facilitates their achievement and avoid behaviours that actively frustrate them. To be rational means doing what is good and, in particular, doing what is good in the sexual context.
We know from Scripture and from reason the end and purpose of sex and how it should be expressed – its procreative and unitive purposes, with spousal friendship creating a lifelong union and fidelity between mothers and fathers for the raising of their children.
Then why don’t we all agree and act rationally and according to God’s design and His natural law? Because of the Fall and the resulting spiritual battle we face. Our fallenness, the wound of original/ancestral sin, desires the passing things of “the flesh,” – the disordered love for pleasure, comfort, and power.
@ Geoff
But bad for one’s blood pressure!
Jack is correct on what he says sbout conscience, and his words echo something I read not long ago on Edward Feser’s blog about conscience – to paraphrase from memory, conscience should be respected and generally heeded, but conscience also needs to be informed and instructed by the Scriptures and authoritative teachers, because it is no part of Thomas Aquinas’s teaching that conscience is a surefire guide to moral truth, the voice of God within us, as popular feeling would have it. For Thomas, conscience is not the mystical hotline to heaven that modern sentimental belief imagines but rather simply an aspect of human knowing, as fallible as human knowing in general.
Obviously it cannot be, since two persons can be subjectively convinced of the rightness of their beliefs but these may cancel each other out. I suppose an extreme nominalist might believe that God could give radically conflicting commands to different people (“Thou SHALT commit adultery!”), but such an idea has no place in Scripture. Neither does situation ethics belong in Scripture, though it is really the default position of most liberalism shaped by Joseph Fletcher. The formation of a trustworthy conscience comes only through prayerful and believing attention to Scripture and its faithful teachers, and a healthy distrust of ourselves.
There are dangers in Aquinas’s belief that scripture must always overrule conscience: in 1 Corinthians 11:3 St. Paul says that “man is the head of woman,” and again Ephesians 5:22 says that “a husband is the head of his wife.” Aquinas then uses these verses (themselves pretty dated and outrageous) to develop the idea that as men are meant to rule, it must imply they are better equipped and have intellectual superiority.
I hope you would repudiate both Aquinas and these scripture verses on these issues.
Clearly some of what Bible authors wrote was infected with the prejudices of the religious culture and society they inhabited. We have to recognise that context, and be willing to dismiss such comments as temporary eruptions from their own culture.
“Man is the head of woman.” “The husband is the head of the wife.”
Absolutely not.
Sometimes God bypasses such biblical statements and speaks directly today to our consciences.
It may be the same when God opens people’s consciences to the holiness of devoted gay relationships, and the limited cultural attitudes of the authors on that subject too.
Susannah, please define holiness.
What is the Holiness of God?
His very nature? His love is only ever Holy-Love.
What is our Holy Triune God’s response to sin? Does he welcome and unconditionally bless it?
Just how does he deal with it? And where it find out, how has he made it clearly known?
What is holiness according to scripture?
David Runcorn has been asked this by me on this site numerous times.
Geoff, I’ll defer from a detailed answer as I’ve just noticed (above) that Ian has suggested I have already made enough comments on this article. So this is my last response, except if Ian chooses to engage with me.
God is Holy. God judges. The fire of God’s judgment may purify a person from sin, or consume. Human holiness is essentially the Righteousness of Christ. Our own attempts at holiness are very flawed, and riven with sin and selfishness. We come before God dressed in rags (however holier we think we are than other people). But in Christ Jesus, we can be clothed (inside and out) with His holiness, His indwelling Spirit, His Love and Grace. Holiness is not just about avoiding sinful things, but also about being inhabited by the Love of God, and letting that Love flow out to others in our lives.
Susannah;
The strict unipersonal nature of the God of the Jews – a cultural and religious prejudice ?
Is that how you explain away Jesus’ words in John 17:1-3, that the FATHER is the ONLY true God ?
Susannah: for Aquinas, conscience is not a personal supernatural voice in an individual – a common idea today but not biblically based – but rather the exercise of reason, the act of applying our general knowledge of good and evil to what we do. This means we need to understand at a general or universal level how things are naturally ordered by God — primarily what human nature is, and what things it needs and deserves. Thomas calls the understanding of this natural order Natural Law, and all rational people can and do acquire it simply in virtue of being rational and using reason rightly. For some people, however, their grasp of the Natural Law is obscured through morally bad actions (habit shapes the way we think) or bad influences (false teaching, anti-God culture etc), so that they forget what is right and what is wrong. An example of this would be the idea currently sweeping sectors of the western world, that men can become women and vice versa. This belief is of course absurd and contrary to nature and Natural Law, and could only be believed through a false conscience (bad reasoning) and coerced onto others by threat of law and social sanction.
As I am sure you will agree, it is not enough to be sincere (insofar as we know our hearts); we have to reason truthfully. God doesn’t contradict Himself, and He speaks in Nature as well as Scripture.
As for the vox Dei, God can and does also supernaturally reveal, at the same general or universal level, what is and is not in accordance with his will through His revelation in Scripture, e.g. the Ten Commandments and Christ’s Two Great Commandments.
Which individuals are mainly responsible for choosing the present crop of Church of England bishops and theological college principals? Because they above all are responsible for this mess, which is somewhere between farce and tragedy.
Justin Welby. He is on every CNC.
What proportion of bishops have been appointed under Welby, Williams and Carey respectively, please?
I confess, I find it easier in my heart to forgive secular men of evil than those who besmirch the bride of Christ.
At a rough count:
Carey 5 of 109 (4.6%);
Williams 22 of 109 (20.2%);
Welby 82 of 109 (75.2%).
The strategic appointment of liberals has been the Welby modus operandi throughout his tenure as ABoC. We are where we are directly (but not solely of course) because of his liberal inclinations and dogged determination to force them onto the C of E. However all of that begs the question of who appointed him: it is simply not credible to claim that he was picked as a genuine evangelical who then surprised everyone by coming out full woke once he got the job. In secular speak, what we’ve witnessed has been a silent coup which exactly mirrors the long march through the secular institutions, the reality of which, over the last couple of years, has finally penetrated the consciousness of the UK general public along with that of the Western world in general.
I should imagine it’s no accident that Welby has been following the cultural Marxist play book (re stealthy appointments of likeminded people over a long period) although appointing people who reflect our own particular values is a perfectly natural human instinct. However, in the Christian context in general and the C of E in particular, one might hope and expect a far greater degree of honour, truthfulness and openness in these matters. That has simply not been the case, and Welby’s metropolitan, liberal values – openly displayed for all to see in his frequent public interventions – are clearly what shape his opinion of what the Christian church should be saying to the nation; presumably he feels it unavoidable that he also employ those less than worthy ways of getting things done.
I think he has long since been captured and will try to tough it out through the current mess until the Church of England is wholly captured also. It’s a tragedy for all of us. But let us at least stop the pretence that we are earnestly seeking the will of God, accept the reality of what’s going on, and put up a serious fight to bring it to an end. Surely everyone must realise there’s nothing to lose now. The bishops have got themselves into a hopeless mess with no idea how to get out of it short of a blatant stitch up of the process. They’ve got till November to repent. Just imagine Christmas with our church returned to faithfulness and the sanity that comes with it; what an amazing thing it would be if we had rid ourselves of all this strife and chaos by then!
My judgement however is that they’re going to pursue this to the bitter end, no matter what.
What you call the ‘bitter end’ was a perfectly legitimate vote in Synod.
‘What you call the ‘bitter end’ was a perfectly legitimate vote in Synod.’
That’s a fair point, Penelope, although I would question whether or when democratic processes can be a reliable way of discerning the will of God – particularly in instances where the Bible has already charted one particular course for God’s people to follow. More generally, I’m sure we can all think of instances where there has been democratic support for disastrous policies (I would cite our present Ukraine policy as a disaster for the Ukrainian people). In such cases it’s perfectly in order to campaign for a swift reversal; and that would be my position with regard to synod’s February vote.
It perfectly is. But doctrine is almost always decided by the majority, cf. the Council of Niceae. But if you want to be Arius, go ahead.
Don
It’s ridiculous to suggest Justin Welby is a liberal. He’s an HTB Old Etonian. He has successfully held up having a real discussion on LGBT people in the church for more than a decade. He’s diverted funding from liberal parishes to conservative church plants. What more do you want?
It’s ridiculous to suggest Justin Welby is a liberal. He’s an HTB Old Etonian.
Plenty of Old Etonians are liberals. George Orwell. Jeremy Thorpe. David Cameron. Indeed probably more Old Etonians are socially liberal than are socially conservative.
I think if the CofE backs away from even allowing blessing for same sex relationships in local churches who wish to do so (or gay people who just happen to be married or whatever it is) that there will be a significant number of people who leave the CofE, the CofE will face increased pressure from the public, media and government and have less of an involvement in public life to explain itself. Choosing to reject this weakest of compromises will not make the sex problem go away, but will invite more scrutiny, and questions.
there will be a significant number of people who leave the CofE, the CofE will face increased pressure from the public, media and government and have less of an involvement in public life to explain itself.
And people who care more about public approval than standing up for God’s truth might be worried about that kind of thing.
I’m not sure the “conservative” side are terribly interested in “standing up for God’s truth” on these questions. They’re extremely reluctant to say what their teaching for gay people actually is, and the CEEC went so far as to argue that Prayers of Love and Faith had to be opposed because it might lead to vicars having to tell gay couples what they thought the Church teaching actually was.
So the gay lobby has got itself under the umbrella of our iniquitous laws against peaceable free speech, and then you grumble that people whose goals are opposed are often less than frank?
You’re inviting me to believe that this is a Gospel issue, where you think Scripture is clear, and a matter of salvation for the individuals concerned, but its quite unreasonable to expect a vicar to talk about it if asked? Get real.
Get real yourself. There are plenty of provocateurs in the LGBT movement. Ask any street preacher.
AJ Bell –
Ever heard of celibacy ?
Yes. It’s theologically a charism, not a route to martyrdom.
Cf. Professor Morwenna Ludlow’s article on the ViaMedia blog.
To my lady (Penelope);
Is the ability for a non-Christian alcoholic to refrain from drinking alcohol for decades, a “charism” ?
Sure. Unlike nearly everyone who comments here I’ve actually practiced it (for years). But the “conservative” side are extremely reluctant to sat that’s what they think the teaching should actually be.
To A.J. (Bell);
The Church of England “Leadership” may properly need to advocate what it’s supposed to advocate – holy Spirit-inspired, Tough Love (cf. Romans 8:12-14; Gal. 5:16).
The Church of England ‘Leadership’ cannot be friends of the World – and friends of God. (James 4:4).
I’m not sure sobriety is a vocation. Do bit of a silly analogy.
I’m not sure sobriety is a vocation.
And neither is celibacy.
S
Well the people who claim to be Standing up for God’s truth seem to complain about politicians and the media an awful lot!
To Peter Jeremy;
What has the Christ-rejecting, ungodly world system (ruled over by the devil; cf. Luke 4:5-7; cf. John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11) got to do with the Church of God?
God calls people through Christ, out of darkness into light (1 Peter 2:9). God’s Church isn’t meant to be inundated by the world’s darkness. My local vicar is same-gender attracted, but he is celibate in obedience to God. Why can’t you, with God’s help, do the same ?
Your vicar is celibate in response to his understanding of God’s Word.
Perhaps Peter, like other gay people is married in obedience to their understanding of God’s Word.
What???
Which Bible reference?
How many times do we have to go through this? You’ve been presented with the Scriptural argument repeatedly.
Only in a general way.
And who says anything of what has been written qualifies as an argument?
Most Bible references are about 10 digits long, so it will not take long to type a reference, even one, in favour of same-sex marriage. I wonder why you did not do so in your last comment.
God’s Word is Christ.
God’s Word is Christ.
No, that’s wrong.
Kai theos en o logos.
Though I admit it’s anarthrous, so it could mean the Logos is deity.
Kai theos en o logos.
And the Word was God.
Jesus is the Word, the Word which exists without being created, without being spoken; and the Word (ie, Jesus) is God.
Jesus is not God’s Word. That would be the Word God spoke, which would mean Jesus was created by God, and that would be Arianism. God’s Word is the Bible.
S says,
Jesus is not God’s Word. That would be the Word God spoke, which would mean Jesus was created by God, and that would be Arianism. God’s Word is the Bible.
Sorry, but that’s nonsense. When John says ‘in the beginning was the word’, he is clearly alluding to the beginning of <i<creation, when God spoke and brought things into being. The word in Genesis 1 is clearly the word of God (‘God said…and it was so’). John knows what he’s doing; the word God spoke was with (or ‘toward’) God in the beginning, and indeed it was God, and now it has become flesh in Christ.
The Bible says that Jesus is the Word of God. The Bible never says that the Bible is the Word of God. That claim is an item of Tradition.
S: “Jesus is not God’s Word. That would be the Word God spoke, which would mean Jesus was created by God, and that would be Arianism. God’s Word is the Bible.”
No, no, no. I don’t think you’re understanding the Trinity very well.
The Word dwells in the mind of the three-personed God (which includes Jesus). Just because Jesus is an expression of God (as the Father and the Spirit are expressions of God) and calls things and people into being… does not in any way mean Jesus is ‘created’. That is (sorry) balderdash.
God the Father, and God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit… are ONE God… they share consciousness together, even if they are personally individuated and sometimes perform different functions.
In contemplation you can get a (very little) sense of that sharing of consciousness, because God may choose to share awareness with you. Suddenly you may find that both you and God are ‘in an awareness’ together, which is a generosity and hospitality of God. It becomes a sharing with the contemplative of a tiny small part of the mind of God, and you and God briefly are looking out from the same pair of eyes, the same consciousness.
In a far deeper sense, the Three Persons of the Trinity are One God, all sharing consciousness, in community forever. Just because Jesus is the Word of God in action does not make him ‘created’. Indeed, it just demonstrates God alive, God in action, God in community with Father and Spirit.
Jesus is the Living Word of God.
The Bible is a human conduit, through which we may connect with the ACTUAL God – the Living Word – who flows through the conduit of the Bible, by the power of the Spirit. The Bible is for opening ourselves to God. Its fallible, time-strapped authors had encounters with God, opened to God, and tried best they could to make sense (as we do) and put their encounters and openings into words.
But the ACTUAL alive and active LIVING Word is Jesus… and often when we read again passages of the scriptures, it triggers our own encounters with Him, by the power of the Holy Spirit, as we open to the flow of God’s Love and Grace.
But please don’t equate the Bible (which is an inspiring but fallible collection of texts… humans trying to make sense of the supernatural) with the ACTUAL Living Word of God.
The passage in John 1 is emphatic. It’s Jesus. From the beginning. One with God the Father and God the Spirit. God. God the Creator of all, who continues to call us (and the Church) into our being and our becoming. That’s vocation. The coming of life and light by the command of God… giving birth to us, as God’s children and beloved.
And this Word… this Person of God… became flesh. Jesus is God’s Word speaking to us when we open our hearts. And the Bible is a mighty conduit with countless portals of past encounters and insights of God through which we, in turn, may encounter the ACTUAL person of God, the Living God, He who calls and creates us, being the Living Word of God.
They (the three Persons) all do it together, because they all share one consciousness. In eternity, we may understand much more of what it is to be ‘in union’ with God. It involves aspects of shared awareness. It involved individuated and unique personality as well.
We are not ourselves God, but God may share more consciousness and shared experience with God, as we are drawn into union (and sometimes ecstasy). And yet our souls are also individual. Individual and vast… because we have capacity for God.
In the beginning was the Word. And the Word was with God (try to understand what that ‘with’ involves). And the Word was God.
May God enlighten our minds and draw us into God’s own eternity and being, draw us ever closer in trust and givenness.
In contemplation you can get a (very little) sense of that sharing of consciousness, because God may choose to share awareness with you.
Nah, you’re just imagining things.
Jesus is the Living Word of God.
Jesus is the Living Word, yes, but not the word of God . Just the Word, uncreated and unspoken, existing in and of itself, who is with God and who is God, through whom all things were created.
I suppose Teresa de Avila was too.
Dear, you seem to have no idea.
This is why we should try to share and talk with each other across diverse traditions. Do you think God *only* gives revelations and insights to one single tradition?
It’s typical of God that God distributes enlightenment across different groups, so that no one group becomes proud.
I admit that I have learnt and been blessed by evangelicals. You could learn and be blessed by Catholics, Orthodox, people in the traditions of the religious houses such as the Carmelites.
I post here (this had better be my last today) because I believe in people of all faiths and none sharing thoughts and insights. I believe we can learn from others. I learnt from Muslim ladies at the East London Mosque. I learnt from Dick Lucas (he was brilliant). I learnt from convents. I learnt from the spiritual insights of friends in the Highlands. And I have learnt from some humanists too.
I believe God speaks through many people, not just one type.
In contemplation you learn that God shares even awareness sometimes. I’m sorry but that’s the tradition I am part of… Francesco Osuna and Teresa de Avila in Spain… Terese de Liseux in France… and those who have lived contemplative lives and still do.
Christianity is not just a conservative evangelical church. Though God bless all who worship there.
None of us has a monopoly of what God chooses to disclose and spread across a diversity of traditions.
Contemplative prayer is not ‘imagination’. In fact, properly practised it is the opposite. It’s what happens at the end of all words and imagination. Put it this way:
What do you think the prophet Joel meant when he said that God “would pour out God’s Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy. Your old men will dream dreams. Your young men will see visions.”
When the Spirit comes, it is not ‘imaginings’, though I agree the individual needs to let a community discern what is happening, which is why I have a Reverend Mother and a whole tradition with spiritual insights so deep they astonish me.
As does the evangelical tradition. It is not one or the other.
My last words – and God help you reflect on these things.
My last word today.
John 1:1-14.
As the world leading Anglian Christologist – Professor James D. G. Dunn claimed – God’s (i.e. the Father’s) Logos/Word in John 1:1, only becomes a person in John 1:14. Until, then, God’s (i.e. the Father’s) Word represents the Father’s “Self-expressive, Creative Utterance” – manifested initially in the Genesis Creation, but Which later became embodied in Jesus.
John1:1 does not say, or mean :
“In the beginning was the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was God”.
Such eisegesis is the product of Post-New Testament, Greek Philosophical speculation.
Do you think God *only* gives revelations and insights to one single tradition?
I think it’s nothing to do with ‘traditions’. God has given His written Word to all humanity, and all His revelations are contained within it. That is where truth is found: not in any tradition, but only in the Bible.
Okay S. I understand that view. God bless you.
S thinks that there is this thing called a ‘Bible’ which exists in a pristine state. It was not created by numerous traditions. It has not been read, interpreted and reflected on by numerous traditions in its ca. 3000 years.
There are, however, Jewish and Christian scriptures in which we believe and where we find instruction, comfort and revelation because they are the product of dialectic and traditions, because they wrestle with concepts of God(s) and humanity and which we read through our own two thousand years of tradition and debate and always, always, through our own hermeneutical lenses of Christianity which impose certain understandings upon the texts.
there is this thing called a ‘Bible’ which exists in a pristine state. It was not created by numerous traditions. It has not been read, interpreted and reflected on by numerous traditions in its ca. 3000 years.
My view of the Bible us nothing but the standard orthodox view of the Bible that all Christians have held for centuries. See for example the Westminster Confession, or https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__PP.HTM
There are, however, Jewish and Christian scriptures in which we believe and where we find instruction, comfort and revelation because they are the product of dialectic and traditions, because they wrestle with concepts of God(s) and humanity and which we read through our own two thousand years of tradition and debate and always, always, through our own hermeneutical lenses of Christianity which impose certain understandings upon the texts.
This is the heretical, modern view.
Read the whole of the catechism, S:
“Still, the Christian faith is not a “religion of the book”. Christianity is the religion of the “Word” of God, “not a written and mute word, but incarnate and living”. If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, “open (our) minds to understand the Scriptures.””
I also wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss the notion of wrestling with God. That is the origin of the very word Israel, and consequently what it means to be the new Israel:
“Your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel, because you have struggled with God and with humans and have overcome.” Genesis 32:28
Oh dear S citing the Vatican to defend the Bible as an authority separate from tradition is a bit of a misstep.
You are simply too blinkered by ideology to realise that not one person in the whole history of scripture has read the text except through their own tradition.
Do some history dear chap and spare us this embarrassing display.
Read the whole of the catechism
Lots of it is just outright wrong, as you would expect from the Romans, but where it agrees with other formulations that proves that the point of agreement is standard, uncontroversial Christian orthodoxy.
citing the Vatican to defend the Bible as an authority separate from tradition is a bit of a misstep.
That’s not what I was citing it to defend. I was citing it to defend that ‘there is this thing called a “Bible”‘. Both the Romans and the Protestants agree on that, which I think proves that it was an uncontroversial point of Christian orthodoxy up until about the nineteenth century.
Your view is the modern heresy.
Except there is no agreement about “a” thing called the Bible. There have been important disagreements about the canon ever since Luther excluded a number of books from his Bible and effectively created the Apocrypha.
Except there is no agreement about “a” thing called the Bible. There have been important disagreements about the canon ever since Luther excluded a number of books from his Bible and effectively created the Apocrypha.
No there haven’t. The basic canon was set by the year 300 and there have been no disagreements about it since, and the apocrypha were never uncontroversially part of it.
What are you talking about?
What are you talking about?
The Bible.
S
You have made two serious errors about the Bible:
1) that there is one fixed version of the Bible that was set in stone in about 300CE and has remained immutable ever since. This is arrant nonsense. Different Christian traditions have different collections of the scriptures from different sources and translations, which they call they Bible. Even the English Protestant Bible (which you seem to regard as the Canon) did not exist in the form it does today until the nineteenth century.
2) that the Bible is the unadulterated word of God. An example: if God was the author of the Bible which is the correct text of what Christians call the Old Testament? The Masoretic text which Christians and modern Jews use, but which is very late, or the Septuagint, which was the Bible of early Christians and the writers of the New Testament who cite Jewish scripture not from the Hebrew, but from the Greek translation? Now, there are significant differences between the Septuagint and the Masoretic text. Some scholars argue that the Masoretic text is the more authoritative, but the Septuagint preserves some much earlier readings of the text which have been attested in early MSS such as those at Qumran. So, which version do you supose God authored? The one you read in church and at home or the one used by the New Testamentt writers and possibly by Jesus himself?
To Penelope;
Unless you applaud “subjectivism running riot”, then some people have got it wrong somewhere. cf. “There was no King in Israel at that time, so everyone did what they wanted” (Judge 17:6).
Yep. And why is that your problem?
Perhaps Peter, like other gay people is married in obedience to their understanding of God’s Word.
So the vital question is: whose understanding is correct?
S
Actually I find no command to marry in the Bible.
My reading of the Bible is that marriage is for this life only and isn’t very important in a spiritual sense. It doesn’t convey honor or holiness or special status. In my reading of the Bible we are warned against false prophets who will tell is we are not to marry. We are also warned, though it took me a very long time to understand this, that it is not good for man to be alone.
My own worldly logic tells me thar the men who allow their subordinates to sexually assault children and adults in their care are not good moral arbiters of relationships
The basic canon was was set by the year 300? The early Church used the Septuagint (which contains the Apocrypha as Scripture). Jerome claims that the Council of Nicaea in 325 declared Judith to be Scripture. The Codex Vaticanus from the 4th century contains the Apocrypha. The Council of Rome in 382 fixed the canon and included the Apocrypha. The book over which there was disagreement was Revelation, which we now accept uncontroversially (although Luther had his doubts and Calvin declined to write a commentary).
The basic canon was was set by the year 300? The early Church used the Septuagint (which contains the Apocrypha as Scripture). Jerome claims that the Council of Nicaea in 325 declared Judith to be Scripture. The Codex Vaticanus from the 4th century contains the Apocrypha. The Council of Rome in 382 fixed the canon and included the Apocrypha. The book over which there was disagreement was Revelation, which we now accept uncontroversially (although Luther had his doubts and Calvin declined to write a commentary).
So apart from the Apocrypha, which were always controversial, out of 66 books the only ever disagreement was over Revelation?
That sounds a lot like the basic canon being set by the year 300 and no major disagreements since then to me, does it not sound like that to you?
S
The KJV (as I have indicated above) included the Apocrypha. The Canon was never set by 300 and differs in different traditions (there are other Chrisitan traditions besides Protestantism).
You are, once again, looking rather foolish over this.
And I note you haven’t anwered my question about which scripture God wrote: the Septuagint or the Masoretic text?
The KJV (as I have indicated above) included the Apocrypha. The Canon was never set by 300 and differs in different traditions (there are other Chrisitan traditions besides Protestantism).
The existence of the Apocrypha is not a major disagreement; do you have any actual examples of Christian denominations which have different canons other than the single example of the Apocrypha?
And I note you haven’t anwered my question about which scripture God wrote: the Septuagint or the Masoretic text?
God inspired the original authors and also acted to preserve the essence of His Word throughout history; so in a sense both (and indeed there are no major disagreements on doctrine between translations, which is thanks to God’s providential preservation of the core of His Word to us). But obviously the earlier and closer to the original inspired authors you can get, the better.
The Apocrypha was always controversial? What was the controversy in the Church supposed to be between the start of the 5th century and the arrival of Luther and friends in the 16th? Is Judith in your supposed “basic canon” or not? Even Jerome thought Judith was canonical.
As for other denominations, the Greek Orthodox have a slightly different canon to the Roman Catholics (including Prayer of Manasseh, 3 Maccabees, 1 Esdras), and the Ethiopian Orthodox are very different and include the Book of Enoch.
Pellegrino
Because I’m married
Why do you accept your same sex attracted vicar, but see wider LGBT inclusion as the work of the devil?
I have often struggled to grasp why this issue is *the* rubicon for many Christians. We manage to hold together over many first order differences. I understand walking away on issues of central credal importance. For those here who wish to conserve the traditional teaching of the church – is the issue of same sex marriage a salvation issue? One reading of 1 Cor 6:9-11 may suggest this. Is, in your view, a Christian same sex couple who love Jesus and faithfully seek to serve him in the church and in the world (and those who would support them) facing eternal loss? Are Christian same sex couples when they stand before God looking to Jesus for grace and mercy hear a word of rejection? If the ultimate answer is no, then is this not an issue on which we can disagree but hold together?
Hi Adam, that’s a good and important question.
For me, there are three things, of which you mention one. It is interesting that Paul includes sexual sin prominently in the things which, if we persist in them, have serious consequences for our salvation. Paul also talks about sexual sin as uniquely damaging, and the result of a serious error in the way we view ourselves, our bodies, and ultimately God as our creator.
On this particular issue, there is a very strong, if not quite overwhelming, consensus that Scripture consistently rejects same-sex sex relations of any kind, both counter-culturally and uniquely. This was one of four things which set Jews apart in the first century from pagan culture. So for any Church to accept and bless such relationships must involve them rejecting the clear and consistent teaching of Scripture, including the teaching of Jesus on marriage (which Canon B30 specifically cites). The C of E has never done such a thing before.
Thirdly, then, this has an impact on the nature of the C of E. If you read the Articles you will see that we cannot approve of something of which Scripture disapproves. Canon A5 says that the doctrine of the C of E is found in the Articles, BCP and Ordinal. If we change our doctrine of marriage, we will in the end need to change the very nature of the C of E as it is consituted.
For an overview of all the issues, see my article here: https://www.psephizo.com/sexuality-2/why-is-sexuality-such-a-big-deal/
Does that help? And is it persuasive?
What is supposed to be uniquely damaging about a gay relationship in the way that say adultery is damaging?
If this is about sex does that mean you think gay people in the Church should have the option of non-sexual covenanted partnerships?
It adulterates the creation-design.
No ones’s being hurt, it’s just an aesthetic point?
Since God ‘designed’ many creatures to be polymorphously perverse, it does no such thing.
It’s simply an ideology of your that you’re retrojecting onto the Genesis narratives.
Since God ‘designed’ many creatures to be polymorphously perverse,
God didn’t design any such creatures; the ones that exist are the corrupted results of a Fallen universe.
Bonobos are the result of original sin and not God’s good creation?
Did you find that in Answers in Genesis?
Bonobos are the result of original sin and not God’s good creation?
Bonobos are corrupted by the Fall just as every single part of this Fallen world is.
Did you find that in Answers in Genesis?
No, it’s just orthodox Christianity. See eg the Roman Catechism, clause 408: ‘The consequences of original sin and of all men’s personal sins put the world as a whole in the sinful condition aptly described in St. John’s expression, “the sin of the world”‘ ( https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P1C.HTM )
S
Very funny. I now have a delightful picture of monogamous well-bred bonobos, conducting themselves impeccably in their Edenic nature, foregoing fornication and masturbation, until Eve ate the fruit.
Bwahahahaha…
PCD you crease me up.
Bonobo 1: “Hello my fine fellow, would you like to walk with me?”
Bonobo 2: “Indeed I would sir, but no holding hands.”
Bonobo 1: “Of course not. We should not hold hands during courtship.”
Bonobo 2: “I can see you are a perfect gentleman.” (raises his bowler hat)
Bonobo 1: “Would you like to play Scrabble.”
Bonobo 2: “My goodness, that would be fun. But remember…”
Both Bonobos: “No rude words.” (they both nod in pious and holy agreement)
Bonobo 1: “I’ll deal out the first 7 tiles…”
Bonobo 2: “Now let me see what I’ve got… R – I – S – C – L – I – T…hmmm… I think I will pick up another tile.”
Bonobo 1: “This is fun, isn’t it?”
Bonobo 2: “Indeed sir. Have you met the new human neighbours?”
Bonobo 1: “Oh yes indeed. They moved in last week. A man and a woman. They seem perfectly lovely…”
BOOM !!!
AJ Bell:
1. Natural Law as well as Scripture tells us about the design of our bodies. The design and purpose of the anus shows it is not meant for penetration – and it doesn’t matter who does it.
2. Natural Law reminds us also of the intrinsically infertile nature of same-sex relationships. Have you ever reflected on the fact that homosexuality – like other paraphilias – depends upon heterosexuality for its continuation? There is no “equality” in sexual affections.
3. Many heterosexual Christians will not find in this life the opportunity for marriage, for reasons that lie outside their control. They are not at liberty to use prostitutes, pornography etc. But their salvation, let alone their possibility of leading a life faithful to Christ does not depend on being married.
Wise words from the Vicar.
God bless you, James.
@ James
Doesn’t natural law also prohibit contracepted sex?
Natural law supports couples wishing to have a sexual relationship without it always resulting in pregnancy.
Natural law supports couples wishing to have a sexual relationship without it always resulting in pregnancy.
It does; but it does not support couples wishing to have a sexual relationship that never ends in pregnancy.
It does if they are unable to conceive.
It does if they are unable to conceive
Then they are not wishing to have a sexual relationship that never results in pregnancy, are they? They are wishing to have a sexual relationship that dies result in pregnancy, but are unable to.
So actually what I did was true: natural law does not support a couple wishing to have a sexual relationship that never results in pregnancy.
@ Andrew G
The natural law argument advanced by Paul in Romans 1 suggests that Christians who view homosexual activity as immoral must also view artificial contraception in the same light. They are wrong for the same reason: they both misuse the sexual organs by directing sexual activity away from procreative unity.
The same natural law reasoning that grounds opposition to homosexual acts must also rule out artificial contraception. It seems arbitrary to apply natural law to homosexual acts but reject its application for contraception.
S: Natural law “does not support couples wishing to have a sexual relationship that never ends in pregnancy.”
So what? A woman has the right to decide for herself what to do with her body when it comes to pregnancy. If she doesn’t want to have a baby, she doesn’t have to. She is not obliged to be a baby-making machine unless she chooses to.
She and her partner can still enjoy wonderful, caring, intimate, emotionally devoted sex (and all the other wonderful aspects of marriage).
Sorry, but this is not Afghanistan. And God is not a fascist dictator. God is happy to collaborate with a woman as she decides her flourishing.
Sex helps people flourish. And I am sure God delights in that, at the very least if it is framed within a devoted and dedicated marriage and commitment.
I’m sorry guys, but neither you nor I (not having a womb) have a right to tell ANY woman that she MUST at some stage in a marriage get pregnant. Her body is not yours to control. It is fundamentally none of your business. It’s up to her and if she chooses not to (in a world with far too many people anyway) then fine, and in a mature relationship with a partner they can still really enjoy sex, because sex is a blessing that makes people feel more fully who they are, and is expressive – intimately – of commitment, devotion, care, love, joy.
What a sad world if we begrudge people that, or say to a woman “Do your duty!”
A woman has the right to decide for herself what to do with her body
A woman does not own her own body. And neither does a man open his. God owns all our bodies, because God made them.
1. If you want to have more explicit teaching on anal sex, go argue for it. But if you do start that campaign, remember that plenty of gay people don’t engage in anal sex, and plenty of straight people do. Is not an exclusive or required gay activity in the bedroom.
2. No idea what point you’re trying to make. Is that you think gay people actually have a responsibility to enter heterosexual marriages and start breeding? Why?
3. There is a huge difference between not finding a partner, and being told (or deciding) from being a teenager that you are not to ever seek a partner. And there is a huge difference between a mutual, supportive, and loving relationship between two gay people, and abusive and exploitative “relationships” like prostitution and pornography.
Nope S.
God has given us ownership of our own bodies and the autonomy to decide how we use them and devote them. Free will. Some women may choose to devote themselves, through having babies. Others may choose to devote themselves through wonderful, caring marriages, without having babies.
God affords a woman that choice. And that is part of dignifying a woman.
We are absolutely not God’s robots, and what’s especially sad are those people who try to use religion to rein in women’s autonomy and dignity of choice, and effectively turn back the clock to patriarchal set ups where it was the pressured duty and obligation of married women to have babies… and more babies… and more babies.
Marriage and sex *may* involve procreation, but it doesn’t have to. There is so much more to marriage – practical daily love, doing the washing for your wife, sharing in laughter and tears, being kind, caring, expressing tenderness intimately, helping each other feel whole and flourishing, being devoted and dedicated and committed… let’s add: praying together, being a valued presence in the community together.
Only in the most fundamentalist settings would religious people tell women: “If you are married, you are obliged to have babies.”
We’re talking there at the level of Afghanistan, the Handmaid’s Tale, Victorian women as chattels, and all those guys who believe they have authority over their wives.
I suggest you listen to what you are saying and defending.
God gives women ownership of their bodies, and an obligation to have babies is not one of the conditions. There is so much more to a woman than that.
God has given us ownership of our own bodies and the autonomy to decide how we use them and devote them.
Rubbish. God has given us strict instructions on how we are to use the bodies that He has loaned (not given) to us.
Your natural law arguments in favour of children being the primary legitimate telos of sexual intimacy and contracepted sex being against nature all crumble into dust when you realise that God (in their infinite wisdom) created the clitoris.
the clitoris
Your weird obsession with the clitoris is nobody’s business but your own; it certainly doesn’t prove anything.
What a shame you bring up contraception again, Catholic Jack. The purpose of sex is twofold: procreation and bonding. The latter is explicit in Genesis 2. The human female, unlike mammals with similar reproductive physiology, is sexually receptive when infertile – clear evidence of the latter purpose. So there is no argument from natural law against barrier methods at least, within marriage.
S
Tell me you can’t follow an argument from natural law …
And yes I am theologically very interested in the clitoris. I thought of writing something on the subject, but someone got there before me. As it were.
Tell me you can’t follow an argument from natural law …
I can follow it, it’s just a bad argument. Lay it out and I’ll show you where the error is.
And yes I am theologically very interested in the clitoris.
Again that weird obsession is your own private business.
“They are wrong for the same reason: they both misuse the sexual organs by directing sexual activity away from procreative unity.”
Jack if natural family planning is used then that too directs sexual activity deliberately away from procreation.
If it is morally right to plan families then it is morally right to do so.
S
I am ‘obsessed’ with the clitoris for two decidedly unweird reasons:
1) its part in what Christopher would no doubt call my ‘biology’
2) theologically – the fact that God created (if you see God as the designer) something which has no practical function but exists purely for pleasure. It seems an extraordinary gift of a prodigal and generous God. I can nothing of mothing else which gives pleasure (maybe you can) which was created with no utility (and no potential for harm).
And yes, I remember you once trying to manufacture a natural law reason for the clitoris because reasons …
It was risible.
I am ‘obsessed’ with the clitoris for two decidedly unweird reasons:
1) its part in what Christopher would no doubt call my ‘biology’
My spleen is part of my biology but I’m not weirdly obsessed with it.
2) theologically – the fact that God created (if you see God as the designer) something which has no practical function but exists purely for pleasure.
Sigh. I really don’t want to talk about your weird obsession, but a clitoris doesn’t ‘exist purely for pleasure’, any more than taste buds ‘exist purely for pleasure’.
1 Gay women and a significant proportion, if not a majority, of gay men don’t have anal sex. Lots of straight people do though. It’s extraordinary that you can just declare that it’s not meant for sex. In that case why is anal sex so pleasurable?
2. Gay sex may be infertile in the reductive sense that it in itself cannot create a fetus, but most straight sex can’t either.
3. Even in some wierd situations where straight individuals are genuinely unable to marry (and im skeptical this happens often – in my experience there is someone for everyone), they still have the ability to have romantic thoughts, go on dates, watch romantic movies, commiserate with friends in the same position, have physical touch, kiss, hug, hold hands – all these things are prohibited for gay people in conservative churches.
In that case why is anal sex so pleasurable?
Sin is almost always pleasurable. If it wasn’t people wouldn’t do it so much.
Gay sex may be infertile in the reductive sense that it in itself cannot create a fetus, but most straight sex can’t either.
What? All male-female sex is essentially potentially fertile. If it isn’t is only because of an accident like the use of contraception or a medical defect causing infertility.
OK S
Mansplain to me what the clitoris is for?
Siince you claim to know.
And, while were on misconceptions, not all male-female sexual intimacy is open to procreation (even when not contracepted).
Mansplain to me what the clitoris is for?
Siince you claim to know.
All I need to do is prove out that your argument is invalid which I have done by pointing out that if you followed it to its logical conclusion you would have to say that taste buds were designed for no function other than pleasure. You don’t claim that, therefore by modus tollens your argument is invalid.
And, while were on misconceptions, not all male-female sexual intimacy is open to procreation (even when not contracepted).
It is unless either procreation is deliberately blocked or the sexual activity is defective in some way (eg there’s a medical problem, or through age, or it is being done improperly).
S
You clearly have serious comprehension problems. What part of purely for pleasure do you not understand? I wrote that there was probably nothing else in creation whose only (note only) function is pleasure and which causes no harm.
Yes taste buds give you pleasure, but they have other functions.
Yes, your spleen is part of your biology, but does it give you an orgasm?
As for male-female sex if oral sex is open to conception it’s news to me!
Yes taste buds give you pleasure, but they have other functions.
Such as?
Yes, your spleen is part of your biology, but does it give you an orgasm?</i
Oh, is it actually orgasms you have your weird obsession with? Makes sense. But still, you should keep It to yourself.
As for male-female sex if oral sex is open to conception it’s news to me!
I did point out that one of the reasons for a lack of procreation could be that the sexual activity was being performed improperly, and exclusively using the mouth to the exclusion of of the proper anatomical features certainly counts as improperly.
S
Of course I’m talking of orgasm. What other pleasure did you imagine the clitoris giving? The telos of the clitoris is pleasure, or joy according to Archbishop Rowan Williams.
If you think that is weird or that oral sex is improper then it’s certainly not God you’re worshipping. Maybe a quasi gnostic deity.
Anyway, I hope you’re not married.
Of course I’m talking of orgasm.
Well, I didn’t know what form your weird obsession with bodily organs takes, did I? But now it’s clear you’re just a dirty-minded sex obsessive. Again, you should keep that to yourself.
The telos of the clitoris is pleasure,
Your argument to that effect is invalid, though, as I pointed out above. So although you can go on asserting it, you haven’t proved it.
according to Archbishop Rowan Williams.
Oh, you mean Dr Williams is as weirdly obsessed with his penis as you are with your bodily organs? Does he keep bringing his penis unbidden into conversations too? I must remember to stay away from him in that case. I really don’t want to hear about his penis. Like you he should keep his weird obsession to himself and not get it out in public.
Penny I suspect S is one of those who doesn’t believe the clitoris exists and doesn’t understand that the purpose of taste buds is help prevent starvation.
So would do well to read the work of Helen King.
Andrew, I am not interesting in hosting personal ad hominems in these comments.
OK I get it now. S thinks sex is intrinsically dirty, so talking about sex is also filthy. It’s an attitude which has had some currency in Christian tradition, though it owes more to gnosticism than to authentic incarnational Christianity. Which leads me to suspect that his boundary marking around permissible sex and sexuality has nothing to do with ethics and everything to do with fear and distaste.
As he has remarked elsewhere invincible ignorance is not sinful but at least he now knows that the sole purpose of the clitoris is to orgasm. No one needs to argue that. It is, as Christopher would say, evidenced by science. Does he believe that female orgasm (say within a faithful marriage) is unnecessary, or somehow dirty? If so, how very sad. God gives women an ‘organ’ simply for pleasure and they are not allowed to enjoy it within a licit marriage. Is it moral to frustrate God’s good purposes thus?
Rowan Williams pointed out that the telos of the clitoris is joy. He wasn’t writing about the penis, his own or anyone else’s. Why would he? The sole telos of the penis isn’t pleasure. It’s a tool with multiple uses.
Penny, I am not interesting in hosting personal ad hominems in these comments.
the purpose of taste buds is help prevent starvation.
Ah ha. We’re getting somewhere. The purpose of the taste buds is to prevent starvation, and to avoid poisoning, by giving us pleasant sensations when we eat food which is good for us, to encourage us to eat that food (of course it’s possible to trick them into giving pleasant sensations when eating junk, but that’s not their purpose).
The purpose of the clitoris is to prevent the human race from doing it by giving women pleasant sensations when engaging in reproductive sex (of course it’s possible to trick it into giving pleasant sensations when having junk sex, but that’s not its purpose).
(I say ‘the purpose’ but actually I should say ‘a purpose’ as it’s entirely possible the clitoris has another purpose we haven’t discovered yet, just like the appendix which for years was thought to have no purpose at all)
Ian
That’s not ad hom. i was trying to engage S in a discussion about natural law, citing the theologian Rowan Williams.
It really is not my problem if S cannot enter into this discourse without displaying a puerile, unseemly and juvenile attidtude towards sex and sexuality. There are other words for that kind of attitude, byt I won’y used them because that would potentually be an ad hom.
I won’t say anything further on the telos of the clitoris because I have made my theological point. I wouldn’t have written as much had S not found it necessary to be outraged by an uncontroversial point on natural law.
Though I see he’s still going out about it – the clitoris has other uses because resaons I see.
Perhaps you could admonish him.
Though I see he’s still going out about it – the clitoris has other uses because resaons I see.
Not so much ‘other uses’ but the point is that you claimed that the peasant sensations given by the clitoris are an end in themselves, which is not the case — those sensations exist for a reason, and the reason they exist is in order to encourage people to do the thing which produces them, ie, reproductive sex.
This is pretty clear and easy to understand, I thought.
without displaying a puerile, unseemly and juvenile attidtude towards sex and sexuality.
I am not the one who keeps bringing clitori into the discussion. I suspect that you would object strongly if a man kept bringing his penis up in conversation. So, well, double standards much?
S
The clitoris is not essential to reproduction because PIV sex, which may involve conception, is very unlikely to provide the stimulus which would bring a woman to orgasm.
I have no problem with people discussing penises theologically because I am a grown up and I don’t snigger and recoil from discourses about sex and sexuality.
(Sorry Ian, I hope ths will be my alst word on this subject.)
Sorry, I missed ‘peasant sensations’
That alone is worth the price of entry 🙂
The clitoris is not essential to reproduction
And taste buds aren’t essential to nutrition because you can discriminate between nutritious and dangerous foods in other ways but that is nevertheless their function; just as encouraging reproduction is the function of the clitoris.
A thing can have more than one purpose.
The clitoris may well have evolved to make women sexually aware, and therefore in some way more naturally aware that intercourse is part of their nature.
(Not that clitoral orgasm would necessarily have happened often over the millions of years of evolution, given the speed at which basic men execute their functions.)
But that does not mean – especially if you believe in God – that God did not ALSO want to provide something that simply gave pleasure.
Now, all those guys that say sex must be for making babies, not only for pleasure… they must – to be consistent and to maintain a hard logic – condemn self-pleasure (aka masturbation)… because that is sexual pleasure outside of making babies.
And yet I’m willing to bet that the majority of Christian guys (including a handy selection of people here if they are honest) DO self-pleasure. Some once a year. Some once a month. Some once a week. Some even more often.
My question to you all: is that sexual pleasure a SIN?
My answer would be, with reference to sex within marriage, or to self-pleasure is: NO, sexual pleasure outside of making babies is NOT a sin.
And, by the grace of God, the clitoris is most definitely for pleasure.
It ‘can’ also be for making babies in some but not all cases.
What’s not to like?
A thing can have more than one purpose.
Yes I believe I wrote that above.
So it’s fine to enjoy sex for pleasure, and not to make babies, if pleasure is one of the things we can use a clitoris for?
A God-given pleasure? Yes?
Or is self-pleasure a sin? You haven’t answered that.
See, I think a lot of people are saying sexual pleasure is only allowed if there is the possibility of having a baby.
I think that’s mistaken, but if people DO think that, then you’d agree they must never self-pleasure?
Because that’s the logic.
So it’s fine to enjoy sex for pleasure, and not to make babies, if pleasure is one of the things we can use a clitoris for?
That’s irrelevant to my demolition of Penelope Cowell Doe’s argument that the only purpose of the clitoris is pleasure.
Or is self-pleasure a sin? You haven’t answered that.
‘You have heard that it was said, “Do not commit adultery.” But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to desire her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.’
There’s your answer.
See, I think a lot of people are saying sexual pleasure is only allowed if there is the possibility of having a baby.
I’d phrase it slightly differently. I would say that to use sex exclusively for pleasure, while deliberately acting to ensure the sex never leads to pregnancy (without a good reason eg a pregnancy would be medically dangerous), is sinful.
So it’s not sinful for a married couple to sometimes have sex for pleasure, as long as they are — in the context of their whole marriage — open to the possibility of having a family. If contraception (either artificial or by such means as timed abstinence or non-reproductive sexual activities) is used then it must be to control when a pregnancy occurs, not to avoid the possibility of a pregnancy entirely.
This, indeed, the same stance as taken by the Lambeth conference when it considered the question of contraception. So it’s actually the Church of England’s position — I may not often agree with the Church of England, but on this I do.
@ A J
>>do you think gay people in the Church should have the option of non-sexual covenanted partnerships?<<
Good question.
If the blessing is directed at God's help in preserving them from immorality, then why not? But should it be a public service as opposed to a private one? And why would one use the term "gay" for what is in effect a friendship?
Gods help in preserving them from immorality? Just like a marriage then (1 Corinthians 7).
Why would you make it necessarily private?
The people involved are described as gay because that is what they are. Of course one of the interesting things is that this is currently the practice for gay clergy, and some of those most opposed to it are the “conservative” factions who detest the partnerships in principle, say some pretty vile things in practice, and refuse to believe that the partnerships aren’t sexual.
@ A J Bell
Why would it need to public? It’s wouldn’t be a “celebration”, as in a church marriage, but a pastoral blessing and prayer for God’s help in resisting the temptation to sin. The identity “gay” is superfluous in that context.
So if two gay men are making a commitment of love and exclusive lifelong partnership (thinking of Ecclesiastes 4 for example – “Two are better than one, because they have a good reward for their toil. For if they fall, one will lift up his fellow. But woe to him who is alone when he falls and has not another to lift him up! Again, if two lie together, they keep warm, but how can one keep warm alone? And though a man might prevail against one who is alone, two will withstand him—a threefold cord is not quickly broken.”) that’s ok, but we ought to keep it private, and no one should mention they’re gay? Why?
if two gay men are making a commitment of love and exclusive lifelong partnership
Could they not just be non-sexual friends without any kind of commitment ceremony?
This whole idea of a commitment ceremony just to be friends seems weird.
And why with you want to be ‘exclusive friends’? Exclusivity is for sexual relationships, not friendships. People can have lots of friends. The more the better.
Then why did you not leave the Church of England when women priests and bishops were approved, which Paul clearly disapproved of in scripture? Why did you not leave the Church of England when it did not expel Vicars who married divorcees even when no adultery involved, a relationship which even Jesus said was wrong despite Jesus personally not speaking out against same sex relationships or women priests like Paul did?
@ T1
One can reasonably argue permitting women ministers is an issue of Church discipline and not doctrine. This applies if the particular church does have a sacerodotal priesthood and does not believe an ontological change takes place at ordination and priest acts in the “person of Christ”.
Your second question is a good one. That certainly is a doctrinal issue.
omen
Correction:
This applies if the particular church does not have a sacerodotal priesthood and does not believe an ontological change takes place at ordination and priest acts in the “person of Christ”.
Hi Ian, thanks. Yes, I think you make a very strong case. Clearly there is a theologically high bar to get over in order to be able to overturn the historic Christian teaching.
I’m just not sure that when Scripture talks about same sex relationships it is really the same phenomena we see now. Is Romans 1 really addressing a terrified 14 year old who feels attracted to the same sex or the same sex couple who have lived together for 40 years and have been utterly faithful? I get that the response from conservatives is porneia is porneia and we don’t get to define it but there do seem to me to be some pastoral problems which I don’t see addressed by conservatives very well.
@ Adam
Roman 1 is addressing God’s design and intended purpose for the use of sex.
As you acknowledge, the questions you raise are pastoral issues, not doctrinal ones drawn from Scripture and the Church’s constant teaching.
So you dont believe once youve received salvation, your salvation is secure? Our salvation is dependant on keeping the law?
I believe our salvation is dependent on keeping faith.
Adam –
You cannot pre-judge Christ’s judgement through human majority voting, as to which serous sins, committed on a regular basis, are completely inessential to salvation.
I sin on a daily basis and will do until the day I die. I trust Jesus Christ for my forgiveness and to help me grow in repentance and holiness. If a same sex couple does the same but comes to a different ethical conclusion about their relationship status are they on that basis outside the grace of God? Surely the gospel says no, there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus?
Adam –
Suppose a single man, who claims to be a Christian, very regularly commits fornication and adultery each and every week. Is such a person always automatically within the grace of God ? – because every time he seriously sins in this way, he has developed a habit of prayer which amounts to something like :
“Dear God – please forgive me for seriously, sexually sinning, yet again, but I have so much ‘love’ to spread around. However, I still lack what the apostle Paul called in Greek “enkrateia” = “self-control”, as an integral part of the fruit of the holy Spirit. You know what it’s like, God. Thank you for your mercy. Amen “
If a same sex couple does the same but comes to a different ethical conclusion about their relationship status are they on that basis outside the grace of God?
The Romans have a concept of ‘invincible ignorance’ which I think is relevant here. If the couple have made all reasonable efforts to figure out the truth, but have still come to a mistaken conclusion, then they are not culpable for their error.
On the other hand if they have not made all such efforts — perhaps because they want to believe that their relationship is not sinful, so they deliberately ignore the evidence that it is — then their sin is actually greater, because as well as the original sin they are also indulging in the sin of deliberate self-deception; and what’s more they have deliberately placed themselves outside the grace of God by not seeking forgiveness for their self-deception or for the thing that they are deliberately deceiving themselves into thinking is not a sin.
per your other comment above, are you saying any Christian couple who are able to have children must have children? Otherwise it is against God?
are you saying any Christian couple who are able to have children must have children?
Yes. Provided it is medically safe for them to do so.
@ Adam
If a same sex couple come to a different “ethical conclusion” about engaging in sex acts then certainly objectively they are committing a grave sin. Two subjective questions arise: do they have full knowledge, through Scripture and Church teaching, that it is sinful? and do they deliberate consent in their hearts to this?
Paul says: But immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is fitting among saints … Be sure of this, that no immoral or impure man, or one who is covetous (than is, an idolater), has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for it is because of these things that the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. ” Eph. 5:3-6)
Paul is clear. No matter how “saved,” you think you are, if you commit these sins and you do not repent (metanoia i.e., “change one’s mind”) your salvation is lost.
How do you reconcile your understanding of Paul’s words with his instruction to throw out the believer who was in an ongoing incestuous sexual relationship but whom Paul indicates would ultimately be saved?
@ PC1
Medicinal ….
The expression “deliver such a one unto Satan” is the equivalent of “expel the wicked man from among you.” An idiom for the severing of fellowship. Hymenaeus and Alexander had been “delivered unto Satan” in order that “they might be taught not to blaspheme.” (1 Tim. 1:20)
The sense is this: send the man back into the world, out of the church community, that he may learn to “destroy” his baser, “fleshly” urges, and thus be reclaimed to Christ.
Easy. It’s deliciously counter-cultural whilst asking no sacrifices of the vast majority of people. Having gay people in your Church who live celibate lives, divorced their spouses at the Church’s insistence, or rejected their same-sex attractions so far as to enter an opposite-sex marriage is a wonderful ornament to your piety, and proof of your conservative theological credentials. Some people don’t want to give that up.
A,J. Bell;
You seem theoretically, to have a huge problem with celibacy.
What is wrong with celibacy?
Wouldn’t a person who truly loves God, rather ‘suffer’ than sin ?
Celibacy is a charism.
It’s not about suffering.
Celibacy is a charism.
No, it’s a state. The state of being unmarried. Every single person in the world is celibate when they are born. Some stop being celibate at some point; some don’t. But that’s all. It’s just a normal state of life, it’s not something special.
To Penelope :
The common theme linking a recovering, non-Christian alcoholic, and a God-respecting, sanctified, same-gender attracted, Christian, is something called “self-control” (Gk. enkrateia) – for which a genuine Christian should have ample resources (cf. Gal. 5:23).
Pellegrino
I would suggest that you know little about being gay or being sober. Forgive me if I’m wrong. But one very significant difference is, that for an addict, alcohol is harmful and may lead to death. Alcohol is a poison. Homosexuality isn’t.
Dear Penelope,
Of course I forgive for your derogatory, libellous accusation.
Self-control appears not to be one of your strong points. However, try and act with some sense and civility next time.
Yours hopefully,
Pellegrino.
Pellegrino
Libellous?
You OK hun?
Dear Penelope;
And to think we once called you ‘a Lady’.
Pellegrino
Being gay is not an addiction. Few gay men have to hold themselves back from jumping on anything in trousers.
What on earth do you think of us???!!
To Peter Jeremy;
I’m talking about human desires, urges and inclinations, of whatever kind. When we become Christians we get new desires, urges and inclinations, by which we can overcome all ungodly desires, urges and inclinations (Gal. 5:16; Rom. 8:13). These non-spiritual desires could be for anything, such as eating mountains of food, taking mind altering drugs like crack cocaine, pornography, sexual immorality, gambling, alcohol, a lust for worldly wealth, or, whatever. My point is that should give all ungodly desires the “Big Elbow”, through God’s help.
You’re mixing up celibacy and chastity, S.
You’re mixing up celibacy and chastity,
No, I’m not.
Chastity is the name of the virtue of having a right attitude to sex (just like honesty is the name of the virtue of having the right attitude to the truth). Or as the OED puts it, ‘ a.c1305–Purity from unlawful sexual intercourse; continence.’
Celibacy is ‘ 1663–The state of living unmarried.’ (Also the OED).
And this S is where you go awry. Celibacy is not simply a matter of what you’re doing in the present, but a future expectation and intention as well: you are not in a relationship and will not be in the future. And that is the profound difference between being celibate and simply being single – whilst both conditions are not in a sexual relationship at that moment, only one has no hope or expectation of one in the future. Hence, celibacy is not a trivial thing, and especially not a trivial thing to try and include as a teaching or instruction for 16 year olds and up.
Celibacy is not simply a matter of what you’re doing in the present, but a future expectation and intention as well:
No it isn’t. Check the OED.
Hence, celibacy is not a trivial thing
I think you are taking here about not celibacy (which is as noted simply a state a person can be in at a particular time) but about an expectation of remaining in that state for the rest of one’s life .
And indeed that is not trivial, but neither is it necessarily a calling nor is it restricted to people attracted to members of the same sex; plenty of people attracted to members of the opposite sex find themselves in the position where they are both celebrate now and overwhelmingly likely to remain so for the rest of their lives, despite not wishing that to be the case.
“an expectation of remaining in that state for the rest of one’s life .”
An expectation and intention.
If you don’t want to call that celibacy, what is your preferred term? We will need to have one if this to be the teaching of the Church. Otherwise how can it be preached and understood?
If you don’t want to call that celibacy, what is your preferred term? We will need to have one if this to be the teaching of the Church. Otherwise how can it be preached and understood?
Why does it need a special term? It can simply be preached and understood as the logical consequence of marriage being defined as being between one man and one woman.
That’s not hard to explain or understand.
I mean, it’s been the teaching of the Church since pretty much the year Jesus ascended, and between then and the middle of the twentieth century nobody seemed to have any trouble preaching or understanding it, despite there not being a special term. So I think that proves that a special term is not necessary for it to be preached or understood.
Oh, you don’t want there to be a clear Church teaching for gay people.
Well that’s revealing.
Oh, you don’t want there to be a clear Church teaching for gay people.
Quite the contrary. There is nothing unclear about anything I have written.
You just don’t like it. But you not liking something is not the same as it being unclear.
No, S, you are perpetually unclear.
You don’t like the idea of gay marriage, but it’s never made clear what you think gay people should do. You spend a lot of time dancing around that question, and answers have to pulled from you over time. Do you think someone’s sexual orientation can be changed/”cured”? I don’t think we’ve ever got to the bottom of that. Do you think gay people should be encouraged into heterosexual marriages, even if their orientation doesn’t change? Not clear. Do you think gay people should be able to date each other? You suggested that was ok, until questioned more closely when it emerged that dating was only permitted if you were seriously considering marriage and because you’re against gay marriage, gay dating was not actually allowed, although you were reluctant to say that explicitly. You don’t seem to be in favour of covenanted partnerships even when they’re non-sexual, because for some unstated reason you think they’re just run of the mill friendships. Do you think gay people are commanded to lifelong celibacy? Again, not clear, and you don’t ever want to engage on the implications of what that teaching would mean.
You don’t like the idea of gay marriage, but it’s never made clear what you think gay people should do.
I’ve been perfectly clear! Here, I’ll be clear again.
Firstly, let’s be clear there is on special teaching for ‘gay people’. God’s design applies to everyone.
The only valid context for sexual activity is within a monogamous lifelong marriage.
A marriage consists of one man and one woman.
Therefore, if someone is attracted solely to members of the same sex, they can either marry someone of the opposite sex who they are not attracted to — I gather some do though I understand why people on both sides might want not to enter such marriages — or they don’t have sex, just like anybody else who never marries. It is perfectly possible to have a fulfilling life without ever having sex!
How is that unclear? That’s what I have said all along, so how have I ever been unclear?
Hang on, if it’s just simply not having sex, that would mean gay men (for example) can date each other, can kiss, can be boyfriends, can enter civil partnerships or covenanted partnerships, and could get those blessed. As long as they don’t actually have sex, it’s fine, right?
Hang on, if it’s just simply not having sex, that would mean gay men (for example) can date each other, can kiss, can be boyfriends, can enter civil partnerships or covenanted partnerships, and could get those blessed. As long as they don’t actually have sex, it’s fine, right?
We’ve been through this before. This is exactly like a teenage girl asking exactly how far she can go with her boyfriend before it’s a sin. And the answer is the same: it’s not a game of ‘see how close you can get to the line without falling over’. Just stay well away from temptation.
And right on cue, not clear.
And right on cue, not clear
There’s nothing unclear about it.
Do you want something like, ‘holding hands for four seconds is fine, but five seconds or longer is a sin; touching is okay above the collarbone or from halfway down the thigh but not between’? Is that what you mean by ‘clear’? Well, I’m sorry, but just asking for that shows you have the wrong attitude. You’re thinking in terms of ‘what’s the most can I get away with?’ instead of ‘how can I make sure I do as God wants for me’.
Thus is as clear as I can make it: the aim is not to try to get as close to the line as you can. You should be trying to stay as far away from temptation as possible. That’s 100%, crystal clear.
If you don’t like it, fine, but don’t say it’s not clear because it is.
As I said, you dance around the question and the answers have to be pulled from you.
You originally said that gay people either married someone of the opposite sex, or they don’t have sex. After further questioning you changed that to suggest gay people shouldn’t have any romantic relationships lest they be a temptation to sex. Although your analogy for this a teenage girl who has a boyfriend, is allowed to have a boyfriend, can kiss her boyfriend etc.. You take the example of her asking to define the line of good behaviour very precisely, and decide that means if you’re gay you shouldn’t be allowed to have a boyfriend at all. It’s a mess, and you haven’t thought it through.
As I said, you dance around the question and the answers have to be pulled from you.
I haven’t danced around any question and nothing has had to be pulled from me. Everything I have written I have both spelt out on previous pages, and is the logical consequence of what I wrote right at the start.
You originally said that gay people either married someone of the opposite sex, or they don’t have sex.
Yes.
After further questioning you changed that to suggest gay people shouldn’t have any romantic relationships lest they be a temptation to sex.
I said that everyone, not just ‘gay people’, should avoid temptation and not try to see how far they can go without falling over the line. That’s not a change, it’s exactly what I have always said.
Although your analogy for this a teenage girl who has a boyfriend, is allowed to have a boyfriend, can kiss her boyfriend etc..
Only if she is serious about potentially marrying him. I’ve been clear about that in the past and, again, it is entailed by what I wrote above.
You take the example of her asking to define the line of good behaviour very precisely, and decide that means if you’re gay you shouldn’t be allowed to have a boyfriend at all.
It’s got nothing to do with ‘being gay’. It’s the same for everyone. Sexual activity is sinful except in marriage; avoid temptation.
It’s a mess, and you haven’t thought it through.
It’s perfectly clear and I have thought it through. There is no mess here.
You are the one trying to get me to say that ‘gay people’ should be treated differently; and when I won’t, but remain consistent, you claim I am ‘unclear’.
But I am the one being clear and consistent and pointing out that the same applies to everyone, whether ‘gay’ or ‘straight’.
You are the one looking for loopholes and inconsistencies and unclarities, and because I won’t give you any you are getting frustrated and projecting.
I take the warnings in Scripture against embracing a command to celibacy seriously.
Jesus corrects the disciples on this question in Matthew 19. St Paul is very clear about it in 1 Corinthians 7, and again cautions against it in 1 Timothy 5. A practical warning is found in Ecclesiastes 4.
Why do you think this is such a trivial matter?
AJ Bell:
Christian marriage, properly understood, is a daily self-sacrifice, all the more so when it involves bringing up children and even grandchildren.
There is no calling or state (wanted or unwanted) in the Christian life that doesn’t entail self-sacrifice.
Even the secular world understands this about marriage – maybe that is why so few people get married these days (while being happy to hook up temporarily until it gets difficult).
Are you suggesting that only straight couples are capable of self sacrifice in the discipline of marriage?
Because if you are, I can tell you it ain’t so.
Being married with grandchildren is a great sacrifice, just like lifelong celibacy?
I don’t think I’ve heard a more ridiculously ignorant and self-serving response in years. I thought the utter bilge you used to get from married men saying celibacy was no more difficult than their own efforts to avoid having adulterous affairs was pretty bad, but this one takes the biscuit.
If it’s all so similar how come we don’t preach to our young people that they ought to making vows of lifelong celibacy? After all, doesn’t St Paul say it’s better not to marry (like him)? It’s striking quite how many of the leaders in the Church who are adamant that celibacy is a good thing for me, and no great burden, never considered it for themselves. It’s much more common to find them marrying right after university. What’s that about? What went wrong?
And who said marriage or celibacy was a calling? Listen to folk like Ed Shaw and David Bennett. They’re extremely clear their choice to be celibate is them following a command as they see it, not a calling (which is why they’re so upset at the Church suggesting it might change the teaching on this). Where does Scripture tell us marriage is a calling? Read 1 Corinthians 7. It will disabuse you of this nonsense.
Read carefully, AJ. I said “calling OR state (wanted or unwanted)”. Sometimes God may indeed call one of His children to forsake marriage to serve Him, for example, to be a missionary in dangerous terrain.
Sometimes- perhaps more frequently- Christians just can’t find a suitable Christian who is single and wants to marry them. I know a number of women in my church like that. Churches are predominantly female.
What should they do? Live lives that please the Lord – and I think they do.
I also know Christian couples who are childless yet want children. What should they do? Use their freedom to serve others.
I also have a friend in the church who is SSA but is married and has children. This is probably more common than most of us realise, because sexual affections are more fluid that identify politics wants to admit.
But also sometimes temptation comes along and a SSA man leaves his wife and children after years of marriage and takes up with a man. Roy Clements did this, so did Jeremy Pemberton.
But more often (of course) it is heterosexual men leaving their marriages for other women.
Sexual desire can also seem a huge problem in people’s lives, especially for men, for whom sexual arousal happens much more easily than for women, and who can detach sexual feelings more easily from romantic attraction than women can. That is why the sexual behaviour of homosexual men is very different from homosexual women, and casual anonymous sex is relatively common in the male homosexual world. The promise is of sex without consequences (pregnancy or emotional attachment) – but also a lot of STD, like mpox. (Heterosexuals use abortion to deal with the consequences of promiscuity.)
But God’s Word reminds us that no temptation comes upon us that is do great that God does not also provide the means of escape.
But you have missed my principal point: ALL states of life for a Christian – married or single, parent or not, ordained or “lay” – involve self-sacrifice. This was made plain to me when I got married, when I became a father and even more when I was ordained. I have to remind myself of these truths every day.
And for years I saw these truths of self-sacrificial Christian living modelled out in practice by better men than I, single men like John Stott.
God never calls us to impossible burdens. His grace is sufficient.
James
I just wish people would stop libelling Jeremy Pemberton.
I don’t care if you disapprove of his ‘lifestyle’; lying about him is unseemly.
Do better.
I just wish people would stop libelling Jeremy Pemberton.
I don’t care if you disapprove of his ‘lifestyle’; lying about him is unseemly.
What’s the lie?
Don’t worry James, I read you quite carefully. If only you’d done me the same courtesy.
Missionary is an interesting example. I can’t actually think of a single missionary I’ve met (and there’s been quite a few) who actually decided to forsake marriage. Even those who went to pretty dangerous terrain (like Haiti or Papua New Guinea) did so with their wives and children in tow.
But I return to my point: if it’s no great burden to make a decision at 16 to embrace lifelong celibacy, how come no one actually preaches that? Why is it just an instruction issued to gay people, and even then it’s an instruction that’s whispered in our ears in case too many other people (in the Church and outside it) actually hear it? Why did you for example decide to avoid such a commitment yourself?
So, Penelope, we are not supposed to stand up for abandoned spouses? We should just ignore and abandon them?
Not to mention children, which just multiplies the situation.
Of all the kinds of abuse mentioned, this is practically the worst, and you want to be complicit in it?
James
But you’d ban those of us who did make these sacrifices from your church
Adam
You posted
” We manage to hold together over many first order differences.”
Could you name which please?
Phil Almond
Hi Philip,
Thanks, on reflection I didn’t mean to write first order differences. For me, as I tried to say in the following sentence, first order differences are things at credal level for example. We do manage to hold together as a church with a diversity of understanding on other issues of significant theological import eg the sacraments- what they are for, who they are for and how they work for example. The work of the Holy Spirit is perhaps another area in which different parts of the church have radically different understanding. Ethically, there are a range of understandings of issues around war and peace about which Jesus spoke clearly, similarly with divorce. I would argue that the above and I think, teaching about sex/marriage are second order things.. not things which constitute, ultimately, the nature of the gospel itself (1 Cor 15:3) even if the gospel speaks to these things.
Hi Adam
Some of us are convinced that the Bible teaches that same-sex inclinations and practice are sins. Therefore we must in conscience seek a visible separation within the CofE if others authorise God’s blessing on sins.
I cannot think of any case where the CofE has ever done that before.
Phil Almond
Secular gays who deplore the scriptures about homosexual practice understand them better than liberal Christians.
But don’t “Liberal Christians” not infrequently claim possession of holy Spirit, which accounts for their “intellectual enlightenment” ? (Supposedly)
Their so-called Holy Spirit seems suspiciously to be like the Zeitgeist.
Pure coincidence, I am sure.
It is the vastest arrogance to say you can (a) identify the Holy Spirit accurately and (b) simultaneously bypass the question of how different THIS ‘Holy Spirit’ is from the Bible one.
It is impossible that anyone intelligent will be fooled, but you do wonder how they live with their consciences.
To Chris (Shell) –
Amen !
A lot of people have in reality, an impaired conscience, and they lack a real respect and fear of God. Claims to ‘Spirit-inspiration’ in an attempt to justify immoral life-styles (of one sort or another), are nothing new – but were happening in Jude’s day as well (Jude 1:17-19). For them, the “Faith” is something that can be transmuted to accommodate their own ideas, impulses, and fancies.
Dear Penelope;
Unless you believe in “subjectivism running riot”,
then some folks have got it wrong somewhere.
Compare Judges 17:6 :
” There was no King in Israel at that time; so everyone did what they wanted ! “
Happy Jack asks: Do conservative evangelicals in the Church of England want to haver their cake and want to eat it too?
Let’s start by asking why Scripture teaches that homosexuality is wrong?
We can simply say that homosexuality is a sin because it is prohibited by God and then cite the relevant Scriptural passages. This by itself is not a satisfying explanation and proving to be an unproductive approach. Divine commands tend to have reasons behind them. So what is the reasoning against homosexuality?
Paul presents a natural law argument in Romans 1. He appeals to the natural design and purpose of our bodies and sex. Homosexuality is wrong because it is contrary to nature; one gives up “natural relations” with the opposite sex and is “consumed with passion” for one’s own sex. Paul is echoing God’s design for sexual relations outlined in Genesis – sex is centred around a union linked to procreation.
Paul’s core argument is that homosexual acts are wrong because they entail an improper, immoral use of the sexual organs which do not reflect God’s purpose as revealed in Genesis and reaffirmed by Jesus in Matthew 19.
In Genesis 1, the charge to “be fruitful and multiply” is given to Adam and Eve, and Genesis 2 adds coming together and becoming “one flesh.” This is not poetic imagery, but an expression indicating that there is something deeply physically unitive about sex. A one “flesh union” is forged by the act of a husband “holding fast” to his wife’s body (“joining”, “bonding”, or “uniting”).
That sex is a union for procreation is known by common sense. Indeed, one of the overarching themes of Romans 1 is that God has revealed Himself in the natural world (“things that have been made”) apart from special revelation, and, as such, individuals are “without excuse.” Reason tells us that God exists and reason also informs us that sex is for procreation.
Homosexual acts intrinsically deviate from the purpose of sex; they are, in Catholic language, “morally disordered”, because they are contrary to nature. They involve a misuse of one’s sexual faculties.
Marriage unites the physical bodies of a man and woman by allowing them to strive towards a biological purpose that neither individual can fulfil on their own. There is only one bodily purpose for which every person is incomplete and this is procreation. This concept of biological incompleteness underpins the nature of a one “flesh union.” Sex unites by bringing together two opposite sex bodies to form a unified whole. They require each other to fulfil a common function. Sexual intercourse brings together two teleologically (design and purpose) linked bodies, it complements and completes them – “one flesh” – to be “fruitful and multiply.” Once so joined they cannot be separated in this life.
Some theologians distinguish between two purposes of sex: procreation and unity. But because of how intertwined these purposes are, it’s more useful to refer to them as a single purpose: a “procreative unity.” They are, in essence, the same thing described from different vantage points, not two independent purposes.
Some also mention mutual enjoyment and deep companionship as other purposes of sex. But sex is designed to forge a deep companionship precisely because of the kind of special union it forms, and it leads to mutual enjoyment because of the biological processes at work that it is oriented towards. It dubious to speak of unity, mutual enjoyment, deep companion, and communication as stand-alone “purposes” of sex. They are aspects of the procreative union.
It is not difficult to see how the same natural law reasoning that Paul uses against homosexuality applies equally to artificial contraception. In fact, it is straightforward: if sex is for procreative unity, and artificial contraception directs sex away from this purpose, then the use of artificial contraception violates the natural function of sex – it too is “morally disordered”.
Some attempt to distinguish between the unitive and procreative aspects of sex as two independent functions. Contracepted sex might block the procreative function, but it does satisfy the unitive function, and that is sufficient to make contraception morally permissible. There is a conceptual distinction between the various aspects of sex, but the teleology of sex, its design and purpose outlined in scripture, does not support a metaphysical (meta ta physika “after the things of nature”) separation between procreation and other purposes of sex.
It follows that Christians who view homosexual activity as immoral must also view artificial contraception in the same light. They are wrong for the same reason: they both misuse the sexual organs by directing sexual activity away from procreative unity. The same natural law reasoning that grounds opposition to homosexual acts must also rule out artificial contraception. It seems arbitrary to apply natural law to homosexual acts but reject its application for contraception.
If the answer is that contracepted sex is unitive despite not being procreative, then why shouldn’t defenders of homosexual acts, as they frequently do, say that homosexual sex is unitive despite not being procreative? The only way to answer this objection is to affirm a deep metaphysical connection between procreation and union. Otherwise, the underlying logic behind Romans 1 becomes unintelligible if procreation and unity are not linked.
Evangelicals cannot have their cake and eat it too. They cannot ignore the clear tension between their beliefs on homosexuality and contraception. If one is wrong, so is the other. The arguments in favour of artificial contraception are all based on a fragmented view of the teleology of sex. Even if there are purposes of sex distinct from procreation, the fact that artificially contracepted sex is not biologically oriented towards procreation is by itself sufficient to make contraception immoral.
And this is the fundamental Scriptural premise of Humanae Vitae
The Church of England lost credibility on opposing homosexuality when it endorsed artificial contraception at its Lambeth Conference in 1930.
Resolution 15 on artificial contraception:
Is St Paul deploying a natural law argument against homosexuality, or is he talking specifically about people in heterosexual marriages engaging in same-sex sex on the side (possibly for religious purposes)? St John Chrysostom in his fourth homily on Romans seems to clearly think it’s the latter. He’s adamant that this is about people who cannot argue that they are “hindered of legitimate intercourse” or have “no means to fulfil their desire”. And if you really think Paul is arguing a natural law point about homosexuality in general, then you must think he’s saying homosexuality can be changed – i.e. no one is really gay, the “natural use” is always open to them and they can and should return to it. The problem is that nothing in our modern experience, especially within the Church, backs this up. Actually the opposite is true. Same-sex attractions do not go away, attempting to runaway from them in a heterosexual marriage has proven time and again to be a disaster, and the ex-gay movement within the Church imploded because of this 10 years ago.
@ AJ Bell
No, Romans 1 is a treatise specifically on natural law. It is teaching on a a meta level about God’s creation. Natural law concerns what is ordered according to God’s design and purpose.
Paul’s reasoning takes its ethical bearings from the creation story of Genesis 1 and 2.
“The truth” to which Paul refers is the truth of God’s character as it is manifest in creation. Paul contends that “what can be known about God is plain” to anyone who ponders the created order. The created order is so designed that humanity ought to perceive that there is a Creator. The divine purpose is so evident in creation that all people can not only know “God’s decree,” His general will for human behaviour, but also the consequences of choosing to ignore it. Paul’s position it that people should know better, but chose to suppress the truth.
While the created order clearly reveals the Hand of a Creator, Paul affirms that people are unwilling to acknowledge this and to respond in worship and submission. Those who no longer worship the true God nevertheless have a need to worship, and so the creation (“images”), rather than the Creator, becomes the object of their worship. When people found a substitute for God, they discovered that their relationships with other human beings no longer functioned as God intended them, and God gave both women and men over to their degraded passions.
Paul’s point is that there is nothing abstract about the natural moral code governing sexuality and it should be unnecessary to codify it. It does not need to be rationalised, since it is common sense. Some forms of behaviour do not require written laws to classify them as immoral – they are “written on man’s heart”.
What is the meaning of the term “unnatural” (“contrary to nature.”)? For Paul, such relationships do not conform to God’s intention for sexual congress, since they cannot fulfil the creation mandate to procreate. Such a relationship is “unnatural” because it does not conform to the intention of procreation. “Nature” expresses for Paul “the order intended by the Creator, the order that is manifest in God’s creation, specifically in this case, the order seen in the function of sexual organs themselves, which were ordained for an expression of love between a man and a woman and for the procreation of children.
Romans 1 is saying that if a sexual relationship does not conform to the pattern of a relationship designed to produce offspring, then it is obvious it is “unnatural.” Such arguments were and still are common in rabbinic Judaism. In particular, the ban on homosexuality came to be regarded as a universal law included among the “seven commandments of the sons of Noah” (“Noachide Commandments,”). Homosexuality was deemed unnatural because it frustrates the procreative purpose of sex, just as do any other forms of “spilling the seed in vain.”
Paul’s teaching on the matter of sexual ethics is in accord with the teaching of Genesis and rabbinic Judaism. It’s “unnatural” not because homosexuality went against a man or a woman’s “inner nature” (so that it was “unnatural” for a heterosexual individual to engage in homosexual relations).
Was Paul’s teaching limited by his ignorance of sexual dispositions some now describe as “God-made.” It is true that Paul knew nothing of modern theories of developmental psychology, or of alleged genetic factors in determining sexual inclination. But this is not to say that Paul was naïve. In the Roman world Paul would have encountered and been aware of the variety of ways people expressed their sexuality. No modern argument about the origin of “sexual preferences” would have changed Paul’s mind.
St. John Chrysostom, in his series of Homilies on Romans provides a detailed theological exposition on why homosexuality is one of the most evil of sins; why it is and forever remains one of the “four sins that cry to heaven for vengeance”.
In Book Four of his Homilies, he provide us with a detailed commentary on the Romans1:26-27. He argues that homosexuality does not grow in a vacuum, but it is “ungodliness” and the rejection of truth that leads to men becoming “fools”. And from this conceit in a false wisdom, and refusal to follow the way of God, humanity is given up to uncleaness and lusts of the heart…. ultimately exchanging truth for a lie. They reject the Creator and serve the creature. They become idolators. Homosexuality is seen, ultimately, as a disordered sexual manifestation of self-idolatry and self-worship – an insanity. It is, John Chrysostom says, “satanical”, at heart, blasphemy.
He argues that homosexuality comes from the Devil, who seeing God given sexual desire draws the sexes together, was bent on cutting through this to destroy the race, not only by men and women not having lawful sex, but also by their being at war with one another.
So why then did the ex-gay movement in the Church fail so spectacularly?
AJ Bell –
Maybe for the same reason that some vicars cheat on their wives with other women, some church treasurers steal from the Church, a trusted project manager in the Diocese of London embezzles a fortune, a respected leader of youth work breaks all boundaries of right behaviour with youth and gets away with it for years, and senior Anglican bishops disclaim responsibility for dealing with sexual abuse among clergy.
It is called SIN in the Body of Christ.
Some cultural climates are conducive to sexual sin flourishing. Today’s certainly is in the west.
That would be an explanation for some ex-gay leaders turning out to be dishonest. That’s not what needs to be explained. It’s the total failure of the movement, and it’s implosion, that needs to be explained.
It’s the total failure of the movement, and it’s implosion, that needs to be explained.
Does failure of any movement need to be explained? Most movements fail. Surely what needs to be explained is when a movement succeeds; failure is just the default state.
@ A J Bell
How is that relevant to St Paul’s exposition on Natural law?
What do you think your natural law argument is saying?
An argument that homosexuality is essentially not real, that gay people should simply return to their natural use and become heterosexual again, is one that has been tried and found extremely wanting.
(And to be clear – I don’t think St Paul is making your natural law argument in Romans 1)
Happy Jack
Trying not to be too explicit here, but my body does not respond to women. I am naturally homosexual. You cannot just claim that everyone’s body is naturally heterosexual because that’s not true! And certainly please don’t claim Paul said this!
The babies argument is even more stupid. How many straight couples are infertile yet are allowed to marry? I’m gay and married and we have two teenagers. The world is not as simple as your model here and you only apply this thinking to gay people, not straight people – where are the bans on marrying infertile couples? Where is the casting out of the straight couples who chose not to have children? What are you going to do with the orphans under this new theology?
Trying not to be too explicit here, but my body does not respond to women. I am naturally homosexual.
Someone who is blind has eyes that don’t respond to light, but God didn’t intend for them to be that way: their blindness is not part of their essence, it’s a result of the Fall corrupting the world.
Temptation to same-sex activity is the same.
Your theology is deplorable. Read John Hull.
Does that mean you believe that making accommodation for blind people in society (e.g. braille, the bumpy paving stones on street crossings, guide dogs, audio descriptions etc.) is essentially a sinful embrace of the Fall?
Does that mean you believe that making accommodation for blind people in society (e.g. braille, the bumpy paving stones on street crossings, guide dogs, audio descriptions etc.) is essentially a sinful embrace of the Fall?
Obviously not.
Why not?
Why not?
Why would it?
Don Benson’s comments above (August 5 @ 5.42 pm) are very much on point. Welby’s manipulation of the episcopal appointments system got us to the present pass through:
– Appointing a great number of liberal evangelicals and liberal catholics but not a single conservative evangelical – despite the many large churches led by conservative evangelicals
-Appointing Stephen Cottrell as Archbishop of York when his track record was overtly calling for same-sex marriage while driving evangelicals (like the Chelmsford vicar) out of the Church of England over Cottrell’s support for the “Mermaids” trans orgsnisation
– Appointing at least two bishops (a man and a woman) whom Welby knew are in same-sex partnerships
– Appointing Cathedral deans in civil partnerships.
– Advancing the cause of people like Jayne Ozanne.
– Appointing a man in a same-sex marriage- a state of life not recognised by the Church of England – to be secretary of the Cfown Nominations Committee.
In other words, everything Welby has done has been to advance the gay cause, while claimjng to havd no settled mind himself on this. Nobody believes him, and he is tgd reason the Global South have joined Gafcon in rejecting the Archbishop of Canterbury as the leader of the Anglican Communion. Welby has done more that anyone to break up the Communion.
It wasn’t Welby who passed full homosexual marriage within its churches, it was the US and Scottish Anglican churches. It wasn’t Welby who endorsed imprisonment of homosexuals either, that was the Ugandan Anglican church. Indeed Welby’s blessings for homosexual couples compromise within the Church of England is a compromise that respects holy matrimony as between a man and a woman for life only. The divisions on the 2 extremes of the Anglican communion are there Welby or no Welby.
Completely irrelevant. I was talking about the Church of England and how Welby used his powers to create the present episcopate and the CNC.
Everything Welby has done has been to undermine conservative evangelicals and to exclude them from the epicopate.
His judgment has been terrible, from George Bell to silly stunts in Amritsar to closing churches during Covid.
He and Cottrell are easily the weakest theological leaders the Church of England has known in over a century: there is no spiritual or theological depth in anything he says, and he knows this.
He has presided over a catastrophic fall in attendance through poor decisions and autocratic bumbling.
And he has lost the confidence of the majority of world Anglicanism. A poor track record all round.
Except Welby is more a conservative evangelical than liberal Anglo Catholic in terms of the 2 main wings in the Church of England. He has promoted many fellow trainees from conservative evangelical Holy Trinity Brompton for instance. I also wouldn’t say there was a dramatic change in Church of England attendance from when Rowan Williams, a liberal Catholic intellectual was Archbishop of Canterbury to when Welby was. I do agree he has made some mistakes eg compare the way Cameron dealt with a visit to Amristar to how Welby did and George Bell.
In terms of world Anglicanism whoever is Archbishop there is going to be a huge divide between the US Episcopal Anglican church which now conducts homosexual marriage services and the Ugandan Anglican church which backs sending homosexuals to prison
‘He has promoted many fellow trainees from conservative evangelical Holy Trinity Brompton for instance. ‘
Such as?
The number becoming new Vicars and leading church plants for instance
Some theologically erudite, genuine Christian in the Television industry needs to give Justin Welby a real, hard hitting interview, regarding the current scene within the Church of England. I would just love to see Welby on the BBC T.V. Programme “Hard Talk” !
You attribute extraordinary power to the office of the Archbishop. Are you suggesting the other bodies involved ( eg the other members of the CNC, the bishops who appoint suffragans etc etc) are simply beholden to his diktat?
At last: a voice of reason. Thank you. This.
Justin is evangelical along similar lines to some of those who post on https://www.inclusiveevangelicals.com/
I suspect his spirituality set out under the sphere and influence of HTB, but that it has matured since then and become more nuanced. But I’m pretty sure he remains an evangelical not a liberal.
He may not be an ultra-conservative evangelical, but he has never expressed support for gay sex or marriage. Indeed, at times he has backed constraints: he urged the Anglican Communion to go ahead with ‘consequences’ against TEC. He backed the ban on gay and lesbian partners of bishops being invited to the Lambeth Conference. He has refused to say gay sex isn’t a sin, or is. He’s sat on the fence on that. My suspicion is that he still thinks it is.
I’m afraid the idea that Justin has been trying to lock out evangelicals is a touch paranoid, though it may be fair to say he wouldn’t be inclined to promote individuals at the most deeply conservative wing of evangelicalism, preferring more nuanced evangelicals, who might be pastorally more mature and adept. Besides, as you say Perry, a CNC includes people who think for themselves.
I have often complained about things Justin has done (or not done) but he has not tried to lock out evangelicals except maybe those who most of the Church of England would find too divisively extreme in their conservative dogmatism.
The pastoral demands on a bishop require qualities of humanity, not just machine-like re-iteration of dogma. I have met and engaged with a good number of bishops (including my own cousin) and one thing I have seen in some of them is ‘pastoral heart’. I have found that quality in bishops from all kinds of traditions – the liberal, the conservative.
One bishop I found wonderfully kind and pastoral (and patient with me) was Bishop John Taylor of St Albans. He was a scholar, and pretty conservative evangelical, but he had this gentle humanity about him, and patience, and human warmth. He really did care. So I don’t think that the tradition a bishop comes from is the only or even the primary credential. What comes first is grace and prayer.
Well said
‘I suspect his spirituality set out under the sphere and influence of HTB, but that it has matured since then and become more nuanced.’
Ah, so people who agree with you are ‘mature’ and ‘nuanced’. And the poor benighted souls in HTB (who actually see people come to faith) are presumably ‘immature’ and ‘crass’?
Do I agree with Justin?! No, on quite a lot of matters. It is not about agreeing with ‘me’! Justin either is or is not more mature, regardless of me and my oft-time laments at him.
But do I think he is more nuanced than people like Nicky Gumbell, or William Taylor at StH’s? Yes I do.
I’m not oblivious to HTB. For years I was involved with lots of their folks, and shared in ministry with them. And used to spend summer holidays with their crew in country houses, through the Stewards Trust. Some wonderful times.
But there’s more to the Church of England than their particular style and tradition (and views). And an archbishop has to handle all the diversity in the whole Church, and that’s not easy. Justin has not had an easy ride (may not always have helped himself).
To suggest that Justin is responsible for some kind of project to exclude evangelicals from becoming bishops is (in my view) not credible. Particularly as he is an evangelical himself. (I’m guessing you may think he isn’t…)
Yes I can find him infuriating, but he still deserves respect (and prayer) as a leader, with very great burdens and problems coming from all directions. It almost pains me to say it, but I believe he sometimes deserves more support than he gets. He gets demonised.
I do believe he is far more nuanced than people give him credit for, and his faith is clearly sincere and dedicated. Anyway, my main point was that I agree with Perry. He is not responsible for keeping evangelicals out of promoted posts. That’s just a nonsense.
Of course, my observation hinges on the definition of ‘evangelical’. Not much I can do about that. And, might I add, the definition of ‘fundamentalist’.
Bottom line: he is trying to navigate increasingly turbulent waters. So let us pray.
Susannah Just to say Inclusiveevangelicals.com do support ss marriage so I am not sure how you are comparing Justin with us?
‘You attribute extraordinary power to the office of the Archbishop.’
The ABC has a large amount of institutional power. Realistically, not a single bishop can be appointed without his agreement. And such is the power of the culture of deference in the CofE, most people are very, very unwilling to challenge him in meetings.
When they do, take it from me, it is not received well.
Previous ABCs have been more hands off, and have not used their institutional power to the full extent. Justin has been quite different from his predecessors in this regard.
He can be a bit tetchy but vocation is a collective discernment, and if you read opinions at Thinking Anglicans there are frequent complaints that yet ‘another’ evangelical has been appointed (admittedly some of those are suffragans). I personally believe there has been a reasonable distribution of appointments, and some really good ones. Quite often bishops are going to come from the centre – not too liberal and not too conservative. Given the traditions that bishops have to straddle, I suppose that is quite understandable. The main thing is: are they pastoral? That’s not just a matter of doctrinal view, but also the grace in their hearts.
I’ll stop posting on this page now, because I am probably irritating you, though I don’t mean to. Besides, I have too much on next week to log on here. But thank you for your hospitality and allowing this to be an ‘agora’ where a variety of people come and bounce thoughts off each other.
Thinking Anglicans. Susannah – there’s an oxymoron of a blogsite title!
Happy Jack has yet to successfully post a comment there has passed moderation. Well, he’s had the odd one but nothing of any substance.
Congratulations, Susannah !
You’re probably top of the League on this topic thread, on word count !
Any potentially honest, and deep thinking Religionist would be well advised to always rigorously check their denominational beliefs by the Bible, considered as the ultimate, sole source of authority for Christian belief and practice.
TA does seem quite intolerant of views they don’t like. I believe Christopher Shell and David Shepherd got ejected from them. By comparison this site is remarkably tolerant of dissent.
TA is absolutely scandalous.
Do you know that at the time I was ejected, I was by far the main citer, as opposed to the least, of statistics! The reason given was so incredibly general (that I was speaking nonsense, when I was after all speaking on many different topics) I could not believe that it emanated from any academic integrity.
After all, if I make a contestable statement, it is a simple matter to contest it with facts – IF such facts exist. If my statistics could be contested, cite better ones – IF they exist. Don’t just in a lordly fashion treat those staples of debate (or of debate that has any integrity) as being below one.
The result is what? Because only certain people are allowed to speak and the rest, including well qualified and polite people, are gagged, a false impression is given of the balance of opinion.
Interesting. A different exercise of the office to ,say, Runcie, Carey and Williams. So you would broadly concur with the criticisms of James and Don Benson above?
In Runcie’s time a conservative evangelical like Michael Baughen from All Souls was apointed to be Bishop of Chester. I couldn’t see that happening todsy.
(Incidentally, Baughan succeeded Victor Whitsey, who turned out to be a terrible sex offender. Similar to Peter Ball, promoted by the besotted George Carey.)
In Welby’s time, when the Anglo-Catholic Philip North was tipped for Sheffield, a vociferous campaign by Martyn Percy drove him out. I don’t recall Welby standing by his man. Or standing by Percy when the Bishop of Oxford hung him out to dry and never explained why he was suspended.
Welby is a true Establishment figure (moneyed family, Eton, Cambridge, oil business) and certainly not a deep or theological thinker. Cottrell is the same, a media studies graduate from the other side of the tracks. They are not intellectuals or teachers. They have no more interest in theology than a newspaper reporter. Their interst is the boardroom, not the Bible.
James
I think it’s that the whole evangelical movement has shifted focus to the boardroom and away from scripture. Certainly few seem interested in having an honest and open discussion about scripture. It’s more about managing people these days
James
Gay people are fed up with the hypocrisy of having bishops in same sex relationships telling other people they cannot be. This didn’t start with Welby.
I don’t think Jayne Ozanne would give Welby any credit with “advancing her cause”. I think, well I know she has, frequently vented frustration like many LGBT people at being constantly ignored and locked out of discussions
No doubt they are. But it was Welby who greenlighted the appointment of the Bishop of Grantham and the Bishop of Sherborne.
As for Jayne Ozanne, she is a troubled soul with a lot of anguish that she displays before the world. About 20 years or so ago, she was a charismatic evangelical in some kind of relationship with an Anglican minister that she wanted to marry, and was cultivated by George Carey. He had her on his Archbishops’ Council until she resigned, declaring that ‘dark times’ were coming on the church. After that she was in a lesbian relationship which lasted for five years, and the then Bishop of Liverpool used her PR skills in creating something called ‘the Jayne Ozanne Foundation’. Welby took her with him to Rome to meet the Pope, so he clearly has some regard for her. All these things are a matter of public record.
They may or may not be ‘public record’ but I don’t find these personalised exposees kind or in any way discreet. It’s people’s private life.
As for a person being a ‘troubled soul’… I find that a kind of ad hominem smear to belittle the theology and arguments that should be discussed for themselves. I dare say Saul of Tarsus was a ‘troubled soul’.
As far as I can see this woman, whose private life you are hanging out like washing, is incredibly courageous, and cares, and wants a Church that includes people…
I feel the same about you citing those two bishops.
More unseemly libel. Quite sick making.
More unseemly libel
You do realise that to be a libel something has to be untrue, right?
S, let me put it another way.
How do you think it would make her feel?
I disagree strongly with some people’s theological views, but I would never drag their private lives into it.
How do you think it would make her feel?
Feelings are irrelevant to whether something is a libel or not.
S
Yep. That’s why I called it out.
See above re Jeremy Pemberton.
Yep. That’s why I called it out.
So what’s the lie?
See above re Jeremy Pemberton.
What was the untruth there?
Is there domething wrong with the appointments of the Bishops of Grantham and Sherborne?
Well anyway, as Ian says (above) he is: “not interested in hosting personal ad hominems in these comments.”
I’m pretty sure that applies to the very personalised remarks about Jayne. “Ad homs” address the person not the arguments. Jayne’s private life relationships (if they’ve ever existed) are irrelevant to theological debate, and unseemly.
You are completely missing the point. Everything said here is what Jayne Ozanne has herself stated. In 2004 she resigned from the Archbishops’ Council, stating somewhat apocalyptically:
“I see a time of great persecution coming, which will drive Christianity all but underground in the West. I believe that this will primarily take the form of a social and economic persecution, where Christians will be ridiculed for their faith and pressurised into making it a purely private matter” – a very charismatic-sounding trope.
Years later, she talked publically about a relationship she had with an unnamed priest whom she hoped to marry, and she claimed on Channel 4 News that this priest had sexually abused her. Afterwards she spoke about a five year relationship with a woman – all of these and other things we would know nothing about unless she had discussed her own life and experiences so publically.
People may choose to talk about themselves in public, but they cannot then determine how others may interpret their stories.
James, this is supremely ironic, given that she herself is visiting the ‘social persecution’ on orthodox Christians herself.
Odd. ‘Social persecution’. Would you care to define that and give an example, Ian. You have previously said that I called you ‘evil’ on social media.
https://www.psephizo.com/biblical-studies/why-is-the-ascension-the-most-important-moment-in-the-new-testament/#comment-424683
I am sure that I didn’t, because I don’t think you are, but I asked you to cite the link/evidence for that claim. I think it is false. But you never responded. You left that accusation hanging over my head. I think that was unfair. I pray for you, for goodness sake.
It was suggested that I make a formal complaint about that, because it was a slur which you wouldn’t substantiate. I don’t think I’ve ever called anyone evil in my life. Of course, I didn’t complain.
What I have done is disagree with a number of your theological views, especially on sexuality. I urged my family church to make sure – as part of the LLF process – that they present a balanced set of views on sexuality, and not just a conservative view (which you were providing as a teaching day). I suggested they also got a liberal speaker as a simple matter of balance. The question of balance was my concern. It was not personal.
Indeed my words to the vicar about you were (and I quote and you can check with her):
“I don’t think Ian is a bad man. In fact, I feel protective and warm towards him for his ardour. But his voice is by far not the only voice in the Church. It is at one extreme, frankly.”
That statement represents my continuing view of you.
I think that riled you? But wasn’t LLF meant to explore diverse views and try to understand better the mind of the Church when there are two contrary views held in good conscience?
What riled (or at least saddened me) was that you accused me of calling you ‘evil’ on social media. I never have unless I’m going mad. But I did (I think fairly) ask you: *where* did I say that? Isn’t that fair to ask? I asked you on Psephizo (where you made the allegation)… you can follow the comments that run from the link (above)… and I also asked you (politely) by email.
You never answered.
You left the allegation hanging over me.
My complaint about Jayne’s private life being regurgitated is that I think we should agree/disagree about theology and views… but not bring in people’s private lives… I would never do that to you.
Nor would I call you ‘evil’ because you are not. I have made that clear repeatedly.
I wanted to clear this up by private email but you wouldn’t. So I let it drop. Now you’re levelling accusations at me again.
What am I to do, Ian? Just take it? I will, because it’s the Christian way. But you said I “called you ‘evil’ on social media”… no. Nor am I socially persecuting you. I have even defended you against others. And I regularly pray for you. I mean what am I supposed to do?
My complaint about Jayne’s private life being regurgitated is that I think we should agree/disagree about theology and views… but not bring in people’s private lives…
This would be more plausible if you didn’t bring you own private life up at every opportunity.
Indeed they are Susannah. Moreover Jayne (nor Jeremy) are here to defend themselves. It seems that some ad homs are OK if they are attacking people who aren’t approved of on this site.
If you or I or anyone here wants to reveal stuff about their private lives that is our own choices. It is not the same as dragging the private lives of others, who are not here, into the debate.
Besides, if all James has against Jayne is that she resigned from AC and had two relationships, he’s a bit desperate for dirt.
I think he’s already been told that Jeremy did not leave his wife for a man, but he continues to spread his lie.
As for Jayne spreading social persecution what a wicked thing to say about a woman who has given her life to the church. I wouldn’t put up with the abuse she has received from so called ‘orthodox’ Christians.
Penny, Jeremy sometimes comments here, as does his partner. Jayne has done in the past. There is nothing to stop any of them. Unlike people who attack me behind my back, I do not block them.
Jayne is working full time coordinating a campaign which would make much Christian prayer ministry illegal, and she has gone on record as saying that people should not be allowed to teach the doctrine of the Church, ‘according to the teaching of our Lord’, because it counts as spiritual abuse—another of her campaigns.
It seems that some ad homs are OK if they are attacking people who aren’t approved of on this site.
I don’t think you understand what argumentum ad hominem is. It’s not anything to do with personal attacks. It’s a fallacy of irrelevance where someone’s personal characteristics are brought in as spurious evidence either for or against their arguments.
An ad hominem argument doesn’t have to be negative, although it can be — ‘his arguments must be wrong because of his dubious personal hygiene’ is an ad hominem. But it can be positive too — ‘she must be right because she is so kind and thoughtful’ is just as much an ad hominem argument, because how kind someone is is just as irrelevant to the truth of their arguments as their B. O.
In this case, it would be argumentum ad hominem if Jayne Ozanne’s personal background had been brought up as an argument against her ideas: ‘she only thinks that because she is bitter against the church because of her failed relationship’ would be a classic ad hominem (sub-type: Bulverism).
However in this case that’s not what happened. The point at issue is not Jayne Ozanne’s views, but whether Justin Welby can be properly said to have helped her advance those views. And obviously Jayne Ozanne’s employment history with the organisation which Welby heads, and which Welby can therefore be assumed to at least tacitly approve of, is clearly relevant, as is, especially, the fact that Welby took her to Rome to see the Pope (presumably, to make the case for her views directly to the Pope).
I believe at one time Jayne Ozanne also reported IP to the police and initiated a disciplinary complaint process in an attempt to take his ministry down.
Fortunately it didn’t succeed.
Ian
I know Jeremy and Laurence sometimes comment here, usually in response to the sort of libel James is spreading.
Jayne’s opposition to conversion therapy would not stop prayer ministry. Nor do her views – or those of David Runcorn and other evangelicals – undermine ‘orthodoxy’.
The conservative evangelical view of scripture and tradition is just as unorthodox as the inclusive evangelical and the liberal. Until the late 19thC no one in the church would have known what we were talking about with regard to sexuality and marriage. And we simply ignore the bits of tradition we don’t like. CEEC has just quoted Augustine approvingly on Twitter. Not even Christopher Shell and HJ would totally agree with Augustine’s view on the immorality of contracepted sex.
Tradition changes. That is what makes it tradition.
‘The conservative evangelical view of scripture and tradition is just as unorthodox as the inclusive evangelical and the liberal’
These groundless assertions of your convictions don’t add anything to the discussion. I really don’t know what world you are living in when you claim Jayne’s views are ‘orthodox’. It’s odd.
‘Tradition changes. That’s what makes it tradition’. Huh? Black is the new white?
I don’t know where Penny got her information on contraception but it is wrong. I am thoroughly opposed to it in all its artificial manifestations, but in many cases the facts/consequences speak for themselves anyway. That does not mean I agree with Augustine on every point.
Ian
Tradition is the handing down of the flame not the worshipping of ashes.
Penny, you seem to think that tradition is lighting another flame which might or might not bear any resemblance to the previous one.
To dismiss eg the teaching of Jesus as understood by the church catholic as ‘worshipping ashes’ is a pretty shocking put-down.
“The majority want the acceptance of same-sex marriage or blessing of same-sex partnerships.”
There is a basic question though. If this is not the mind of the Church on the appropriate teaching for gay people, then what is?
Is it that gay people are essentially, by definition, outside the elect and therefore not part of the Church and the Church doesn’t need to provide any particular teaching for them? No one seems to want to say this out loud (although you can detect the inference from a few). There’s a simplicity to it, although it would run entirely counter to Scripture and our understanding of what it means to be a catholic Church.
Is it that gay people aren’t really gay, because being gay doesn’t really exist? The teaching would then be that they need to change, to be cured if you will, and embrace their natural underlying heterosexuality. They would then be free to enter heterosexual marriages just like everyone else. This would be a significant departure from Issues in Human Sexuality, but folks like the leaders of the Church of Nigeria and the Church of Uganda might like it. It would have big problems though. The history of the ex-gay movement have shown this teaching to be a disaster and utterly false. Indeed the implosion of Exodus International over a decade ago has been a key trigger behind the current shifts in opinion.
Is it that being gay triggers a command to lifelong celibacy? In essence, we would be telling people to live as monks and nuns, except that where real monks and nuns are a vanishingly small number of people freely choose their vows (from their mid-20s but often much older than that), we’d be commanding thousands of people, telling them that the vows had effectively been made on their behalf already, at the age of 16, to no particular purpose. That’s all some very serious, heavy stuff. We don’t dare try that teaching, or anything like it, with the general congregation. I have never heard a preacher go anywhere near suggesting young people ought to choose a vow of lifelong celibacy, or want to talk about it. Likewise the implication is that existing gay couples ought to be told to break up, and if they are married or in civil partnership that the Church requires them to divorce. It’s far from a traditional teaching of the Church, and would require a lot of theological and pastoral guidance work to actually implement. There are serious Scriptural objections to having commands to celibacy, and this sort of teaching to young people is open to abuse. The few who do advocate for it, are consistent in saying the Church is terrible at helping them actually live it, and that significant reform is needed for this to really work.
Or is it that gay people absolutely can enter covenanted lifelong partnerships with each other (much like marriage) as long as there’s no sex? This is what we ask of clergy in civil partnerships, but it doesn’t seem to be working because we feel to need to poke and pry to test whether the relationships are sufficiently non-sexual. The lines are fuzzy, and no one likes the questioning (and many apparently don’t believe the answers). So this might be cleared up by being much more explicit about where we think the line actually is. What counts as sex, and what is forbidden in such relationships?
If you want to be taken seriously, and reverse or ignore the February vote in Synod, you’re going to have to speak plainly and clearly about what you think the Church ought to doing instead and how you intend to test the support for it. Right now all I see is disingenuous game-playing, debate club point-scoring, and gas-lighting.
The mind of the Church?? What do you mean by ‘the church’? Why use the term so loosely? The mind of which particular church denomination? So what if the third largest denomination says something? That is not determinative. It is not saying that anyway, except in a partly-uninformed minority.
What you inaccurately call ‘the Church’ seems to have taken thousands of years to have this so-called ‘mind’. Did it have no ‘mind’ for all that long period?
That is even before we consult the Founder.
(!)
Don’t know whether you’ve noticed Christopher, but that’s what the article we’re supposed to be commenting on is about…
What we might find is:
the extremely divided mind…
or rather emotions and feelings, not mind…
not of the church but of the more politically minded members…
of the world’s 3rd largest denomination…
independent of the actual Founder of the church….
All of which central points you simply ignore.
Christianity is a faith of the heart, soul, and mind, Christopher. It’s not a mental game in your head. Church teaching needs to be practically applicable, not a debating club point. We are talking about how real people ought to lead their actual lives, not simply what should be said about homosexuality as if it’s a theoretical philosophical point of little practical relevance. That echoes Jesus own approach to teaching about the law – he constantly challenges to consider the purpose and principles involved and then apply it practically. The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath.
Christianity is a faith of the heart, soul, and mind
Christianity isn’t a faith ‘of’ anything. Christianity is a faith in Jesus, the first-century Jew who was God and creator of the Universe.
No, AJ Bell, that is wrong.
It is heart to the max, soul to the max and mind to the max. You are recommending that the mind part be only half hearted. That is directly opposed to the dominical ‘*all* your mind’.