Last rites for ‘Living in Love and Faith’?


Andrew Goddard writes: It is only two weeks since a leak from the House of Bishops concerning their proposals following the discernment period of the LLF process prompted instant and vehement reactions that spread further when it was followed the next day by a press release giving more details officially. It was not until Friday 20th that the documentation was released (formally known as GS 2289) with an accompanying press conference. Many bishops expressed their support for the proposals and in subsequent media coverage the Archbishop of York’s appearances on Radio 4’s Today and Sunday programmes were particularly significant contributions.

I have been trying to understand and evaluate the bishops’ letter and proposals in the context of returning from the privilege of again spending time with the Communion Partners in North America. These bishops, clergy and laity have remained within The Episcopal Church in the US and The Anglican Church of Canada although they hold to Anglican Communion teaching on sexuality and the vision of life in communion embodied in The Windsor Report and the proposed Anglican Communion Covenant. Their situation as a relatively small minority in their churches is not easy but it was a great encouragement to see how God continues to bless their faithful witness in what are very challenging circumstances as they seek to navigate and negotiate a degree of differentiated existence through what TEC calls Communion Across Difference.

Since the leak, and especially since GS 2289 appeared, I have been in numerous conversations, particularly with evangelical friends, where the CEEC meeting last week was particularly intense. Our considered assessment of the bishops’ response is captured in the communique.  At the weekend I spent a morning with a small group of students and it was encouraging to see them, to varying degrees aware of the political storm and theological issues at stake, able to continue in calm conversation and careful, reasoned reflection across their differences over same-sex marriage as they reflected on the response from the bishops to LLF and their hopes for the future.

Why we need to pause

Despite that sign of hope, on the whole the LLF flame has appeared over the last fortnight to be in danger of being extinguished. That was always a serious possibility as soon as its more discursive, reflective educational approach moved into a more focussed, deliberative political phase. The real risk now is that it will be totally snuffed out at General Synod next week if we proceed as planned.  I am therefore convinced that if the Synod is genuinely, in the opening words of the motion, committed to “learning and deep listening to God and to each other” and desires “with God’s help to journey together while acknowledging the different deeply held convictions within the church” then it would be best not to vote on a motion on the proposals at the February Synod. Instead it would be better to reflect further on the bishops’ proposals there and leave a synodical decision until July. Stepping back and pausing in this way is, I believe, what is best for the LLF process, our corporate discernment, and our unity and may be the only way of preventing serious harm to them, even destroying them.

I realise that there are various possible objections to taking such a route including that:

  • it may simply give time for more entrenchment and political manoeuvres,
  • “if it were done when ’tis done, then ’twere well It were done quickly”,
  • it will be viewed by some as lacking nerve and seeking to kick the can further down the road,
  • there may perhaps be procedural difficulties of which I am unaware.

It may also of course be the case that Synod strongly wishes to express its mind on 8th Feb. I think, however, that a powerful argument can be made for such a relatively short but potentially significant extension to the discernment process being the most prudent course of action given where we are. This is for at least the following six reasons:

  1. Due to various multiple factors beyond the control of the House, the formulation, transmission and reception of its discernment has been less than ideal:
    • the loss of the first meeting of the College in September
    • the speed of the finalisation of the documentation
    • the leak and the initial framing of the proposals by the media
    • the use of a press release in response to that which then, along with other remarks at the press conference and subsequently, further shaped how the documents have been received and how different parts of the church have rapidly responded
  2. The novel elements within the proposals and some of their nuances were always going to be hard to convey. These communication challenges have made it almost impossible for the proposals even to be understood properly let alone carefully assessed. This has triggered what was always a high risk: that the bishops’ discernment would simply be judged against existing, well-worn theological paradigms and political positions and be found wanting (and I think the degree to which this has been so has been even higher than expected). The evidence for this is that I have yet to see a predominantly positive assessment of the materials other than from bishops and instead there have been multiple questions of clarification and interrogation (as evident in the number submitted by Synod members) and highly critical public statements with many feeling, as I currently do, “compelled to resist” or, alternatively, wrestling with whether or not to accept the “crumbs from the table”.
  3. As a result (with the notable exception of my weekend students) the atmosphere I have experienced has become much less amenable to reasonable and prayerful discernment. The still fragile elements of cultural change which LLF has thankfully brought about do not appear to me strong enough at the moment to bear the weight of reverting to a confrontational debate and hasty Synodical decision. Emotions are still too high and many are reverting to tribe and trench.
  4. Reception of any new proposals in the life of the church properly takes time and I believe Synod members and the wider church (both here in England and further afield) need more time to have any chance to fulfil, in relation to GS 2289, such central LLF aims as deeper understanding, mutual listening, and prayerful reflection and discernment. We have spent over 5 years in learning and reflection after GS 2055 fell and encouraged church members to spend 5 weeks on a course. Now it appears – as we move to the crucial phase of deliberation that LLF resources held back from shaping and addressing – these timeframes have been reduced to less than 3 months for the bishops and less than 3 weeks for Synod members. I cannot see how – particularly given the points above – this can be right.
  5. The problem of needing more time to listen to one another and to God, to understand, and to come to an informed and settled mind is even greater because of the substance of the bishops’ response:
    1. many of the key elements in the proposals from the bishops introduce new themes and questions which were not explored within LLF. Notable here are those relating to (a) the relationship of holy matrimony to different forms of civil legal status and (b) the distinctions drawn between prayers of and for blessing and blessing people but not relationships or ways of life. Legal advice on the former has only been released in the last few days, the “more detailed exploration” of “our deeper understanding of the theology of blessing” said to be “available on the Living in Love and Faith website” (p6) is not obviously available.
    2. some key elements within the LLF book and course are not addressed in the bishops’ proposals. These include (a) our theological disagreements over how we understand inclusion, (b) the pattern of holiness to which we are called in Christ, and (c) how we evaluate the theological and ecclesiological significance of our disagreements in this area and then respond faithfully as a church to them. Some of these may be addressed in the pastoral statement, so deferring decision until that is available seems reasonable.
    3. there is much confusion as to the ways in which and extent to which what is being proposed develops or departs from previous episcopal and synodical statements and lack of clarity as to the theological rationale for this. For example, how these proposals relate to the 1987 General Synod motion, Lambeth 1.10, the teaching document on marriage, previous pastoral statements, GS 2055, and the Feb 2007 GS motion on how “to prevent the diversity of opinion about human sexuality creating further division and impaired fellowship within the Church of England and the Anglican Communion”.
  6. At the moment there appear to be two likely outcomes of pressing for a vote in just over a week: either a repeat of GS2055 and a defeat or a victory but one which could be very narrow (52/48?) and/or alienate overwhelmingly a significant proportion of Synod members, those they represent, and much of the Anglican Communion, leading to significant consequences.

Rather than enter that new post-decision phase in under two weeks, which will bring further pressing challenges and questions and likely worsen the environment for the work that still needs to be done, is it really not possible to pause a little longer where we now are and take stock?

Professor Oliver O’Donovan wrote a significant review for the Covenant website of the LLF book when it came out which is worth revisiting now just over two years later. In particular, its final paragraph, though rather sharp in places, seems particularly relevant at this crucial time, perhaps even prophetic, and captures a central element in my own concerns:

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.

What could then happen?

This need not mean withdrawing the paper but instead Synod using its time next week differently with more focus perhaps on continuing to work within the LLF spirit and addressing matters such as:

  • clarifying the proposals and answering questions;
  • enabling group work and collating feedback on the most contentious clauses of the motion and points such as those in 5i and 5iii above so that the bishops can reflect further and respond to Synod’s concerns by July;
  • perhaps some form of indicative voting to signal preferences and/or strength of conviction (I understand something like this was done among the bishops).

It may be that a debate format could also help but I think that to shift back to such a confrontational setting-out of positions should only follow a serious sustained attempt at LLF-style conversational exploration of the substantive proposals and any debate should not lead immediately to a decisive vote.

The period to July could then be used to take things forward and prepare the ground for a decision-making process there in various ways:

  • Providing more resources on key areas such as those set out above in 5.  These might be, or draw upon, the working papers supplied to bishops. This would be in line with LLF principles such as transparency and assisting theological reflection and the pastoral principles such as addressing ignorance, speaking into silence, paying attention to power;
  • Expanding the proposed process for pastoral statement revision to include reviewing Synod members’ feedback on GS 2289;
  • Receiving face-to-face feedback (as the Next Steps Group did in August/Sept) from key networks;
  • Enabling facilitated conversations between these networks and within each diocese’s GS reps. These would focus on both GS 2289 and plans for the new pastoral statement;
  • Engaging, if needed, both Parliament and Communion (through ACC in Ghana in February and communication with Primates).

On looking to God

On Sunday, feeling rather low about where things currently stand, I was encouraged both by the words of Nehemiah in our Bible reading – “Do not grieve, for the joy of the Lord is your strength” (Neh 8:10) – and a reminder of the words we repeated regularly at St James the Less throughout the pandemic. They have sustained me regularly through these discussions, since summer 2005 and my first visit over to the group that is now the Communion Partners. Words that are also used in the final session of the course: “We do not know what to do, but our eyes are fixed on you” (2 Chron 20:12).

Here is a pointer to what we need above all: sustained prayer for our bishops and Synod members that they may fix their eyes on God and know his joy and strength in these difficult, challenging times.


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.


DON'T MISS OUT!
Signup to get email updates of new posts
We promise not to spam you. Unsubscribe at any time.
Invalid email address

If you enjoyed this, do share it on social media (Facebook or Twitter) using the buttons on the left. Follow me on Twitter @psephizo. Like my page on Facebook.


Much of my work is done on a freelance basis. If you have valued this post, you can make a single or repeat donation through PayPal:

For other ways to support this ministry, visit my Support page.


Comments policy: Do engage with the subject. Please don't turn this into a private discussion board. Do challenge others in the debate; please don't attack them personally. I no longer allow anonymous comments; if there are very good reasons, you may publish under a pseudonym; otherwise please include your full name, both first and surnames.

315 thoughts on “Last rites for ‘Living in Love and Faith’?”

    • I think Sean Doherty is assuming there is ‘a way forward’ not allowing that one of the available possibilities is that the existing way is the best available.

      After all these years there are not going to be major new insights or paradigm shifts.

      But on the bright side, a great deal of thinking has already historically been done.

      We have now got to the stage of fanfared apologies which are a total waste of time since they just repeat what has already been said. So we can expect others in the future that again repeat the same thing, as though for the first time?

      There is the larger danger that there is a narrative and a programme that there must be change. That is ideologically driven. Who told you there must be change? Is it just a meme that has entered people’s mentality?

      In Parliament in particular, there was a lot of teleological thinking that simply assumed that the direction of travel can be one direction only. How presumptuous, and how arrogant. Teleology is not only a logical fallacy, it does not even fit the data. It is a projection of people’s selfish wishes and desires.

      Further, there is a present day assumption that everything must constantly be changing, but that is a business and branding thing, not to be confused with things like biology!

      And lastly there is a longstanding agreement that God’s immutability (which is not the same as immobility) is a strength.

      The Catholic model of unchanging dogma makes new insights difficult to incorporate. But its strength is that it keeps the deposit of what is sure and certain so far, and potentially that can be refined and the picture filled out. The idea that nothing at all is sure and certain is just thoughtless.

      Reply
    • I agree with him up to number 4.

      I think these points are really about actual marriage and not whatever it is that is being proposed.

      I find it very strange that he genuinely thinks that gay couples having to “shop around” to find a church willing to marry them would be *more* upsetting than being banned from marrying in any church. Maybe it puts priests in the awkward situation of having to speak their convictions, rather than hide behind a bishop, but that’s a different issue.

      Reply
  1. While I appreciate your position, but I don’t feel more time will do anything. I look at this issue as having been an open sore that has festered for decades. Over this time the theological liberals have gotten stronger in the church. Their hearts are hardened and can only accept what many have openly expressed. We see this in that it appears to be extremely difficult for those who uphold the orthodox view of the Bible to be ordained. As in the USA and Canada the end result for the liberals will be same-sex marriage. If fact is this is already a reality as there are married homosexual clergys in the CofE who are parish priests.

    I see the only hope will come from the laity. They must push back. They must defy their bishops. They must grow their churches adhering to the Bible and the Anglican formularies and demand nothing less from their clergy. To do this they must be willing to face scorn from the liberals both in the church and in the general public, to be denied access to certain diocesan support and possibly losing their priest or even the church building but the alternative is walking away from Jesus.

    Reply
    • This has festered for decades because the CoE is explicitly a national church rather than a body of people called out from the world (the national culture) spiritually, while living in it physically. As it stands today, the CoE is never going to expel anybody for heresy – and unless the liberals are expelled, they will continue to chip away at the foundations of the Christian faith until the Last Rites have been sounded not for LLF but the CoE. The bishops are stabbing faithful clergy and laity in the back: how can a faithful Anglican evangelise somebody and then tell them to come to a church in which Christians who take the scriptures seriously are in stark disagreement with the Archbishops? Evangelicals who would be unable to remain in the CoE if it enacts gay church weddings need to follow their own logic, which is that they are presently sharing the CoE with people they do not recognise as Christian, and say so openly and act consistently with it, before *they* are forced out.

      Jayne Ozanne sees this coming to a head at July’s General Synod too, for she is tabling an amendment asking that proposals for gay church weddings be brought to that meeting.

      https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2023/3-february/comment/opinion/why-the-church-must-decide-now-on-same-sex-marriage

      Reply
      • The Church of England is the established church in England with the King as its head and always has been (except under Oliver Cromwell).

        Inevitably it will ultimately allow homosexual marriage in line with English law yes. As the established church Parliament will ultimately ensure that

        Reply
        • That is possible, although not definite and I don’t think you are a prophet. In any case God outranks the State and has made his views clear in the Bible. If the CoE deserts him, he will desert it and raise up other faithful in this land.

          Reply
        • Pretty sure that Jesus, not the King is head of the CofE.

          Even I concided that point to you, then the head of the CofE wasn’t “the King” as short a time ago as – checks calender – last year when it was the Queen.

          Pedantic? Yes, but your sloppiness and inaccuracy with this causes the same mistakes in ALL your arguments.

          Reply
  2. Having read Martin Davie’s Green Tests [both 1 and 2] in the latest Latimer Trust email, while I sympathise with Andrew Goddard’s Christian ‘have extra-ordinary patience’ as Our Lord has with us, I rather suspect the time to ‘stand firm’ is now.

    Reply
  3. If there is a vote at Synod it will likely narrowly favour at least the blessings proposed in LLF, maybe even full homosexual marriage if a vote allowed on that too. The direction of travel is clear even if not yet at the 2/3 majority required for full homosexual marriage.

    Ultimately Communion Across Difference as pursued by TEC is the model. As the article states it allows those who do not agree with homosexual marriage to stay in the Anglican church with an opt out from it while liberal Catholic Parishes that do agree with it can perform homosexual marriages in their churches.

    It would be similar to the situation now in the Church of England which gives Anglo Catholic Parishes an opt out from having women priests and Bishops. So evangelical Parishes would have an opt out from homosexual marriages too

    Reply
  4. Might work if everyone played fair and by the rules and were prepared to listen and reflect. I don’t think the Bishops want to play fair. They have set their course and will not stop until they achieve same sex marriage services. In the process I believe they will destroy the Church of England as we know it. So sad.

    Reply
    • I see it as the exact opposite! (Most of) The bishops keep saying that they oppose SSM and will never agree to it. It’s just nobody seems to believe them when they say it.

      Granted there are a few who buck the trend, a few who are rumoured to hold different views in private and a few who have changed their public positions, but in general they have been very consistent on saying no to SSM

      Reply
      • I see it as the exact opposite! (Most of) The bishops keep saying that they oppose SSM and will never agree to it. It’s just nobody seems to believe them when they say it.

        I think it’s pretty clear that the bishops (as a whole, at least) see their primary job as saving the Church of England; and that, like Abraham Lincoln, if they could save it without allowing same-sex marriage they would do that, and if they could save it by allowing all same-sex marriages they would do that, and if they could save it by allowing some same-sex marriages and not allowing others, they would also do that.

        That’s not true of all of them, of course: some see it as their job to fight for equality of same-sex marriage. A very few see it as their job to stand up for the traditional theology of marriage.

        But acting as a body, they clearly have as their goal ‘come up with something that will end the fighting, with as few people leaving the Church of England as possible’. Hence the doomed attempt at constructive ambiguity.

        Reply
        • From my point of view the two biggest reasons for decline in the CofE (and most denominations) is the appalling response to sexual and other abuse by church leaders and the failure to adapt to major social changes (democratization of information, most people no longer remaining in the same postcode all their lives, most families having all adults working full time).

          Most people who don’t attend church dont have strong feelings either way about theology of gay people or marriage, but do care about issues of abuse

          Reply
          • Compared to the Roman Catholic Church instances of sexual abuse in the Church of England are relatively low. Partly as it allows married priests and women priests

          • Most people who don’t attend church dont have strong feelings either way about theology of gay people or marriage, but do care about issues of abuse

            No they don’t. Most people who don’t attend church just can’t be bothered to and don’t see why they should. They don’t like admitting that though, because it sounds like they’re just saying they’re too lazy to get out of bed on a Sunday morning, so if you ask them they say that it’s because of abuse or gay marriage or something, because that makes their sheer can’t-be-botheredness sound like a point of high principle.

            But if the Church stopped all abuse and did everything they wanted on same-sex marriage, they still wouldn’t come. They’d just find something else to complain about, or they’d mutter something about being so busy and it’s the only time they have to lie in / do the shopping / take the kids to the park.

            Because fundamentally they just don’t want to go to church and they don’t see why they should.

            There’s no point trying to appeal to such people. They will never come.

          • I can tell you parents certainly *do* care if their kids are going to be safe or not if they take them to church. Single people too care if they are going to be safe or not. And ethics is the new black. Personally there are a few big companies I don’t use because I disagree with their ethics. That’s what people are like now.

            Because of the internet church no longer has the educational or social pull that it once had. It needs to be of use to people for them to give up hours of their precious family time/down time to attend. Calling these people “lazy” will only make them even less likely to bother.

          • I can tell you parents certainly *do* care if their kids are going to be safe or not if they take them to church.

            And yet they send them to school, and far more abuse went on in schools than the church. Or sports clubs. No, it’s not rational; it’s just an excuse.

            Because of the internet church no longer has the educational or social pull that it once had. It needs to be of use to people for them to give up hours of their precious family time/down time to attend.

            No, it doesn’t need to be ‘of use’. The point of church isn’t to be ‘useful’. It needs people to realise they are commanded by the rightful authority of the universe, and to obey. But people nowadays don’t like obeying. They like to think they’re in charge of their own lives. That’s the fundamental problem of the age.

            Calling these people “lazy” will only make them even less likely to bother.

            So what? Their loss.

  5. For Roman Catholics of course God abandoned the C of E as soon as Henry VIII abandoned Roman Catholicism and made him the head of the English Church not the Pope, the successor of St Peter!

    Puritan evangelicals too also believed God had abandoned the Church of England in the 17th century. Hence when Cromwell was Lord Protector he abolished the monarchy, executed the King, scrapped the BCP and abolished the Bishops! Only after the Restoration was the full C of E restored.

    Hence even today Anglo Catholics and evangelicals often wail against rest of the Church of England!

    Reply
    • Your “Hence” is historically inaccurate. It never occurred to Cromwell and the Puritans when the civil war began that they might end up running the country. All they ever wanted was parliament to be consulted over taxation policy and the freedom to hold services of worship in their own way. But they were up against an absolutist monarch and a like-minded ‘high’ archbishop, and both sides were willing to escalate without bound. Charles, a serial breaker of his word to others (and of his coronation oath), and Laud who had peaceable puritans flogged for their ecclesiological pamphlets, got what they deserved. England was a sovereign nation at that time, and by calling down a Scots army to reinstate him in 1648, Charles unquestionably committed treason against the people of England. Through the 1650s there was complete freedom of protestant worship, although those who disturbed the peace were dealt with as usual.

      Reply
      • No there wasn’t freedom of worship at all for Roman Catholics or even high church Anglicans under Cromwell. Only for Puritan and Calvinist Protestants. Traditional high Anglicans weren’t even allowed Bishops after he executed their King!

        Reply
        • Check what I wrote. I said there was freedom of *protestant* worship in the 1650s. I did not say that there was freedom of Catholic worship. And you could hold protestant servies as high as you liked, but not in the Church of England and not subsidised by the landownings of that church. Those restrictions were the only ones.

          Check your history and please tell me whether you agree.

          Reply
          • So Cromwell tried to destroy the Church of England, no BCP or bishops and confiscation of property from Roman Catholics too

          • T1, you keep changing the subject when you are corrected. I’m happy to keep pointing this out for readers and keep going. If Cromwell wanted to destroy the Church of England then he would have stripped it of its property holdings, in the way various continental governments did to the Catholic church starting from the Revolutionary era. Any group of Christians were free to set up an episcopal system throughout England during the 1650s, but they would not have owned the historic buildings or the land. It is quite true that the denomination which owned those assets was not run with bishops in the 1650s, but plenty of puritans called it “but partly reformed” under Queen Elizabeth and wished it to move to the presbyterian system as in Scotland. The real question is what system of church polity is found in the New Testament. I could answer that but it’s getting a bit far from the subject matter of the essay at top.

          • The Church of England was set up by Henry VIII to be a Catholic Apostolic Church with the King as its head and with Bishops and a Book of Common Prayer setting the order for services. Oliver Cromwell scrapped all that, so from 1649 to the Restoration the Church of England effectively ceased to exist and instead became a Puritan, Presbyterian church

          • Though the BCP was only completed under Edward VI, it was Cramner as Henry VIII’s Archbishop of Canterbury who began the work of creating a liturgy for the Church of England

          • No, T1, the accurate statement is that the Established Church of England went presbyterian under Cromwell, not that it ceased to exist. Any group of Christians were free to set up a nationwide episcopally run church. It would have had no links with the State, no income from land rent and no ancient buildings, but where are those in the New Testament?

          • No it did cease to exist. By definition a Presbyterian church is NOT an Anglican church. An Anglican church is a Catholic and Apostolic Church not just a Protestant and Reformed Church. The Church of England was also founded with Bishops and the King as Supreme Governor, without that there is and was no Church of England under Oliver Cromwell

          • No it did cease to exist. By definition a Presbyterian church is NOT an Anglican church.

            How bizarre. Do you also think that the United Kingdom ceases to exist every time a different government is elected? Or that the monarch ceases to exist when there is a queen instead of a king?

      • No, the UK would only cease to exist if Scotland left it as it was founded in 1707 by the union of Scotland and England. Just as the Church of England would cease to exist if the King was not head of it, it being created in 1534 so the King could be head of it not the Pope.

        The monarchy would obviously only cease to exist if we became a republic, it continues whether we have a King or Queen

        Reply
        • Just as the Church of England would cease to exist if the King was not head of it, it being created in 1534 so the King could be head of it not the Pope.

          And you never explained why you think that was a good thing, did you? I wonder if you even can.

          Reply
    • Yes, though even that paper wants to ‘find ways to recognise and welcome’ same-sex relationships – see page 7:

      Same-sex relationships can, of course, be lifelong, loving, committed, faithful, and provide deep and
      enduring companionship. As such the church needs to find ways to recognise and welcome such
      relationships, without explicitly or implicitly changing her teaching by doing so.
      1

      And the footnote says:

      1 The test of liturgical means of doing so is set out in the Pastoral Introduction and the Notes to Prayers of
      Love and Faith: they are required to be ‘”neither contrary to, nor indicative of any departure from, the doctrine
      of the Church of England in any essential matter” (including, but not limited to, the definition of Holy Matrimony
      in Canon B30). The question is whether the draft prayers of Love and Faith, with their sample service, meet
      that requirement and we recognise there is proper concern from many that they do not.

      Reply
    • Yes, though even that paper wants to ‘find ways to recognise and welcome’ same-sex relationships – see page 7 – ‘without explicitly or implicitly changing [church] teaching by doing so.’

      And the footnote says:

      1 The test of liturgical means of doing so is set out in the Pastoral Introduction and the Notes to Prayers of
      Love and Faith: they are required to be ‘”neither contrary to, nor indicative of any departure from, the doctrine
      of the Church of England in any essential matter” (including, but not limited to, the definition of Holy Matrimony
      in Canon B30). The question is whether the draft prayers of Love and Faith, with their sample service, meet
      that requirement and we recognise there is proper concern from many that they do not.

      Reply
    • “6 CIVIL MARRIAGE AND SAME-SEX RELATIONS Same-sex relationships can, of course, be lifelong, loving, committed, faithful, and provide deep and enduring companionship. As such the church needs to find ways to recognise and welcome such relationships, without explicitly or implicitly changing her teaching by doing so.”

      But what if Same-Sex Relations are sinful? How can the Church “welcome such relationships”?
      This is the whole point, which does not seem to be faced in this article.

      Phil Almond

      Reply
      • Philip

        I think this is the nub of the issue. The bishops have failed to explain why they believe SSRs are a bad thing and have got themselves into a position where they are teaching that SSRs are amazing, but prohibited, which is unsatisfactory to gays, conservatives and conservative gays.

        Reply
  6. By July the Church of England will have taken more than a decade to reach an initial response to the legalization of same sex marriage in England.

    If it waits for another decade then it will be trying to reach adults who were born to parents in same sex marriages.

    SSRs are either evil or they’re not
    They are either equal to OSRs or they’re not
    They are either permissible for priests/readers/laity or they’re not.

    The only thing worse than having no opinion is having 18 contradictory opinions.

    Reply
    • it will be trying to reach adults who were born to parents in same sex marriages.

      Really? The laws of biology were broken only once, 2000 years ago, and not to a same-sex couple.

      Reply
      • I know lots of same sex couples who had kids in wedlock (if that’s still the right expression). Indeed a same sex married couple in my church are currently heavily pregnant.

        Being gay doesn’t make you infertile.

        Reply
        • I know lots of same sex couples who had kids in wedlock

          You don’t though, do you? You know same sex couples, one of whom is carrying an illegitimate baby, because there’s no way both of the baby’s parents are the ones ‘married’ to each other.

          Reply
          • It’s being born to married parents

            But the baby’s parents aren’t the ones who are married to each other, right?

          • S

            I said pretty clearly that the babies parents are a married couple. You personally might not recognize their marriage, but that’s frankly irrelevant to my point.

            My point is that the CofE is storing up for itself more theological and pastoral problems by continuing to kick the can down the road.

          • I said pretty clearly that the babies parents are a married couple. You personally might not recognize their marriage, but that’s frankly irrelevant to my point.

            You said they were a same-sex married couple. Which means they can’t be the baby’s parents, can they? Because to make a baby you need a sperm and an egg and between them a same-sex couple can’t scrounge up both, can they? So either the sperm or the egg must have come from someone else, right? So either the baby’s father (if they are both women) or the baby’s mother (if they are both men) must not be part of the marriage, correct?

            It’s got nothing to do with whether I or anyone else recognises the marriage as valid; It’s simply a biological fact that the baby’s parents cannot be a couple in a same-sex marriage, because between them they are lacking one or other of the vital ingredients for making a baby, aren’t they?

          • Put it this way: there are two people who are in a same-sex marriage. There are also two people who are the parents of the child. The first two people cannot be the same two people as the second two people. At most, there can be an overlap of exactly one person who is one of the first two people and also one of the second two people.

          • S

            Yes they are married, same sex and are the baby’s parents. Unless one of them has stuffed a pillow up their sweater, it is incredibly obvious that they are the baby’s parents.

            Being gay doesn’t make you infertile!

          • Yes they are married, same sex and are the baby’s parents.

            No they aren’t.

            Unless one of them has stuffed a pillow up their sweater, it is incredibly obvious that they are the baby’s parents.

            I assume from that they are both women. Very well. So: the parents of the baby are its father (who provided the sperm) and its mother (who provided the egg). Neither of them, as they are both women, can be the baby’s father. So they are not, in fact, the baby’s parents, are they?

          • S

            I dont know who provided the sperm. Normal people dont ask those kinds of intimate questions unless they are very close.

            To me parent is both a noun and a verb. Its more than just a one off ejaculation. In my wider family we have parents who are straight, but who adopted children. Nobody would accuse them of not being the child’s parents. These are double standards again.

          • ‘I dont know who provided the sperm. Normal people dont ask those kinds of intimate questions unless they are very close.’

            This is not an ‘intimate question’. It is a basic question about biology. Half of the child’s DNA comes from the sperm. It could be vital to know for medical reasons, and of course will determine all sorts of characteristics of the child.

            The idea that essential biology is reduced to matters of personal choice shows how far we have moved from valuing actual facts and knowledge.

          • I dont know who provided the sperm. Normal people dont ask those kinds of intimate questions unless they are very close.

            But you don’t need to know who provided the sperm you know that it can’t have been one of the couple. That’s the point.

            To me parent is both a noun and a verb. Its more than just a one off ejaculation. In my wider family we have parents who are straight, but who adopted children. Nobody would accuse them of not being the child’s parents.

            Adopting a living child whose parents are unable to look after it is rather different from bringing into existence a child with the deliberate intention of estranging it from one of its parents from birth, though, isn’t it?

          • Ian

            On finding out a straight couple you know are pregnant, I really doubt you would ask them “who provided the sperm?”.

          • On finding out a straight couple you know are pregnant, I really doubt you would ask them “who provided the sperm?”.

            It can be a valid question, for example if the wife is known to have been having an affair during the period when the baby was conceived. There’s a whole paternity test industry set up just to answer that exact question. You can even get them from Boots: https://www.boots.com/dna-clinics-paternity-dna-test-kit-10223968

            But the point is that I’m this case we know, for sure, that the baby’s father is not one of the couple. There’s no need to ask. We already know that the baby’s parents simply cannot be the same people as the couple; that’s just biology.

          • It can be a valid question

            And specifically if a woman not known to be in a sexual relationship with any man were to turn up pregnant, ‘So who’s the father?’ would be an entirely reasonable question (though it could be put with varying levels of tact).

            And if I understand your situation that’s exactly what has happened, isn’t it? A woman, not known to be in a sexual relationship with any man, has shown up pregnant. Hence ‘So who’s the father?’ is an entirely reasonable question.

            Because there must be a father, right?

          • S

            It may well be a valid question for a close family member or the child when they grow up. It’s not something that it’s polite for someone in my position to ask and it doesn’t matter to me in any case.

            My point was that if the church of England waits much longer it will have an entire second generation of beneficiaries of SSM to not have anything to say to!

            Who knows what the current teaching as God’s desired path for my friends even is? Give the child up for adoption, get a divorce and live a single and childless existence? It’s frustrating because there just seems no interest at all with actually engaging with real people in SSRs/families or even people who want to be in a SSR. It’s still all just about protecting the institution, which ironically I think is the fastest way to end the church…And the CofE isn’t alone!

          • It may well be a valid question for a close family member or the child when they grow up. It’s not something that it’s polite for someone in my position to ask

            But like I keep saying, you don’t have to ask. You know, without asking, simply from biological realities, that the two people in the same-sex married couple are not the child’s parents.

            So there’s no need to be impolite and ask. You know, we all know, without needing to ask. Because that’s simply how biology works.

            Will you accept that now? Will you accept biology?

            It’s still all just about protecting the institution, which ironically I think is the fastest way to end the church…

            Well that’s correct. See what I have written passim on the bishops’ main goal seeming to be to find a deceptive constructive ambiguity that can keep the Church of England together — a fudge that does not exist.

          • S

            Sorry if I am thick, but I still don’t understand how you can persist in saying that the couple are not the real parents and (assuming they used a sperm donor, which I don’t know for certain) that a person who donated sperm, not expecting any responsibility, who has no legal standing to claim the child, who doesn’t want the child and is not going to spend the rest of their life parenting the child is somehow the legitimate parent?

            I also think you would not tell a straight couple who used a sperm donor that they were not their child’s real parents or a straight couple who adopted for that matter! Parenting is more than an ejaculation

          • Sorry if I am thick, but I still don’t understand how you can persist in saying that the couple are not the real parents

            Do you really need me to explain basic biology to you?

            a person who donated sperm, not expecting any responsibility, who has no legal standing to claim the child, who doesn’t want the child and is not going to spend the rest of their life parenting the child is somehow the legitimate parent?

            Again; basic biology. Yes that person is the baby’s father.

            Obviously they are a very bad father, as they have abdicated all the responsibilities they have towards their child. They should be ashamed of themselves.

            But a bad father is still a father. How they act doesn’t change the biological reality.

            I also think you would not tell a straight couple who used a sperm donor that they were not their child’s real parents or a straight couple who adopted for that matter!

            You are wrong to think that, then. Because that is the biological reality.

            Parenting is more than an ejaculation

            Try that one on the Child Support Agency. ‘No, I don’t have to pay, all I did was ejaculate!’

  7. Might I recommend, ‘Creation and Covenant: the significance of sexual difference in the moral theology of marriage’, Christopher Chenault Roberts (2007). I am enjoying reading this trenchant reflection on the revisionists. It rather reinforces my long held opinion that, in contrast with Roman Catholics, Anglican bishops, by and large, are not very bright, nor well read. The book is expensive (£40+) so hurrah for the Bodleian!

    Reply
  8. My analysis, based on ‘liberal’ social media and the ‘Thinking Anglicans’ site, is that doctrine on marriage will not change this February but proposed ‘blessings’ may well be introduced… unless everything gets delayed as Andrew suggests until July.

    There are two discernable fronts to the ‘liberal’ grouping. The Inclusive Church organisation is urging its hundreds of members to get Synod members to ‘welcome’ the Bishops’ proposals. The ‘welcome’ is called for in (e) of the Bishop of London’s motion.

    However, Jayne Ozanne is proactive in seeking support for Synod members to call for ‘amendment’ so that the whole issue of gay marriage in church can be addressed in July.

    Personally, I oppose the ‘Inclusive Church’ call for votes welcoming the Bishops’ Response (‘Equal’ organisation is also calling for the ‘welcome’). In accommodating the Bishops’ Response what’s happening is that these toxic divides are just perpetuated.

    I favour Jayne Ozanne’s approach but I am unsure it will get the necessary support. Most social ‘liberals’ seem to want to ‘cut and run’ and take the ‘advances’ (the public blessings in church) as a stepping stone to press on in the end to gay marriage in church.

    On the ‘conservative’ side, it could be said it’s also worth a ‘cut and run’ (given the blessings are optional and bless people not marriage). I say that, because substantively the ‘conservatives’ have won with the bishops’ Response on the key central issue of no doctrinal change: the ban on gay marriage in church remains.

    The negative aspect of ‘conservatives’ taking the ‘win’ on doctrine is basically trojan horse and slipper slope, where the blessings become more widely experienced in churches, and existing and future bishops slowly shift further towards the ultimate liberal goal of gay marriage.

    However, in my opinion, the new accentuation on the difference between civil marriage and matrimony may be seen as a vital ‘conservative’ card, because it can be used to justify the doctrinal status quo, and to ‘fix’ down that status quo, because of this increased emphasis of a two-tier system, with matrimony IN the Church, and marriage locked OUT of the Church. In other words, the close legal observations in recent days might help embed and perpetuate the differences. Not only may the ‘conservative’ group have ‘won’ on the core doctrine, but the rationale of the two-tier system may be used to quarantine gay and lesbian couples outside of the Church, even if they do get prayed over as people, but not in your conservative churches.

    Backing up the perception that the bishops may have actually firmed up the conservative position is the claim by Christopher Cocksworth, Bishop of Coventry, that the majority in the House of Bishops (including himself) actually believe that marriage as matrimony in the church should only be between one man and one woman. If that is true, there is no way gay marriage is going to pass, and the bishops shouldn’t even blame the laity for that. They should own their collective conservatism themselves.

    If you trust them…

    So… liberals defeated on doctrine which is getting embedded to exclude gay marriage… but still probably ‘welcoming’ the package for what’s on offer, as a steppong stone.

    Conservatives… possibly best to play for time to July but take the doctrinal win then and hope to tighten up the as yet undeveloped Pastoral Guidelines, making sure the blessings are policed and in no way reference the word ‘marriage’.

    People totally happy: zero. Oops, sorry… the bishops.

    Likelihood of further slippage towards further liberal advances: maybe 50%.

    Anton’s case for outright rebellion against the Bishops’ innovations: that at least would be principled. That’s one thing I’ll grant ‘conservatives’: they fight for their beliefs.

    Case for outright rebellion against the Bishops by liberal churches: very strong, but very unlikely to happen, because of weaker approach, and resting hopes on the slippery slope.

    My view: ring-fence the Church of England into two groups with their own oversight – the accommodation of the reality among us which is two opposite views.

    You may not like that, but at least we could move on. Likelihood of that option happening: low unless forced by ‘conservatives’. But you have the doctrinal ban already, guaranteed for at least 5 years, and unlikely to be changed beyond that without consensus.

    Conclusion: social liberals hope there will be a slippery slope and further advance to gay marriage… 50% likelihood. ‘Conservatives’ can choose either to ‘ride’ their doctrinal win, or like the 14 bishops who seem more conservative, take the ‘purity’ option involving a kind of partial UDI because unwilling to co-exist with the gay blessings they see as polluting the church.

    You all: can you live with the blessings or not?

    Me: I oppose the bishops’ Response as completely unacceptable. I may have that in common at least with some of you. And at least you have convictions, which I recognise. Incidentally, the statement of the 14 bishops released this week is absolutely beautiful. It’s not my position but I’ve rarely seen the ‘conservative’ case presented so well:
    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1aYyMitqZL7c0ftjxM3_maGmptBzVVz_D/view

    Reply
    • As a fellow liberal on this issue, I echo your comment that conservatives fight for their principles. I’d also like to thank Andrew for writing such a nuanced and comprehensive piece.

      I must agree that ring-fencing — whether via multiple provinces or another method — is the only way forward that doesn’t lead to a messy and bitter divorce (or worse chaos). I’d genuinely like to see conservatives take the lead on this while they’re in control of the Church structures.

      Most of all I’m just sad that we are where we are, but since that’s the case, let’s at least try and find a path ahead together, even when that necessitates walking apart.

      Reply
      • I must agree that ring-fencing — whether via multiple provinces or another method — is the only way forward that doesn’t lead to a messy and bitter divorce

        Seriously, though, how would ‘ring-fencing’ work, theologically? You can’t possibly have a church which says that you can either believe that the Bible is the totally reliable Word of God, authoritative in all matter of faith and morals; or that it’s a book written ultimately by fallible human beings, who were sometimes inspired by the Holy Spirit in the same way we all are, trying to figure out the divine and making discoveries and mistakes along the way.

        Think of it this way: a country has to have a legal system with a single highest point of authority, right? So in Scotland they have Scots law and in England they have English law, and the two are different, and the courts are different, but ultimately the House of Lords (or the more modern innovation of the Supreme Court, for however long that lasts) is agreed by everybody to be the final authority. You can appeal the decisions of lower courts, but once you get to the court of final appeal, the decision is made.

        And you couldn’t have two courts of final appeal, one in Edinburgh and one in London; one has to be subservient to the other. Otherwise there’s chaos, because if they were to make contradictory rulings, and neither had authority over the other, what would the law be? You could say each was supreme in its own jurisdiction, but then you don’t have a single country, you have two countries. You have exactly that bitter and messy divorce.

        And as with law, so it has to be with theology. You have to have a final point of reference for theological questions. Otherwise how can you settle what the denomination believes? If you don’t have an agreed final point of authority, then anybody can believe anything. Total anarchy. Chaos.

        And how can a church which internally has such chaos, where anybody can believe what they want, credibly claim to the world outside that it has the Truth? If it can’t even agree internally on what ‘truth’ even is?

        That might be okay for your Andrew Godsalls, who don’t think that ‘truth’ and ‘religion’ occupy the same domain. But for most people, when a church claims something like, ‘Jesus died and rose again’, they are understood — rightly — as making a claim of fact about something that actually happened, not just saying, ‘in a very real sense, the idea of Jesus’s resurrection speaks to us of a deeper truth…’ and all that guff.

        So yes, droning on, but I do have to ask: how on Earth could ‘ring-fencing’ work, theologically?

        Reply
        • I agree ring-fencing is a non-starter. We should never have allowed the opt-outs on women Bishops – either have women Bishops on the same grounds as other Bishops or don’t have them at all. The whole notion of opt-outs make a nonsense of episcopal oversight. Now that compromise hangs over the Church and allows people to think they can wall themselves off from everyone else if they could just get a right opt-outs and structural changes through.

          Reply
          • Not at all. There is no way at all that the conservatives will accept being a fringe group here because that would mean that the mainstream was ungodly (either in reality or in their eyes or both). And they would never countenance a church being ungodly in its mainstream.

          • You might need to take that up with CEEC, who are arguing for “a permanent structural rearrangement resulting in visible differentiation.”

        • Higton passed General Synod near-unanimously in ’87: if having an authoritative ruling settled things, that would’ve been that. But it doesn’t. Even in the secular courts, people can work for reversal.

          That being so, when an organization’s as split on an issue as the CoE, the answer’s either toleration and provision or divorce. I prefer the first option if at all possible.

          As for making it work theologically, given that the CoE’s in full Communion with the Nordic churches via Porvoo (and its individual parishes cover the candle from more austere than a Free Church to more sumptuous than St. Peter’s), there must be a way, even if that way’s as modest as a declaration that the CoE can’t reach a consensus on the matter.

          Reply
          • As for making it work theologically, given that the CoE’s in full Communion with the Nordic churches via Porvoo (and its individual parishes cover the candle from more austere than a Free Church to more sumptuous than St. Peter’s), there must be a way, even if that way’s as modest as a declaration that the CoE can’t reach a consensus on the matter.

            I had no idea what a Porvoo was (some kind of anthropomorphic bear?) so I looked it up … and discovered that the declaration was in 1992, before same-sex marriage was even thought of. And almost certainly no one since has wanted to open the can of worms. So clearly it hasn’t been made to work in that case, it had just been ignored by all confused.

            So come on then. How could it work, theologically?

          • it had just been ignored by all confused.

            That was supposed to be ‘has just been ignored by all concerned ’… but maybe right the first time?

          • (Reply to S) Theologically, since most evangelicals won’t accept that marriage is adiaphora / “a thing indifferent,” I expect that the CoE would have to set up distinct oversight structures (such as new provinces) to offer different understandings of marriage, with theological coherence being limited to within each structure. Overarching theological coherence is, I freely accept, not gonna work in such a broad church.

            Which is why I raised Porvoo: yes, it predates equal marriage, but I’ve seen no movement to revoke it in light of that, creating a precedent of full altar and table fellowship between churches with different understandings of marriage and with it, a potential path forwards.

            Since I can’t (and wouldn’t presume to) speak for evangelicals, I can’t say exactly which provision would be acceptable. If none is, then it’s a full parting of the ways. Porvoo however offers hope that it need not be so.

          • I expect that the CoE would have to set up distinct oversight structures (such as new provinces) to offer different understandings of marriage, with theological coherence being limited to within each structure.

            So basically two totally separate denominations then.

        • But its has not to work theologically!
          Sometimes, theological incoherence is the right path. Theological coherence is not a cardinal virtude. I do doubt God is concerned about it.

          Reply
          • But its has not to work theologically!

            It has got to work theologically.

            Sometimes, theological incoherence is the right path.

            No it isn’t. That’s just silly.

            Theological coherence is not a cardinal virtude. I do doubt God is concerned about it.

            Intellectual honesty is a virtue. I am sure God doesn’t mind if people do their best and make an honest mistake; I don’t think He likes it at all if people are intellectually lazy or, worse, practice deception, and self-deception, by such means as constructive ambiguity and equivocation.

        • A thing I personally struggle to understand is why Conservatives can accept a modern interpretation of scripture on a great many things, but seem to think the bible is so clear cut when it comes to gay people or SSM that any acceptance is equivalent to a complete abandonment of scripture.

          Scripture is far clearer on women speaking in church, remarriage after divorce, lying and even slavery, yet modern interpretation didn’t end adherence to scripture. Why is this one thing so different to anything else?

          Reply
          • There are the New Testament verses that maintain the Jewish prohibition on same-sex sexual activity and there is also the absence of any verses that could be interpreted as ‘pro-gay’.

            Paul almost certainly would have known that there were other romantic options in life (based on natural inclinations) but he did not recognise them as valid for those who were part of the early Christian communities.

            The only criticism of ‘conservatives’ that might have some validity is that they fail to recognise the human dignity of those who don’t adhere to their moral standards.

          • Joe

            Potentially pro SSM passages off the top of my head

            Gen 2.18-25 – it’s not good for man to be alone, Eve is made for Adam from his flesh because there’s nobody else suitable for him, not because God wants to force him together with someone he is unsuitable for

            Matt 22.23-40 – Jesus is dismissive of the religious establishments penchant for complicated marriage rules and sets axioms for the God’s law – love God and love your neighbor – against these two we are to interpret all law

            Matt 25.14-30 – the parable of the talents. Hiding away in the closet may seem the safe course for the gay Christian, but it’s not the safe course with God because you are intentionally not using the talents that he gave you

            Rom 10.9-13 – Paul says incredibly plainly what the minimum criteria for salvation are and they do not include attraction to the opposite sex, marriage, fertility, none of it. The criteria is faith. Not faith plus heterosexuality.

            1 Tim 4.1-4 – actually warns against listening to people who want to stop you from marrying.

            I would certainly like to have seen far more discussion of what the bible says to gay people in all of these discussions, but we never seem to be allowed to. The bible reads very differently if you look for what it says on a topic versus if you are living the topic and are looking for how you should live.

          • Ian

            The biblical texts are far clearer on women speaking in church, remarriage after divorce, lying and slavery.

            The biblical texts do not mention same sex marriage.

          • Peter, it is so bizarre for you to wheel out these poor arguments, when they have been rehearsed so well in the literature and on this blog. What you say is entirely and demonstrably untrue.

          • Ian

            Are you claiming that the bible does explicitly condemn same sex marriage (and if so where)?

            Or

            Are you claiming that Jesus doesn’t teach that most remarriage is adultery?

            Just telling me I’m wrong doesn’t really answer the question I put.

          • S

            Lots of people who believe that the bible and/or correct theology doesn’t condemn same sex marriage dont agree with universalism.

            However I’d assume almost all universalists agree with SSM

          • Lots of people who believe that the bible and/or correct theology doesn’t condemn same sex marriage dont agree with universalism.

            Lots eh? Name six.

        • People keep on with this message that those who disagree with you are don’t believe the Bible, but there many (even most) do! They just don’t agree with your interpretation of it. Jonathan Tallon’s new book “Affirmative – Why you can say yes to the Bible and Yes to people who are LGBTQI+” sets this out very clearly.

          You can disagree with his interpretation but do not characterise those who disagree with you as not having a Biblical view.

          Reply
          • I am sorry—that is not true. I have explored Jonathan’s claims previously in different posts. His claims are based on unfounded claims, and the vast majority of serious commentators think he is quite wrong.

            This isn’t really about ‘interpretation’.

          • People keep on with this message that those who disagree with you are don’t believe the Bible, but there many (even most) do! They just don’t agree with your interpretation of it.

            This would be a lot easier to believe if the people holding this ‘interpretation’ didn’t also hold un-Biblical positions on a lot of other doctrines where the Bible is even clearer, such as judgement and the virgin birth.

            At the point you’re pushing, say, universalism, it becomes much harder to credit the idea that this is merely a disagreement about the precise translation of a Greek word in one of Paul’s letters. Rather it looks like instead of seeing the Bible as God’s written Word, you see it as a bunch if documents written by fallible human beings trying to figure stuff out, who got some stuff right and some stuff wrong; and by ‘interpretation’ you don’t mean trying to figure our what message God is trying to convey to us through the Bible but something far closer to ‘working out which bits of the Bible are right and which are when the Bible authors got things wrong’.

            And at that point it’s not just a disagreement about interpretation, is it? It’s not a disagreement about what the Bible says — it’s a disagreement about what the Bible is.

            Jonathan Tallon’s new book “Affirmative – Why you can say yes to the Bible and Yes to people who are LGBTQI+” sets this out very clearly.

            Case in point. I haven’t read the book but I have read Tallon’s recent Tweetering about Paul’s latter, the thrust of which seems to be that Paul couldn’t have been condemning loving, faithful same-sex relationships because Paul didn’t know such things could exist.

            Now, that’s contentious in itself (Ian Paul, whom you may have heard of, does a good counter-argument that (St) Paul may well have been aware of such. But leave that to one side and concentrate on what it assumes about the Bible. Specifically as an argument it rests on the premise that Paul’s letter must be read in the context of what Paul could have known; and that if Paul didn’t know about something then his letter can have nothing to say about it.

            But the orthodox Christian view is that while St Paul may have been the immediate author of his letters, the fact some of them are in the canon of the Bible means that, of those ones in the canon, God was thenultimate author. That doesn’t mean that God used Paul as an amanuensis; but it does mean that it is not primarily Paul who is trying to communicate with us through the letters of his which ended up in the Bible, it is God.

            And God certainly knew about the possibility of faithful, committed same-sex relationships, right?

            So to even use the ‘Paul didn’t know, therefore…’ argument is to display a totally different idea of what the Bible is to the orthodox Christian view. To say that what Paul wrote is limited to what Paul knew is to deny that the Bible is not Paul writing, but God writing through Paul.

            So I think it’s in fact totally fair to say that ‘ those who disagree with you are don’t believe the Bible’. Specifically that those who disagree don’t believe the Bible is the written word of God, that God is its ultimate author, and that it is God who is communicating with us through it. Instead they believe that the books of the Bible were written by their human authors, who could be wrong, and were limited by their time and place.

            And that’s not a view of the Bible compatible with orthodox Christianty.

    • That’s one thing I’ll grant ‘conservatives’: they fight for their beliefs.

      Generous of you but if that were true then the Church of England would not be in this mess today.

      Reply
    • I think with church disagreements it often helps not to think of conservatives and liberals, but conservatives, centrists/unityists and liberals. Theres also a second dimension of ideological versus practical.

      Reply
    • Susannah
      “CIVIL MARRIAGE AND SAME-SEX RELATIONS
      Same-sex relationships can, of course, be lifelong, loving, committed, faithful, and provide deep and enduring companionship. As such the church needs to find ways to recognise and welcome such relationships, without explicitly or implicitly changing her teaching by doing so.”

      “…..but I’ve rarely seen the ‘conservative’ case presented so well:”
      “Conservative”!?
      If Same-Sex Relations are sinful How can the Church welcome them?
      But this is not even mentioned in the article!! either as a view to be approved or a view to be denied.

      Phil Almond

      Reply
  9. If we are true to scripture, evangelicals should not remain in fellowship with this current crop of sneaky underhand Bishops.

    Personally I believe a clean break is needed. Any hope that liberals will pause or modify their agenda is a forlorn hope. This will go the way of the Episcopalian Church in the USA. Might take time to play out but watch and see.

    Reply
    • In case it is not clear to some where Scripture stands – and of course its authority is very much in point here – perhaps the most relevant passages are I Cor 5:9-13 (immediately before the specific mention of sodomists) and II Cor 6:15-7:1. The much neglected letter of Jude should also be listened to, especially Jude 3-4 and 23.

      Reply
      • Where does Scripture stand?

        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?

        Reply
        • Scripture says that if you not called to celibacy, you should be able to marry

          No, it doesn’t. Lots of heterosexual people not called to celibacy never find someone to marry. Nowhere does the Bible promise a spouse to anyone who wants one.

          Reply
          • Who’s saying you are promised a spouse? All I’m pointing out is that 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 able to marry:

            “To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain unmarried as I am. But if they are not practicing self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion.” – 1 Corinthians 7:8-9

            “If anyone thinks that he is not behaving properly towards his fiancée, if his passions are strong, and so it has to be, let him marry as he wishes; it is no sin. Let them marry.” – 1 Corinthians 7:36

          • All I’m pointing out is that 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 able to marry:

            Well, firstly, it says no one should stop you marrying, rather than that the world should be so arranged as to make you able to marry. It is, to paraphrase Isiah (Berlin), a negative freedom to marry, not a positive freedom.

            But secondly it all hangs (as the whole discussion does) on the definition of ‘marry’. If ‘marry’ here means only an opposite-sex relationship then ‘if you struggle with celibacy you should be able to marry’ means, ‘if you struggle with celibacy, and you can find an appropriate person (probably another Christian), and then circumstances are all in order, the no one should stop you entering into a lifelong monogamous male/female relationship’.

            So your argument here basically comes back again to what sort of things are included under the word ‘marry’.

            Look at it another way. Say someone’s sexual urges were exclusively towards children. Would them saying that they weren’t called to celibacy mean therefore that they should be able to marry a child, to avoid burning with passion? Of course not. St Paul certainly sees marriage as a way of avoiding some sexual sin but it’s clearly not a way of avoiding all sexual sin. So again it comes back to, what is the definition of the word ‘marry’?

            If you think it just means ‘enter a sanctioned sexual relationship’ then I can see why you’ve come to the conclusion you have but that is not the traditional Christian understanding of the word nor I would suggest was it St Paul’s understanding and it certainly wasn’t Jesus’.

          • Jesus, for example, did not say, ‘a man who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, but if they can’t control themselves, it is better for them to marry than to burn, so if the divorcé is not called to celibacy then let him marry’.

          • Can’t help but notice S, that you don’t feel the need to root your arguments in Scripture any more.

            To pick up quickly on the suggestion that this is a gateway to pedophilia or that pedophiles should marry children. You’re obviously not actually arguing for that, so I won’t go into the whole thing, but from just looking at the passages of Scripture I’ve already cited:
            Pedophile actions would violate Romans 13 – love does no harm etc.. Pedophilia is abusive. It is harmful to the child. It shouldn’t need saying, but is not loving to your neighbour to sexually abuse them as a child. A pedophile marriage would also not fit, to put mildly, with Genesis 2 (marriage is for companionship), Ecclesiastes 4 (support in marriage is mutual), 1 Corinthians (marriage is not one-sided, but responsive to the needs of both) etc. etc.

          • Can’t help but notice S, that you don’t feel the need to root your arguments in Scripture any more.

            Don’t know why you say that? The definition of marriage comes from Genesis 1 which is about as ‘rooted in Scripture’ as it gets.

            To pick up quickly on the suggestion that this is a gateway to pedophilia or that pedophiles should marry children. You’re obviously not actually arguing for that,

            Clearly not.

            The point is that your argument clearly cannot be ‘anyone who has sexual urges and is not called to celibacy should be able to marry’ because you agree that there are some sexual urges the satisfaction of which is incompatible with the definition of marriage.

            So the question just becomes, are sexual urges directed towards members of the same sex in that category, ie, are they incompatible with the definition of marriage?

            You are that they are not but your arguments are not convincing because your arguments are based on the ideas that the only things that could make sexual urges incompatible with marriage is that they are abusive or harmful. But that is simply not the case from the Bible. We have from Jesus an example of where a marriage would not be abusive or harmful but is nevertheless not allowed because it does not fit with God’s purpose for marriage as given in Genesis 1, ie, the remarriage of a divorcé.

          • The remarriage of a divorcee often is very abusive and harmful indeed.
            Firstly, as Jesus says, it adulterates. 7th commandment with all its real life agonies.
            Secondly, it does so permanently with no healing, i.e. festers irresolubly.
            Thirdly it is highly abusive and harmful (to the very max) to that person’s spouse who now sees their loved one yoked with someone else.
            Fourthly it is damaging to the divorcees’ (instigators’) souls.

      • Ah, decided to leave the CofE and join your local unitarian church then because you dont like the doctrine of the CofE or that the Bishops have said they will never approve ssm?

        See how silly I sound? The only way to make my “zinger” of a statement more desperate would be to add “nahnahnahnah” to it.

        That’s how you come acccross EVERY time you post so.ething like this.

        It doesn’t hurt us, it doesn’t sap our morale, ir makes us think “wait a minute, perhaps the liberals are running scared and we should double down.”

        Reply
    • Because it’s only 10 years old I think you will find very few people who are firmly for SSM, but are unaware of Conservative arguments against it. Because it’s new people have had to move to a position of accepting it.

      There seem to be still a lot of conservatives who are unaware of progressive arguments for SSM, hold inaccurate understanding of gay people have not really put themselves in the gay persons shoes.

      With this in mind I think its more likely that a person moves from Conservative to liberal on this issue than vice versa.

      Reply
      • Why have they had to move that way? They can, and should, move any way the evidence points. Anything else is bandwagon unresearched conformity, which apparently approx 80% of people deploy habitually.

        Reply
        • Christopher

          Because it’s new.

          Most people will have never even considered it before.

          This is why the CofE has had a decade of navel gazing – because same sex marriage became legal.

          My point is that most people who support SSM already know the arguments against it, whereas I think a lot of people who oppose it have never heard arguments in favor or never even acknowledged the existence of people who experience exclusive same sex attraction, much less thought about their lives.

          Reply
          • My point is that most people who support SSM already know the arguments against it, whereas I think a lot of people who oppose it have never heard arguments in favor or never even acknowledged the existence of people who experience exclusive same sex attraction, much less thought about their lives.

            It’s certainly true that a lot of people whose basis for opposing same-sex marriage was never based on serious theology or logic have, after meeting gay people and finding them relatable, shifted their position.

            But note that their new position is no more based on serious theology or logic than their old one! It’s not that they knew the arguments against same-sex marriage, then heard the arguments for, considered the two carefully and decided that the arguments for are stronger! Rather, they have never considered the arguments for either position; they have moved from one unconsidered position to another unconsidered position basically for emotional reasons.

            And emotional reasons are no basis for holding or switching position. When deciding on an issue we should as much as we are able remove all emotion from our thoughts and consider the evidence and arguments totally dispassionately.

            Most people don’t do that, for any issue, but I think of those who do, most realise that you cannot with logical consistency both support same-sex marriage, and see the Bible as the authoritative, reliable Word of God.

            So yes, in summary, a lot of people have shifted from anti to pro; but they haven’t shifted because they were convinced by the arguments, they’ve shifted from one shallow emotional-based opinion to another, and that’s not a good basis for holding or shifting an opinion.

        • Why have they had to move?

          The catastrophic collapse of the ex-gay movement. Until that happened (in the early 2010s) you still had a lot of people, despite what Issues in Human Sexuality said about this, persisting with the belief that gay people could change and it was therefore a choice and always had the option of becoming heterosexual and having a married life. This lines up with a very old teaching (from St John Chrysostom down) that homosexuality isn’t really a orientation, and instead an excess of sexuality, and that like everyone else the homosexual needs to settle down into a heterosexual marriage. When the ex-gay movement was revealed to be an absolute sham that left people confronting a very uncomfortable implication – that if same-sex marriage is not possible, gay people are being instructed into lifelong celibacy without any calling for it. For protestants in particular this is difficult as the protestant churches walked away from any meaningful embrace of celibacy in church at the time of the reformation.

          Reply
          • Does scripture say celibacy is a ‘calling’ or a necessity in certain circumstances ?

            Also per your earlier comments, are you seriously saying that Paul thought it was legitimate for a person with same-sex attraction who was ‘burning’ with passion to either enter into a heterosexual marriage (even though their sexual passions wouldnt be directed towards their spouse) or some sort of same-sex sexual relationship?

  10. The Bishops Response has flushed out a few things:

    1) A lot of people in the debate are still reluctant to engage with the central issue. The focus has for most been on some version of the question, “can same-sex marriage be permitted?”. But the real question is, “what are gay people to do?”. Sadly, this means that the liberal side is left unsure about what moral guidance there is, and the conservative side completely overlook elements like the blessings of convenantal friendships and commitment to work further on celibacy and chastity. And what some of this has revealed in the last couple of weeks is that there is still a strand of thought in some conservative circles that sexuality doesn’t really exist, no-one’s really gay, and it’s about finding the right girl/boy to marry.

    2) For a number of Church leaders the central argument has shifted. There was a time when this debate was characterised by poring over Leviticus and Romans. Now it would seem the real central text is Ephesians and the symbolism of marriage as a metaphor for Christ and the Church, with the consequence that sex difference is absolutely defining for it. This throws up a few things:
    – instead of seeing marriage as a handy metaphor for St Paul to use to explain Christ and the Church in Ephesians, the argument becomes that the main purpose God had for instituting marriage in the first place was to provide such a metaphor to be used.
    – it’s not clear at all how this elevation of marriage is supposed to fit with celibacy being seen as preferable by St Paul. It puts me in mind of the Greek philosophers who saw finding your sexual partner as part of a grand cosmic plan, which is at odds with Christian view that marriage is only for this life and doesn’t feature in the next.
    – and it’s hard to square the centrality of cosmic symbolism as a reason for marriage with the degree to which the Church has become comfortable with divorce (far more so than the Roman Catholics for example).

    3) the Bishops in placing Holy Matrimony, driven by the considerations of Ephesians, but acknowledging civil marriage set up a new divide: Ephesian Holy Matrimony which is about cosmic symbolism, and civil marriage which is about comfort and avoiding the strife of burning with passion in singlehood as envisaged in 1 Corinthians. We have Ephesian and Corinthian marriages. Even the conservative Bishops seem to want this: in their paper on the doctrine of marriage they write “Same-sex relationships can, of course, be lifelong, loving, committed, faithful, and provide deep and enduring companionship. As such the church needs to find ways to recognise and welcome such relationships” and that they want to “find appropriate ways to affirm the goods of same-sex relationships”

    If we are to take more time over this, we need to engage with what the Bishops have surfaced. It is not, despite the best efforts of people like the Church Society, an exercise in simply rehearsing the same debating points over and over again.

    Reply
    • 1) A lot of people in the debate are still reluctant to engage with the central issue. The focus has for most been on some version of the question, “can same-sex marriage be permitted?”. But the real question is, “what are gay people to do?”.

      Well, no. Surely the real question is, ‘is human nature essentially good and pleasing to God, so that whatever desires people naturally feel are to be celebrated as being part of their essential, God-given selves; or is human nature essentially corrupted, so that obedience to God (for straight people as well as gay) means laying aside our desires?’

      Until that’s sorted out all sides will just be taking past each other. You need to sort out the fundamentals before you move on to more complex issues.

      For a number of Church leaders the central argument has shifted. There was a time when this debate was characterised by poring over Leviticus and Romans. Now it would seem the real central text is Ephesians and the symbolism of marriage as a metaphor for Christ and the Church

      Isn’t the central text Genesis 1? It was for Jesus.

      Reply
      • I think Scripture is pretty firm about believing there is a command to lay aside our desires being a dangerous idea. In Matthew 19 Jesus frames marriage in the context of sexual desire (that’s what the reference to Genesis 1 and 2 is about). In 1 Corinthians 7 Paul warns very explicitly against believing there is a command to celibacy, even as he says celibacy is preferable. Sexual desire is not to be laid aside or repressed, but channelled into marriage.

        Reply
    • The focus has for most been on some version of the question, “can same-sex marriage be permitted?”. But the real question is, “what are gay people to do?”

      Same answer as for non-gay people: Obey God. God gives grace wherever it is needed to those who approach him in faith and repentance. God makes clear what one needs and doesn’t need to repent of in the Bible.

      Rev’d Sam Allberry and Rev’d Vaughan Roberts experience sexual attraction to other men and are celibate. They have been justified and are being sanctified by the blood of Jesus Christ. They can answer your question in greater depth if you go to them.

      Reply
      • I’ve read Sam Allberrys book.

        He has really struggled with loneliness despite having a lot of support in his community that simply isnt there for the vast majority of people.

        Its glib to say God provides grace, when loneliness kills. The answer cant be to blame God all the time

        Reply
        • Many people struggle with loneliness. It’s a fallen world and Christ called his faithful followers to pick up their cross. Many of them are persecuted for their faith in Him. May I plead for a little perspective? And are you accusing God’s grace of being insufficient?

          Reply
          • I’m saying that the CofE is not practicing what it teaches and that gap is pushing gay people into being even more isolated and lonely.

            Plenty of faithful Christians die for lack of nourishment. I think the “Gods grace” argument doesn’t work. If Gods grace made life easy for faithful believers then Sam and Vaughn would have recieved miracles making them straight.

          • Sam and Vaughan don’t think that. But if you reckon God’s grace is insufficient then take it up with him., not his inadequate servant with whom you are currently discussing these matters. I recommend you read the Book of Job first, though.

          • Anton

            It’s not that Gods grace is insufficient. It’s that it doesn’t necessarily supply all our needs.

            I knew a very faithful, kind and lovely young Christian lady who died of cancer. God didn’t take that away from her despite endless prayer.

            It’s illogical to say that faithful celibate/single gay people wont struggle with loneliness because of Gods grace.

          • It’s not that Gods grace is insufficient. It’s that it doesn’t necessarily supply all our needs. I knew a very faithful, kind and lovely young Christian lady who died of cancer. God didn’t take that away from her despite endless prayer.

            It is, Peter, an unpleasant way to die, but there is no good way out of this world and God introduced death as a punishment for all. Please meditate on that.

          • Anton

            This is exactly the issue that Jayne Ozanne and others are raising. They are asking how church teaching can be good if it leads people into death.

          • If we are going to talk about leading people into death, what is the average age at death due to disease of active homosexual men and celibate men?

          • Anton

            Its impossible to know what the death rate is of gay people.

            Like straight people, unsafe sex reduces your life expectancy.

            Gay men are on average more likely to be promiscuous than straight men (or at least more honest about it!), but gay men are also more likely to be celibate.

            In recent years new cases of HIV amongst gay men have plummeted thanks to new preventive medication and of course, thanks to other new medication, HIV/AIDS is not the killer that it once was.

            I’d say the biggest problem really is younger gay men are not recieving useful sex ed (I certainly got none as I did all my schooling under section 28). “Just don’t be gay” is impossible advice. “Just dont have sex” is impractical- most young people hearing that would ignore it

        • Actually correction I think it was Ed Shaws book (it was approaching 10 yrs ago), but both are in a similar situation in the CofE

          Reply
          • I really commend Ed Shaw’s honesty, but he does show up the problems with “gay means celibacy” approach. In his comments on the Bishops Response it’s quite clear that he does not regard his celibacy as any sort of calling. Rather it is a church instruction, which is why he finds shifts in that instruction so distressing. As you say, he’s very open about the huge support he has from his church family, but it still ends with him bawling on his kitchen floor about the awfulness of it all. David Bennett (who takes a similar view to Shaw) refers to it as a martyrdom rather than a calling. The casual disregard for all this is very worrying.

      • It’s interesting Anton. If you listen to Roberts, you get the impression that his sexuality is quite incidental to his celibacy – i.e. he has a calling to celibacy and happens to be gay. Allberry might be different but it’s not terribly clear. Allberry is however, pretty clear that the Church is pretty terrible about celibacy, doesn’t get it right, and neglects it massively (ought to be actively encouraging it for straight people etc.). Which makes it all the more curious why the conservative side of the argument have been so quiet about celibacy through the whole process, and some of the “surprise” of the Bishops Response appears to have come from them. For example, amongst the prayers are prayers for covenantal friendship. This has been an idea kicking around for a while that gay people can have covenantal partnerships as long as things don’t tip over into sex. But no one’s ever worked out where the line is. Have the conservative Bishops gone too far or this consistent with your belief in celibacy for gay Christians?

        And if we are to embrace a rule of celibacy, do we grasp the enormity of that (quite the thing to tell a 16 year old)? And is this just a rule for gay Christians or have we mistakenly neglected celibacy for the last 500 years or so and it’s time to encourage its return for the wider congregation? Do we encourage it for everyone from 16?

        Reply
        • One would hope that someone who calls himself a Christian would first wish to do what God requires, even if it is not easy. For 3000 years the people of God have gone to the scriptures for what that is. Whether the church is serving people like Rev’d Sam well is another question, which I have not addressed here.

          Reply
          • I know you haven’t addressed the question of whether the church is serving celibate gay people well. I think that’s a big problem. If you won’t take your own position seriously, why should anyone else?

          • You seem to think that God is not serving them well. If you want to contend with God, go ahead. But see how far Job got first.

            To say I don’t take my own position seriously is disingenuous at best. People use insults when they run out of arguments. What of the group referred to in this letter from St Helens Bishopsgate to Bishop Sarah Mullaly of London about her support for SSM?

            for many years the St Helen’s Church family has been a safe place for a significant number who live with same sex attraction, but who seek to live a celibate life in accordance with God’s commands. They are greatly encouraged by knowing that they are loved and included within the body of Christ at St Helen’s. The pastoral damage from the House of Bishops decisions for these members of Christ’s flock is very significant. We have been hearing since the announcement about how they are being affected personally by it.

            https://sthelens.elvanto.eu/file/55b8c0c8-b5c3-4ba2-86f9-da1b78da84d7/

          • I find that letter actually troubling.

            The HoB response is of course terrible for pretty much everyone (except perhaps the bishops themselves). But in addition to that

            Why are straight married(?) Christian leaders talking *for* gay celibate people?

            I can understand celibate gay people being frustrated by this latest episcopal nonsense, but “damaged”? why? If they genuinely believe that God wants them to be celibate then why does it cause them damage to hear that the CofE will (continue to) bless individuals who disagree with their choices?

            I’m trying not to be cynical here, but it really reads like these people are being used as political pawns between the bishops and the church leaders – not allowed their own voice and instead having their thoughts, feelings, fears articulated by others.

          • Anton

            Their names are not on the letter.

            The letter is written by straight male church leaders speaking for gay people in their congregation

          • Anton

            Im also pretty confident that Vaughn Roberts and Sam Allberry, when they do speak on these issues, are well aware that the majority of gay Christians disagree with them. This is why it’s important not to speak *for* a group that you are not yourself a part of. It’s easy to do so, but you can easily create a false impression of that group if you do.

    • What are gay people supposed to do?

      The same as any other single person who can’t find someone they are attracted to, who is available, willing to marry them, and meets their (and the churches) criteria.

      There are LEGIONS of “older” (35+) single Christian ladies who would LOVE to get married to a Christian man, that they find (somewhat) attractive, who loves God, is solvent, is attracted to them etc… and can’t find anybody.

      Some compromise cause they want kids… I’m aware of “out” gay individuals in a opposite sex marriage (Sean’s been mentioned already, Peter Ould would be another vocal example).

      Some remain single and have a “defacto” if not a “de jure” call to celibacy… I’d suggest that most gay Christians have that call.

      Reply
      • The older Christian ladies are accepted by their community so they have a community and they are also permitted to go on dates and pursue relationships. They are allowed to openly acknowledge if they find a man attractive. They are allowed to form close friendships with others in their situation. Gay people are assumed to be having sex if they do this!

        Reply
        • Ive known of others in the same position. I would call that evidence of God’s grace in their married life. They wouldnt look twice at any other lady except her. But they would look twice at a passing, handsome man. But they keep that under control.

          Reply
      • Sorry Rd, I think you’re mixing up chaste singleness with celibacy. Although there are similarities, there are profound differences (take if from someone who’s lived both).

        A chaste single life just means you happen not to get married (with the attendant consequences). But you go through life thinking you might, open to that possibility, doing things to see if you can/will marry. You may get married, and you may not.

        A celibate life is one where you know/decide there will be no marriage, and no steps towards it, ever. It’s a very big deal. It’s a self-denial and consciously permanent. And this is something I wish the conservatives who argue for it would face up to: in saying celibacy is what gay Christians are to do, a “de facto calling” as you put it, means you are telling a 16 year old that they have a lifetime of celibacy ahead of them, that they have had the vows taken on their behalf, although unlike real monks/nuns this is largely secret and they’re on their own.

        Reply
        • Telling 16 year old they have a lifetime of celibacy ahead of them:

          Sure, why not? Many, many people manage to live without having sex.

          Essentially it’s what we as society tell highly disabled or deformed people (unless you legalise prostitution).

          If it’s good enough for Jesus…

          Reply
          • What the (Conservative wing of the) CofE teach for gays goes further than mere celibacy for gay people.

            Its pretty easy, unless you are some sort of addict, to just not have sex.

            Not having relationship is the real problem

        • Sometimes chaste and celibate get used interchangeably. Lot’s of people use celibate to mean “not having sex” rather than a “calling to remain single”.

          Reply
          • Sometimes chaste and celibate get used interchangeably. Lot’s of people use celibate to mean “not having sex” rather than a “calling to remain single”.

            Chastity is the virtue of sex, in the same way honesty is the virtue of truth. So to be chaste is not to have sex if unmarried, and, if married, only to have sex with one’s spouse.

            Celibacy is simply the state of not being married. Everyone is born celibate. Some people remain celibate all their lives; others don’t. But everyone is celibate for at least some of their lives.

            Hope that makes things clear.

          • S
            There are lots of variations in the definition of celibacy across dictionaries. And chaste doesn’t get used very often in contemporary English.

            Everyone who writes an article on SSM and the church should perhaps spell out what they mean by these words in an introductory paragraph.

          • S

            The problem is that neither of your definitions fully covers what Conservative theology requires of gay people. It’s not just not having sex and it’s not just not getting married

      • Gay men in opposite sex marriage is nonsensical. Marriage implies sexual intimacy. A gay man to get hard and capable of penetration must imagine (sexually) other men while having sexual intercourse with his wife. That’s sin.

        Reply
        • I don’t know, why don’t you ask Sean or Peter? I think they both have kids.

          Do you really think that no closeted gay man who had kids with a wife was EVER able to get it upwithout thinking of a man rather than his wife?

          Or no kid was EVER conceived by a closeted gay man with his eyes open?

          Reply
          • Sean isnt gay in the strict sense because he is attracted to his wife.

            I’ve known quite a few gay men who married women (in a few occasions on the advice of church leaders) and had kids. From what I’ve heard sex was difficult, infrequent and traumatic.

            All the people I know personally who tried this got divorced.

    • AJ Bell

      Yes yes yes!

      Theres still no attempts to help gay people understand how to lead their lives or provide practical support. Instead this confuses the issue because on the one hand the church is saying they must be single and celibate, but on the other they are hinting that they can seek relationships. What I think many bishops don’t understand is that this is peoples whole lives they are bumbling over. It really matters what they are saying about what the rules for Christian living are. It really matters that they support those rules, yet apart from very few local support groups theres still no support for gay people following Conservative teaching, except perhaps the monasteries. The bishops certainly have not bothered themselves with this HUGE issue

      I agree also that the cosmic metaphor isnt convincing when it’s your own life on the line. It doesn’t help that straight people seem to be allowed to treat the rules as vague advice, whereas for gays they seem to be set in Stone. The King and Queen remarried after divorce, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex remarried after divorce, Theresa and Phillip May married with infertility, (ok it was RCC but) Boris and Carrie Johnson married after all his doings. I think these couples should have been able to marry, but cosmic metaphor/fertility then doesn’t work to prohibit others from marrying

      Reply
      • But we (or certainly I) have been saying for years that the capitulation on divorce was the dolorous blow that must be renounced, whereby this one denomination lost its power.
        It actually marched in the same direction as the very sexual revolution that its bishop had been instrumental in starting, which decimated congregations and vocations.

        Reply
          • I would agree BUT
            What do we mean by ”the CofE”?
            Does it mean the Archbishop?
            The bishops?
            Does it mean the majority of people countrywide?
            Does it mean the votes of Synod?
            ”The CofE” is a convenient whipping boy, but none of the above named is actually an amorphous mass.

    • And what some of this has revealed in the last couple of weeks is that there is still a strand of thought in some conservative circles that sexuality doesn’t really exist, no-one’s really gay, and it’s about finding the right girl/boy to marry.

      Can you point to something in the discussion of the bishops’ response which reveals this point of view? I’m struggling to think of anything.

      Reply
    • AJ Bell
      Trying to do a word search on the Bishops Report I cannot find any mention, positive or negative, on the key question: is same-sex attraction or practice sinful. Have I missed something please?
      Phil Almond

      Reply
  11. Slightly reluctant to ask this but …
    “…so that obedience to God (for straight people as well as gay) means laying aside our desires?”
    – S, what does it mean in your eyes for straight people to lay aside their desires?
    In friendship, Blair
    PS AJ Bell, I’m liking your style of thinking.

    Reply
    • what does it mean in your eyes for straight people to lay aside their desires?

      Same as for anyone else, in general. After all most desires are not sexual desires.

      Reply
      • A true Biblical Christian would never have sex before heterosexual marriage and never have sex outside that heterosexual marriage.

        Any evangelical who has not complied with the above has no right lecturing non celibate homosexuals on what the Bible says!!

        Reply
        • Any evangelical who has not complied with the above has no right lecturing non celibate homosexuals on what the Bible says!!

          Very true. Jesus’ harshest words were for those who were right about the rules, but didn’t follow them themselves.

          Reply
          • We agree for once!

            But that doesn’t mean that People can just do what they want because the people telling them don’t practise what they preach. Remember that Jesus said people should listen to the Pharisees and do as they say, just not as they do.

            So by the same logic people should listen to the evangelicals and do as they say, not as they do.

            So glad we agree.

          • S

            But often the teaching is impractical and the leaders dont know its impractical because they’ve never had to try living by it.

            Maybe Ch4 should pair up some evangelical leaders to go live with a gay person for a month, like when they get government ministers to go live with someone on welfare?

        • Great I’m one. When do you want me to start lecturing you?

          If you were right about it then Paul could never have talked about murder, pride etc being sinful.

          It makes learning from the mistakes of others illegitimate, and is only used by those who want an excuse to dismiss an argument against something.

          The “if you’ve done yourself, you can’t tell others not to do it” is the stkpidest argument ever… closely followed by the other one people who use it like: “if you’ve never done it/experience it/read or watched it, then you have no right to an opinion”.

          Reply
    • To add to S’s response, how about:

      – A married man meets a woman and finds her very sexually attractive. He MUST put that attraction aside, and not let his attraction turn into desire.

      – A single man meets a married woman and finds her very sexually attractive. He MUST put that attraction aside, and not let his attraction turn into desire.

      Was it Luther who said that you cannot stop birds flying over your head, but you can stop them nesting in your hair?

      Basically, almost all sexual desire is off-limits. So, this is an issue for all, whatever type of person they find themselves attracted to. Actually, desire in general is an issue, see James 4:1-3.

      Did not Jesus have something to say about how a man looks at a woman (presumably not his wife)?

      Reply
      • Respecting other people’s marriages is simply not the same level of restraint as trying to kill off your entire romantic expression and sexual expression.

        Like it or not, Conservative teaching demands more sacrifices from gay people than straight people (even straight Christian ladies who are 35 and still single!)

        Reply
        • The first point is that I don’t understand why the restraint required by Christian teaching for all single people is different for same-sex attracted people from those who are other-sex attracted. I speak as one who married for the first time aged 61, and had coitus for the first time on my wedding night. It was not easy to live as a single Christian, but it is possible.

          There seems to be an assumption that everyone should have “romantic expression” and “sexual expression”. Thus, to constrain people from these is wrong. I suspect that the first part was born in the Romantic period of the late 18th century, and the second part was born in the sexual revolution of the 1960’s. In our society romantic love and sexual activity have become idols to be worshipped.

          Remember that Jesus was tempted in every way that we are, yet without sin. I don’t think we find any evidence (despite modern attempts, founded on the above assumption) that He had any “romantic expression” or “sexual expression”. Yet, he is the model of the human life as it should be lived.

          Reply
          • David because

            1. It’s not the same. To straights you are saying dont have sex before you get married. To gays you are saying dont have any romantic or sexual expression at all.

            Straight single people can date, find people attractive and form close friendships with others. They can hug, kiss and hold hands.

            2. For gay people its permanent, not temporary. Straight single people can aspire to marriage. Gay people must deny themselves any hope of a relationship

            3. Gay people are usually still not accepted even if they comply with this. That’s why there is so little expression of celibate gay community amongst laity. It inevitably gets condemned by at least one wing of the church.

          • To be fair, the idealism of the family unit is assumed in just about all churches, including on this blog. It is viewed as ‘the norm’.

  12. Possibly significant developments in Parliament today. Do watch the clip below. The key part is Sir Chris Bryant addressing Penny Mordaunt the Leader of the House (who also supports gay marriage in church):

    “Will she allow time, because I suspect this [what follows] would be the view of the whole House. Would she allow time as leader of the House for legislation to push the Church of England into allowing same-sex marriages to be conducted by parishes and clergy who want to do that, if Synod doesn’t act?”

    Penny Mordaunt: “I know this is an issue that many members of the House will want to take forward.”

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yqLkq2G9oY

    Reply
    • Possibly significant developments in Parliament today.

      Not significant at all. Everyone knows Bryant is an obnoxious blowhard and Mourdant is firmly captured by woke, so there’s nothing new here. But that’s why she lost the leadership election and has no actual power. So this exchange doesn’t change anything.

      Reply
        • None of the Conservative MPs are even approaching woke.

          Mordaunt has totally been captured by woke; the evidence is in Hansard:

          https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2021-03-01/debates/AC381A72-B091-41E4-9388-96CB284F83A5/MinisterialAndOtherMaternityAllowancesBill#contribution-D525F543-B906-44DF-8068-DB8AA32F9472

          ‘let me say in supporting them from this Dispatch Box that trans men are men and trans women are women’

          You can’t say that unless you’ve been totally captured by the woke.

          Reply
          • S

            I think that just says that secular society is hugely different than conservative Christianity, not that Conservative MPs are woke

          • @Peter JERMEY

            I think Nicola Sturgeon has found out to her detriment this week that secular society is not as woke as politicians are (even Conservative politicians). She had to back down.

            People’s consciences affirm the truth of the scriptures. It is only the flesh, the devil and the world that lead people astray. And the woke have a near-monopoly on the political world. But are really not that popular in the rest of the world.

          • People’s consciences affirm the truth of the scriptures. It is only the flesh, the devil and the world that lead people astray.

            No no no! This is Gnosticism! Remember total depravity!

            And the woke have a near-monopoly on the political world. But are really not that popular in the rest of the world.

          • @S

            My point was more about the accuracy of the conscience (which, I’ll defend Total Depravity and all). Will you agree on: Appetites, the world, and the devil?

          • My point was more about the accuracy of the conscience (which, I’ll defend Total Depravity and all). Will you agree on: Appetites, the world, and the devil?

            I will not agree to anything that is, or sounds like, the idea that we are perfect beings of pure spirit or soul who are only corrupted by our contact with flesh and and material world. That’s Gnosticism. Certainly some appetites come from the flesh; but others, indeed the worst, like pride, come from the soul/spirit.

            The conscience is certainly not a perfect guide. It is touched by the corruption of sin just like every other part of us.

            The Devil I don’t see as the source of sin either. Certainly he does his best to draw us away from God, but really he’s pushing at an open door there.

          • @S

            You made me look up Titus. I think you’re right.

            @Peter Jeremy

            No, but her proposals found favour with MPs. And Conservative MP Mourdant is known for agreeing to the same false notion that lead to the debate in the first place.

          • You made me look up Titus. I think you’re right.

            It’s not me that’s right! Just totally standard orthodox Christian doctrine!

            And of course remember that although our consciences are corrupted, and therefore not 100% reliable, they’re not 100% unreliable either. It’s not that we have no sense of right and wrong, or that we might have right and wrong completely upside-down and think evil good and good evil, or whatever. It’s more that for each of us, our conscience has our own individual blind spots, or, say, areas where we give ourselves the benefit of the doubt.

          • Kyle

            The Conservative uk government overruled Holyrood for the first time since the Scottish parliament met in modern times because their party opposes SNP policy on self identification for trans people.

            I dont see how you can claim that they support her policies when they risked breaking the union to stop her.

          • The Conservative uk government overruled Holyrood for the first time since the Scottish parliament met in modern times because their party opposes SNP policy on self identification for trans people.

            That’s not the reason for the section 35 order.

            I dont see how you can claim that they support her policies when they risked breaking the union to stop her.

            Individual Conservative MPs support her policies. Other individual Conservative MPs, of course, oppose them. The Conservative party as a whole doesn’t have a settled view and swings wildly from side to side depending on who is in charge (under May it was all for self-identification) and whether there’s an ‘r’ in the month.

            But there are certainly some Conservative MPs who are of the same mind on this as Sturgeon.

        • Almost half of Conservative MPs voted for homosexual marriage even in 2013, as did the vast majority of Labour and LD MPs.

          So there would be a majority for forcing the established Church to allow its Parishes to conduct homosexual marriages today (maybe even with no opt out for evangelical Parishes if Synod doesn’t act) let alone if Labour win the next general election

          Reply
          • So there would be a majority for forcing the established Church to allow its Parishes to conduct homosexual marriages today

            No, the wouldn’t. Those who voted for the 2013 Act voted for an Act which specifically did not force any religious group to act in any way, and a lot of them would not have voted for the Act if it had compelled any religious group to act it any particular way. Some MPs are still unwilling to undermine freedom of thought.

            let alone if Labour win the next general election

            Of course Labour might not win the general election — we live in a time of wild swings in political fortunes. Or, perhaps more likely, they may win in with a narrow majority and so not have the time or political capital to waste on something that affects only 0.9% of the population.

          • T1

            Again where does this idea of *force* come into anything?

            Literally nobody is talking about forcing Conservatives to marry gay couples, even the SNP are not doing that!

        • The Labour Party introduced civil partnerships as something very similar to marriage, but not exactly the same, but for people of the same sex. It was the Conservatives under David Cameron who introduced SSM.

          Reply
          • Technically the Conservative and LD coalition government. While the vast majority of Labour and LD MPs voted for same sex marriage in 2013 a small majority of Conservative MPs voted against

      • No, it’s significant. Don’t ilude yourself. If Church goes on not performing ssm, in due time, Parliament will step in. Not perhaps now – but sooner than latter. Whoever has a majority, whoever leads the House. That’s life.

        Reply
        • No, it’s significant. Don’t ilude yourself. If Church goes on not performing ssm, in due time, Parliament will step in.

          Depends what you mean by ‘step in’. It’s impossible to imagine any Parliament directly dictating doctrine to the Church of England. There would be an outcry; it would go against the whole idea of freedom of worship.

          But disestablishing the Church of England, nationalising its buildings, expropriating its funds, and using them to set up a new ‘national faith community hub network’ or some such Orwellian mouthful, explicitly under state control, that has a duty to provide venues and celebrants for secular weddings, naming ceremonies and cremations? Yes, I could see that. Parliament might do that.

          Reply
          • Or simply removing the Church of Englands seats in parliament

            Weirdly although that sounds simple it might be the hardest of all because even just to raise that issue opens up the whole question of reform of the Lords, and that can of worms is kind of the British constitution’s equivalent of getting involved in a land war in Asia.

          • No it isn’t. As Chris Bryant made clear today he and his fellow Labour MPs have no interest in disestablishment, why would they when it would lose state control of the established Church?

            No Bryant made clear he will push, hard, with his Labour colleagues to pass legislation to force homosexual marriage on the church of England if Synod doesn’t approve it whether it likes it or not. The majority of the country will be behind him, why shouldn’t homosexual couples be able to marry in their local Parish church they will think!

            If evangelicals walk, so be it.

          • Labour has proposed a fully elected second chamber which is a different matter to disestablishment. Denmark has the established Lutheran church which allows homosexual marriage while having no bishops in its Parliament and indeed no
            upper house at all. Parliament and the Queen are pledged to uphold the Church though

          • Evangelicals had a chance to accept a compromise giving their Parishes the same opt out over homosexual marriage Anglo Catholics had over women priests and Bishops.

            If they reject that and Parliament ends up imposing homosexual marriages on the entire Church of England they have only themselves to blame!!!!!

          • When Labour were last in power they removed almost all the hereditary peers from the Lords. This seems far more likely than forcing local churches to marry gay people against their beliefs- something that has happened nowhere in the world, yet people keep panicking about!

          • Why not? Evangelical churches in the Church of England are forcing liberal Catholic churches not to marry homosexual couples against their beliefs. Despite the fact homosexual marriage has been legal in England for 10 years

          • No Bryant made clear he will push, hard, with his Labour colleagues to pass legislation to force homosexual marriage on the church of England if Synod doesn’t approve it whether it likes it or not.

            Chris Bryant is a backbencher whose career peaked under Gordon Brown and who has no prospect of being anywhere near power. He has a record of attention-seeking attempts to stir up outrage. He is never going to be in a position to pass legislation.

            The majority of the country will be behind him, why shouldn’t homosexual couples be able to marry in their local Parish church they will think!

            The majority of the country might well be in favour of the Church of England performing same-sex marriages, yes. But that does not mean that the majority of the country would be in favour of the government using the amount of Parliamentary time, which would be considerable, necessary to push through legislation affecting the 0.9% of the population who attend the Church of England, at the expense of other legislation.

          • This seems far more likely than forcing local churches to marry gay people against their beliefs- something that has happened nowhere in the world, yet people keep panicking about!

            Actually it seems likely to me that if the Church of England were to change its doctrine of marriage, that any ‘conscience clause’ would be limited to allowing clergy to opt out of performing same-sex marriages; but they would still have to allow a same-sex couple desiring a wedding in their church to use the church, just with a different member of the clergy, who was willing to take the service, doing so.

            So while no member of the clergy would be forced to marry a same-sex couple against their beliefs, they could be forced to allow someone else to marry a same-sex couple in their church against their beliefs.

          • S

            Theres no evidence that even church buildings would be forced to be venues for SSM. This hasnt happened anywhere in the world. Nobody is asking for it to happen. People getting married dont want to marry at a venue whose leaders believe their relationship to be evil.

            If you look at (admittedly non established) other denominations they dont require individuals or venues to accept SSM. It’s all done on local beliefs, like remarriage after divorce and women priests in the CofE. This is all that’s being campaigned for.

          • If you look at (admittedly non established) other denominations they dont require individuals or venues to accept SSM.

            Other denominations don’t have the same legal requirement as local Church of England churches to marry anyone in with a connection to the parish who asks, though. It’s the interaction of that with Equalities law which means it’s difficult to see how a legal claim for discrimination against the Church of England if a same-sex couple were denied marriage in a local church which accepted opposite-sex couples wouldn’t succeed.

            It’s all done on local beliefs, like remarriage after divorce and women priests in the CofE. This is all that’s being campaigned for.

            Maybe now, but it won’t stop there, will it? Same as women priests where it’s clear that some want accepting women priests to be a condition of becoming a bishop, for example.

          • The only other churches which are established, like the Church of England, in nations which allow homosexual marriage ie the Lutheran Churches of Denmark and Iceland both allow homosexual marriage in their churches. So it is inevitable the Church of England will allow it to with an opt out as they do for priests who disagree

          • The only other churches which are established, like the Church of England, in nations which allow homosexual marriage […] allow homosexual marriage in their churches. So it is inevitable the Church of England will allow it

            I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but the United Kingdom quite often does things differently to other countries? No other country has left the European Union, for example. Or during the recent kerfuffle vaccine passports were made obligatory for visiting bars and cafés in lots of other countries, but never in the UK. So the fact something has happened in some other countries in no way means it is inevitable that it will happen.

            You know whoever said that every time you repay that this is ‘inevitable’ you sound more and more frantically frost was right. Who are you trying to convince? Because it’s seeming more and more like the answer is, ‘yourself’.

          • You know whoever said that every time you repay that this is ‘inevitable’ you sound more and more frantically frost was right.

            Let’s try that again …

            You know, whoever said that every time you repeat that this is ‘inevitable’ you sound more and more frantically desperate was right.

          • Countries like Sweden never introduced vaccine passports and Norway, Iceland and Switzerland never joined the EU either. Denmark is not in the Euro too.

            England has quite a lot in common with some of the Scandinavian countries whose Lutheran churches allow homosexual marriage in their churches now.

            Most of the EU is Roman Catholic however

          • Countries like Sweden never introduced vaccine passports and Norway, Iceland and Switzerland never joined the EU either. Denmark is not in the Euro too.

            Gosh it’s almost like you’re proving my point that all different countries are different places and that something happening in some countries doesn’t mean it’s inevitable that the same thing will happen in other countries!

          • S

            The Church of England also does not have the requirement to marry anyone in their parish.

            They are only required to marry straight couples who have not been previously married.

            Parliament are not going to force all CofE churches or priests to marry gay people. I really don’t see that anyone is even asking for that and this hasnt happened anywhere in the world.

          • T1 – while you may be formally and technically correct about Sweden and ‘vaccine passports’, when I visited Sweden in August 2020 (arriving from a European country) I had to show a certificate indicating that I had tested negative for Covid within the last 48 hours. It wasn’t completely free-and-easy. When visitng Sweden in June and August 2021, I was asked to show my vaccine passport.

          • while you may be formally and technically correct about Sweden and ‘vaccine passports’,

            Look the point isn’t the exact detail of each country’s arrangements, they point is that every country had different arrangements, both at the borders and internally. Which goes to show that you can’t simply say, ‘this was made the law in that country, therefore it is inevitable that the same thing will happen in that country as well’.

            Assisted suicide is now legal in Canada. Does that mean it is inevitable that it will become legal in the UK? No. Recreational cannabis use is legal in many states of the USA. Does that mean it is inevitable that it will become legal in the UK? Of course not.

          • No because that depends on the decision of the National Parliament. However once the National Parliament has decided to legalise something ie homosexual marriage, the established church will eventually have to follow, as in Denmark and Iceland, or cease being an established church

      • So all of those promises made by the Government when same-sex marriage was legalised meant literally nothing?

        To be fair they have been kept as long as the Conservatives have stayed in power; and no government can make promises on behalf of its successors (which is one reason you should ignore any target a government sets which has as its deadline a point after the next election).

        Reply
  13. No, the UK would only cease to exist if Scotland left it as it was founded in 1707 by the union of Scotland and England. Just as the Church of England would cease to exist if the King was not head of it, it being created in 1534 so the King could be head of it not the Pope.

    The monarchy would obviously only cease to exist if we became a republic, it continues whether we have a King or Queen

    Reply
    • Geoff – what a pity Roald Dahl never thought of including Karl Barth in his novel ‘My Uncle Oswald’!

      The fact that he was an adulterer does make some kind of sense. When I read some of his stuff, I thought it contained some very great insights (for example – in Romans 11:25 he points out that the ‘fulness of the Gentiles’ is Jesus Christ).

      But much of it seems to be pretentious gobbledygook (or at least it is way above my IQ) – and how he came up with it somehow makes more sense to me now.

      Reply
      • Hello Jock,
        I think sometime visitor here, Simon P, has a Master’s degree on Barth. How much gobbledygook he had to write to get the award, only he knows, don’t you Simon!? But we don’t need to wade into Barth to encounter gobbledygook.
        Or in the words of CS Lewis, “nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God”, The Problem of Pain, (as it applied to two mutually exclusive alternatives.
        However, Barth’s life may be a model of the fluidity and fancy of transient temptation, diffused desire, transitioning and solidifying into a determined terminus: settled sin. A warning to all, any of us in respect of any or all temptation and sin.
        Best to erase words, the gravity and grievousness, the very concepts, from the lectionary of human nature and Christianity, and our relationship with our Triune God.
        And in sum, God’s pronouncement of sin and judgement can not be humanly blessed, even in the misuse of His Name: they are two mutually exclusive alternatives. Nonsense, in the words of Lewis.

        Reply
        • Hi Geoff – yes, journeyed with Barth for 3 decades. Gobbledygook? At times inevitable given the sheer volume of output. But some contributions are peerless whether in his generation or any. I wept the first time I encountered his Romans commentary in 1992 and even where n when I disagree (quite often) the power and passion to hear & herald God’s Word is awesome.

          Barth & CVK – totally devastating when a long time faint whiff became a proven stinking rotten mess. Yet does it disqualify his corpus from being engaged with and appreciated? I dont think so. All have feet of clay. We rightly thank God for Luther’s contribution to the Reformation and his early works, yet Luther’s later anti-semitic vomitings and his unhinged fuelling of vile massacres in the Peasants’ War are far far worse than Barth’s immorality.

          Just confirms again that God’s gifts are not predicated on the recipients’ character or consistency.

          Reply
          • simon – well, I suppose if we have to dump Barth on the grounds that he was an adulterer, then by the same measure we also have to dump all the psalms that David wrote and everything by Solomon.

            I also read Barth on Romans and I’d put what he wrote into three categories: (a) some of it was really impressive with beautiful insights that I had never thought of before – that’s why I read the whole thing and then read some other work by Barth. (b) some of it seemed just plain wrong – and I got the impression that he simply didn’t know whether his own salvation was assured (or whether he believes that we can have the assurance of our salvation that Scripture says we can have). (c) some of the sentences sounded very impressive on a first reading, but on asking myself ‘what exactly does this sentence mean?’ going back over it several times, I conceded that I simply couldn’t get through it – it was way above my IQ – but formulated in such a way that it sounded (superficially on a first encounter) very deep and very important.

            I also read his short volume ‘Dogmatics in Outline’. Superficially, it looks very impressive. He has some statements which he begins with the words, ‘Faith is …’ and then goes onto elaborate. Again, it sounded really good and captivating when I was reading it, but after reading the whole thing, I felt that all his ‘Faith is …’ statements were actually a corollary of what faith is and none of them defined faith – and I wasn’t at all sure that he really did have the definition of faith at the back of his mind.

            As I said, after reading ‘Dogmatics in Outline’, I wasn’t at all sure that he really did know what faith is – I wasn’t at all sure that he had complete conviction that he was within the number of the Saviour’s family – I wasn’t at all sure that he really did identify with the `wretched man’ of Romans 7:14-25 who, despite acknowledging that he is, in fact, a disaster of a man, knows that through Christ he is indeed saved and will see life when he passes from this life to the next.

            And – well – if in his own life he shows such blatant contempt for the commandments of God, then there may be a very good reason for this.

          • I found Dogmatics in Outline to be written – or at least translated – in an irritating style, of which I wrote a short parody, probably best lost (as it has been). I also read Barth’s Romans and some passages from the full Church Dogmatics. I have difficulty in seeing how academic theology relates to biblical faith in general, and specifically how ploughing through Barth might help a believer in the Bible to understand it more deeply.

          • Anton – well, as I indicated, I found that his ‘Romans’ commentary did have some beautiful nuggets – and that’s why I pursued it. For example – it was Barth who pointed out that the first recorded religious act of worship in Scripture was Eve listening to a sermon on the commandments of God, given by the serpent, and hearkening to it. Also, his commentary on Romans 9 – 11 I found quite unique with great insights – and translating Romans 11:25 as the ‘fullness’ of the gentiles – and pointing out that the fullness of the gentiles was Jesus Christ was really clarifying against much of the rubbish I had seen (but hadn’t been able to formulate a good way of countering it).

            Anglican Priest indicated that he found incisive material which was very useful for pastoring from what Barth wrote about Job – so it isn’t entirely devoid of ‘good stuff’

            But – in general – I have to agree with you. Trawling through academic theology has its limitations.

          • Probably I believe a fair amount (although not all) of what you call rubbish about Romans 9-11. Happy to debate it, but not here!

          • Thanks, Simon.
            Wise words -we all have feet of clay.
            We don’t want to fall into the ad hominem hole and discard all he wrote, but Jock’s comments I also found helpful.
            Confession -while I have some books about Barth’s writings, I’ve not read them, nor his original, translated work.
            It is helpful when looking at King David, particularly the Psalms ascribed to him, to attempt to set them into his life circumstances at the time. But the consequences of David’s sin was played out in his dysfunctional family and in the nation.
            Similarly, with Luther. I’ve read that his hostility towards the Jews in his later life, was due in large part to his understanding that their unbelief in Jesus as Messiah, was the reason for his non return.
            David and Luther and Barth are desperately instructive to us today and carry a dire warning of the consequences of starting out well and finishing badly.
            Maybe, Barth’s writings could be re-examined and re-evaluated, set against what was happening in his personal life at the time, if that hasn’t already happened. It is significant, is it not, that his personal life was covert while his theology was trumpeted in scholarship circles. The whistle wasn’t blown on him as it was on King David, by Nathan, bringing a humbling his repentance, as expressed in Psalm 51.
            It is pure speculation, but would Barth have revisited his and revised his writings, commentary, if the gaff had been blown on his personal life? Would he have been humbled to repentance and reconciliation?

          • I think one problem with Barth, as with most theologians (I am being too harsh here) is that he does not read the text an in historically informed enough manner. He wants it to have total coherence outside its historical context, and in pushing this line he overdoes it sometimes. But he is a great thinker.

  14. On Barth.

    Count me skeptical on tidy schemes to evaluate one’s public writings or life or contributions, and the presence of sin. St Bernard and the Crusades. St Francis and his arrogance. Henry VIII and his role as Head of the Church of England (he wrote a defense of the Catholic Faith and then chucked the Catholic Church).

    Barth wrote the commentary on Romans before he met CVK. Can we see a different Barth in his writings thereafter? No.

    Barth’s efforts to justify his relationship was vacuous and sinful. He could have used a decent confessor. His positive writings (his reflections on Job in IV.3.2 are piercingly and pastorally wise) — could they have been better absent CVK and his bizarre self-justifications? I’d be dubious.

    It would be ludicrous to defend KB in what he wrote. But I’m not sure straight lines run the way CS Lewis is being cited as saying they do. His own “A Grief Observed” is at times maudlin and unforgiving. I don’t think he thought it would be made public. Good for him. “C’est on forgeant, qu’on devient forgeron.”

    At any rate, the usefulness of KB for the topic at hand is dubious, in my view. It’s another topic, to be sure.

    Reply
    • The application of Lewis’s argument as to what amounts to nonsense is on point, as I have summarised.
      The rest, really is tangential, unless it is more elaborately, thoroughly argued in respect of Bishop’s and activists who have a purpose of their own to serve in seeking to theologically justify their own lives and proclivities and desires.
      To repeat to be clear: what God has judged as sin, can not be blessed in His Name. It is nothing but nonsense, no matter who says or writes it in church hierarchy or in legal, or academic, or public or political opinion.
      Nonsense remains nonsense no matter who spouts it. It is the King’s new suit of clothes.

      Reply
  15. To for further clarification, The Problem of Pain, was only cited as the source of Lewis’s argument. The strength, logic and relevance of that argument was not gainsaid, by his Grief Observed, nor will it be by procrastination, prevarication, by lapse or extension of time.

    Reply
    • According to the bishop’s office, that office did not report him to the police.

      We are left in the dark because details are being withheld.

      We can see that The Times report is incoherent, want light rather than dark, but are not being given more to go on.

      Sam Margrave saying that Pride marches produce situations akin to Savile or Harris grooming in broad daylight is spot on. He is of course not the only person to say that, and in an organised way he has been one of those who has provided photographic evidence of just that. But these are the very activities being *especially* recommended to schoolchildren with or without their parents’ knowledge or consent. Thus, schools push reenactment of pride marches, and pride month at school in June because that is the month when the pride march takes place.

      Gomorrah has nothing on this. This is the day after Gomorrah.

      Reply
      • Having said that, the 2 above-named were lone operators. So a march of many thousands provides (chilingly) much *more* potential than that for *more* adults to groom *more* young. But in truth the whole thinking behind such events is in part a grooming style of thinking. I don’t think this is always obvious to all participants and organisers, who see only certain dimensions of the picture without really considering others.

        Reply
        • Pride isn’t a protest for pedophiles and, as with any event open to the general public, parents who choose to allow their children to attend are responsible for them.

          It angers beyond belief that we have now had 23 years of scandal after scandal after coverup of the sexual abuse of children at the hands of church leaders and you guys still are comfortable pushing this dishonest notion that gay people are pedophiles. How dare you?

          Reply
          • you guys still are comfortable pushing this dishonest notion that gay people are pedophiles

            No one is saying that gay people are paedophiles. The claim is that the overtly-sexualised nature of a Pride parade produces a blurring of boundaries that paedophiles — often men preying on young girls, so nothing to do with anything gay — can exploit.

            In the same way that the sexualised (for the time) environment of i>Top of the Pops produced a blurring of boundaries that Jimmy Saville was able to exploit. And no one has suggested Saville was gay.

            Consider: one of the ways we keep children safe is that we tell them certain parts of their bodies are private, and that if anyone asks to see them, or touch them, or show you theirs, then you should tell your parents.

            But then those children, at a Pride parade, see people cavorting around in sexual fetish gear, groping each other, in public. What are they supposed to think? How are they supposed to know, when a predator approaches them and gropes them and says that yes, in normal life that would be something to tell their parents, but here is special, it’s like a holiday, look, everyone is doing it, so here we can do things that we normally wouldn’t and there’s no need to tell your parents, look, they know that everyone here is doing it…

            How are they supposed to pick out, in that confusing avalanche of mixed messages, that this isn’t okay?

            Children need clear messaging and clear boundaries. These parts of your body are yours, and nobody else touches them and if they try you tell your parents, who will deal with it. They need that clarity because any ambiguity will be ruthlessly exploited by predators, whose insidiousness works (unsurprisingly) like the serpent’s ‘did God really’ — ‘did your parents really tell you not to let anyone touch you there? But they also told you to trust your teachers, didn’t they? And your teachers brought you here. And your teachers wouldn’t bring you anywhere you’d be uncomfortable, would they? So if you feel uncomfortable that’s just because you’re learning something new, isn’t it? So let me teach you what everybody’s doing and then you won’t feel uncomfortable any more…’

            Nothing to do with any idea of ‘gay people being paedophiles’. Everything to do with premature exposure to sexual situations creating a dangerous ambiguity that paedophiles can exploit.

          • What does scripture say about pride, full stop-let alone glorying, publicly parading, displaying sexuality of any sort?

            Maybe you are peddling the lie that evangelicals see gay people as paedophiles

            BTW, are you in the USA? I seem to recall your name from comments on an evangelical blog. You didn’t answer when I asked previously.

          • Ge0ff, pride has 2 different meanings, arr0gance and str0ng self-c0ntent.

            Really Peter, wh0 said ‘gay ppl are paes’? R u that inaccurate a thinker? The rate is far higher amng ‘gay men’ – see What Are They Teaching the Children? – but h0w d0es that equate 2 actual *equivalence*?

            And scandal m0ngers are always lumping 2gther epheb0philia with the 0ther, even th0 the f0rmer may 0ften inv0lve c0nsent.

          • Steven

            Even assuming CC, as this mother’s lawyers(!), are giving a full accounting of this case, there’s a difference between an internal school activity and a public event.

          • S

            Christopher just accused Pride as being a movement allowing children to be groomed into sex by adults.

            Thats totally false and an outrageous, but sadly common, slur

          • 1. U think it *fails* 2 lessen inhibiti0ns?
            2. U think it hasn’t any effect 0n n0rms and the way they are perceived??
            3. Children take their lead frm adults.
            Strange….

        • S

          I’ve been to lots of Pride protests.

          Some are fairly sexual, though none I have been to have been any worse than prime time BBC TV, most are not at all. Often they have specific family events.

          Part of the issue is that *still* a man kissing another man is seen as inherently more sexual than a man kissing a woman!

          If it’s making you uncomfortable then it is supposed to – it’s a protest. That doesn’t mean the protesters are pedophiles. Also people in stained glass houses should be careful about throwing accusations of that sort!

          Reply
      • A few days ago 14 bishops (9 diocesan) published a ‘short theological summary of the doctrine of marriage as the Church of England has received it’, i.e. defending traditional doctrine.
        https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2023/3-february/news/uk/fourteen-bishops-publish-a-defence-of-traditional-marriage-1

        I am glad to hear that the Bishop of Coventy’s office says he did not report Sam Margrave to the police. The same bishop is said to be one of the signatories of the above document.

        Reply
        • Steven
          The document contains:
          “CIVIL MARRIAGE AND SAME-SEX RELATIONS
          Same-sex relationships can, of course, be lifelong, loving, committed, faithful, and provide deep and enduring companionship. As such the church needs to find ways to recognise and welcome such relationships, without explicitly or implicitly changing her teaching by doing so.”
          If Same-Sex Relations are sinful, how can the Church welcome them?
          I can’t find any discussion of ‘sin’ either in this article or in the Bishops Report itself. Am I missing something please?

          Reply
      • That’s really offensive Christopher. We all know that the vast majority of pedophilia is carried out by straight males, on both girls and boys, more often than not family members.

        Reply
        • That’s really offensive Christopher. We all know that the vast majority of pedophilia is carried out by straight males, on both girls and boys, more often than not family members.

          I don’t think Christopher suggested otherwise? The point is that ‘Pride’ marches — which haven’t for a long time been about gay liberation but instead have become a celebration of all that is ‘queer’, ie, sexually transgressive — create an environment which helps those straight males to prey on children by prematurely exposing the children to overt sexualisation and blurring the boundaries of acceptable behaviour, opening up an area of ambiguity which such predators are poised to exploit in their quest to ruin children.

          Reply
        • U write 2 and a half lines, Peter, and make 5 mistakes. Which averages at 2 per line.

          1. If they are ‘straight males’ and victims are ‘b0ys’, then….

          2. Many true things r 0ffensive. U care 4 truth?

          3. 0ffensiveness is subjective rather than measurable.

          4. Rubbish re family members. Apart frm uncles. W0rst by far are live in b0yfriends and ‘partners’. R Whelan, Br0ken H0mes and Battered Children.

          5. U c0nfuse family members with h0use sharers.

          Reply
          • 1. I would suggest it may start with girls but then the ‘thrill’ extends to boys, so doesnt necessarily have implications for the deemed sexuality of the perpetrator. Like rape, it is probably highly linked with power and control as well as sexual compulsion.

            2. You clearly link Pride marches with ‘grooming’ of children. I think that’s nonsense, ie untrue, and is offensive.

            3. Agreed, but if your implication is that gay people are more likely to be pedophiles then that is both offensive and untrue.

            4. Boyfriends and partners may not strictly be ‘family’, but they end up behaving as such, ie become part of the family unit and that is when the abuse begins. From what I have read most of such activity is undertaken by blood-family or partners (eg step fathers), nearly always straight.

            5 . see 4.

            So before making accusations about a certain group of people in society, perhaps you should look at your own group first, ie straight males, where most pedophiles lurk.

          • You clearly link Pride marches with ‘grooming’ of children. I think that’s nonsense, ie untrue, and is offensive.

            Prima facie it doesn’t seem nonsense that there might be a link between encouraging children to attend the public Bacchanalian sexual carnival of a Pride march (people in fetish gear, men in leather dog masks being led around on leads, etc) and grooming of children, so can you back that up?

            Boyfriends and partners may not strictly be ‘family’, but they end up behaving as such, ie become part of the family unit and that is when the abuse begins. From what I have read most of such activity is undertaken by blood-family or partners (eg step fathers), nearly always straight.

            There’s a MASSIVE difference between ‘blood-family’ and ‘partners (eg step-fathers)’. You simply cannot group them together like that. They are utterly non-comparable categories.

            What proportion of abuse is done by blood-family as compared to ‘partners (eg step-fathers)?

            I’m guessing almost all is done by ‘partners (eg step-fathers)’ and almost none by blood relatives; am I wrong?

          • Boyfriends and partners may not strictly be ‘family’, but they end up behaving as such, ie become part of the family unit and that is when the abuse begins.

            Perhaps if this is true then the lesson is that if you are a mother with children living at home you ought not to bring unrelated men into your home or allow them to become part of your family unit?

          • 1. Peter, it is extraordinarily dishonest to start ‘I would suggest’. Just admit the whole thing is guesswork on your part without the slightest evidence, and you just so happen to have selected the one scenario that would let your position off the hook slightly more than the other scenarii.

            2. So children attending (and being actively encouraged to attend) events full of adult sexual behaviour is NOT grooming and does NOT lower inhibitions or alter perceived norms one jot.
            Oh-kay…
            You just repeat the word ‘offensive’ as though (a) true things can’t be offensive, and (b) the word were not subjective.

            3. Much more likely. The evidence is in many places e.g. it is collected in What Are They Teaching The Children? People (largely men) who molest under age children do so approx one third mixed gender, one third male and one third female. That means that as compared to adult sexual behaviour which is 90%+ other-gender there is a quite huge increase in the direction of same-gender. What could be more obvious?

            4. Yes, but you need to withdraw the implied slur on dads (as opposed to uncles) at once.
            As S says, the perfectly obvious solution to that – and why can’t you see it? – is not to invite live in boyfriends and partners into the family home. Normalising that has led to countless abuses. Anyone who agrees with its normalisation is complicit.

            5. See 4.

            As to your last remark, yes I am a ‘straight’ male, yes this is the main or only group or demographic I inhabit, and yes I am responsible for or complicit in everything any straight males do.
            Or am I?

          • I’m not sure if you were even replying to me so sorry if not.

            You seem to be including any adult who sexually assaults a child of the same sex as an LGBT person.

            This is not what LGBT stands for and it’s not a part of the pride movement.

            LG – people who experience exclusive *attraction* to the same sex
            B – people who experience attraction to both sexes
            T – people who experience being a gender at odds with their apparent birth sex

            People who sexually abuse children of either sex are not usually LGBT

          • People who sexually abuse children of either sex are not usually LGBT

            According to your definitions, then anyone who abuses children of both sex must be ‘B’ because they ‘experience attraction to both sexes’.

            Obviously the vast majority of people who experience attraction to both sexes don’t abuse any children at all.

          • S

            No.

            Assaulting someone is not the same as being attracted to people of the same sex as them. That’s the key difference.

            Pride is a protest movement for equal rights for LGBT people. It can be in-your-face, but it’s not supposed to be comfortable for those who oppose the movement. It has never advocated for people who sexually assault children. I think these accusations are outrageous, especially coming from people who are defending CofE teaching, given their own failure to keep children safe from predators.

          • Assaulting someone is not the same as being attracted to people of the same sex as them.

            So you’re saying that anyone who sexually assaults a child is not sexually attracted to that child?

            Really?

          • Why no straight answers? There is a reason why people don’t answer straight.

            If a child attends a sexually charged Pride march (which most Pride marches are) will their inhibitions and norms remain precisely the same before and after?

            If not, in which direction will they change?

            There is enough question avoidance.

  16. A way forward for the C of E?

    Having read comments from both sides of the debate following the bishop’s proposals after the Living in Love and Faith process I think the time has come to accept that a schism is going to happen and to take steps to do so in an orderly and dignified way that will minimise the hurt and damage on both sides. This process can be likened to a divorce, the relationship between the component parts of the Church of England has broken down irretrievably and now need to accept that and agree to move forward separately.
    I propose that the church splits into two separate provinces, one could be headed the Archbishop of Canterbury, the other by the Archbishop of York. Alternatively, Canterbury could be removed altogether and placed in a separate role over the Anglican communion as a whole and a new archdiocese created to pair with York, options that occur to me are London, Winchester or Lichfield.
    These two provinces would relate to the Anglican communion in the same way that other provinces do. One province would permit same-sex marriage, the other would not.
    The cathedrals and dioceses of England would be divided between the two provinces and dioceses enlarged such that each province had full coverage over the country; for example Exeter and Truro would be assigned one each to the two provinces with each having responsibility for parishes throughout Devon and Cornwall.
    Parishes would be able to chose which province they wanted to adhere to. This will destroy the formality of the parish system but the reality is that most members today, particularly in towns and cities, choose the church that they attend not on the basis of geography but of their personal inclination. In certain locations it might be necessary for some swapping of parishes to ensure everyone had access to each province; this could be worked out by bishops, if good relationships were maintained.
    Care would need to be taken to ensure that division of the assets of the church commissioners was divided equally – perhaps the two could even continue to have a single body of church commissioners and allocate income according to an agreed formula?
    Exactly where the churches that are against the ordination of women would fit they would have to consider; a third province might be a necessity.
    This process will probably result in the disestablishment of the Church. The present and immediate past Archbishops have stated that this is not a big problem. This reorganisation would be a good time to do this.
    The benefits of this process would be to end the wrangling and kicking the can down the road that has gone on for years and enable the churches to focus on outreach, discipleship and pastoral care. The Archbishop of Canterbury could be freed up to focus on the global Anglican communion.

    Reply
    • Matthew
      The same-sex/marriage disagreement is not the only disagreement in the CofE. A far more important disagreement is about the doctrines of Original Sin, Eternal Retribution, the propitiation of God’s wrath by the death of Christ, the atonement doctrine of Penal Substitution, and the need to Preach the terrible warnings to flee from the wrath to come as well as the wonderful invitations and promises to repent and submit to Christ in his atoning death and life-giving resurrection. I know that nobody is proposing to alter the Anglican foundations which spell out these truths but the reality is that those foundations are just, for the most part, ignored. It would be folly just to separate on sex/marriage alone.

      Phil Almond

      Reply
    • Matthew it’s totally unworkable and will never happen.
      Philip: can you name any bishops who support your claims? But your point does demonstrate that we have moved on from the Articles in ways that conservatives pretend not to accept.

      Reply
      • Andrew, which part of this canon do you think no longer applies?

        A 5 Of the doctrine of the Church of England

        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.

        Reply
        • Andrew, which part of this canon do you think no longer applies?

          I think Andrew Godsall’s argument is that because for many years people like, well, Andrew Godsall, have openly denied the authority of the Bible and taught heresies contrary to the scriptures from within the Church of England, without being disciplined or indeed corrected in any way, that canon A5 has become a dead letter.

          Am I right?

          While I don’t think doctrine does work like that, it’s hard to deny he has a point and that the Church of England is largely to blame, by its inaction, for things having gotten so bad, do you not think?

          Reply
          • S
            I agree with you. I am trying to persuade CEEC to recognise that the failure of the Church as a whole to preach the terrible warnings and the wonderful invitations and promises is more important than LLF (important though that is). Of course not all evangelicals believe the “doctrines of Original Sin, Eternal Retribution, the propitiation of God’s wrath by the death of Christ, the atonement doctrine of Penal Substitution, and the need to Preach the terrible warnings to flee from the wrath to come as well as the wonderful invitations and promises to repent and submit to Christ in his atoning death and life-giving resurrection.”
            This is the moment of truth not only for the liberal Church but for all evangelicals. It is because I believe these things that I am so anxious that all people should hear, believe and obey both the warnings and the promises.

            Phil Almond

      • Andrew
        ‘…pretend not to accept’. On the contrary, conservatives do recognise that the Church as a whole has departed from the Anglican foundations which are the true doctrines of the faith.
        Phil Almond

        Reply
        • Ian and S miss the point. Read Philip’s first post. He is claiming that the Articles support his point about God’s terrible warnings etc. But he can never find anyone to agree with him, despite what the Articles say.

          Ian the Articles are part of our history. We give general ascent to them. As has been noted many times before, we are not required to ascent to them in every particular detail. That has been spelled out clearly for many decades. If you have a problem with that take it up in Archbishops Council or GS.

          Reply
          • He is claiming that the Articles support his point about God’s terrible warnings etc. But he can never find anyone to agree with him, despite what the Articles say.

            I agree with him. But even if no one else did, so what?

            Ian the Articles are part of our history. We give general ascent to them. As has been noted many times before, we are not required to ascent to them in every particular detail. That has been spelled out clearly for many decades.

            Except when I have asked you to point to the resolution of General Synod that spells this out clearly you never can, so I’ll ask again: if this has been ‘spelled out clearly for many decades’, please point to the decision of General Synod (which you yourself claimed was the only oft with the authority to make such a change) which spells it out.

            Web pages and discussion booklets and explanatory pamphlets don’t count. For something like this you need the equivalent of primary legislation: a decision of General Synod. So please point to it.

          • “But he can never find anyone to agree with him, despite what the Articles say”.
            Oh Andrew – I rather think that at least some of the CEEC council agree with me. I am about to email John Dunnett and I will ask him that specific question.
            Phil Almond

          • Oh Andrew – I rather think that at least some of the CEEC council agree with me

            Suspect that, as with myself, Andrew Godsall will claim anyone who does agree with you as no true Anglican Scotsman.

  17. Phil, I asked specifically if you knew any bishop who agreed with you. I don’t think you will find one. We know that Ian does not agree with you on this matter. He has said so before.

    At to subscription to the 39 Articles, Convocation, the predecessor to General Synod agreed that clergy are not required to agree to every Article. Reference here:

    “In 1865, as the result of a Royal Commission, Convocation obtained leave from the Crown to revise the Canons. A new and simpler declaration of Assent was drawn up by the Convocations of Canterbury and York and confirmed by royal letters patent. Today the candidate for ordination is required to subscribe to the following: “I … do solemnly make the following declaration, I assent to the 39 Articles of Religion and the Book of Common Prayer and of ordering of Bishops Priests and Deacons. I believe the doctrine of the Church of England therein set forth to be agreeable to the Word of God and in public prayer and administration of the Sacraments I will use the form in the said book prescribed and none other, except so far as shall be ordered by lawful authority.” Two points need to be noted.

    (i) The Church has demanded subscription to the Articles from the clergy and the clergy only. The fifth Canon of 1604 at most demands from the laity that they shall not attack them. If other bodies such as the Universities have in earlier days required subscription from their members, they were responsible for the requirement, and not the Church.

    (ii) The change of language in the form of subscription was deliberate. We are asked to affirm today, not that the Articles are all agreeable to the Word of God, but that the doctrine of the Church of England as set forth in the Articles is agreeable to the Word of God. That is, we are not called to assent to every phrase or detail of the Articles but only to their general sense. This alteration was made of set purpose to afford relief to scrupulous consciences.”

    Reply
    • I comment on your(ii)
      How can you “affirm that the doctrine of the Church of England as set forth in the Articles is agreeable to the Word of God” without affirming that the doctrines set forth in the Articles are all agreeable to the Word of God”? Also, could you please explain what ‘general sense’ you were assenting to and affirming when you subscribed to the 39 Articles.

      Phil Almond

      Reply
      • The general sense, as I have said many times, is that the articles are part of the unique history of the CofE and I am assenting to that inheritance of faith. But as the paragraph makes clear, we are not called to assent to every phrase or detail of the Articles. I was ordained by Graham Leonard and that was made quite clear to us by him and the legal representative who administered the oaths.

        Reply
        • I am assenting to that inheritance of faith

          This is meaningless. What does it mean to ‘assent to [an] inheritance of faith’?

          What specific things did you assent to?

          Reply
          • Reminds me of Spurgeon’s (I think) take on this kind of situation:
            Q What do you believe
            A I believe what the Church believes
            Q What does the Church believe
            A The Church believes what I believe
            Q What do you and the Church both believe
            A Why, we both believe the same thing!

            Phil Almond

          • Phil, S is never content. She asks for the place where the CofE has indicated that it isn’t necessary “to assent to every phrase or detail of the Articles but only to their general sense.”.
            It’s way off topic to ask what it is that I, as simply one contributor to discussion here, assent to in specific detail, not least because I’ve answered before and answered quite fully to those who have trained, ordained and licensed me as anyone has to.
            Phil if you simply can’t grasp that the CofE has a breadth of belief I don’t know why are remain in it. S is not part of the CofE, so has made a choice based on what it is or isn’t. What it isn’t is a narrow Protestant 17th century sect with Puritan leanings.
            Now, please tell me which bishop supports your narrow interpretation of the articles. And if you can’t, as I fully suspect you can’t, why not just find a Church that thinks exactly as you think?

          • It’s way off topic to ask what it is that I, as simply one contributor to discussion here, assent to in specific detail, not least because I’ve answered before and answered quite fully to those who have trained, ordained and licensed me as anyone has to.</i

            We get it, what you actually believe is a secret between you and your trainers.

            Seems an odd way to run a church, what with one of the distinguishing features of Christianity being that (in contrast to Gnostic cults in the first century, and cults like Scientology now), Christianity has always made a virtue of being totally up-front and open shut what it believes. I’d suggest that the Church of England might want to rethink its processes if they are designed to actively hide what is clergy believe from open scrutiny.

            But for you, its totally confidential. Understood. You don’t mind if we speculate on why you’re so concerned, though, do you? Would it be terribly embarrassing for you if everybody found out what you really believe? Is it that you think the laity are dumb hicks who wouldn’t understand? I invite others to give their suggestions.

          • What nonsense you talk S. If it were confidential I would not have spelled it out here many times. And I would not have been able to have a public ministry. The person being confidential here is you. You can’t even give a real name or use a real e mail address. That’s beyond confidential and secret. It’s simply devious.

          • If it were confidential I would not have spelled it out here many times.

            You have never spelt anything out. You always hide behind vagueness and equivocations and refuse to answer direct questions like, did Jesus have a human genetic father?

            But. As you raised the issue: what does it mean to ‘assent to [an] inheritance of faith’?

            I know what it means to assent to a proposition. A proposition is a statement that can be true or false, and to assent to a prostitution means to think that the statement is true. I can assent to the proposition that two plus two makes four, or the proposition that Canberra is the capital of Australia, and I do not assent to the proposition that Joe Burrow is the best quarter-back playing today.

            I know therefore what it would mean to assent to the thirty-nine articles, as the articles are phrased as propositions, so to assent to them means to think that the statements they make are all true.

            But what, exactly, is an ‘inheritance of faith’ and what would it mean to assent to one? What precisely does one think to be true?

            If I were to want to know whether I assented to an ‘inheritance of faith’, how would I be able to tell? I know how to tell whether I assent to the thirty-nine articles: I go thorough them one by one and decide whether I think they are true and if I reach the end without finding one I think to be false, then I assent to them.

            But if I wanted to decide whether I assented to an ‘inheritance of faith’, how would I go about doing that?

          • S, if you seriously wanted to decide whether you assented to an ‘inheritance of faith’ you would do well to read and study this CofE publication on the matter.

            https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2022-06/PROCLAIMtextWEB.pdf

            I have linked to it and commended it before in these pages. Several times. When you have read it all, I suspect you will understand the phrase inheritance of faith – which is not my phrase – a great deal better.

            But you do not wish to understand it. That is why you have decided not to be a member of the CofE.

          • Andrew
            The key issue is whether that ‘breadth of belief’ can be justified by the CofE foundation documents. You believe it can be justified; I believe it cannot. It would perhaps be more helpful if, rather than asking you what you believe, we ask the question what you do not believe. The clear cut case is Article 9. As I see it this Article is saying that we all face God’s wrath and condemnation from birth onwards and we are all born with a nature inclined to evil. Given the language of the Article, I invite you and Ian Paul to explain how you avoid that understanding of the Article.
            Phil Almond

          • As I see it this Article is saying that we all face God’s wrath and condemnation from birth onwards and we are all born with a nature inclined to evil. Given the language of the Article, I invite you and Ian Paul to explain how you avoid that understanding of the Article.

            As I understand it your beef with Ian Paul is that he’s an annihilationist (am I wrong? have I missed something?).

            Now, personally I am not an annihilationist, but I can’t see any way in which annihilationism is incompatible with Article 9. Certainly I don’t see annihilationism as being incompatible with the proposition that ‘we all face God’s wrath and condemnation from birth onwards and we are all born with a nature inclined to evil’.

            [I want to give the document entitled To Proclaim Afresh due consideration & will respond to it when I have had time.]

          • S
            The Article 9 issue with Ian is that, as I understand him, he does not believe in Original Sin. Eternal Retribution/Annihilation, Penal Substitution, and propitiation of God’s wrath by the death of Christ are other disagreements between us but I suggest Ian/Andrew respond to my question about Article 9 before we get onto other things.
            Phil Almond

          • Phil, you ask if Proclaim afresh has been voted on and agreed by Synod.
            Please do read it. It is a history of and commentary on the oaths and declarations and Prefaces as we now have them. The text explains how the form we now have was reached and when General Synod, or its predecessor bodies, agreed that form.
            The document is published by the Faith and Order Commission – chaired by the Bishop of Coventry.

          • I’m not sure how my writing “The text explains how the form we now have was reached and when General Synod, or its predecessor bodies, agreed that form.” isn’t an answer? As I have said before, the document is not proposing anything new. It is simply a commentary on and history of what has already been agreed.
            It seems that neither you nor Phil have read it…..

          • I’m not sure how my writing “The text explains how the form we now have was reached and when General Synod, or its predecessor bodies, agreed that form.” isn’t an answer?

            It’s not an answer to the question of whether the particular document was voted on and agreed by Synod.

            As I have said before, the document is not proposing anything new. It is simply a commentary on and history of what has already been agreed.

            That’s your claim. But if General Synod has not voted on and agreed it, how do we know that it’s an accurate and balanced commentary and history? It could be a biased commentary written to push one particular interpretation of what was agreed and the discussions that led to it.

            Often when laws are passed, guidance will be produced to accompany them. But the guidance is not authoritative as to the law: only the actual statutes passed by Parliament are authoritative.

            If this document has not itself been passed by General Synod then it is in the same position as guidance to laws rather than the statutes themselves, ie, not autoritative.

            So will you answer the question: has this document been voted on and agreed by Synod?

            It seems that neither you nor Phil have read it…..

            I have read it, but I need more free time to format a proper response.

          • There is nothing in this document that needs voting on by General Synod. It isn’t making anything new. It also records when the various matters – the declarations, and oaths and the Preface as we have them were agreed by General Synod. If you had read it you would have seen that.
            It is published by the Faith and Order Commission – a sub committee of General Synod – with delegated powers to publish some material as this is: a commentary and history of what has already been approved.

          • There is nothing in this document that needs voting on by General Synod. It isn’t making anything new.

            It goes through the statements clause by clause, setting out how they are to be interpreted.

            For those interpretations to be autoritative, they would have to be voted on by General Synod, because only General Synod has authority to make such statements of interpretation.

            If it hasn’t been voted on by General Synod, then those statements of interpretation are just matters of opinion, of no more authority than yours or move or CEEC’s.

            Which means you need to stop citing it as an authority to prove that your interpretation is correct. Because it only has that authority of it was passed by General Synod.

            So: which is it? Are the interpretations in the document autoritative (in which case when was it passed by General Synod)? Or did it not need to be passed by General Synod (in which case nothing in it is autoritative, and you have to stop citing it as if it were the autoritative interpretation of the meaning of the Declaration)?

          • (For those still reading — yes, both of you — this is a common tactic when you have a controversial change you want to get through, but you know that you haven’t got the votes. What you do is you propose a watered-down, less controversial version, and get that passed. Then you produce guidance saying that the passed version should be read as your original version. You claim that the guidance doesn’t need the same level of scrutiny because it isn’t really saying anything new, it’s just a commentary on what was passed and how it came about. But in fact the guidance goes significantly farther than the passed version.

            The government did this with the Coronavirus directives at the beginning of the kerfuffle, when the guidance was significantly more controversial than anything that was actually passed by Parliament. So it’s always worth asking when somebody points at a document: what is the status of this? Is it take autoritative, or is it merely guidance?)

          • S: it isn’t the only thing I have quoted. I have now quoted three things.
            You are basically suggesting that the Faith and Order Commission aren’t capable of doing their job, and that their chair, the Bishop of Coventry, is bearing false witness. You are free to think that.
            You are also doubting that General Synod passed a particular resolution in 1970 or that Convocations passed various resolutions in 1865.
            Your way forward is to write to the Bishop of Coventry to check whether he is bearing false witness and the Clerk to the Synod to get copies of the minutes etc.
            I can’t help you any further.

          • You are basically suggesting that the Faith and Order Commission aren’t capable of doing their job, and that their chair, the Bishop of Coventry, is bearing false witness.

            I’m suggesting nothing. I’m simply asking for autoritative statements.

            You are also doubting that General Synod passed a particular resolution in 1970 or that Convocations passed various resolutions in 1865.

            Ah ha! Now we’re getting somewhere. You say the measure was passed in 1970?

            Your way forward is to write to the Bishop of Coventry to check whether he is bearing false witness and the Clerk to the Synod to get copies of the minutes etc.

            Fortunately, I don’t have to do that, because all church measures — at last going back to the 1920s — are on the government’s statute legislation web page, at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukcm

            So, the one you’re talking about was passed in 1970. Let’s see. There were two measures passed in 1970:

            * Church Commissioners Measure 1970

            * SHARING OF CHURCH BUILDINGS MEASURE 1970 (No. 2)

            To which one are you referring?

          • I beg your pardon – typing error of mine. 1975, not 1970. But if you had read the document you would have spotted that. Let me remind you of the relevant part:

            “The Preface and Declaration of Assent, agreed by the
            Church of England’s General Synod in 1975, were born out of the theological conversations of the 1960s.1 Understanding the Declaration’s origins is important for appreciating its distinctive emphases, including its purpose and shape.”

            The problem with the government website you point to is that, by its own admission, the dataset between 1920 and 1987 is only partial. You didn’t really think that Synod only passed two resolutions in 1970?

            You will also want to look at the Notes of the document you claim to have read. Let me just quote some relevant parts:

            1 For details of the synodical debates, see C. Podmore, ‘The Church of England’s Declaration of Assent’, in Aspects of Anglican Identity (London: Church House Publishing, 2005), pp. 43–57.
            2 Canon 36 of 1604, in G. Bray (ed.), The Anglican Canons 1529–1947 (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 1998), p. 321.
            3 Subscription and Assent to the Thirty-nine Articles: A Report of the Archbishops’ Commission on Christian Doctrine (London: SPCK, 1968), §63–9.

            So you really will need to write to the Clerk of Synod. Or get hold of the Colin Podmore chapter about the debate. Then you will also need the Report of the Archbishops’ Commission from 1968 for background.

            Happy reading!

          • The problem with the government website you point to is that, by its own admission, the dataset between 1920 and 1987 is only partial. You didn’t really think that Synod only passed two resolutions in 1970?

            Well, I don’t know how many resolutions a General Synod passes in an average year. But Parliaments tend to pass far too much legislation so perhaps General Synods follow that pattern.

            Nevertheless, at least you’ve now finally answered the question of exactly when this resolution was passed even if (conveniently for you) we can’t check exactly what was in it.

            But I’ll tell you one thing we know wasn’t in it: the text of the document entitled To Proclaim Afresh . We know that text can’t have been in the resolution because it writes of the passing of the 1975 resolution in the past tense.

            So we’re back to the same question: has the document entitled To Proclaim Afresh ever been voted on and approved by General Synod and, if so, when (and let’s hope this one isn’t conveniently missing from the archives)?

            So you really will need to write to the Clerk of Synod. Or get hold of the Colin Podmore chapter about the debate. Then you will also need the Report of the Archbishops’ Commission from 1968 for background.

            But not of those could possibly help me answer the question as to whether the document entitled To Proclaim Afresh has ever been voted on and approved by General Synod. Because all of those pre-date the text of To Proclaim Afresh , so they can’t possibly tell me whether that text was ever voted on and approved by General Synod, can they?

          • “Nevertheless, at least you’ve now finally answered the question of exactly when this resolution was passed even if (conveniently for you) we can’t check exactly what was in it.”

            I answered that question months ago! The answer is clear in the document that you haven’t bothered to actually read.

            We can check what was in the resolution of 1975. You will need to read the report first of course. Then you can check with the clerk to synod and get the minutes.

            To Proclaim Afresh didn’t need to go to Synod. The CofE is Episcopally Lead and Synodically Governed. Not everything has resolutions in it and To Proclaim afresh doesn’t. It refers to the resolutions of 1865 and 1975. And remember the note to the 1865 resolution that I copied for you yesterday? Here it is again:

            “we are not called to assent to every phrase or detail of the Articles but only to their general sense. This alteration was made of set purpose to afford relief to scrupulous consciences.”

          • “Well, I don’t know how many resolutions a General Synod passes in an average year. “

            You can easily see that. The order papers and notes about business done are all online. It’s a lot more than two a year, I can assure you.

          • To Proclaim Afresh didn’t need to go to Synod.

            Right. In which case it isn’t authoritative, is it? Because you’ve said before that General Synod is the body with the authority to set doctrine. So the canons are authoritative; the text of the declaration is authoritative; the interpretations in the document entitled To Proclaim Afresh are not authoritative, and if they appear to conflict with the canons, the canons win. Right?

            “we are not called to assent to every phrase or detail of the Articles but only to their general sense.

            So now we’re back to: what does it mean to assent to the ‘general sense’ of the Articles? What precisely is someone who assents to the ‘general sense’ of the Articles doing?

          • S you will need to read the background documents for the debates in 1865 and 1975 to understand this. I can’t read them for you. End of story ……..
            I have told you many many times that To Proclaim Afresh is not something that needed to go to GS. You can disagree as much as you like. Take that up with the Faith and Order Commission.
            But as you aren’t even a member of the CofE, it’s surprising you have so much interest ……..
            Nothing more I can say now. Have a lovely evening

          • I have told you many many times that To Proclaim Afresh is not something that needed to go to GS.

            Because it’s not authoritative, right? It’s just guidance. Do you need to stop replying to people who point out that your claims are inconsistent with the canons by saying, ‘Ah, but I think you’ll find To Proclaim Afresh says …’

            Because the canons are authoritative and To Proclaim Afresh isn’t. So if the two contradict each other, the canons win.

          • you will need to read the background documents for the debates in 1865 and 1975 to understand this

            That’s like saying you need to read Hansard to understand the law. You don’t. The law is what was passed, no more and no less. The debates may be interesting historical background, but they in no way define interpretation.

          • “Because the canons are authoritative and To Proclaim Afresh isn’t. So if the two contradict each other, the canons win.”

            And they don’t contradict each other. So that’s ok!

  18. Andrew
    I do intend to read your document and research the background. But while I am doing that are you going to respond to my challenge about Article 9 please?

    Phil Almond

    Reply
    • Phil, it isn’t ‘my’ document. It is the Church of England’s document from the Faith and Order Commission.
      Do ask Ian to start a thread about the articles. I will gladly respond there.
      Are you going to respond to my earlier question about which bishops support your view about the importance of Article 9?

      Reply
      • Are you going to respond to my earlier question about which bishops support your view

        Have we not established that the bishops span the whole spectrum from liars to cowards to heretics? The Church of England would be in a much better place if it always considered what the bishops said and then did the opposite.

        Reply
  19. Andrew
    I have corresponded with John Dunnett and he has said he is away and will reply on his return. I have read the document you want us to read. It is an account of the trajectory that the CofE has travelled since the Reformation showing how the convictions about the God of the Bible, his wrath, his condemnation of sin, the atoning death of Christ, eternal punishment of the unsaved etc. have gradually been abandoned. Rather than grasp the nettle and alter the Declaration of Assent to reflect this, the Church has done a fudge and kept the form of words and persuaded people like your good self that by making the Declaration you are not saying that you believe these terrible doctrines like wrath and predestination.

    Phil Almond

    Reply
    • Phil: the extreme form of Protestantism that you espouse had its full expression in Puritanism. What has been happening in the CofE since the failure of that movement has been a discovery of the via media.
      There is a recognition that a few – like yourself – have still wished to espouse that extreme form of Protestantism. So rather than make it impossible for any particular group within the CofE to remain, it allows latitude. Hence “In 1968, a report on Subscription and Assent to the 39 Articles was produced by the Archbishops’ Commission on Christian Doctrine. Focusing in particular on the approach to Scripture set out in the Articles, it called for the then current Declaration of Assent to be changed, so that it would ‘not tie down the person using it to acceptance of every one of the Articles’, and would leave open ‘The possibility of fresh understandings of Christian truth’, while also leaving room ‘for an appeal to the Articles as a norm within Anglican theology’

      “In response, in 1975, a new form of Declaration of Assent came into force in the Church of England.”

      So Phil both of us are considered loyal members of the CofE even though we have different attitudes to the Articles.

      Reply

Leave a Reply to Steven Robinson Cancel reply