Living in Love and Faith: Good Episcopal Differentiation?


Andrew Goddard writes: in the first of three articles, I highlighted the challenges that now face the post-LLF process in ‘squaring the circle’ of different commitments made in our understanding of blessing, the nature of marriage, and our agreed sexual ethic. In the second one, I explored the question of our disagreements and what might be needed to address them. Here, in anticipation of the meeting of the House of Bishops next week, I look at what kind of relationships and differentiation will be required if the bishops continue on the path they have set out in the proposals to Synod.

Learning from the Communion and the Church of England’s Past

The Anglican Communion has, after over twenty years of fundamental differences and divisions among its provinces and bishops, recognised the need to consider what it might mean to develop forms of “good differentiation”. Recognising their own differentiated episcopate following the introduction of same-sex marriage in 2015, the bishops of the Episcopal Church issued a statement concerning “Communion Across Difference” highlighting the work of the Communion Partners, the minority of bishops in TEC maintaining the Communion teaching of Lambeth I.10. In 2018 TEC built on this statement and set up a task force working on “Communion Across Difference” in relation to its own divisions over matters of sexuality and marriage. This reported to the recent General Convention which created a new task force to continue the work. 

Within the Church of England we now face the possibility of bishops dissenting from any decisions in relation to Prayers of Love and Faith or the Pastoral Guidance and refusing, on grounds of conscience, whether more “conservative”, or more “progressive”, to follow any consensus. This raises questions as to the implications of such differentiated beliefs and practices among the episcopate. What might some form of agreed structural “good differentiation” look like if we are somehow to make space for divergent episcopal teaching and practice within the Church of England? The recently published terms of reference for the Pastoral Reassurance group includes reference to “considering the implications of freedom of conscience for bishops”.

The introduction of variation across the dioceses of the Church of England in important matters is not without precedent. For example, Section 2 of the Priests (Ordination of Women) Measure allowed in principle a serving bishop not to permit women to minister as priests in their diocese, though no bishops made the possible declaration. 

Similarly, guidelines in relation to communion before confirmation were introduced in 1997 where this matter would be determined by bishops for their dioceses. The rationale and process for introducing this innovation may point to a possible way forward in our current situation:

Since ‘Communion before Confirmation’ is a departure from our inherited norm, it requires special permission. After consultation, every diocesan bishop will have the discretion to make a general policy whether or not to entertain new applications for ‘Communion before Confirmation’ to take place [in] his diocese. If he decides to do so, individual parishes must seek his agreement before introducing it. The bishop should satisfy himself that both the incumbent and the Parochial Church Council support any application and that where appropriate, ecumenical partners have been consulted. If the parties agree, the bishop’s direction shall be followed. (Admission of Baptised Persons to Communion before Confirmation: Guidelines agreed by the House of Bishops (GS Misc 488), para A).

Remarriage in church after divorce was also handled in different ways by different bishops before a national policy was agreed. The report Marriage in Church After Divorce (2000) noted that when the working party asked diocesan bishops to indicate their policies, “the majority who responded….indicated that they did operate guidelines setting out the circumstances in which an incumbent could take such services, most of these being based on those put forward by the House of Bishops in 1985. There were nevertheless considerable variations in practice both between and within dioceses” (Para 6.1, p37).

Despite these precedents, there are more serious challenges, given the strength and divergence of opinions in the church, if we enter a situation where 

  • bishops teach contradictory doctrines of marriage and sexual ethics and each claim they are representing the Church’s doctrine, or
  • a number of bishops prevent or limit use of commended prayers in their dioceses or 
  • some bishops commend prayers which other bishops view as indicative of a departure from doctrine or 
  • bishops pursue different policies on whether they commend those in a same-sex marriage or a sexual relationship other than marriage for ordination training or licence them.

The situation is further complicated by the fact that, whatever stance they take, every bishop will have clergy and parishes who strongly disagree with their own decisions. Some of these may view themselves as in impaired communion with their bishop and seek episcopal ministry from another bishop with whom they are in full communion.

Possible Pathways & Frameworks

A number of possible pathways then need to be considered where there are at least the following six broad options with potential overlaps between them and multiple variations within them: 

  1. A uniform national approach which all bishops have to follow in their ministries. This refuses to permit any pattern of episcopal ministry other than that in line with the majority view. This is the current model in relation to past pastoral statements from the House, Issues in Human Sexuality etc. In the light of our disagreements and to prevent the legal disputes seen in other churches, this might be combined with some agreed way of separation for those unable to accept the majority view that enables them to continue their current ministry but transferring out of the Church of England to align with Anglicans elsewhere in the Communion. For those wishing change this could involve transferring to a province which has already embraced developments in these areas (we have three adjacent to the CofE – TEC’s Convocation of Episcopal Churches in Europe, Wales & Scotland) while for those wishing to uphold current teaching it might involve aligning with provinces in GSFA and/or GAFCON.
  2. A “local option” where the bishops, clergy and parishes of each diocese (while retaining the right not to participate personally in actions they conscientiously objected to) would be expected to accept the decision of the ordinary leading to different policies in different dioceses and no structures of alternative episcopal oversight. This is how communion before confirmation was introduced. 
  3. A diversity of episcopal practices acceptable within the same diocese enabling diocesan unity but with different parishes serving under different bishops, each ministering in accordance with their conscientious convictions. This could be seen as extending and developing the approach of the London Plan in relation to the Bishop of Fulham for those opposed to women priests and bishops.
  4. An option for clergy and parishes in impaired communion with their bishop (because of their bishop’s decisions) to receive episcopal ministry from a bishop serving another diocese in the geographical area whose ministry they can accept. There are already regional groups of bishops and dioceses and these could form the basis for such a development. A form of this is what was developed (building on earlier DEPO arrangements) within TEC in 2018 (by Resolution B012) in relation to marriage policy for parishes under bishops unwilling to authorise same-sex marriages (although Bill Love, Bishop of Albany, could not in conscience accept this development, was disciplined, eventually resigned as bishop, and ultimately left The Episcopal Church and joined ACNA).
  5. An option for clergy and parishes in impaired communion with their bishop (because of their bishop’s decisions) to receive episcopal ministry from a bishop whose ministry is extra-diocesan and serves a number of dioceses. This could extend or adapt the current model of Provincial Episcopal Visitors for those who are opposed to the ordination of women. 
  6. An option for clergy and parishes to realign with bishops who share their conscientious convictions in order to constitute a province with its own diocesan structures. This would be a province within the CofE either restructuring the existing two provinces on non-geographical grounds or creating a third province. The fullest account of what this might look like is found in work done for CEEC in 2019-20 and published as Visibly Different (Chpt 7) with additional introduction and updating addendum from 2022.

In all of these there would remain a national House and College of Bishops and a General Synod of the Church of England. In all of them except (1) there would be a recognised diversity of episcopal teachings and practices within those bodies. How these elements of both unity and diversity would be worked out geographically in relation to existing diocesan structures and the relationship between bishops and clergy and parishes is what would vary. 

In relation to options (3) to (5) numerous questions would need to be addressed concerning continuity of episcopal representation for both views and the reassignment of episcopal duties, perhaps particularly in relation to jurisdiction. Here there may be value in revisiting the attempt by Archbishops Williams and Sentamu to develop a form of co-ordinate jurisdiction. These arrangements could be supplemented by the creation of a recognised, national, episcopally-led but non-provincial structure which held a clear position on the contested questions and to which clergy, parishes and individuals could be affiliated. This could take the form of developing existing networks which have a clear position they seek to commend to the wider church (such as CEEC, Inclusive Church or the Society of Catholic Priests) into a mission order (like The Order of Mission or the Community of St Mark in the New Zealand Anglican Church), an acknowledged religious community within the Church of England, or something similar to The Society. 

Although options (2) to (5) have the attraction and merit of maintaining close working episcopal relationships even amidst episcopal differentiation, there are questions as to how stable and theologically coherent and acceptable these options would be. It also remains to be seen whether they would establish sufficient differentiation for those needing it even though they would all (with the exception of (2)) secure them a bishop with whom they are in full communion. In particular, these solutions appear to require acceptance of developments within the current structures that are viewed by many as contrary to the church’s doctrine. They also permit bishops serving side by side formally to teach contradictory doctrines within the same legal provincial structure and to practise them in their ministries without the church’s doctrine having formally been changed. There are risks that among those wishing to distance themselves from their bishop there will be a range of views as to how serious their bishop’s error is with people consequently looking for a range of different forms of differentiation, some content with (3), others only with (5) etc. This will likely lead to no single form of provision being sufficient and so greater fragmentation and complexity.

Furthermore, given the desire of many for the church to permit same-sex marriages, there is also likely to be continued pressure for further developments requiring in turn still further and more significant differentiation. This means any solution may prove only temporary and so these options could not be treated as permanent provision but would need to be revisited in the future, perhaps inexorably moving us over time towards either the strongest internal differentiation at a provincial level (6) or the need to negotiate a formal separation as in (1). Faced with these challenges, the two alternative options of (1) and (6) which would create less diverse structures with a united episcopacy and a single pattern of ministry may appear more attractive. They face, however, the challenge that in many, perhaps most parishes, benefices and teams, there are a range of views present and a desire to minimise differentiation and make decisive choices. This will often make it difficult to effect such a clean break into two internally coherent bodies and could signal that although messier in many ways (both theoretically and practically) options (2) to (5) may be more realistic options – at least as first steps – given the complex realities on the ground.

How should we interpret our situation and discern a way forward together? Three models

How we discern which of these paths is the best way forward depends to a significant degree on how we describe the situation we find ourselves in and the doctrinal and liturgical boundaries that are set for the Church of England as a whole. Here there appear to be three broad understandings or models at play:

We could, on the first understanding, acknowledge that we have two incompatible doctrines of marriage – that which we have received which restricts it to one man and one woman and sexual intimacy to marriage and that which wishes to extend this to include two people irrespective of biological sex and/or permit sex outside marriage. Each of these is held by a significant proportion of the church and, it could be argued, needs to be given space. If this were to be done, then in terms of continued unity and walking together the best we could currently hope for would appear to be a provincial restructuring. To try to enshrine both contradictory doctrines within the teaching of the same province of the Church of England would appear both theologically incoherent and politically impossible. The choice would then appear to be either to divide into total separate ecclesial bodies (as has happened in North America among Anglicans and currently within the United Methodist Church and as suggested in option 1 above) or to re-imagine our current two-province structure within the Church of England (as in option 6 above).

We could – as appears to be the major approach at present—argue for a second understanding: that we are not changing doctrine but simply being more generous pastorally and liturgically. All that is therefore needed are forms of “pastoral reassurance” which seek to provide sufficient legal protections for those clergy whose consciences do not permit them to be as pastorally and liturgically expansive as the Church of England will allow in future. This might lead to option 2 (or option 1) above or a minimalist form of alternative episcopal oversight within the range of options 3 to 5. There are at least two major problems with this approach: 

  1. many do view the current proposals as representing a change in doctrine and thus crossing a red line and would be even clearer about this were sexual relationships other than marriage to be given approval. This means their need is not simply for reassurance and legal protection for their personal conscience. Their concern is avoiding participation in what they see as serious theological and moral error being introduced into the church. This leads to them being in impaired communion with those who embrace the changes in their own ministries. Where their bishops do so, CofE clergy and parishes will find themselves being deprived of what they can recognise and receive as faithful episcopal oversight in line with church doctrine.
  2. were any bishops to refuse to allow use of prayers or to follow new guidance this would have an effect on their clergy and parishes and lead to much greater episcopal differentiation than we have experienced before.

A third understanding is to acknowledge these problems. This may lead to acceptance that the changes do represent a de facto change in doctrine thus leading us back to the first understanding above and some provincial level solution. Alternatively, as noted in Part Two, we could view ourselves as fundamentally disagreeing over the exact content and extent of our current doctrine and recognising that these different interpretations yield different implications in terms of what is and is not indicative of a departure from it. The question then becomes one of how best to proceed if we are to continue stating the doctrine has not changed but we are giving space to practices which in the past have been held to be inconsistent with that doctrine and a departure from it or at least indicative of a departure from it.

Two possible paths to good episcopal differentiation

This third understanding raises the question as to how one best moves from the status quo to some form of good episcopal differentiation. One path would be to say something like

the consensus of the current bishops, supported by a simple but not two-thirds majority in Synod, is that these developments are not indicative of departure from doctrine. We will therefore proceed with them but in order to enable us to continue to discern God’s will and walk together as closely as possible we will make provision (in some form of options 3-5) for those who cannot accept them (and, where necessary, for those who wish to proceed but whose bishops cannot authorise such developments under their ministry). 

Another path, learning from introducing communion before confirmation, would be to say something like

we recognise that these changes rely on novel interpretations of current doctrine in a number of ways, are changes which we have not previously been accepted as within the bounds of doctrine, and are viewed by a significant minority in the Church of England and the majority of the wider Communion as departing from doctrine. As we seek to continue to discern God’s will and walk together as closely as possible we can therefore only currently permit them on a limited, experimental basis by providing (in some form of options 3-5) a way for those who in conscience feel bound to implement them and believe them to be acceptable within existing doctrine.

This latter path would – if it could be practically constructed with theological integrity and with clarity as to how and when the experiment would be evaluated and then developed, continued or abandoned – amount to testing a proposed development of doctrine by means of a form of pastoral accommodation, a phrase which has (after being given much attention at the time of the Pilling Report) been noticeably absent from responses to LLF. 

Pastoral accommodation, in the words of Oliver O’Donovan, is an approach which “could allow for continuity with the doctrine of the church” even as one responds in new ways to fresh practical questions and pastoral challenges. Reflecting on the response of different churches to questions surrounding marriage and same-sex unions, and in particular that of the Scottish Episcopal Church which chose to change its doctrine of marriage, he wrote:

A pastoral accommodation has an experimental character; it seeks ways of ministering the gospel to particular needs, and waits upon the Holy Spirit for signs following – evident holiness, faithfulness, fruitfulness in the life of discipleship. A church may have good and sufficient pastoral reasons for engaging in an experiment, which fall far short of grounds for modifying its teaching. Of the future we know only this: we shall be led by the Holy Spirit into new understandings and new practices. When we have been led, we shall appreciate and practice those understandings together, in conscious obedience to Scripture and in the unity of a common mind. But until that happens, we cannot pretend to have been led. No one can programme the Holy Spirit to suit his or her convenience, which is the lesson taught by Simon the magician of Samaria, who, as Peter said, thought he could possess the gift of God (Acts 8:20).

The deep offence of what the Scottish Episcopal Church has done lies in its determination to conceal the tentative character of its action by rewriting the teaching of the church, as though Christian doctrine were nothing but church law under its control, an assumption made quite explicit by the theological paper produced to justify it. In response to any pastoral experiment involving a marriage-like ceremony with same-sex couples, we can only reply: So long as you clearly uphold the doctrine of the universal church, you are free in conscience to act experimentally as you believe the Spirit prompts you; and so is the wider church free to watch, form a careful judgment of the Holy Spirit’s leading, and draw appropriate conclusions. But if you demand guarantees in advance that you will be proved right, you are a false prophet! (“The Christian Doctrine of Marriage” in Noble, Whittle & Johnson (eds), Marriage, Family and Relationships, pp. 201-2).

Were this approach to be pursued it could be filled out for those bishops wishing to introduce new prayers and/or new guidance that others viewed as indicating a departure from doctrine in a range of possible ways including: 

  • each bishop could be allowed to decide how to structure their ministry, or to do so with the consent of their diocesan, enabling those they currently serve who disagree with their decision to receive episcopal ministry from another bishop in the diocese (option 3)
  • allowing certain bishops within regional groups to take these steps and to minister to those clergy and parishes in their region who wished to follow their lead (option 4)
  • transferring certain serving bishops or consecrating new bishops to function as PEVs (option 5) for those clergy and parishes wishing to take these steps.

The more radical solution would be to constitute a province (option 6) which would then be free, through its provincial synod, to go even further and revise the doctrine rather than push what is permitted within current doctrine to, or in the eyes of some, beyond, its absolute limits.

Conclusion: Seeking settlement?

In his speech at General Synod the Archbishop of York spoke of the need for “discussions about some kind of settlement” and how “because we belong to one another in Christ we have to have these conversations which can and will hold us together”. He later explored some of these ideas in an article for New Directions. In addition to his theological rationale rooted in our shared baptismal faith and his article’s argument that “we need to apply the same ecumenical theology to some of our own internal disagreements as members of the Church of England and the worldwide Anglican Communion” there are also now strong political reasons for addressing the sort of questions explored above, whatever one’s stance on the matters in dispute.

To adapt the words of the Global South Steering Committee after Lambeth 2022 (in para 6.79f), “biblical faithfulness and relational integrity now require us” within the Church of England “to speak of ‘degrees of communion’” (something we already do in relation to women priests and bishops as the Archbishop of York has highlighted). As a result, in any way forward, “we need to recognise the extent to which those degrees may increase and intensify or decrease and face temporary or permanent impairment”.

Those wanting change have, on the whole, accepted the bishops’ proposals, but only as a stepping stone to further changes and are especially eager for developments in relation to the new guidance on questions which others see as departure from current doctrine. Given the doctrinal questions raised, however, they face two main alternatives to that of seeking a settlement with restructuring and good differentiation: 

  • either they wait until there is greater consensus behind the view that proposals do not indicate a change in doctrine or behind an explicit change in doctrine, which would require the support of two-thirds of all three Houses. 
  • or they push on and risk creating (perhaps multiple) breakaways from the Church of England and/or deep bitterness and fracture lines within it. 

Those opposed to the proposed changes and possible further changes in revised guidance because of what they see as their doctrinal significance also have unattractive alternatives: 

  • either they push back sufficiently strongly to defeat them but in so doing create deep bitterness and likely both departures from the church and more widespread and blatant disregard of current teaching and discipline by those who cannot in conscience continue to uphold it.
  • or they accept within the Church of England (and in the case of bishops, they accept happening under their episcopal authority) authorised actions which they believe to be a departure from Church of England doctrine and, more seriously, a departure from Scripture in relation to marriage and sexual ethics.
  • or they choose to engage in an ongoing rejection of and resistance against the changes and those bishops implementing them (which still leaves, as TEC has found, challenging questions about “Communion Across Difference”)
  • or they choose to walk away into a new province separate from the Church of England but recognised by many Communion provinces as has happened in other Anglican provinces.

While I and others may wish those pressing for change would follow the first option we also need to recognise that for them to do so would represent another major further sacrifice and frustrate what appears to be the desire of a simple majority in the church to proceed in a way they believe to be right. They would be required not to follow their consciences as to what the Lord requires of them because of those of us who view what they wish to do as creating a church which has departed from its current doctrine and from Scripture. 

Faced with this reality it would be much better to find ways in which, as the Communion is now doing afresh, we can to some degree still “walk together” as the Primates stated they wished to do in 2016, but in new structures. These would have to be structures which recognise that tragically our doctrinal disagreements mean this “walking together” has to be with some “significant distance between us” that embodies our impaired communion. Rather than following ways that will most likely yield the fruit of division and bitterness, can we not instead seek ways to continue “speaking the truth in love” to one another, “living a life worthy of the calling we have received” by being “completely humble and gentle…patient, bearing with one another in love”? Given we are bound to “make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace” with all our fellow Christians should we not be seeking, with the Communion and the new work of IASCUFO and now the work of GAFCON/GSFA to reset the Communion, to find some structural ways of “good differentiation”? Rather than rushing forward with current plans and risking separation with little or no ongoing shared discernment within the Church of England, why not seek a pathway truly respectful of our different conscientious convictions? 

There is no escaping the sad reality that in these matters the body of Christ is going to continue to have to bear the painful reality of “communion across difference”. The challenge is whether we in the Church of England can find a settlement that would enable us to continue to walk and work together as best we can, maintaining as high a degree of communion as possible, as we seek to “form a careful judgment of the Holy Spirit’s leading” and come, we hope and pray, by God’s grace, to a common mind once again at some point in the future. 


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. He is a member of the subgroup looking at Pastoral Guidance, but is writing here in a personal capacity, neither reflecting the work of the group nor drawing on it.


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.

183 thoughts on “Living in Love and Faith: Good Episcopal Differentiation?”

  1. Things like communion after divorce and marriage after divorce are sociological markers, and need to be interpreted sociologically. They are a message communicating the degree of social deviance that can be tolerated. Truth and benefit do not come into it.

    This can be confirmed by (a) the way that such changes map onto wider social changes, and (b) the further pattern that some churches (meekly) follow society in these things.

    Why is it that social conformity means shrinkage. Partly because if you can’t beat (wider society) why differentiate oneself from it? If you can’t beat them join them.

    But that is not the real reason because these are not instances of society beating the church but instances of its doing less well from the church but being followed anyway for social conformity reasons. So the real reason is that a truth/evidence based system has been abandoned for a the-way-things-are system (which is approx the meaning of the word ‘secularism’).

    But this is not the way things are – it is only the way things are if people put structures in place to facilitate that. It is certainly the way human nature is – but that is a very different matter. If it were the way things are, it would be so in every time and place. But in most times and places it is not.

    This is exactly the situation the first Christians were in. They were persecuted not because the Romans actually believed in the alternative gods but for being antisocial for not playing the game and going along with the existing system. Why? Because they had a truth not society based system. Precisely what the C of E is now abandoning – see above.

    Reply
  2. We have reached this mess because of a longstanding failure to expel from the Church of England persons who dissented from its scripture-based doctrine on the subject. Now they have become bishops and archbishops while the godly party in the CoE has got on with preaching the good news.

    I do not believe that Jesus Christ is calling “Come out of her, my people” at this point, but the godly party must fight a spiritual battle against these hypocrites. There can be no good disagreement between darkness and light.

    Reply
    • He most certainly is calling ‘Come Out Of Her, My People’ unless they retract the lies in the recent families report which says that family types are all of equal value.

      That is like a maths teacher saying that 6 = 354 = 41.

      Reply
      • Christopher: I’m an adult convert who quit the CoE 22 years ago in disgust, after a decade in it. Until two years ago I was in free congregations. Then I disagreed with my Elders over a matter of priorities (not morality); I argued my position openly and courteously at church meetings but lost. Then I faced a decision I had once pondered in the abstract: should I prefer a congregation set up the way I believe the New Testament describes (no priestly ordination, leadership by a council of male Elders, no hierarchy above) but with problems I could scarcely tolerate; or a congregation of committed and energetic believers inside a system I now disbelieved in, i.e. an evangelical CoE congregation (grown by its vicar from 10 to 100 without compromising the gospel)? I found I was attracted to the latter and don’t regret it. I regard this sojourn as temporary but I do not agree that Jesus Christ is calling every evangelical to come out of the CoE at this time. I believe that at present He is calling them either to quit for the Frees or join an active spiritual fight against the likes of Welby and Cottrell. As to whether such a fight will take place and if so then who would win – that is up to the Lord.

        Reply
        • It is all irrelevant anyway in terms of the kingdom. There are indeed some absolutely corking C of E congregations.

          Reply
          • If it’s ‘all irrelevant’ why do you think you know Jesus is currently telling his people to leave the c of e?

          • I certainly would not phrase it like that. People get very precious about irrelevant denominational issues, much as someone could get so obsessed with their regiment that they never actually fought in the army. Which in the context of one sole precious life in such an amazing universe is….

            As for saying one knows what Jesus is thinking (in a sort of transient way, as though that were constantly changing) that would be crude and aweless in the extreme.

            But there are eternal not transient attitudes and thoughts that are correct.

          • Christopher you actually did phrase it like that. You said “He most certainly is calling ‘Come Out Of Her, My People’ “.

          • Yes! When it comes to the family report, 100%.
            Whereas when it comes to some of the cracking churches we all know, then no.
            Denominations are all in the mind. Can anyone for a moment justify wasting time on vapid musing about regimental colours when there is a battle already under way?

          • Anyway, how do you know which particular ‘it’ I was referring to when I said I would not phrase ‘it’ like that?

          • Because it is obvious from the flow of the conversation. And now you have just confirmed that you would phrase it like that – 100%, as you so peculiarly state it.

          • Christopher Shell, Andrew Godsall – Do either of you consider yourselves to be saved in the sense of John 3:16? What I mean is certainty that you will have eternal life – i.e. communion with God in heaven when you depart this life and move onto the next? And (following John 3:16) that this assurance comes from believing on Him, that in his crucifixion you see that your sins were dealt with – and in His resurrection, you see that your sins are forgiven?

            I’m looking for a reference point here – those who are Christians and who are looking at the issue from a Christian standpoint. For me, the blessing-of-gay-marriage seems wholly wrong, but I have a problem with the tone (rather than the substance) of the condemnation I see – because it doesn’t seem to come from the standpoint of people who know that they are forgiven sinners – their sin being a radical evil to such an extent that the crucifixion was necessary to deal with it. For the other side, pro-blessing-of-gay-marriage, the whole business seems to be to overlook sin, to pretend that sin isn’t really sin at all …….

            So I’m wondering about the faith position of those contributing here; do you have full assurance that you will see life? And is it on the basis of ‘my sin not in part, but the whole was nailed to the cross and I bear it no more?’ Or do you have a different understanding of what it means to be a Christian?

          • Jock

            As for me and my faith, it matters more to me how I treat people in this life than whether I achieve eternal life, but I also have faith in the resurrection.

            Just a note that for most Christians who support same sex marriage, it’s not they are over looking sin.

            It’s that they don’t believe it is a sin for gay people to marry. In fact many consider the ongoing hostility towards gay people by most of the religious establishment to be sin!

            I myself consider the promotion of the death penalty for homosexuality, especially if it’s the death penalty for merely admitting to same sex attraction, not actual same sex sex, to be horrendously sinful, yet (as far as I can make out) none of the CofE bishops have said one word about this behavior in another part of the communion.

          • Peter Jermey – thanks for your comment.

            My problem here is that from neither the pro- nor anti- sides do I read much that indicates that the discussion is between people of the Christian faith (on either side) – and I’m wondering if, as a Christian, I should be taking any interest in it at all.

            As I’ve indicated, I’m not an Anglican – and I don’t really see where church blessings pronounced by some spiritual big cheese play any role. There is an example of the Aaronic blessing over the whole congregation, but I don’t see anything that would fit into the current context. So with church blessings, even of any kind, we’re not talking about an aspect of church life that is firmly rooted in Scripture anyway.

            In Scripture, eternal life is equivalent to communion with God. When you come to believe, you pass from death to life; we’re supposed to see the first fruits of this in this life (and see it in its fulness in the next life) and if this doesn’t matter to you, then that is a serious problem; there is one alternative to eternal life – and it (frankly) isn’t very nice.

            As far as your list of ‘bad things’ go, I’d pretty much agree with you; if someone is saved, then this should translate into treating one’s neighbour well and if it doesn’t, then I’m not inclined to believe the profession of faith. Yes – I’d agree with you that death penalty in the context you mention it is horrendously sinful and yes – it says bad things about C. of E. bishops if they haven’t spoken out against this – and it only goes to confirm me in the conclusion I was reaching, that this is a ‘let the dead bury their own dead’ discussion, between two sides that are fundamentally non-Christian.

          • Jock

            I agree with you. I’ve said elsewhere that the blessings anger both progressives and conservatives. The blessing are not the CofE treating gay Christians as equals or even real human beings and yet the blessings also profoundly upset many conservatives.

            The trouble with saying that we are supposed to see the first fruits of eternal life in this life is that gay people sincerely following CofE teaching have not seen that. Instead most have been pushed into harmful behaviours and a great deal of sexual abuse and spiritual abuse has ocurred under the banner of treating gay people as if we have a secret shame. There’s still no attempt to even acknowledge this by the CofE. Instead we get told that following correct theology doesn’t lead to good fruit in your life and that the good fruit that the New Testament talks about is merely “obedience” to church teaching.

            The trouble with focusing on eternal life to the exclusion of this life is that it inevitably leads to abuse of others. If you don’t love your brother who you can see how can you claim to love your heavenly father?

        • Why is it, do you think, that your preferred church structure has not delivered any churches which are committed and effective?

          Reply
          • Greetings Chef. You premise is incorrect as there is a free church reasonably nearby that I’d be happy to go to, but it’s not quite as good as the evangelical CoE that I presently attend. Also I am working toward implementing the way of being church at

            https://www.church14-26.org

            which I believe has the potential to be better than either. (Yes, the vicar knows my plan and I don’t intend to poach.)

    • The Church of England Synod has voted in favour of the Bishop’s proposals to allow blessings of same sex couples (with exemptions who disagree). It is a perfectly reasonable compromise, if you disagree so vehemently why not join an evangelical Baptist, Pentecostal or charismatic church where you can be as bible based as you like. The main thing which distinguishes we members of the Church of England is the King is Supreme Governor of our Church and what makes us Anglicans is our belief in services guided by the Book of Common Prayer as a Catholic but Reformed Church. Not opposition to blessings for homosexual couples or homosexual marriage (or indeed support for homosexual marriage either)

      Reply
      • The Church of England Synod has voted in favour of the Bishop’s proposals to allow blessings of same sex couples (with exemptions who disagree).

        Only provided there is no change in doctrine. That was part of the conditions in the motion passed by the synod, wasn’t it? So the bishops have to find a way to go forward that doesn’t involve any explicit or implicit change in doctrine.

        We have yet to see their attempt to square that circle; it doesn’t seem to me to be possible.

        The main thing which distinguishes we members of the Church of England is the King is Supreme Governor of our Church and what makes us Anglicans is our belief in services guided by the Book of Common Prayer as a Catholic but Reformed Church.

        I thought (hoped?) that one if the main things that distinguished members of the Church of England was being Christians, but you’ve been clear in the past that you’d be perfectly happy to throw the Bible and Jesus out of the Church of England, if only you can keep the King. You even claimed the King was head of the Church of England, rather than Jesus.

        So if you want to worship the King, instead of Jesus, why don’t you leave the Church of England and set up your own Church of Charles? I gather there’s a bunch of people on an Island somewhere who worshipped his father the late Duke of Edinburgh and now worship him, you could be in communion with them

        Reply
        • There is no change in doctrine. Synod agreed with the Bishops holy matrimony would be reserved for heterosexual couples in lifelong unions when voting by a majority to bless homosexual couples.

          Being Christian doesn’t distinguish we members of the Church of England no, otherwise we may as well be Roman Catholic, Baptist, Pentecostal, Presbyterian or Lutheran or Methodist or any other Christian denomination. On earth the King is head of the Church of England, even if Jesus is still its eternal guide and Messiah. Neither I nor even His Majesty would be so presumptious as to suppose we worship King Charles III as the tribe you mention worshipped the late Prince Philip, we are still a Christian Church that worships the God of Abraham and Jesus Christ. However that doesn’t make we members of the Church of England distinctive does it, only the King as our Supreme Governor and our worship guided by the BCP and being a Catholic but reformed church does

          Reply
          • There is no change in doctrine. Synod agreed with the Bishops holy matrimony would be reserved for heterosexual couples in lifelong unions when voting by a majority to bless homosexual couples.

            The marriage / holy matrimony distinction is legally spurious, though. So if the bishops want to get their prayers approved they’re going to have to come up with a better theological argument than that.

            we are still a Christian Church that worships the God of Abraham and Jesus Christ.

            But you’ve said you would be perfectly happy to be a member of a National Multi-Faith Community instead of a Christian denomination. Do you don’t worship the God of Abraham and Jesus at all, do you? You’re just in love with the idea of being established.

            However that doesn’t make we members of the Church of England distinctive does it, only the King as our Supreme Governor and our worship guided by the BCP and being a Catholic but reformed church does

            Why would you want to be distinctive? There’s no value in being distinctive. What matters is the truth.

          • Why? The Bishops have not approved homosexual marriages in churches, nor has Synod. All they approved was blessings for homosexual couples in committed relationships in Church of England churches.

            Yes, you could have Church of England churches, as well as Synagogues and Mosques in one building (Abu Dhabi now combines churches and mosques in one building but separate). We Christians, Jews and Muslims all worship the one God of Abraham, we just believe in the Trinity too.

            I want to be distinctive as I want to be Anglican and specifically Church of England Anglican

          • Why? The Bishops have not approved homosexual marriages in churches, nor has Synod. All they approved was blessings for homosexual couples in committed relationships in Church of England churches.

            Which on the face of it is a change of doctrine, given that the current doctrine is that any sex outside of a male/female marriage is sinful.

            So they’re going to have to show that whatever they come up with is not indicative of a change of that doctrine, even implicitly. That being the condition imposed on them by the amendment to their motion passed at the synod.

            As I say I don’t know how they’re going to square that circle. It seems to me that any players which bless a same-sex sexual relationship must ipso facto be saying that that sexual activity is not sinful, which would be a change in doctrine.

            Maybe they’ll manage to come up with a logical argument for what that isn’t a change in doctrine, but I’ll believe it when I see it. I can’t imagine what it would be.

            Yes, you could have Church of England churches, as well as Synagogues and Mosques in one building (Abu Dhabi now combines churches and mosques in one building but separate). We Christians, Jews and Muslims all worship the one God of Abraham, we just believe in the Trinity too.

            That’s just such nonsense it’s difficult to know where to start, but it does at least prove that you’re not a Christian.

            I want to be distinctive as I want to be Anglican and specifically Church of England Anglican

            Why? Surely finding the truth is more important than being distinctive?

          • In reality that hasn’t been the case for years. The Church of England already performs full marriages for divorcees, including those who have committed adultery including the King and Queen (with some words of atonement). The Church of England also marries those who were not virgins before marriage in its churches. For goodness sake the Church of England was even founded by a King who wanted to divorce his wife to marry his mistress because the Pope refused. So of course it is quite right the Church of England has now officially endorsed blessings of homosexual couples too.

            Synod and the Bishops have now fully endorsed homosexual couple blessings. That IS now Church of England doctrine. If evangelicals like you dislike it there is the door to your nearest Baptist or Pentecostal church, you have been offered a compromise that you don’t have to have blessings of homosexual couples in your evangelical churches by we liberal Catholics if you still will not compromise then goodbye and the Church of England is no longer the church for you!

            I am a Christian, just not one as fanatical as you who disputes any connections with the other Abrahamic religions

          • In reality that hasn’t been the case for years.

            It’s still the doctrine of the Church of England that all sex outside an opposite-sex marriage is sinful. That is a fact. Synod has not approved a change to that doctrine, and it has made acceptance of whatever the bishops come up with conditional on it not changing doctrine. So the bishops have to come up with something which does not contradict or give the appearance of contradicting that doctrine.

            Good luck to them, but I don’t see how they can.

            Synod and the Bishops have now fully endorsed homosexual couple blessings.

            It was only passed with the amendment making it conditional on doctrine not changing. So doctrine hasn’t changed. So

            That IS now Church of England doctrine.

            … this is simply untrue. The motion passed is explicit and unambiguous: doctrine must not change.

            I am a Christian, just not one as fanatical as you who disputes any connections with the other Abrahamic religions

            Do you believe that Jesus is the only way to the Father, and no one comes to the Father except through Jesus? I don’t see how you can, and say what you have said about Judaism and Islam; but if you don’t believe that you’re not a Christian.

          • No it isn’t, otherwise the Church of England would not marry couples who had sex before marriage unless they repented of their ‘sinful acts’. In reality as I said Church of England doctrine is sex in lifelong heterosexual marriage is the ideal but not the absolute and it marries and blesses those who have not always met that ideal. As it will now officially bless homosexual couples in its churches too.

            I can believe in the Trinity and Jesus as Messiah while recognising I share the same God of Abraham as Muslims and Jews

          • No it isn’t, otherwise the Church of England would not marry couples who had sex before marriage unless they repented of their ‘sinful acts’.

            Church of England ministers are supposed to make sure that couples presenting for marriage understand what they are doing — and that includes repenting of previous sinful behaviour. The fact that some ministers neglect their duties doesn’t change what the doctrine is.

            In reality as I said Church of England doctrine is sex in lifelong heterosexual marriage is the ideal but not the absolute and it marries and blesses those who have not always met that ideal

            No, the doctrine is that any other sexual relationship is sinful. Again, that some ministers neglect their duties does not change doctrine.

            As it will now officially bless homosexual couples in its churches too.

            Only if the bishops can come up with something that isn’t indicative of a change in doctrine. If you think they can, well, we’ll have to see. I have my doubts.

            I can believe in the Trinity and Jesus as Messiah while recognising I share the same God of Abraham as Muslims and Jews

            But you can’t believe that Jesus is the only way to the Father while also thinking that Judaism and Islam are valid ways to God.

            You didn’t answer the question. Do you believe that Jesus is the only way to the Father, and no one comes to the Father except through Jesus?

          • I doubt you would find a single Church of England vicar anywhere now who asks couples they are about to marry to repent of pre marital sex. Synod has voted by a majority to approve homosexual blessings in Church of England churches, your side lost, tough. If you don’t like it, then leave the Church of England if the compromise of opt outs isn’t enough.

          • ‘Synod has voted by a majority to approve homosexual blessings in Church of England churches’. No, it didn’t. It voted to confirm the current doctrine of marriage as between one man and one woman, outside of which sex is sinful.

            Why do you keep repeating things that are not true? Is that the best argument you have?

          • I doubt you would find a single Church of England vicar anywhere now who asks couples they are about to marry to repent of pre marital sex.

            Which is tragic, but it doesn’t change the doctrine.

            Synod has voted by a majority to approve homosexual blessings in Church of England churches,

            Only on condition that it is done without changing doctrine. Can you see how to do that? I can’t.

          • You didn’t answer the question. Do you believe that Jesus is the only way to the Father, and no one comes to the Father except through Jesus?

          • ‘Synod has voted by a majority to approve homosexual blessings in Church of England churches’. No, it didn’t. It voted to confirm the current doctrine of marriage as between one man and one woman, outside of which sex is sinful.

            To be fair, the synod as I read it does appear to have voted for a logical absurdity: to approve prayers than are incompatible with the current doctrine, but only as long as current doctrine remains unchanged.

            Hence why I say the bishops are in such a bind: Synod has asked them to do something which is simply not logically possible.

          • Synod also voted to bless homosexual couples, tough. The fact it also confirmed full marriage as only between heterosexual couples for life does not change that. It is about time evangelicals accepted they lost the Synod vote on blessings for homosexual couples and moved on

          • Synod also voted to bless homosexual couples, tough.

            So Synod voted for two mutually incompatible things, didn’t it?

            The fact it also confirmed full marriage as only between heterosexual couples for life does not change that.

            There’s no such thing as ‘full’ marriage. There is only marriage.

            It is about time evangelicals accepted they lost the Synod vote on blessings for homosexual couples and moved on

            I don’t think either side can be said to have ‘lost’ or ‘won’ a vote which ended up passing a motion that is logically impossible.

  3. I find all of this to be contortionist in the name of Christianity.
    While doctrine is mentione, it seems that it is only in realtion to marriage.
    The Global South and GAFCON have made it abundantly clear that it is deeper and wider; it relates to the place of scripture.
    O’Donovan makes it seem that Holy Spirit operates through pragmatism a process of social trial and error.
    And didn’t Lambeth indicate that future reception and training into ministrial positions would be in a way that brings about, over time, the change revisionist are pressing for, whichever church administrative system, organisational chart, is put in place?

    Reply
    • Yes. When doctrine is mentioned it is only in relation to marriage.

      It is certainly (ahem) particularly pressing to revisit marriage doctrine, to the exclusion of all others, when we seen what (ahem) blessings the sexual revolution has brought on that front. Truly the scales have fallen from our eyes and necessitated a change in doctrine.

      Reply
    • I find it ridiculous and actually laughable to be citing GAFCON as some sort of answer on this, given all of the drama over the church of Uganda pushing for the death penalty for homosexuality.

      The Church of Uganda clearly don’t agree with agreed communion teaching on homosexuality so why treat them as a moral authority?

      Why claim GAFCON care about doctrine when they tolerate this behaviour? They don’t seem to care about doctrine they just seem to not want gay people to be included in the church!

      Reply
  4. The options you set out indicate the utter confusion within the church and the bewilderment people outside the church must feel when presented with the situation of how to live with difference. Truth is not democratic, that is, we don’t find truth by getting confused people to vote, thus getting a majority to help us decide how we go forward. Truth is not like that. That is why God gave us his Word. God has revealed to us his truth in his Word but many prefer their own “truth” as presented in the surrounding culture. I felt immensely sad when i read this analysis,

    Reply
    • “That is why God gave us his Word. God has revealed to us his truth in his Word “

      Elisabeth you write as if your opinion is a matter of fact. It isn’t. It is a matter of opinion about scripture which is not shared by the majority of Christian people throughout the world. We are not a Sola Scriptura denomination. Truth is something that we can not fully comprehend because if we could, then we would be like God. Even the scriptures themselves try to tell us that in various places. There is always more light and more truth to come from God’s Word.

      Reply
      • Which contradicts the light and truth that is there already and somehow has escaped all the sages of yore despite being now voiced by their inferiors and in the wake of suspiciously similar social change, when the earliest Christians died for the principle that there is no necessary nor close connection between truth and social change.

        That is even before one gets onto the topic of how to establish which things *are* indeed light and truth and which things are just said to be.

        Reply
        • “Which contradicts the light and truth that is there already”

          Umm, no. It doesn’t. It simply reminds us that light and truth are provisional and that we see through a glass darkly.

          Reply
          • But that means you are an infallible judge of what constitutes an advance in knowledge.

            Further, advances in knowledge must as a bare minimum display an increased correspondence with the data. It helps if they also increase happiness, health, success.

      • Odd that, but hardly so, when you seek to close down a comment from Elisabeth who has the affrontry to disagree with your revisionist assertion and agenda, with a divine prophetic knowledge that there is more truth to be revealed (and that is an absolute truth revealed only to the selected few, and know only by those with chronolgical snobbery, identified tellingly so by CS Lewis) and who expresses the positon of the vast majority of world-wide anglican beliefs, Christianity.
        The revealed and understandable objective truth by and of God, is deep enough for the intellectual elephants amongst us to drown in and for infants in faith to splash and joyfully gambol about in.
        And yet it is impossible for social skeptics of whatever religious or secular stripe, serving purposes of their own to accede to except when it suits there own agenda.

        Reply
        • “when you seek to close down a comment from Elisabeth”
          Absolutely no desire to close down a comment Geoff. Just offering another perspective. That is what debate is about.

          Reply
      • ‘It is a matter of opinion about scripture which is not shared by the majority of Christian people throughout the world.’

        You are going to need to support that bold claim! The church’s current doctrine of marriage is the overwhelming consensus of the church catholic in every time, in every place, in every branch and tradition.

        ‘We are not a Sola Scriptura denomination.’ We are not a nuda Scriptura denomination. As a Protestant and Reformed church we are certainly a sola Scriptura denomination.

        Reply
        • We are a denomination with a wide variety of approaches to scripture Ian as you know full well. The LLF documents looked at that issue very carefully and identified a number of different approaches to scripture. Again, you know that very well. It identified 7 and noted that 1 and 7 were outside of the Anglican understanding of scripture but that 2-6 were within Anglican tradition. Again, you are fully aware of this.

          Reply
          • It identified 7 and noted that 1 and 7 were outside of the Anglican understanding of scripture but that 2-6 were within Anglican tradition.

            They may have been within Anglican tradition, but how many were within the bounds of Christianity?

          • Andrew, I don’t recall in the LLF book any assessment of those views against the Articles. Was there?

            And do you dispute that we are a Protestant and Reformed church?

          • Ian I think it’s surprising that you don’t recall the section in LLF about scripture. It was thorough and well presented.

            As to what the C of E is: broad church describes it very well. Church history didn’t stop in the middle of the 17th century. Protestant in our case is a historic political description rather than an ecclesial one.

          • I do recall it. But I don’t recall it exploring the Articles. Did it?

            Did you not watch the coronation? Have you forgotten Charles’ oath already?

          • But I don’t recall it exploring the Articles

            Andrew Godsall thinks the Articles are dead letter laws.

          • ‘A wide variety of approaches to scripture’ – exactly the problem. First, because approach means presupposition and is therefore grounded on no prior research, so why emphasise approach rather than scholarly conclusion? Major fail.
            Second, i am sure that the approaches to which you refer are laughably broad brush rather than nuanced.
            Third, what on earth is the value in variety? None at all in variety per se, so as a principle it goes to the bottom of the heap. Value is found in following evidence. You incredibly give a voice, even an equal voice, to all approaches, so all that needs to happen is that someone says ‘X is my approach’ and though they have not done a scrap of research or thinking they are already promoted to equal best.
            Further, every time your relativism is exposed, you ignore the point and repeat it, suggesting to readers that you have reached your intellectual ceiling at this point, or (more probably) you find relativism promising in what it will provide in practical terms. So are you or are you not going to reject relativism?

          • Christopher: I think it best that you actually read the primary material before making your usual generalised comments.

          • “I do recall it. But I don’t recall it exploring the Articles. Did it?

            Did you not watch the coronation? Have you forgotten Charles’ oath already?”

            If you recall it Ian you don’t need me to tell you what it was about.
            The Articles are part of our very early history and of course they represent the turmoil of the very peculiarly English Reformation. As has been explained many many times, the Preface to the Declaration and Oaths was specifically changed so that licensed ministers are able to retain a freedom of conscience when it comes to the Articles.

            It is all carefully explained in this document, which it is clear that you have not read.

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

            That document also makes it clear what is meant by the word Protestant. History is extremely important, but it has to be interpreted in context. Protestant is an historical term in the context of the coronation.

            I recall the coronation very well, and thought it masterfully expressed Charles’ desire for those of other faiths and interpretations to flourish. It was very good to have the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster so close by, reminding us of how the turbulent history of our ecclesiastical politics has now become settled.

          • As has been explained many many times, the Preface to the Declaration and Oaths was specifically changed so that licensed ministers are able to retain a freedom of conscience when it comes to the Articles.

            ‘Retain a freedom of conscience when it comes to’ is a pretty fancy way of saying ‘not believe’.

          • Christopher if you don’t actually even know the primary source that is being discussed then it shows that you are not following the argument here but simply jumping on a bandwagon of prejudice – which is the last thing any scholar would do.
            As to relativism: again, if you had read the primary source material you would know that the term – which is not a helpful term in any case – does not apply here. What I am rejecting is fundamentalism and wooden literalistic and simplistic readings of scripture. They too have no place in the world of scholarship.

          • What I am rejecting is fundamentalism and wooden literalistic and simplistic readings of scripture.

            What you reject is the idea that the Bible is the Word of God.

          • What I am rejecting is fundamentalism and wooden literalistic and simplistic readings of scripture.

            It doesn’t matter whether you read the Bible woodenly (whatever that means), literalisticly, simplistically, or any other way, if you think that it is just the writings of fallible human beings trying to make sense of their experiences within their cultural frames of reference.

            The fundamental question isn’t how you read the Bible; it’s what you think the Bible is. And what you think the Bible is, is incompatible with being a Christian (though I’m entirely prepared to believe it’s perfectly compatible with being an Anglican).

            So stop, when challenged, diverting the question by pretending you’re being asked about how to read the Bible. You’re not. You’re being asked about what you think the Bible is.

          • Andrew

            I hope this lands in the correct place! I thought most of the Coronation was magnificent. Particularly pleasing was Charles’ robust swearing to uphold the Protestant faith in the context of what was essentially a Catholic Mass.
            The Church of England at its very messy best.

          • No, you were speaking of legitimate disagreement without ever checking whether it was in fact legitimate at all.
            I know that LLF is a source document being discussed. I just wasn’t sure whether it was the source that was in that sentence being referred to.

          • As you say Christopher. Value is found in following evidence. And the evidence from your comments is that you haven’t even read the LLF material. And so you are not in any position to comment on it. You make, as usual, generalised points that could be made about almost anything.

          • in the context of what was essentially a Catholic Mass.

            What was Roman about it? I thought all the text came from a Church of England liturgy, so there was absolutely no hint of, say, transubstantiation, or of the president being a priest offering a sacrifice, those being the biggest things that differentiate a Protestant communion from a Roman mass.

            Surely you’re not going to claim that the fact everyone was wearing ridiculous costumes like the Romans do is more important that the actual theology in the words that were said?

          • You have this idea that I have not read what I have read.
            How on earth would you know anyway?

          • Because of the complete ignorance you display of what is actually in the material. It isn’t that hard!

      • It is a matter of opinion about scripture which is not shared by the majority of Christian people throughout the world.

        You think that ‘God gave us his Word. God has revealed to us his truth in his Word’ is ‘ a matter of opinion about scripture which is not shared by the majority of Christian people throughout the world’?!

        I think you’ll find that that is the opinion about scripture held by the majority of Christian people throughout history!

        But then you’re a Deist not a Christian so not surprising you’re not au fait with what Christians have thought.

        Reply
        • I wonder how a deist knows that new truths are to be known as God’s new truths especially if “no one knows. Apart from God.”?

          Reply
    • Elisabeth

      But what do you do when two people read the same passage and come to different conclusions and perhaps believe the other’s interpretation, not only to be wrong, but harmful?

      Reply
      • Simple. You check which one of them is a scholar.
        If any of them is not, ignore them. If both of them are, check their arguments for internal coherence and secondly check if they are being selective or comprehensive. The comprehensive wins.

        Reply
        • And of course in this area, as in many others, scholars come to different conclusions – and with internally cohesive and comprehensive arguments.

          Reply
          • Would that they did. Being comprehensive is (totally opposite to what you say) something hard to impossible to achieve. It becomes a matter of degrees of comprehensiveness. And it is NOT the case that all scholars are equal in that respect (all achieving 68% for example). How could they be?

          • Andrew, per your comment above, do you really want other faiths to flourish? Or were you just acknowledging Charles’ wish? If the former, do you really believe that other faiths are God’s revelation about Himself and salvation?

            Peter

          • Andrew, per your comment above, do you really want other faiths to flourish?

            I think, as well as being a Deist, Andrew Godsall is an Omnist. His Majesty certainly is.

          • When two or three scholars are gathered together you have four or ten opinions

            That’s not true. And if it were true, it still wouldn’t be an excuse to shrug and say, ‘Well nobody can no’ and just pick whichever opinion you prefer.

          • It’s not remotely true. The range of opinions that is ruled out is an astonishingly large range. Disagreement is only because scholars have very precise minds so will see a small disagreement as big.

          • For me, for theology to be true it has to wor in the real world.

            I don’t understand what you mean. Theology is the science which deals with God, just like biology is the science science which deals with living things, geology is the science which deals with the Earth, philology is the science which deals with language, etc.

            So for theology to be true it must accord with the real facts about God. That’s it. I don’t understand what ‘work in the real world’ means. What would it mean for geology to ‘work in the real world’?

            I’m a practical person. I don’t hold with this idea of creating a theology that only works in theory and crumbles as soon as it is applied in practice

            By the only question that matters for theology is, is it true? Does it accurately describe what God is actually like?

            That’s all that matters. Truth.

          • S

            Well just saying to someone that all God has to say about their life is that they should remain single and abstain from all sex and romantic aspirations is impractical because the vast majority of people are created to desire and need relationships. This is clearly a false teaching because it does not work in the real world for most people. It does not yield good fruit.

            Theology that says that the Earth was created 5000 years ago does not work in the real world because we have rck solid evidence to the contrary.

            Theology that says everything human is created 100% male or 100% female and heterosexual doesn’t work because lived experience and biological evidence tells us otherwise.

            These ideas work in theory, but don’t work when confronted with reality

          • Well just saying to someone that all God has to say about their life is that they should remain single and abstain from all sex and romantic aspirations is impractical because the vast majority of people are created to desire and need relationships.

            No one needs a sexual relationship. Anyone may desire one but nobody needs one.

            This is clearly a false teaching because it does not work in the real world for most people.

            It’s not clearly a false teaching at all. Test it against your four points:

            Does it make logical sense and are they directly based on readable scripture? Yes.

            Does it claims match real life experience and scientific discovery? Yes.

            Does it stand up to scrutiny? Yes.

            Is it internally consistent? Yes.

            Theology that says that the Earth was created 5000 years ago

            No, it doesn’t. Apart from anything else such a claim wouldn’t be in the realm of theology; it would be in the realm of geology.

            Theology says that the universe was created by God. Which is true.

            Theology that says everything human is created 100% male or 100% female and heterosexual doesn’t work because lived experience and biological evidence tells us otherwise.

            Lived experience in and biological evidence of a fallen corrupted world that is not as God made it or intended it to be. God created the world perfect; but the Fall, as a result of sin, destroyed that perfect world and means that we live in a broken corrupted world and part of that corruption is illness — including disorders of sexual development where a female can develop improperly and develop male characteristics, and vice versa.

            But if the world were not fallen — if we were as glorious as God meant us to be instead of the stunted, shrivelled, corrupted husks that we actually are — then those disorders would not exist. And they won’t exist in the new creation when all is remade free from the taint of sin.

          • S

            I completely disagree that the Cofe’s teaching passes the four tests.

            It doesn’t make any sense – it’s easy to see real world applications for other teachings, this just seems needlessly cruel and doesn’t benefit anyone. The best reason for it is to say it’s just an arbitrary rule.

            You can argue that Leviticus 18.22 is pretty plain readable scripture for men, but not for women.

            It doesn’t stand up to scrutiny – conservatives are unable to defend it or make any sense of it that doesn’t involve creation of a fictional reality for it to sit in.

            It doesn’t match real life experience or scientific discovery. Indeed conservatives have to say that intersex people are people where ‘something has gone wrong’ – a sort of exception proves the rule reasoning.

            It’s not internally consistent. One of the problems is that the conservative reading of scripture relies on sexual behaviour as being the sin, like say adultery, but that doesn’t interface well with young gay adults who havent even seriously considered having sex with anyone so then conservatives have to invent new sins, such as the sin of identifying as gay because they can’t hold the young adults as sinful because they are actually less sexually sinful than the average straight person…and then that mess leads to there being a new prerequisite for salvation, not “faith alone”, but “faith plus attraction to the opposite sex”. It’s not consistent at all with the gospel.

            Worst of all (and I recognize you dont agree with me on my final test) it is not practiced by the people who teach it. We have endless cases of sexual and spiritual abuse in the CofE and endless cover ups. If it’s not ok for a gay church leader to get married and have a legitimate relationship, why is it ok for him to sexually abuse young men in the church? It’s not.

        • Christopher

          I’d say

          Do their claims make logical sense and are they directly based on readable scripture?
          Do their claims match real life experience and scientific discovery?
          Do their claims stand up to scrutiny?
          Are their claims internally consistent?

          And most importantly

          Do they themselves live by what they are preaching?

          Reply
          • Do they themselves live by what they are preaching?

            Your first points are right on the money, but this one isn’t just not most important, it’s not just least important, it isn’t important at all. It shouldn’t even be a consideration. Because how the person putting forward a claim behaves is totally irrelevant when deciding whether or not a claim is true.

          • Great criteria (the first four).

            These are tests, and the tests need to be applied.

          • S

            For me this is key, particularly on this subject. Preachers who do not obey their own teaching cause so many people to lose their faith

            If they themselves do not believe what they are preaching then it is less likely to be true than someone who lives it and preaches it.

            Do you trust the short cut Alice has heard about, but never uses or the short cut Brenda uses every day for work?

          • If they themselves do not believe what they are preaching then it is less likely to be true than someone who lives it and preaches it.

            No it isn’t. That makes absolutely no difference at all to the likelihood of something being true.

            Do you trust the short cut Alice has heard about, but never uses or the short cut Brenda uses every day for work?

            I look at a map, or I go to see for myself, obviously. Until I do one of those both are equally likely to be true.

          • S

            If a preacher is living by their teaching then it demonstrates its practical and helpful to at least one person.

            If a preacher is not living by their teaching then it heavily implies they are using it to manipulate others

          • If a preacher is living by their teaching then it demonstrates its practical and helpful to at least one person.

            If a preacher is not living by their teaching then it heavily implies they are using it to manipulate others

            But none of that has anything at all to do with how likely the teaching is to be true. False things can be practical and helpful, and people use things that are true to manipulate others all the time.

            All that matters is whether the teaching is true and as you’ve just demonstrated, whether the person putting it forward lives by it has absolutely zero impact on that. What matters is is it logically consistent, does it match with the evidence, is it based on the Bible, etc etc.

            Whether they live by it themselves has ZERO relevance to whether it is true.

          • S

            For me, for theology to be true it has to wor in the real world.

            I’m a practical person. I don’t hold with this idea of creating a theology that only works in theory and crumbles as soon as it is applied in practice

  5. I have often thought that surveying the current church scene is akin to the parable of the wheat and the tares Matt 13:24–30. There is both good and bad seed growing on the same ground.

    I get Anton’s point that sometimes you just need to go where good seed is growing. The Cof E along with many other church denominations is declining. However within the decline there are pockets of growth that are faithful to that that which has been received and will survive regardless of what the religious ground around them is like.

    The future I think, will be a fragmentary one and we will see in time which will wither on the vine.

    Reply
    • Hi Chris,
      There must be an infographic somewhere that shows how an explosion in a crowd leave a few dead, some mortally wounded and many more injured. In the same way the early evangelists let off the Gospel: some brought to life, some soon to be and a great many more influenced positively.

      Its as true today. There are many, many people who view Christianity favourably but do not wish to join. It’s just that this vast caucus has organised itself with all the trappings. And , because it is the largest part , gets all the publicity.

      Christians need to start calling themselves ‘followers of the way’ or something!

      Reply
    • Error will wither. Truth will grow. CofE membership is currently dropping faster than Welby going along the Albert Embankment.

      Reply
      • It isn’t easy to feel sympathy for an archbishop who is spitting in the face of God’s definition of sin, but getting nicked for doing 25mph in Sadiq Khan’s ludicrous 20mph limit on the Albert Embankment qualifies him.

        Reply
          • And “Rome”, i.e., the Catholic Church

            The Roman denomination, and the Church Catholic, are not the same thing.

          • I doubt that, Jack. The church of Jesus Christ will have been forced by persecution back to its original grassroots rather than hierarchical structure, with no priestly ordination – we’re all priests – and multiple episkopoi (overseers, and male) per congregation rather than vice-versa. I have no idea whether other organisations that claim to worship Jesus Christ (but don’t) will be around. I am not accusing Rome of that as it presently stands.

            This webpage puts it rather well:

            https://church14-26.org/leadership/

            You might, by the way, tell Lain that I have no wish to start a church such as is described at this website (the way it meets, above all). I want to *join* one. But I can’t find one, so better start one.

            My best wishes to all at Crannoggy Island.

    • If they were either, they would not be so shunned by both. Their books (comparably to those on liberation and feminist theology) hold not the slightest interest for the thousands of Christian customers in our shop.

      Reply
      • I’m referring to avowedly/narrowly Anglican books. Yes, there is a detectable demand for Stephen Cottrell’s books on the Cross, and more so for other Anglican authors like the SPCK ones Williams, Wright, McGrath. The demand has little to do with any Anglicanism (they are creative thinkers anyway) and more with their brains and spirituality. In any case such authors serve the wider church of God.

        Reply
        • Don’t you work in the bookshop next to Westminster Cathedral Christopher? I suspect those wanting more “Anglican” books walk along the road to the Church House bookshop near Westminster Abbey. I do.

          Reply
          • That’s right, they do. The almost complete disparity in book stock is interesting. We also get many passers by.

      • Perhaps Mat was echoing the description of the Church of England in the Revised Catechism ( still authorised I believe. Where the C of E is described as the ancient church of this land ” Catholic and Reformed”

        Reply
  6. Thank you Andrew.

    It seems to me that this “Rather than rushing forward” is where we need to be.

    This whole thing is a mess and, tempting as it is (and “tempting” might be spirituality accurate) to storm off (or wherever variation the reader chooses).. this Bishop’s rush to a conclusion helped create the mess. I sometimes feel like dumping the lot and I could say that as a PTO retired it wouldn’t have any impact on me.. … but others, younger ordained, have a lot riding on this. And there’s faithfulness to God to consider!

    But not having a word of prophecy on it, I cannot see what the actual outcome will be… other than that messy. I pray and watch. Most of us can do no more.

    Reply
    • IH

      From my perspective it’s been the complete opposite of a rush – they have been trying to do the bare minimum for a decade and I think these blessings are another underwhelming attempt to kick the can down the road and ignore all the problems

      Reply
          • It’s half a childhood

            It’s still a very short time. You can’t tell anything about the results from a massive policy or cultural shift in a mere decade. You need at least a generation to work that out, preferably two.

          • S

            I think the lack of willingness to even think about the impact of church doctrine on real people’s lives is one of the major problems that exists with the whole human sexuality debates in the cofe.

            10 years means married couples with 9 year olds. 20 years means marry couples with grandchildren. And you guys still have nothing meaningful to say to them

          • If any doctrine requires application, then it may be hard work. Is the solution to have no doctrines at all, or perhaps only doctrines that are a cinch to apply?
            What good was ever achieved without work and some kind of standards?

          • I think the lack of willingness to even think about the impact of church doctrine on real people’s lives is one of the major problems that exists with the whole human sexuality debates in the cofe.

            Surely rushing into things before there’s been time to see the effects would be worse.

            10 years means married couples with 9 year olds. 20 years means marry couples with grandchildren.

            Exactly the point. We won’t be able to assess the effect on children of growing up in households with same-sex marriages until they have time to grow up and have children of their own.

          • Christopher

            The CofE has no doctrine on gay people. It’s not that it is “hard work”. It’s that it doesn’t exist. They’ve done nothing but kick the can.

          • S

            I can tell you the impact on the church on deliberately ignoring three generations of society

          • I can tell you the impact on the church on deliberately ignoring three generations of society

            So can I — the Church might well end up marginalised and persecuted.

            Which frankly is pretty much where Church needs to be for a while.

          • The CofE has no doctrine on gay people.

            Isn’t that the fault of the progressive bloc though? The Roman denomination has a doctrine on same-sex attraction, and the difference is that the Romans don’t have a progressive bloc with the same access to doctrinal power.

            So if the Church of England didn’t have a progressive bloc it could have adopted the same doctrine as the Romans. But they can’t because progressives would block it.

          • S

            Progressives have a full theology of gay people. The official CofE does not.

            Yes the CofE could copy the RCC. Their theology is that gayness is a disorder, which I understand to mean disability, but they don’t really have much to say beyond that and also cannot agree on same sex marriage or gay people’s position in the church.

          • Progressives have a full theology of gay people. The official CofE does not.

            Progressives have several theologies of gay people, and conservatives have several theologies of sexual attraction. Neither side has an official fully-worked-out theology, and the Church of England doesn’t have one because neither side will allow any of the others’ to be adopted as official.

            Yes the CofE could copy the RCC. Their theology is that gayness is a disorder, which I understand to mean disability, but they don’t really have much to say beyond that and also cannot agree on same sex marriage or gay people’s position in the church.

            They have an official position and a fully-fleshed-out doctrine. There is dissent yes but it is dissent from an officially recognised doctrine. That’s what the Church of England doesn’t have, and won’t ever have — well, until inevitably it splits and then it will have two as each half adopts its own doctrine.

          • S

            The RCC does not have a fully fleshed out doctrine. It has slightly more to say towards gay people, but really struggles with trans, non binary and intersex people.

  7. I think whatever the way forward it must be more open and honest than the situation with requiring ordinands to agree with “issues” and the communion to agree with Lambeth 1.10. We need an end to bishops having different public and private views and just generally more honesty.

    Reply
    • We need an end to bishops having different public and private views and just generally more honesty.

      Now on that I agree. Let’s have everybody being up-front and open about exactly what they believe — no more keeping things quiet or using obfuscatory or ambiguous language for the sake of a deceitful fake unity.

      Reply
        • no more lying

          And no more reworking oaths to ‘respect freedom of conscience’. If you can’t in good conscience take an oath, just don’t that the oath. I would respect someone making such a public principled stand, saying ‘I cannot take this oath; I do not believe it; I refuse’.

          But don’t change the wording subtly so it sounds like you’re taking the oath but you’re actually not. That’s weaselly and deceitful.

          Reply
  8. I think Sir Isaac Newton would have described the current ethical dilemmas of the Church of England as :

    ” An unholy mess “.

    ” Marantha – May the Lord come soon ! ” ( 1 Cor. 16:22).

    Reply
      • No, CHRIS, Sir Isaac couldn’t have said ” Gee ! “, because this is an Americanism that dates back only to 1890 !

        If Sir Isaac was here now, he would no doubt be pointing to 2 Timothy 3:1-5, with particular emphasis on verse 5, which would include those persons who have introduced recent moral turmoil into the Church of England :

        ” They will act religious, but they will reject the power that could make them godly.”

        Reply
  9. In response to the second post in this trilogy of articles on Prayers of Love and Faith (PLF), I tried to be charitable in mentioning: “Andrew Goddard’s outstanding careful analysis.” However, despite the extensive analysis in this post, I’d be hard pressed to describe it as outstanding.

    This time, there are just too many incoherent assertions which, when taken together, suggest more focus on analysing and synthesising selected strands of Anglican development that fit his predetermined conclusion (i.e., that, at all costs, those opposed to PLF should avoid “push back sufficiently strongly to defeat them but in so doing create deep bitterness”) than on bringing broader principles of scripture, reason, and orthodox Christian tradition to bear on our understanding of what makes a development legitimate in order to identify a range of permissible alternative courses of action for the Church.

    At this point, Oliver O’Donovan’s criticism of the Pilling Report also holds true for the pastoral letter from the House of Bishops that accompanied the draft version of PLF:
    “[it] tells its readers it abides by the church’s teaching, while giving them no reasons for believing that teaching to be true. It avoids any affirmation of the marriage doctrine the bishops are currently committed to, namely, that marriage is between one man and one woman, and yet does not observe the territorial boundary set between it and the
    Marriage Report when there is a chance of hinting at an alternative. In other words, here
    is another arbitrary anthology of favourite theological thoughts without a theological
    structure.”

    Further on in his critique of Pilling, O’Donovan’s rhetorical questions now appear almost prescient of current issues with PLF:
    “The term ‘pastoral accommodation’ cannot simply be invoked, just to take the sting out
    of a proposal. Its use has to be proved by an effective design which promises to strike the
    balance required of it. In the case of the remarriage of divorced people this was to be
    done by a carefully conceived set of guidelines for pastoral enquiry. Here we are confronting a more radical departure, because the public prayers proposed will be more or
    less without precedent in the Church of England. Can there be a ‘public’ service in an
    Anglican church to which the church as a whole is not committed? If a liturgy that conformed to the bishops’ guidelines were to include, as a public declaration, ‘Whatever your unique mix and measure of sexuality, be very glad; to be a human sexual [sic] is fundamental and ordinary and exceptional’ (p. 195), ought it to satisfy the consciences of those who had no idea what those words were supposed to mean, that nobody had authorised them as such, and that nobody was going to be required to pronounce them?”

    Andrew writes: “While I and others may wish those pressing for change would follow the first option we also need to recognise that for them to do so would represent another major further sacrifice and frustrate what appears to be the desire of a simple majority in the church to proceed in a way they believe to be right. They would be required not to follow their consciences as to what the Lord requires of them because of those of us who view what they wish to do as creating a church which has departed from its current doctrine and from Scripture.

    What’s disappointing in this statement is the notion that, in contrast with the support required for women bishops, a HoB consensus and simple majority is all that is required for the Church to treat PLF as a legitimate development and as a basis for those who oppose this position to continue to “walk together” with those who support it. He even cites the statement on TEC from the 2016 Primates Meeting. How is it fair to women for the Church to resort to such a low-bar for legitimising and officially affirming same-sex sexual relationships through PLF? And if treating this issue as a matter of personal conscience is the chief determinant for ‘walking together’, then why wouldn’t that be the case for further more radical developments?

    Concerning this approach, it is worth remembering how the primates responded to an innovation that was considered to be “a fundamental departure from the faith and teaching held by the majority.” It is clear that a majority in the Anglican Communion view PLF in the same way.

    The Primates outlined one of the key sanctions against TEC in this way: “However given the seriousness of these matters, we formally acknowledge this distance by requiring that for a period of three years, The Episcopal Church no longer represent us on ecumenical and interfaith bodies, should not be appointed or elected to an internal standing committee and that while participating in the internal bodies of the Anglican Communion, they will not take part in decision making on any issues pertaining to doctrine or polity.”

    So, even if we take seriously the possibility of “walking together”, in stark contrast with those sanctions, how could those committed to marriage orthodoxy endure such outright official connivance at such “a fundamental departure from the faith and teaching held by the majority” as PLF represents?

    Unfortunately, this post isn’t so much an analysis as it is a ‘white flag’ of surrender.

    Andrew has quoted Oliver O’Donovan on several occasions. So, perhaps, he will listen to the Professor’s sage advice in the aftermath of the Pilling Report, which should have been applied to LLF and PLF:
    “A good revision in practice cannot be supported by a ‘revisionist’ theology—on the contrary, it needs a thoroughly catholic and orthodox foundation. By articulating carefully everything theological that two sides in a practical disagreement can say together, we can get the scope of the disagreement in proper perspective, and may open the way to agreement on experiments which have a chance of commending themselves in practice. So long as proposals
    for experiment come with the label of ‘revisionism’, on the other hand, no church with
    concerns for its catholicity can embrace them. It seems to me that this elementary wisdom has never been seriously put to the test in the gay issue [sic].”

    Reply
  10. Thank you David particularly for drawing out some of the history, of which I was unaware.
    From your last quote of O’Dovovan the scope of disagreement has been eye searingly obvious before even the commencement of LLF.
    And LLF itself, let alone PLF would fall within the
    frame of “revisionist” that he clearly considers to be a category in which ” experiments” should not take place.
    Following through with this PLF would be outwith O’Dovovan’s approval whereas, as quoted by AG’s article above, unless I’ve misunderstood, O’D was cited as giving approval for experiments *within* the revisionist framework. The opposite, in fact, pertains. O’D does not, as I first read it, ( and I can’t readily re-read on phone) support this PLF *experiment*, it seems clear, unless he has changed his mind.
    Whether that has any influence one way or another, I doubt.
    Thanks.

    Reply
  11. I agree very much with David Shepherd’s analysis of AG’ s article. The cynic in me wonders if the Bishop’s long term strategy is to give just enough to the more ‘generous’ end of evangelical wing in the hope that the tribes of evangelicalism divide sufficiently among themselves to become ineffective, so the Bishop’s can push their proposals through.

    Reply
    • Well there’s no doubt that Justin Welby and friends have deliberately taken the political rather than the theological route to pushing their revisionist agenda to its first major victory: acceptance by a slim majority of the C of E for same sex blessings. And there seems every possibility that enough evangelicals are sufficiently desperate to remain within the church’s fold that they’ll grab at any crumbs offered and be willing to employ the weasel words of ‘differentiation / walking together / good disagreement’ in describing whatever can kicking deal is offered to see them to retirement.

      To be frank, the dirty business of a bare knuckle verbal and tactical punch up in order to defend a divine ordinance may have been a regular feature of the Apostles’ post Pentecost experience, but it would never do in our more sophisticated and nuanced times here in England! There’s the clearest of parallels in our secular politics: no one has fire in their bellies any more; no one really cares enough to fight for anything. And so a softly, softly dystopian capture of our most basic human freedoms by global technocrats is happening before our eyes; here again Christians remain mostly silent, perhaps many will not even become aware until it’s too late.

      Reply
      • JW is a conservative evangelical who has made it clear at every opportunity that he opposes same sex relationships. I think if it were not up to him then we would be much more likely to see real debate and discussion about the role (or not) of LGBT people in the church and how the church should respond to the legalisation of SSM now a decade(!) ago.

        Reply
        • JW is a conservative evangelical who has made it clear at every opportunity that he opposes same sex relationships.

          You keep saying that but you have never been able to point to a recorded instance of him saying he opposes same-sex relationships. Either do so now or stop making this baseless claim.

          Reply
          • Except for virtually every time he speaks on the subject!

            If that were true you would have no trouble pointing to one single recorded instance of him saying he opposes same-sex relationships, BUT YOU NEVER CAN.

            And I mean his actual unambiguous recorded words, not ‘I remember he said something like this’ or an occasion where he was supportive of same-sex relationships but just not quite as enthusiastically as you would like him to have been.

            Now put up or shut up. One recorded instance of him opposing same-sex relationships. Just one. One.

          • S

            We’ve been here before.

            I quote him. Then you try to claim that he didn’t mean what he said. He doesn’t agree with gay rights. He led parliamentary opposition to SSM.

          • I quote him.

            You haven’t quoted him once. Go on. Quote him.

            Then you try to claim that he didn’t mean what he said.

            How can I if you won’t quote him?

            He doesn’t agree with gay rights. He led parliamentary opposition to SSM.

            Quote from Hansard then.

          • He led parliamentary opposition to SSM.

            As far as I can tell, Justin Welby didn’t vote in any Lords Division on the Same-Sex Marriage Bill. It’s a funny way to lead Parliamentary opposition on an issue if you never vote on it!

          • S

            I don’t know if I can post links here, but it took me under a minute to find his speech to the house of lords on YouTube. He not only expressed opposition to secular same sex marriages, but stressed that the majority of CofE bishops and the majority of faith groups agreed with him

          • I don’t know if I can post links here, but it took me under a minute to find his speech to the house of lords on YouTube. He not only expressed opposition to secular same sex marriages, but stressed that the majority of CofE bishops and the majority of faith groups agreed with him

            Is this the same speech that I responded to in https://www.psephizo.com/sexuality-2/living-in-love-and-faith-good-episcopal-differentiation/#comment-424425?

            If so he didn’t oppose the Same-Sex Marriages Bill; he merely said he (and the other Lords Spiritual) could not support it.

            Not supporting something is not the same as opposing it.

            He then abstained on the Bill rather than voting against — again, not supporting rather than opposing.

            And in the speech he was very positive towards same-sex relationships.

            Or is this a different speech?

          • S

            JW uses overly polite language anyway, but in parliament they do so even more. He’s a product of Eton, not a secondary modern. He very clearly opposed the bill and claimed to represent the majority of CofE bishops and the majority of all people of all faiths.

          • He very clearly opposed the bill and claimed to represent the majority of CofE bishops and the majority of all people of all faiths.

            He didn’t oppose the Bill. In the speech quoted he didn’t say he opposed the Bill; but more to the point when it came to the vote he abstained. An abstention is not opposition. Voting against is opposition. An abstention is neither opposition nor support.

            You are simply making things up. I have asked you to point to a record of Justin Welby opposing same-sex relationships. Is this the best you’ve got? A speech where he speaks in favour of same-sex relationships and then remains neutral in word and deed on the issue of same-sex marriages?

            If he really opposes same-sex relationships then link to a record of him actually saying something in opposition to them, not to something where he speaks in favour of them!

          • We are going in circles on this one.

            Yes we are. The circle is that you claim that Justin Welby is opposed to same-sex relationships, I ask you to show any record of him having said or done anything opposed to same-sex relationships, you can’t, but then to claim again that he is opposed to same-sex relationships.

            You are not willing to accept the blindingly obvious.

            What’s blindingly obvious is that your claim about Justin Welby has no basis in reality because if it did you would be able to point to a single instance of him having spoken or acted in opposition to same-sex relationships and you can’t.

        • I think it possible that JW may have been conservatively inclined in his earlier days especially due to his association with HTB and its formative influences and before he became ABC. However his public stance is no longer so.

          His more recent utterances on SSR and his complete failure to uphold historic teaching on marriage emphatically and unambiguously, rejecting any suggestion that SSM is unholy, suggests to me that he has capitulated to the societal zeitgeist and the liberal schismatism.

          This added to the pressures upon him as being a focus of unity across the Anglican Communion, which is now falling apart in front of eyes, will be his legacy.

          One wonders if he can’t wait to retire.

          Reply
          • Welby claimed that he and other bishops in the Lords opposed the SSM Bill. Address to General Synod 2013.

          • Welby claimed that he and other bishops in the Lords opposed the SSM Bill. Address to General Synod 2013.

            Link please. Either to the address or to a record of him voting against the bill.

          • Is this the address?

            https://anglican.ink/2013/11/18/archbishop-of-canterburys-address-to-general-synod/

            I quote the entire section on the Bill (by that time an Act):

            ‘ At the same time there has been the Same-Sex Marriage Act, which again took much time for both the Archbishop of York and myself and for a number of other bishops. I have spoken of this at other points and do not intend to say more about that now.’

            Nothing there about opposing the Bill; nothing either about being opposed to same-sex marriage or same-sex relationships in general.

            You people keep doing this; making claims that, when actually checked, turn out to be false. So either provide an actual instance of Welby opposing same-sex relationships, or shut up on the subject.

          • S

            If you click on the link below, you can find Justin Welby’s House of Lords speech on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill which he delivered to the House on 3rd June, 2013. It’s a Hansard Lords verbatim record, and you will have to scroll down to 4.06 pm to find Justin’s speech.

            https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201314/ldhansrd/text/130603-0001.htm#13060312000342

            Amongst other things he says: “…It is clearly essential that stable and faithful same-sex relationships should, where those involved want it, be recognised and supported with as much dignity and the same legal effect as marriage. Although the majority of Bishops who voted during the whole passage of the Civil Partnership Act through your Lordships’ House were in favour of civil partnerships a few years ago, it is also absolutely true that the church has often not served the LGBT communities in the way it should. I express my sadness and sorrow for that considerable failure…”

            He closes his speech: “…For these and many other reasons, those of us in the churches and faith groups who are extremely hesitant about this Bill in many cases hold that view because we think that traditional marriage is a cornerstone of society, and rather than adding a new and valued institution alongside it for same-gender relationships, which I would personally strongly support to strengthen us all, the Bill weakens what exists and replaces it with a less good option that is neither equal nor effective. This is not a faith issue, although we are deeply grateful for the attention that the Government and the other place have paid to issues of religious freedom. However, it is not at heart a faith issue. It is about the general social good. Therefore, with much regret—but entire conviction—I cannot support the Bill as it stands.”

          • If you click on the link below, you can find Justin Welby’s House of Lords speech on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill which he delivered to the House on 3rd June, 2013.

            Thank you. Finally.

            Hm.

            It is clearly essential that stable and faithful same-sex relationships should, where those involved want it, be recognised and supported with as much dignity and the same legal effect as marriage.

            That doesn’t sound like he opposes same-sex relationships to me. That sounds fully in favour of same-sex relationships.

            But on the question of the bill itself …

            Therefore, with much regret—but entire conviction—I cannot support the Bill as it stands.

            He obviously didn’t support it. But nor did he oppose it, either in the speech quoted or, unless I missed something, when it came to a vote. He abstained instead. Abstaining is not opposing.

            So from the evidence, the claim that Justin Welby opposed the Same-Sex Marriage Bill is not true, much less that he ‘led the opposition’. He did not support the Bill; but he did not oppose it either, whether with words or his vote.

            And he definitely did not oppose same-sex relationships. Indeed he spoke positively of same-sex relationships.

          • S

            What then do you make of JW blaming persecution of Christians on gay married couples or him saying that he would not even bless a SSM couple?

          • What then do you make of JW blaming persecution of Christians on gay married couples or him saying that he would not even bless a SSM couple?

            You have a record of paraphrasing what people say very inaccurately, to the point often of outright misrepresentation. If he really said those things then link to his exact words, not your highly unreliable gloss on them. Only his actual words count as evidence.

          • What seems to have happened is that Justin Welby, seeing it as his main job to try to keep the Church of England from splitting (a vain quest but one he has on his own choice taken on), has not given 100% support to the demands of the progressive side. He has never opposed them, but has hasn’t always supported them either.

            You seem to have a highly Manichean world-view where you interpret anyone who isn’t absolutely 100% in support of everything you demand as therefore being opposed to everything you want. You can’t cope with the idea of people who are in the middle. For you it’s all or nothing: either someone is completely on your side, no reservations, no hesitations, absolutely and totally committed to your goals with no time for opposing arguments; or they are utterly implacably opposed to you.

            As Welby, trying to keep the peace as he has been, has not been 100% on your side, you have therefore classified him, in your black/white world, as opposed to you and everything you stand for; and, as you often don’t bother to read what people actually write and instead just assume what you think they would have said (you do it to me all the time) you misinterpret and misrepresent everything Welby says through that prism of assumed opposition.

            Any of this sounding familiar?

          • S

            Yes either a person agrees that gay couples should be allowed to marry or they do not. The only other options are maybe the don’t know what to think or want more information

          • Yes either a person agrees that gay couples should be allowed to marry or they do not. The only other options are maybe the don’t know what to think or want more information

            Or that they are neutral on the matter. They may have no objection to same-sex marriages (they don’t oppose it) but they don’t think same-sex marriages must be allowed (so they don’t support it either).

            So it is possible for someone who doesn’t support same-sex marriage to not oppose it either. This is Justin Welby’s public position, according to his speeches and his voting record (ie, abstaining on the matter ever time it came to a vote).

            When it comes to same-sex relationships (as opposed to ‘marriages’), on the other hand, Welby has never (in public at least) been anything other than positive. He has never to my knowledge, for example, stated the official doctrine of the Church if England that all sex outside marriage is sinful; and every time he does any minor thing to placate the conservative wing (not inviting the same-sex partners of bishops in denominations which allow that sort of thing to the Lambeth conference for example) he is at pains to point out that it is not his personal view and he has been forced into it by the conservative wing (like describing the Lambeth example as ‘a lose-lose situation’).

      • Hi Don,

        I completely concur with your assessment of the ‘stay and fight’ campaign (if it can be called that: “no one has fire in their bellies any more; no one really cares enough to fight for anything.”

        When the prospect of the Church representatively affirming same-sex sexual relationships in the name of God was a remote one, the CofE’s evangelical wing solemnly vowed to “stay and fight” and asserted that their ‘red lines’ were liturgical (lex orandi, lex credendi).

        For example, back in 2016, noted evangelical theologian, Martin Davie, rejected the Bishop of Southwark’s proposal for the provision of a liturgy of affirmation and commitment for same-sex couples and a conscience clause that means no priest is required to officiate at such a service.”

        Davie clearly outlined the implications for the Church: ”It would mean the Church of England declaring liturgically that sexual relationships outside marriage between one man and one woman are acceptable in the sight of God. “

        “This is something that the Church of England simply cannot do.”

        In the same year, in Andrew Goddard struck a similar tone in writing about pastoral accommodation: “in distinguishing and determining whether or not to accommodate a particular instance of remarriage (both for services of blessing or marriage and for ordination) the principles for reaching a decision were found within the church’s teaching on marriage and there was no expectation that accommodation would be offered without reference to this teaching. This again is difficult to apply in relation accommodation for same-sex unions without revising the teaching.”

        Now, we’re reading that as long as pushing back against such an accommodation could “represent another major further sacrifice and frustrate what appears to be the desire of a simple majority in the church to proceed in a way they believe to be right”, then those who oppose this position should continue to “walk together” with those who support it.

        Instead of lex orandi lex credendi being the defining principle in deciding what is or isn’t indicative of a departure from CofE doctrine, we’re now informed of a greater ‘principle’ (in an episcopal polity) is deference to a simple majority on liturgicsl blessing of same-sex sexual relationships in the name of God.

        We are also told that those who hold to marriage orthodoxy shouldn’t: ”frustrate what appears to be the desire of a simple majority in the church to proceed in a way they believe to be right. They would be required not to follow their consciences as to what the Lord requires of them because of those of us who view what they wish to do as creating a church which has departed from its current doctrine and from Scripture.”

        So, it has taken just seven years to reduce the hollow ‘stay and fight’ bravado to the current whimper of ‘peace at any price’.

        Forget visible differentiation because it won’t go beyond an accommodation of individual consciences.

        Whatever the protestations of loyalty to Christ, all that’s now left is for conniving consciences to be seared by conciliatory compromises with apostates at every turn.

        Reply
        • Thank you for that, David. We are indeed living through testing times, and learning hard lessons. I’m sure I’d speak for plenty of souls in the Church of England who are praying in particular for wisdom at this time.

          There’s one observation which has remained with me all through the last 10 years or so. We should always be alert to the power devious language has to change the way we think. It’s as old as human time and it’s the subtlest of processes, not least because it’s the most benign of words or phrases which may lodge most easily in our minds and gently nudge us somewhere that an obvious deceit would never do. And over time we may find ourselves in a warm and congenial place in relation to people whose direction of travel was once incompatible with our own convictions. Strangely we discover new understandings we’d never appreciated before, establish friendly lines of communication with former adversaries, and cannot quite imagine how we were once fixated by those rigid certainties – perhaps we really can walk together after all?

          That prayer for wisdom involves the humility to accept that under the right kind of subtle treatment I may well be at least as vulnerable as anyone else. And while the Devil certainly is a roaring lion, subtlety may be his greatest weapon.

          Reply
        • David – if you could outline why you are in the C. of E. (rather than carrying out your Christian ministry within a different, perhaps non-conformist denomination) this would be useful – at least for me. I consider myself an `Evangelical’, but it never really occurred to me that the C. of E. could make a spiritual home (and this was long before gay marriage became a ‘hot topic’). When I was a student in Edinburgh back in the 1980’s, I did attend a Church of Scotland (Holyrood Abbey, where James Philip was the minister), but while I liked the solid preaching, the prayers and the solid hymns (usually Charles Wesley, Isaac Watts, the Scottish metrical psalms), I always felt like a ‘duck out of water’ as far as the denomination was concerned. I wondered why James Philip had decided on the Church of Scotland – and I still don’t know the answer to this – and I wonder why any ‘conservative Evangelical’ south of the border would choose the C. of E..

          It seems to me that your main problem here is that the conservative evangelicals have mostly found their spiritual homes elsewhere – and this is probably why you have difficulties finding support within the C. of E..

          Reply
          • Hi Jock,

            To clarify, my interest in and lament over the CofE is the result of years of involvement with the institution.

            Blog posts by leading CofE evangelicals encouraged me to believe that the Church was keen to be a spiritual home for Christians of all races and to overcome its shameful history of de facto racial segregation.

            However, after several years, I realised that most were paying lip-service to the ideal of racial equality, while resorting to wagon-circling collective inertia, despite the Church announcing numerous racial justice initiatives.

            The tacit racism meant that just like so many other gifted people of colour in that parish church and the CofE, I was persistently denied opportunity to explore my calling (in my case, to lay preaching informally or even to join the worship team).

            I only became a Deanery Synod Rep in the Diocese of Guildford because I ran unopposed (since no-one else wanted the role).

            I had hoped that, by the grace of God, CofE evangelicals (like myself) could participate in a church-wide renewal of devotion to scriptural truth. However, it was becoming increasingly clear that, in terms of ‘stay and fight’, apart from a few carefully composed letters to Church Times and the odd impassioned speech at General Synod, CofE evangelicals have a great desire to stay, but not much stomach for a fight,

            They extol the courage of St. Athanasius’ polemical letters opposing heresy, but they’re all too willing to ‘walk together’ with heretics. I wonder if they ever read Amos 3:3.

            In the face of all this double-mindedness, several years ago, I left the CofE to join a New Frontiers church.

            The white members of my church don’t exhibit the dismissiveness and contempt that I experienced in the CofE. I’ve even been able to explore my previously denied calling as a preacher, as you can see here: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL8ktNP06JCq75SF4dU12sGAXPpnpMl8fL

            Yet, I still lament over the vast chasm that lies between the CofE’s aspiration to be the national church for the common good and benefiting all Christians in England and its often impenitent failure to live up to that aspiration.

          • David – thanks for the response – and many thanks for the link to the youtube channel, which looks very promising.

            I’d say your comment is very important and needs a lot more publicity than it will get here. Sadly, I suspect your analysis may be spot on – although I also suspect that much of the negative reaction could be explained by C.of E. people being allergic to the gospel message rather than racism.

          • That sounds pretty awful David. Why do you think that racism is more endemic in the CofE than in the so called ‘new Churches’ like New Frontiers?

  12. Time for an article on ‘the perspicuity of scripture’. Whilst is not one of the five “solas” that serve as the core doctrines of the Protestant Reformation, it was affirmed by all the leading thinkers of the Reformation: Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Cranmer. It is the key that unlocks all the rest of Protestant doctrines.

    Is the Bible clear regarding what is necessary for salvation and morality? Is it for individuals to interpret or for a teaching authority? And, once defined, can doctrine change?

    Reply
    • You are seeking to lead the thread toward the claim that an authoritative interpreter of scripture is needed and that Rome is that interpreter, just as you used to argue at the Cranmer blog. (By the way, Adrian Hilton now expresses himself as a prolific and interesting Tweeter and is amusing himself this week by embarrassing +Oxford, who threatened him with legal action last year and is now accused of culpable inaction concerning reports of abusive clergy.)

      Rome is entitled to its view of scripture, but its claim to authority (and inerrancy) is undermined by its manifold errors.

      Reply

Leave a comment