When the Church of England changed its practice to allow the ordination of women, there was a period of ‘open reception.’ Is there a parallel with same-sex marriage? Could ‘open reception’ both work and preserve unity? What are the major obstacles to such an idea?
Andrew Goddard writes: The House of Bishops in July’s General Synod defeated a Private Members Motion on there being a “legitimate range of theological perspectives” in relation to marriage and sexuality. This week a Deanery Synod motion in Southwark is being introduced by The Revd Dr Charlie Bączyk-Bell. It proposes a similar approach in order to maintain “the overall unity of the Church of England, including the unity of each diocese under the jurisdiction of the diocesan bishop”. It does so by appealing to the practice of “open reception” drawing on the Eames Commission and the Grindrod Report on women’s ministry.
In the article that follows, having noted that it is the desire to introduce developments in doctrine and practice which is currently straining our unity, I offer an initial critique of this appeal to “reception”, setting out three major obstacles which show why it “is not as simple as is made out and indeed seriously flawed”.
First, the motion and supporting paper fail to note that the Anglican Communion considered such an approach and was clear (The Windsor Report para 69) that where church teaching exists
no province, diocese or parish has the right to introduce a novelty which goes against such teaching and excuse it on the grounds that it has simply been put forward for reception.
I note that, although some may dispute there is any longer “such teaching” on marriage in the Communion, there clearly is in the Church of England—in the BCP marriage liturgy and ordinal, and in Canon B30:
The Church of England affirms, according to our Lord’s teaching, that marriage is in its nature a union permanent and lifelong, for better for worse, till death them do part, of one man with one woman, to the exclusion of all others on either side, for the procreation and nurture of children, for the hallowing and right direction of the natural instincts and affections, and for the mutual society, help and comfort which the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity.
Secondly, I show by reference to various Church of England and Communion sources that the appeal to a precedent in women’s ordination fails. This is because reception there followed after
a formal decision, by a church following its due processes, to act in new ways, based on compelling doctrinal reasons and with overwhelming support.
The motion is, in effect, an attempt to short-circuit that proper pathway to a time of reception by doing so through simply declaring we are in such a period because there exist a range of views in the church—rather than requiring a clear, informed consensus that the existing doctrine needs to be developed in some particular way.
Thirdly, the motion does not address the crucial question of the seriousness of our disagreements. In fact, it presumes that, in the categories of the Faith and Order Commission, the issues are neither first-order nor second-order. It ignores FAOC’s clear 2025 statement (GS Misc 1406, para 139) that
It is a failure of Christian love for one side to declare what kind of disagreement is being experienced by the other [and that] What kind of disagreement we are having cannot be discerned or determined by a vote.
In conclusion, I note that Charlie Bączyk-Bell is committed not just to securing his goals on marriage and sexuality but also “working in good faith with others from different theological perspectives to find a way to a unified church in which different theological perspectives are held with integrity”. I highlight six challenges that we currently face and which have been discussed in the article
- Formal action is unlikely to have the necessary majorities soon.
- Without formal action, “open reception” cannot legitimately be invoked.
- The significance of the disagreement “cannot be discerned or determined by a vote”.
- Many in the Church of England, and most of the Communion, see these as matters of ecclesial or apostolic communion.
- Good faith means not declaring what kind of disagreement others are experiencing.
- Ecclesial unity cannot be separated from shared faith.
I therefore end by suggesting there is a serious question as to the degree to which we can achieve “a unified church in which different theological perspectives are held with integrity” without “structural provision” of some, perhaps quite significant, form that recognises how seriously divergent our “different theological perspectives” are.
You can download the paper as a PDF, or read the text as set out below.
Andrew Goddard on Bell Deanery Motion PDF
At the close of the last General Synod in July, after the bishops and Synod had in February agreed to bring the Living in Love and Faith/Prayers of Love and Faith (LLF/PLF) process to a close, a Private Members Motion (PMM) was debated which sought, as amended during the debate, to
recognise a legitimate range of theological perspectives, held in good conscience, across the Church of England, on the right ordering of committed, faithful, intimate same-sex relationships and recognise that this includes views that affirm and views that reject the position that there are no fundamental objections to being in such a relationship and that such a relationship can be entirely compatible with Christian discipleship and ministry.
Although passed in the Houses of Clergy and Laity it was defeated due to a close vote in the House of Bishops with a majority opposing the motion (11-14, 93-79, 101-83). This was met with relief by almost all of those supporting the church’s current teaching and a mix of anger, bewilderment and frustration by those seeking change and wishing their views to be formally recognised as “legitimate…theological perspectives” to which there were “no fundamental objections”.
It seems clear that those wishing to see change in the church’s teaching and practice will continue to press for further development in the new General Synod. However, unless there is a massive swing in their favour in the current elections, they face significant problems in gaining the necessary support. It is now accepted that the bishops will not seek to commend any new liturgy. Instead liturgical change will require authorisation by General Synod (under canon B2) and this needs a 2/3 majority in all three Houses. This seems highly unlikely. Other changes, notably in relation to permitting clergy to enter civil same-sex marriage, may only require a simple majority in all three Houses. There is the possibility that such a majority may be lacking among the laity (and, possible but less likely, even the clergy) after the elections. Even if there is such a majority the likelihood is that it will be small (still stuck at Brexity 52:48 or closer). The bishops, many of them believing such a development to be wrong (including the senior bishops in Winchester, Durham, and likely by then also in London) and/or concerned to maintain the unity of the church, may well—as with the PMM vote in July—defeat proposals in a vote by Houses.
Charlie Bączyk-Bell’s motion appealing to “reception”
And yet it seems clear that there remains a “range of theological perspectives, held in good conscience, across the Church of England” and so the question arises as to how to respond to this reality. This week, in his Deanery Synod in Southwark Diocese, The Revd Dr Charlie Bączyk-Bell is proposing a motion which is seeking to chart a new way forward similar to that found in the PMM and hoping ultimately to bring the motion via Southwark Diocesan Synod to General Synod. It does this with additional material appealing to the concept of “open reception” as the theological and ecclesiological rationale for following this path. The motion reads
This Synod, committed to maintaining the overall unity of the Church of England, including the unity of each diocese under the jurisdiction of the diocesan bishop,
a. believes such unity, as an expression of koinonia that ‘comes to us as a gift we can only accept in gratitude’ (Hiroshima Report), is an ever-unveiling gift to the church from the Lord Jesus, to be received and celebrated in faith rather than created in fear;
b. for the purpose of maintaining this unity, calls upon this deanery, the Diocese of Southwark and the wider Church of England to uphold the principle of ‘Open Reception’ (as a period of active discernment) as it relates to the inclusion of LGBTQIA people in the church, in a similar way to that indicated by the Eames Commission on women’s ministry; noting that “reception is a long and spiritual process” (Grindrod Report);
c. in particular calls upon this deanery, diocese, and the Church of England, to affirm that those who dissent from, as well as those who assent to, various practical measures of LGBTQIA inclusion — such as the blessing of same-sex couples, civil marriage, and marriage in church of same-sex couples, and their being admitted to the priesthood and episcopate as full and equal members — are both loyal Anglicans and followers of the Lord Jesus Christ in this shared tradition;
e. [sic] also affirms that “although some of the means by which communion is expressed may be strained…there is a need for courtesy, tolerance, mutual respect, and prayer for one another, and we confirm that our desire to know or be with one another, remains binding on us as Christians” (Eames, p.119).
In order to help Deanery Synod members, the overwhelming majority of whom will come to the vote knowing little or nothing about what is meant by “reception” or “open reception”, Charlie has produced an explanatory note. There is a lot packed into the motion and the note which will need more sustained analysis and reflection than can be offered here. What follows seeks to offer an initial cautionary critique. It highlights two central reasons why I think that the appeal to “open reception” (which builds on the appeal to this concept by the now-retired Bishop of Southwark in his March 2023 Presidential Address to Southwark Diocesan Synod) is not as simple as is made out and indeed seriously flawed. It also draws attention to the motion’s failure to address what has been clearly identified as a, perhaps the, crucial question we now face: how we determine the theological significance of our differences. These three weaknesses mean that this proposed way forward is sadly not one able to gain the support of those who are committed to the church’s current teaching and practice such as the many people who, like me, are supporters of The Alliance.
The motion’s stated aim: Maintaining Church of England unity
The motion presents itself as seeking to maintain “the overall unity of the Church of England, including the unity of each diocese under the jurisdiction of the diocesan bishop”. For those aware of the details of recent debates about what “pastoral provision” would be needed were there be further developments in the church’s teaching and practice in relation to marriage, this motion from the start signals that there is no willingness to engage with what The Alliance has said they would require in such circumstances. They are seeking a guarantee, if further changes are introduced, of being able to continue to have what they can recognise as “orthodox ordinary oversight”. In other words, should a diocesan bishop depart from the received teaching of the Church of England on marriage that they promised to uphold, then those unable to accept this development should be able to come instead under the jurisdiction of a bishop other than their current diocesan bishop, a bishop who does continue to uphold current teaching and discipline.
Clearly “the unity of each diocese under the jurisdiction of the diocesan bishop” is indeed, as the motion notes, something to be sought. Relinquishing the present structural form of this would signify there has regrettably been a diminution in “the overall unity of the Church of England”. However, a change which involved reconfiguring the boundaries of a diocese (not something set in stone and historically dioceses included parishes some distance away) in order to secure the highest degree of communion possible could still maintain the unity of each diocese under the jurisdiction of its diocesan.
The difficulty is that questions of unity and order cannot be considered simply on the basis of this principle detached from questions of faith and morals. The unity to be sought also depends on bishops upholding their consecration vows. These include being “ready, with all faithful diligence, to banish and drive away all erroneous and strange doctrine contrary to God’s Word; and both privately and openly to call upon and encourage others to the same” (BCP Ordinal) and affirming they “believe the doctrine of the Christian faith as the Church of England has received it” and that in their ministry they will “expound and teach it” (Common Worship).
Alongside unity coming to us as “a gift…to be received and celebrated in faith” it also comes to us a calling and a challenge (the 2022 Primates’ Task Group was entitled, “The Gift, Call and Challenge of Communion”). Indeed, the full title of The Hiroshima Report quoted in the motion is Koinonia: God’s Gift and Calling. The “calling” aspect is largely downplayed here. The claim that koinonia is “something the Church receives as a gift rather than something it constructs” (italics added) while clearly true at a fundamental level could be construed as weakening or denying the “call” aspect and the effect of our own actions on our koinonia. The words of the recent Anglican Nairobi-Cairo proposals (para 27) capture this need to hold together what the motion does not – faith and order, gift and calling:
As the ecumenical movement has long professed, the unity of the Church is both gift and call. As gift, the communion of the Church — her agreement in faith, her visible ordering, and her mission — is not ours to achieve; it is God’s own accomplishment in Christ who “reconciles all things to himself, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross” (Col. 1:19-20; cf. Eph. 4:3). As call, the communion of the Church — her faith, order, and mission — remains something towards which we strive, as the Lord commissioned his disciples on the night he was betrayed, that they and we all may, through obedience, mutual service, and love, be one (see John 17; cf. Phil. 4:2).
Ephesians 4:3 quoted there captures the challenge: we are “to make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace”. The reality is that it is currently proving difficult to “keep the unity of the Spirit” because of innovative proposals seeking to develop “the doctrine of the Christian faith as the Church of England has received it” in ways that many see as a departure from that faith. This is what is unsettling and threatening “the overall unity of the Church of England, including the unity of each diocese under the jurisdiction of the diocesan bishop”.
A major difficulty with the motion is that it seems to be saying that in relation to church teaching on marriage and sexual ethics those who continue to believe this must now accept within the life of the church developments which reject what we have until now received. However, alongside this, there can never be anything which adapts in any way “the unity of each diocese under the jurisdiction of the diocesan bishop”. On that matter, in contrast to questions of doctrine and ethics, we apparently need to be ecclesial fundamentalists who view this feature of church governance as an absolute non-negotiable.
The motion’s key concept: Reception
But of course the reality is that the Church of England has, in other areas, introduced developments in teaching and practice. Although in doing this it has had to significantly adapt its understanding of how koinonia, unity and episcopacy are related to each other, it has not as yet developed patterns of episcopal ministry which challenge “the unity of each diocese under the jurisdiction of the diocesan bishop” or reconfigure diocesan boundaries.
As the motion notes the most obvious recent example of this relates to “women’s ministry” where Charlie notes that appeal was made to “the principle of ‘Open Reception’ (as a period of active discernment)”. The motion therefore calls for the deanery, diocese and wider Church of England to also uphold this principle now “as it relates to the inclusion of LGBTQIA people in the church”. It appeals to “the Eames Commission on women’s ministry” (the 1997 Report from the Commission is here) and the 1988 Grindrod Report which spoke of reception as “a long and spiritual process”.
So, do these documents, and does this principle, justify the statement that “those who assent to, various practical measures of LGBTQIA inclusion — such as the blessing of same-sex couples, civil marriage, and marriage in church of same-sex couples, and their being admitted to the priesthood and episcopate as full and equal members — are both loyal Anglicans and followers of the Lord Jesus Christ in this shared tradition”? Is there sufficient warrant for the extension of reception to “the inclusion of LGBTQIA people in the church”?
This raises the whole question of when, and on what basis, and with what practical consequences, any part of the church may justifiably claim that some proposed innovation is now to be judged as acceptable, thus requiring the church to see and define itself as in a period of “Open Reception” as regards that development. Here the motion and explanatory note are silent simply noting that
‘Open Reception’ is not a new invention for this debate. It is the principle the Church of England and the wider Anglican Communion already used to hold together through an earlier, comparably difficult period of change: the ordination of women. Following the 1988 Lambeth Conference, the Eames Commission — chaired by Archbishop Robin Eames — was asked how the Communion could remain in the fullest possible communion (koinonia: the shared life and fellowship that binds the Church together, even amid disagreement) while some provinces ordained women and others did not, before the matter was settled either way. Its answer was that the development could proceed and be tested — received or not received — across the whole Church over time, on the understanding that both those who accepted it and those who could not in conscience do so remained loyal members of one Church, owed one another courtesy, tolerance and continued fellowship while discernment continued. The Grindrod Report, presented to that same Lambeth Conference, made the same point in different words: that “reception is a long and spiritual process”, not a single vote that settles a question overnight….This motion asks the deanery to apply that same, tested principle to the question of LGBTQIA inclusion: to treat the current diversity of practice and conviction as a period of active, ongoing discernment held in common, rather than as a fracture to be resolved by one side simply prevailing over the other.
This is, however, a much more complex question than is suggested here. In particular, two important aspects are simply ignored, perhaps because they seriously undermine the attempt to extend at this time the language of “open reception” to the areas we are now wrestling with in the Church of England. These two aspects are
- how the Communion has spoken about applying reception to these questions and
- how the Communion and the Church of England applied reception in relation to opening the orders of priest and bishop to women.
First Obstacle: Sexuality and Reception in The Anglican Communion and The Church of England
The Windsor Report
Firstly, it is noteworthy that the documents being appealed to are ecumenical and Anglican Communion documents but there is no reference at all to the wider ecumenical and Anglican Communion context in calling on a deanery, diocese and the Church of England to apply “Open Reception” to such matters as “the blessing of same-sex couples, civil marriage, and marriage in church of same-sex couples, and their being admitted to the priesthood and episcopate as full and equal members”.
In fact, the Anglican Communion did consider these matters when The Episcopal Church sought to argue along similar lines (most fully in To Set Our Hope on Christ) in relation to its introduction of such innovations over two decades ago. It did so in The Windsor Report of 2004, which Charlie fails to mention. This report of the Lambeth Commission, also under the chairmanship of Archbishop Robin Eames whose earlier report in relation to reception and women’s ordination Charlie does cite, explicitly considered whether such an extension of the principle of reception applied in relation to women priests and bishops, was legitimate within Anglican ecclesiology. Paras 67 to 70 explore “Discernment in communion and reception”. The report explains (in para 68) the concept and process of reception in these terms:
Within our common life, one way in which unity has been maintained is by subjecting fresh developments within the Anglican Communion to a test of reception. In classical theological terms, ‘reception’ was the process by which the pronouncements of a Council of the Church were tested by how the faithful ‘received’ it. The consensus fidelium (‘common mind of the believers’) constituted the ultimate check that a new declaration was in harmony with the faith as it had been received. More recently, the doctrine has been used in Anglicanism as a way of testing whether a controversial development, not yet approved by a universal Council of the Church but nevertheless arising within a province by legitimate processes, might gradually, over time, come to be accepted as an authentic development of the faith. This offers a clear threefold sequence:
(i) theological debate and discussion
(ii) formal action, and
(iii) increased consultation to see whether the formal action settles down and makes itself at home.
This process of consultation, designed to strengthen Communion, is the very opposite of confrontation, and leads to a shared discernment of God’s truth. It is a key way of maintaining the unity of the Church through a time of experiment and uncertainty.
It then makes this crucial statement in para 69:
We should note, however, that the doctrine of reception only makes sense if the proposals concern matters on which the Church has not so far made up its mind. It cannot be applied in the case of actions which are explicitly against the current teaching of the Anglican Communion as a whole, and/or of individual provinces. No province, diocese or parish has the right to introduce a novelty which goes against such teaching and excuse it on the grounds that it has simply been put forward for reception. In such a case, if change is desired, it must be sought through the appropriate channels, which we describe elsewhere.
This judgment is one which undermines the whole approach being taken by the motion and raises serious questions about its appeal to “open reception” from Communion documents.
Lambeth 2022
One response to this may be that this was the position back in 2004 but that all this changed at the last Lambeth Conference due to statements by Archbishop Justin Welby. Those statements did indeed seek to reframe the Communion’s approach into something more akin to it now being in a period of “open reception” within the Communion. I offered a critique of the illegitimacy of this, and the dubious manner in which it was introduced at the time. The then Archbishop was not only discarding the unanimous Windsor Report but overturning the clear statement of the primates when he first gathered them in 2016. In relation to developments in some provinces on matters of marriage and sexuality they stated not that these showed we were in a time of reception but rather:
In keeping with the consistent position of previous Primates’ meetings such unilateral actions on a matter of doctrine without Catholic unity is considered by many of us as a departure from the mutual accountability and interdependence implied through being in relationship with each other in the Anglican Communion.
The questions is why Charlie, though quoting Communion documents, is so selective. Why does he not even acknowledge, let alone engage with, the Windsor Report’s assessment? Does he think it can simply be ignored by relying on a quasi-papal declaration by Justin Welby?
The mind of the Church of England
More seriously his argument appealing to reception does not really work even if one were to grant that there is no longer a Communion teaching on these matters. This is because “the doctrine of reception only makes sense if the proposals concern matters on which the Church has not so far made up its mind” and that does not describe the situation in relation to marriage within the Church of England. Charlie and others do not agree with that mind but that does not mean (whatever we think about the wider Communion) that the Church of England does not have a mind on it. The Cornes amendment in February 2023 at the start of the PLF process gave synodical support to the bishops’ decision not to act in any way indicative of a departure from that doctrine. Given that “the doctrine of reception only makes sense if the proposals concern matters on which the Church has not so far made up its mind” reception cannot be applied “in the case of actions which are explicitly against the current teaching” of the Church of England. This means that, even if one were to put to one side the mind of the wider Communion and church catholic, the judgment remains that, to adapt para 69 quoted above, “No….diocese or parish (or deanery) has the right to introduce a novelty which goes against such teaching and excuse it on the grounds that it has simply been put forward for reception”. But this is exactly what the motion is attempting to do.
Second Obstacle: Women’s Ordination is a flawed precedent
But what about the example of women’s ordination? Isn’t what is proposed simply applying to the current situation as regards marriage and sexuality what was done there?
Debates about reception in relation to women’s ordination
It needs, first, to be recognised that appeals to “reception” in relation to this question have themselves generated a significant amount of debate. This really needs to be re-engaged with properly before any step is made to extend “reception” further to our current disagreements over sexuality. Important contributions here, representing a range of views, and in addition to the Communion documents already mentioned, would include
- The Virginia Report (1997) from the Inter-Anglican Theological and Doctrinal Commission particularly paras 5.21-5.26 on “Discernment and Reception”
- The Gift of Authority (1998) from ARCIC II with, for example, discussion of “Reception and Re-Reception: The Church’s ‘Amen’ to the Word of God” (paras 24-25 which show how reception has been understood ecumenically and point to some of the challenges of extending this in the ways being proposed)
- Peter Toon’s Latimer Study, Reforming Forwards?: The process of reception and the consecration of women as bishops (Latimer Studies 56/57, 2004)
- The collection of essays edited by Paul Avis entitled Seeking the Truth of Change in the Church: Reception, Communion and The Ordination of Women (Mowbray, 2004)
- Stephen Noll’s paper (“Women Bishops and Reception: An Occasion for Rehinking”) for the GAFCON Task Force on Women in the Episcopate Interim Report (2019) which is strongly critical of the appeal to reception in relation to women bishops.
- Various writings of Mary Tanner including a chapter in Avis’ book, her article for Forward in Faith entitled “Is Reception Really Open?”, and her submission to the Lambeth Commission that produced The Windsor Report on “Decision-making process in the communion of the Church”
Understanding reception
In relation to whether the Church of England’s embracing of reception in relation to women’s ordination is a valid precedent for the proposal in this Deanery Synod motion a key difference needs to be considered but again is not even noted by Charlie in his explanation.
As we saw in the passage from The Windsor Report above, it is usual to talk of a three-fold development when it comes to entering a period of reception in relation to a new development in Anglican teaching and/or practice: (i) theological debate and discussion, (ii) formal action, and (iii) increased consultation to see whether the formal action settles down and makes itself at home.
Currently in the Church of England on the matters of substance in the motion we are still at (i). In relation to (ii) the only formal action is the commendation of Prayers of Love and Faith for use in regular services. We could perhaps therefore legitimately say that this specific development can now be viewed as in a period of reception within the Church of England. It may be that, if these commended prayers prove to be well received (a matter on which at the very best the jury is still out given their impact on the Church of England and wider Anglican Communion), other formal actions may also be taken on that basis (much as the reception of women priests led, over time, to also opening the episcopate to women). But the motion wants to extend “open reception” much further than PLF in regular services. Rather alarmingly it is not precise as to what is to be classified as in this category speaking simply of “various practical measures of LGBTQIA inclusion”. It is, however, clear that this extends, despite the church’s clear existing doctrine, to both “civil marriage” and “marriage in church” for same-sex couples, and same-sex married couples “being admitted to the priesthood and episcopate”.
This introduction of liturgical innovation and change of discipline in relation to ordained ministers under the guise of “open reception” without there being a clear proper canonical and synodical “formal action” on the basis of “theological debate and discussion” is to put the proverbial cart before the horse. It is also to ignore how we entered a period of reception in relation to women’s ordination.
Receiving women’s ordination
General Synod 1975
The language of “no fundamental objection” in the recent PMM before General Synod (which was effectively making the same point this motion now makes and ties to “reception”) was contentious in part because it echoed the motion passed by General Synod in 1975 that “this Synod considers that there are no fundamental objections to the ordination of women to the priesthood”. But simply passing that motion is not what moved the Church of England into a period of open reception in relation to women priests. Nor did decisions to ordain women as priests in other provinces move the Church of England into a period of open reception. That step only came 17 years later when, in November 1992, by significant two-thirds majorities in all 3 Houses, the Synod took “formal action” to open up the priesthood to women.
Bonds of Peace 1993
That this was the trigger for entering the sort of situation of “open reception” which this motion seeks to establish now in relation to disputed matters on marriage and sexuality is made clear in the June 1993 statement from the House of Bishops known as Bonds of Peace. This stated (para 3, italics added to highlight when the sort of claims now being made in relation to sexuality could be made and what is necessary to cross the threshold into a period of reception):
We now enter a process in which it is desirable that both those in favour and those opposed should be recognised as holding legitimate positions while the whole Church seeks to come to a common mind. The Church of England needs to understand itself as a communion in dialogue, committed to remaining together in the ongoing process of the discernment of truth within the wider fellowship of the Christian Church. Giving space to each other, and remaining in the highest degree of communion in spite of differences are crucial, as we strive to be open to the insights of the wider Christian community. Though some of the means by which communion is expressed may be strained or broken, the need for courtesy, tolerance, mutual respect, prayer for one another, and a continuing desire to know one another and to be with one another, remain binding on us as Christians, no less within our own Church than is already the case in our ecumenical relations [this is very similar to the language in the motion’s final clause, there sourced to Eames]. The danger to be avoided is that, where ecclesial communion is impaired, communities may begin to define themselves over against one another and develop in isolation from one another.
The Grindrod Report 1988
This process in the Church of England also fits with the wider pattern established in the Anglican Communion. This is set out in the 1988 Grindrod Report which Charlie cites in apparent support of his proposal to declare a period of open reception. It was clear that
- “Before a Province of the Anglican Communion proceeded to consecrate a woman as bishop it would need to have satisfied itself that to admit women to all three orders of the historic ministry was not fundamentally to change the character of that ministry” (para 54, italics added)
- “Should a Province, after due consultation proceed to consecrate a woman as bishop then that decision would still have to be tested in the universal Church. As with other developments of faith and order such a development would have to be affirmed by the people of God under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. A long range and far-reaching process of reception by the whole Church would lie ahead” (para 85, italics added).
- “Concerns for unity and truth are not separable in the faithful mission of the Church. A Province proceeding to consecrate a woman bishop would need to be convinced that the practice of the Church in its locality demanded such action…” (para 86, italics added).
The Church of England has done none of this as a province in relation to the developments concerning same-sex relationships and marriage which this motion wants to permit on the grounds of “open reception”.
In relation to Reception, noting that “we have constantly been struck by the importance of the theological concept of reception” the Grindrod Report set out two options. A Province “may wish to exercise restraint because of the possible disruptive effects upon the Communion” or alternatively they
may be persuaded by compelling doctrinal reasons, by their experience of women in ordained ministry and by the demands of the mission of the Church in their region to proceed to the ordination of a woman to the episcopate. This would only be done with overwhelming support in the diocese concerned. Such a step could only be taken within an over-riding acknowledgment of the need to offer such a development for reception, or indeed, rejection, by the whole Communion and by the universal Church and with care and support for the women so ordained (para 93, italics added).
The Five Guiding Principles
A similar ordering of steps is also pointed to within The Five Guiding Principles. These make clear that “the Church of England has reached a clear decision on this matter” of women bishops even as it acknowledges that “its own clear decision on ministry and gender is set within a broader process of discernment within the Anglican Communion and the whole Church of God”. It is only “Now that legislation has been passed to enable women to become bishops” and “the Church of England is fully and unequivocally committed to all orders of ministry being open equally to all, without reference of gender” that it makes sense to say we are in a period of “open reception” on this matter. It would not have made sense to say this before that legislation was passed. It would not have made sense to say this simply on the basis of a range of views being present in the church. It would not have made sense to say this because Synod had agreed (as it has never done in relation to marriage and sexuality) that there are “no fundamental objections” to taking certain steps. It would not even have made sense to say this on the basis that a majority (and a much larger majority in Synod than there has ever been on the matters this motion refers to) clearly existed for this development.
Conclusion
In other words, a process of reception does not come about simply by noting a range of views being present and sincerely held in a particular part of the church. Nor does reception begin by simply stating that the existence of such a range of views means we must therefore be in “a period of active discernment” in which teaching and actions contrary to the received teaching and practice of that part of the church are now permitted. Entering a period of reception requires, on the basis of this evidence (including sources selectively cited in support of the motion) at the very least, a formal decision, by a church following its due processes, to act in new ways, based on compelling doctrinal reasons and with overwhelming support. None of that is true of the Church of England’s situation in relation to the matters this motion seeks to categorise as subject to “open reception”. In fact, it seems to be the case, that it is precisely because such conditions for genuine reception (as it has been understood and applied in relation to women priests and bishops) are lacking and seem unlikely to exist in the near future that this motion seeks instead to short-circuit that proper pathway and trigger, in a totally novel manner, a time of reception.
Third Obstacle: Who decides the significance of a new development and whether and how it might be recognised?
There are not just these two problems with arguing we are now in a time of “open reception” and need to recognise this for the purpose of “maintaining the overall unity of the Church of England, including the unity of each diocese under the jurisdiction of the diocesan bishop”. A third and final key problem with the proposal is its failure to engage with the crucial question as to how theologically significant the developments being proposed for “open reception” are and who should determine this matter. Instead it simply assumes and implicitly asserts one answer.
Clarifying the Question
People like me, whom the motion describes as “those who dissent from…various practical measures of LGBTQIA inclusion” are simply upholding the teaching and practice of the Church of England and the wider church catholic down through the centuries and across the world. It would therefore be very difficult to argue that we (with our “dissent”, an odd term to use for those who continue to receive the tradition) are not in fact “loyal Anglicans and followers of the Lord Jesus Christ in this shared tradition”. Having said that, one reason why, practically not simply theologically, many conservatives are highly suspicious of the language of “open reception” is due to some responses to those who continue to uphold the traditional practice in relation to women’s ordination and to those who uphold traditional teaching and practice on marriage in churches which have rejected it.
The question therefore that needs to be addressed but is ignored here is whether, and on what basis, those who “assent” to the proposed changes should be recognised as, in this specific area, recognisably “loyal Anglicans and followers of the Lord Jesus Christ in this shared tradition”. One assumes that those who do so assent believe that their own position is indeed loyal to the tradition. The really crucial question therefore is whether those who do not personally assent to the developments but “dissent” (because their assent remains with the church’s received teaching and practice) can nevertheless recognise the legitimacy in some sense of the novel position and the need for it to have a recognised place in the life of the church. This is, in effect, to judge the proposed changes as adiaphora, matters of indifference.
The Faith and Order Commission’s Analysis (2016 and 2025)
As the Church of England’s Faith and Order Commission has made very clear these are complex matters. It discussed them in the 2016 Communion and Disagreement report (GS Misc 1139) which was helpfully summarised in the LLF book and course. It has returned to them even more fully as recently as the January 2025 FAOC report (GS Misc 1406).
The FAOC analysis proposes not simply the two-fold division often referred to as “first order” and “second order” issues but rather a three-fold distinction. It notes that the challenge is we not only disagree with each other about the presenting issues but also about how seriously we view these disagreements. Some, it argues (for example paras 116ff of GS Misc 1406) see them as first-order, threatening what FAOC calls “apostolic communion”. Others see them as second-order, threatening “ecclesial communion”. Yet others see them as third-order and so a difference “which strains elements of communion but which can be addressed within a single ecclesial structure”. This last judgment is clearly what the motion is assuming – it is an attempt to say that, in the terms of this framework, “various practical measures of LGBTQIA inclusion — such as the blessing of same-sex couples, civil marriage, and marriage in church of same-sex couples, and their being admitted to the priesthood and episcopate as full and equal members” are neither first-order or second-order. It does not make clear that is what it is saying and so it does not defend such a view but it seems very difficult to read it as saying anything other than this. Anyone who believes these matters are first-order or second-order will therefore find it very difficult, likely impossible, to support the motion.
But there is a more serious problem than this not being acknowledged at all. The heart of it is set out in para 139 of the 2025 FAOC report which, in discussing how we go about evaluating what kind of disagreement we are in fact facing, states (italics added):
It is a failure of Christian love for one side to declare what kind of disagreement is being experienced by the other. It must surely be the case that those who disagree with a given decision are themselves determinative of what kind of disagreement is in view, not the content majority. Those who dissent from the majority view or decision get to define the nature of their disagreement: if it is widely held that such-and-such a belief or practice calls into question apostolic communion or ecclesial communion, then the disagreement simply is a first- or second-order disagreement, regardless of whether the majority think it merely strains communion (third order).
The report notes the importance of the phrase “widely held” in that assessment but, with that proviso, then states the following in relation to LLF (which clearly therefore applies by extension to the even more substantial developments with which the motion is concerned):
To deny that LLF is a first- or second-order disagreement simply on the basis that the majority assert that it is not (in spite of what the dissenting minority say) is unkind or even oppressive. Whether the PLF and related arrangements comprise something that Christians cannot agree to disagree on, as moved in an amendment to the substantive LLF motion in the February 2024 Synod, is a curious thing to decide by a vote. That 46% of Synod members voted in favour of that amendment demonstrates that it is the case, even though the amendment fell in all three houses! What kind of disagreement we are having cannot be discerned or determined by a vote. If there is to be any meaningful ongoing dialogue about what to do in the face of profound disagreement, it must proceed from the basis of acknowledging and accepting that, for a large proportion of those who disagree, the disagreement is of first- or second-order significance.
Here we have clearly stated, by FAOC, the deeper problem with this motion that is even more serious than its selective and flawed appeal to past documents about reception. It is seeking to address the kind of disagreement we are having in a way which is not fitted for that purpose. That is because this is a matter which “cannot be discerned or determined by a vote”. As such it represents a proposed way forward which is not one of “meaningful ongoing dialogue about what to do in the face of profound disagreement”. It is in fact a proposed way forward which risks instead being “unkind or even oppressive” and “a failure of Christian love”.
Conclusion
Charlie’s statement in support of his re-election to General Synod concludes by addressing “living together in communion”. His passionate commitment to securing the developments which his Deanery Synod motion seeks to introduce by means of appeal to “open reception” is evident but he also is clear that “I have no wish to exclude people”. This is then tied to the concern with which his motion and this article opened: “I am also acutely aware of the damage that ‘structural provision’ can do the unity of Christ’s church”. On that basis he draws to a close with these words
I am therefore committed to working in good faith with others from different theological perspectives to find a way to a unified church in which different theological perspectives are held with integrity. This is a Gospel imperative, and our mission and evangelism rely on our finding a way to preach a Gospel that can be heard, and to be a church that people can believe in.
His motion similarly ends with a clause that one hopes would be able to receive widespread support in its description of our current situation and how in the face of this we need to engage with one another:
although some of the means by which communion is expressed may be strained…there is a need for courtesy, tolerance, mutual respect, and prayer for one another, and we confirm that our desire to know or be with one another, remains binding on us as Christians (Eames, p.119).
The challenges we face are however very large, including that
- it seems unlikely there will any time soon be sufficient majorities for the Church of England to take “formal action”, by due processes, to introduce the wide range of changes he and many others want;
- if that is indeed the case then, if the argument above holds, appeal cannot legitimately be made to “open reception” as a means of nevertheless introducing them into the Church of England because this requires such formal action based on compelling doctrinal reasons and with overwhelming support;
- to determine the significance of such proposed changes is, by its very nature, a question which “cannot be discerned or determined by a vote” as “if it is widely held that such-and-such a belief or practice calls into question apostolic communion or ecclesial communion, then the disagreement simply is a first- or second-order disagreement, regardless of whether the majority think it merely strains communion (third order)”;
- it is clear that a very significant body within the Church of England (and even more the overwhelming majority of the Anglican Communion and Christ’s church as a whole whose unity is what we all ultimately seek) do see these matters as ones of at least ecclesial communion and indeed for many they are ones of apostolic communion;
- an approach therefore of “working in good faith with others from different theological perspectives” will need to respect theological perspectives on the significance of our disagreements and recognise that it cannot “declare what kind of disagreement is being experienced by the other” without being “a failure of Christian love” and “even oppressive”;
- given this and the fact that the unity of Christ’s church in terms of ecclesial order cannot be separated from shared faith (hence the challenge of ecumenical conversations), there is a serious question as to the degree to which we can achieve “a unified church in which different theological perspectives are held with integrity” without “structural provision” of some, perhaps quite significant, form that recognises how seriously divergent our “different theological perspectives” are.
Buy me a Coffee
This blog seems to be weirdly obsessed with whoever this chap is. I’m not sure I agree with everything he says, but is a deanery synod motion really worthy of an article before it has even been debated. It looks kind of weird, guys.
‘Weirdly obsessed’? I count three articles mentioning him out of 2,432. That’s an odd idea of ‘obsessed’.
The reason why this matters is that Southwark is a very liberal diocese. The deanery motion, if passed, will become a diocesan motion. If that is passed, it will come to General Synod.
And we don’t appear to have any effective mechanism to prevent ill formed and highly divisive motions simply being passed on—as Helen King’s PMM showed.
I wish we could just draw a line and focus on more important things. But apparently not…
Southwark once was a liberal diocese.
…in the true sense of the word…
Bączyk-Bell’s motion would draw such a line though. It’s seeking to park the LGBT inclusion questions into ‘open reception’ which is “a long and spiritual process”. If you want to have a massive fight over trying to oust gay clergy, or undo the Bishops’ commendation, then ok but don’t complain we’re not focussing on other things.
Adam, what happened to clergy actually upholding their public vows? When did we agree to dispense with that?
Who’s not upholding their vows?
Who’s not upholding their vows?
Well, The Reverend Richard Coles (to give him Capitalized Title as per the BBC) for one: “Coles stated at the time that the relationship was celibate, but later said that this had not been true, but he had to promise celibacy in order to maintain his job as a vicar.” (Wikipedia)
I know also a woman bishop who is living with another woman (although this is not publicly acknowledged).
If I lived with a woman I wasn’t married to, would anyone seriously believe the relationship was platonic?
The whole idea of the church accepting clergy in civil partnerships was a dishonest fudge.
Adam, Charlie is in a same-sex marriage which is specifically prohibited by Canon B30 and Canon C26 and his ordination vows.
And the Archbishop of York contradicted on Radio 4 the doctrine of marriage he swore to uphold and teach.
And 44 bishops have also contradicted the Church’s teaching. But I think you know that?
But somehow when people wanted to allow contraception (changing the purpose of sex), allow divorce and remarriage (despite Jesus warning if you get it wrong you’ve committed adultery), and ordain women (regardless of the centuries of tradition of the Church catholic) that was alright to argue for and didn’t count as a violation of those public vows? And nor does it count for clergy who take issue with, say, the Royal supremacy, or infant baptism, or want to say you don’t have to be a priest to consecrate the Lord’s Supper (despite the canons)?
Adam, contraception does not ‘change the purpose of sex’. Sex is for both procreation and intimacy, just as Anglican liturgy has always said. And believing that a sexual relationship has procreation as a key part is not the same as saying that every sex act must be procreative. Just read the Song of Songs!
Jesus allowed divorce and remarriage, but on the lines of Shammai and not Hillel (‘for any reason’), as I explore here https://www.psephizo.com/biblical-studies/does-jesus-allow-divorce-for-any-reason-in-mark-10/
The C of E is a reformed church, so Scripture is always correcting councils that err, as the Articles say clearly. And in scripture we find women church planters, teachers, and apostles.
But we have done to death these other issues, and I have written on them at length. So why you raise them as if either we have not or as if they are some knock-down argument I have no idea.
It suggests a shift away from good faith engagement, sadly.
I know what you think about the individual issues Ian. That’s not the point I’m making. What I’m saying is that on a host of issues you are quite happy to break with the Church Catholic, happy to modify doctrine, happy to entertain the discussion amongst the clergy (even on matters as central as the sacraments, and even on sexual ethics), and probably go further than I do in thinking that’s tolerable, without declaring that anyone has broken their vows, but on this issue it seems a different standard applies.
Adam, I am not ‘happy to break’ with the church catholic. I am happy to give due weight to the church catholic, but I am not a Catholic because, as an Anglican, I am a Reformed Protestant.
So we need to give due weight to catholic consensus and how it sits with scripture.
Please note, for example, that Cranmer had a liturgy for remarriage after divorce.
But the question of ‘breaking vows’ is quite different. Whatever I think, I have also taken vows to uphold the doctrine of the C of E. If I think that it is wrong on a central issue, then I can leave.
What I am not at liberty to is teach against the doctrine of the church whilst continuing in ministry.
Parts of scripture as Adam states oppose female ordination and bishops, see Paul. Hence Baptists, Roman Catholics, Orthodox and some Pentecostals oppose female ordination. Jesus also opposes divorce outright in one passage and only for sexual immorality in another and the Vatican does not allow divorced Roman Catholics to remarry in church without strict annulment. Yet Synod has voted already by 2/3 majority to remarry divorcees and for women priests and bishops even if not for same sex marriage or blessings only prayers. As established church though it is strange clergy cannot have same sex marriages which are recognised in UK civil law even if not in church
Well, if we didn’t talk about this we might have to talk about the Rector of St Helen’s Bishopsgate William Taylor announcing that everyone ought to cease to have anything more to do with the Church of England and would refuse the authority of any serving bishop. But that hasn’t stopped St Helen’s Bishopsgate fielding candidates to Synod, and have its people not only sit on but chair the vacancy-in-see committee for London.
Adam, I agree. I think his position is bizarre.
‘It proposes a similar approach in order to maintain “the overall unity of the Church of England’
What overall unity? The CofE has no idea what it believe or why. The only reason we continue to play the game is that it gives access to infrastructure and gives some extra legitimacy in evangelism. The only reason the game exists is that there’s a pot of money at the centre that keeps the more ceremonial bits on the road and because too many parishes pay a parish share that pays for apostates to continue in ministry. And we play nicely far too much.
A simple proposal: whenever a bishop you have no confidence in is due to give a Presidential Address at a synod, propose ‘next business’. And let’s try to vote down diocesan budgets; it worked to take down Charles I…
It does, C of E doctrine is decided by Synod vote. The C of E has £11 billion in assets and investments, hardly just ‘ a bit of money’ and is one of the largest landowners and landlords in the UK
The doctrine of the Church of England remains what it has been since 1662. the Holy Scriptures, the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, the Book of Common Prayer, and the Ordinal.
Under ecclesiastical law, modern deviations and accretions to this core modern are legally classified as permitted alternatives, not the primary doctrinal standard.
That is our glory and our hope and the reason we as Anglican laymen can worship in peace every week regardless of hierarchies and Synods, activists, pundits and wayward prelates and even what we are forced to listen to in our own parishes from the bully-pulpit of certain ‘turbulent priests’.
In every generation there have been Achans and Manassehs, Newmans and John Robinsons and so on. But as long as the doctrinal standard remains inviolate, we can still worship the Lord in the beauty (and peace) of holiness.
As JC Ryle said once and for all –
“Do not be in a hurry to secede from the Established Church because things are not going on according to your mind, so long as the Articles and Prayer-book remain quite whole and unaltered. The list of things permissible and not illegal may be sadly increasing. But stand firm so long as nothing new is required or forced on you, and you are allowed to work on your old lines.”
P.S.
It may be soothing for many to know we have been ‘here’ before. The wisdom and seriousness of this sermon by Ryle was a balm for me anyway.
“There is nothing which need surprise us in a certain amount of divisions among professing Christians. As long as human nature is what it is, it is useless to expect all men to see all things in the same light. This has been the condition of the Church in every age, from the days of the apostles; and the history of our own Reformed Church for three centuries supplies not a few examples. Hooper and Ridley in Edward-the-Sixth’s time; Whitgift and Cartwright, Travers and Hooker, in the reign of Queen Elizabeth; Laud and the Puritans under Charles-the First; the Savoy Conference Bishops and the Nonconformists under Charles-the-Second; Hoadly and Law in the early Georgian era; the rejection of the Methodists in the last century; all tell the same melancholy story. There is nothing new in religious divisions, and our Church has seen and outlived many of them. They have been, and will be, as long as the world stands. There will be no perfect Church until our Divine Head comes again…..”
https://www.uecf.net/books/charges-and-addresses-j-c-ryle/chapter13.html
What I find depressing about this kind of article is that it seems to offer no suggestion and to how Charlie’s proposal might be improved, or what would need to happen in order to make it possible. There is no building up, only tearing down – relentlessly. All this does is reinforce trenches. But then, I guess, this is what resistance is all about
Thanks Richard. Do you not find it depressing that Charlie appears to want to strong-arm the C of E into his way of thinking, regardless of the cost? That he is highly selective when he reads documents? That he simply ignores the things which very clearly set out the reasons that his approach will not work and will divide an already divided church?
Doesn’t any of that bother you?
Teleological ‘thinking’ is rife among liberals.
Thinking that never considers the possibility that history could go in other than one particular direction.
I don’t know which history they are talking about, since most real history has pendulum swings.
The very word ‘progressive’ makes this impossible assumption. So does the very phrase ‘the right side of history’.
And notice how this equates to entitlement, which is a toddler mentality.
And notice, further, how issues in parliament are voted on repeatedly until the ‘right’ answer is reached. (Through much canvassing of an unrepresentative body of representatives, who think that truth can be voted on; and by a small majority.) And note how the voting then abruptly stops.
And note that the ‘right’ answer is always the ‘progressive’ one. As though the meaning of ‘progressive’ were obvious to, and agreed by, everyone – in defiance of the actual statistics of what increases and correlates with happiness, health and success.
The biggest point is how liberals do not even get so far as debating at all, so far as entering the fray. (Which is rather lordly, and even more convenient.) But for that I have only decades of experience and observation, not data.
It is probable that the people who have the time to do all this canvassing are the same demographic as those who do not have families to bring up. It can be observed that some sometimes talk as though the world were composed of single 18-50s (and it is possible that their own world indeed is).
Yes a lot of slithering. Ian, above you said him being in a same sex marriage was prohibited by the CoE canons etc. Why then is he still in that job?
Peter, no slithering at all. He is still in that job because his (gay) bishop refuses to exercise proper discipline.
If someone proposed a Synod motion ‘Black is white’ and we pointed out why that was not true, would that be ‘only tearing down’?
Ignatius Loyola wrote that “we should… believe… that what I see as white is black, if the hierarchical church so defines” (Spiritual Exercises, no.365).
I think this would be called “blind loyalty”.
“There are four lights!”
Hi Richard – I can fully understand given its length that you may not have got to the end but I hope that there, in the conclusion, you can see more than “tearing down” and “reinforce trenches”. There are a range of possible options but as I say there (noted in the opening summary) they would require some degree of “pastoral provision” indeed some form of perhaps significant “structural differentiation” in order to make space for two incompatible approaches – the one we have received and the one that Charlie wants to be part of a process of reception. That step is something which it appears Charlie cannot consider. CEEC has in a number of pieces over many years set out some positive suggestions which those pressing for change have not engaged with and it would be great if we can move to talk more positively about what would need to happen in terms of ecclesial structures to get us out of trench warfare and talking past each other.
But why is it that pluralism is assumed to be ok on this of all issues, which is far from being the most intractable and least clearcut historically or theologically?
Shouldn’t everything be based on whether a coherent case can be made? Not on stated convictions that may or may not be based on coherence?
Andrew,
Yes – I do apologise – I think you did suggest that there might be a possibility for two streams within the cofe if churches or clergy could choose their bishops. Am I reading you correctly?
Personally, I can see why some would resist this, and also I can’t see why it should be so important to those who want it. On the other hand, to me, if that structural differentiation would have enabled a diversity of viewpoints, then then it’s better than a complete split and also better than being stuck where we are.
I still stand by my comment, though would modify it a little. I would like to know what you would have written to Charlie if he had shown you his motion for our review. I think your tone would have been different. (As would the tone of my original comment in a similar context!) And I think this is what I mean by reinforcing trenches.
On a related note, I have still to come across a strong, let alone convincing, argument as to why this is a first order matter.
“our” review should have read “peer” review.
Richard, it is a first order issue for lots of reasons, not least
a. sexuality is a deeply important issue
b. Jesus and Paul taught about it often
c. The C of E has been clear what Jesus’ teaching is
d. Marriage as a lifelong union between one man and one woman has been the near universal view of the church catholic in every age, in every culture and context, in every branch of the church, in every age.
For a fuller explanation, see this article I wrote a couple of years ago:
https://www.psephizo.com/sexuality-2/why-is-sexuality-such-a-big-deal/
They taught about sexual behaviour. Let’s be clear.
One can rarely go into all the permutations when issuing blanket teaching. There will always be a large overlap between desire and practice.
Richard, and I am still curious as to why you think Charlie’s selective and manipulative reading of documents is not problematic.
Richard, why are you saying that Ian and Andrew are tearing down Charlie, but not that Charlie is tearing down so many and so much? Isn’t that selective?
Had he not been doing that in the first place, neither Ian nor Andrew would need to do anything.
Anyway, ‘tearing down’ sounds like something rough and ready. Screeds full of analysis is the very opposite of rough and ready, isn’t it?
Is the point that they are not allowed (by whom?) to disagree with his own prior disagreement?
Why aren’t they? Is debate forbidden? Would that advance civilisation?
I was only using the phrase tearing down as in the Ecclesiastes 3 partner to building up. The precise method employed is irrelevant.
I appreciate that it must also feel that those who campaign for change are tearing down ideas and traditions that have been there for millennia. However, I must add that we are not suggesting that from now on all marriages must be same sex; merely that same sex marriages might be allowed as well.
That is not a ‘mere’ request; it is a rejection of the near universal consensus of the church catholic, and a challenge to the significant biblical ethic of our sexed bodies and therefore God’s creation of humanity as male and female.
I am unsure why you think this is somehow unimportant…?
How about:
‘We, the leaders of the Church of England, apologise to the church and and those outside for the confusion that we have allowed to continue for far too long. We regret the pain and confusion that our lack of leadership on this issue has caused to those who have sought, at great personal expense, to live by the traditional teaching of the church. Given that our teaching is clear, we invite those unwilling to seek to live by it to seek other places to attend. We ask the archbishops to issue a pastoral statement to be read in all churches to this effect.’
What pain did you suffer?
Why is that a constructive question? The right question is: ‘Is this something which we believe would be a good way forward for the CofE?’ By contrast your asking that question seems to be an attempt to avoid the challenge of my post.
Aren’t you asking the bishops to apologise for the pain caused? I want to know what that pain was.
Ah – fair enough.
1) The most serious possibility will be those who end up in Hell because they obeyed the liberals instead of the bible
2) A continuing pain will be the spiritual dissonance of being in a gay relationship yet ‘kicking against the goads’ as the Holy Spirit seeks to draw a person to end it.
3) For the traditionalists the dissonance of being unable to trust your church leadership on others issues given their failure on the gay issue. We should not need to be always asking: ‘Should we take this comment as an accurate reflection of what God is actually saying?’
4) We also have the reality of the person who is in a committed gay relationship with the church’s blessing who then concludes that they can’t continue in the relationship; the tearing apart of that situation will be horrible for all involved.
So pain that you think might happen in the future. Not pain experienced in the past or now. Yeah, I can see why people aren’t likely to apologise for that.
‘So pain that you think might happen in the future. Not pain experienced in the past or now.’
No – all of my points are what is happening NOW. The fact that we can’t take our leadership seriously is something that we’ve come to accept so long that the question is asked:
What is the difference between the bench of bishops and Jurassic Park? Resulting in the answer: ‘One is herd of dinosaurs causing mayhem and the other is a Hollywood blockbuster’ is entirely appropriate. Yet we’ve got used to it, rather than seeing it as the scandal that it is.
PLF has been approved by Synod not just the bishops
‘PLF has been approved by Synod’ No it has not. It has been commended, which means that claim has been made that it is not contrary to doctrine. A number of bishops believe it is.
Yes bishops commended it, a majority of all 3 houses of Synod voted for it and now PCCs like mine already allow Prayers of Love and Faith to be performed in C of E services. Many churches are now performing PLF in services in C of E churches across England for same sex couples married in UK law
I cannot imagine this working out at an organizational level.
I hold the historic view. Yet I hold in high regard and consider a personal friend a priest who does not. He frequently helps me with his gentle wisdom, especially in matters around sharing faith in Jesus. Further, I know several folk who have found faith because of his love of Jesus and example of joyful life.
So I’d say we are united in Christ – but disagree deeply on issues of sexuality.
I think you are right. I have similar experiences to you.
But what do we do when the C of E has a clear doctrine, which all ordained vow publicly to uphold, yet many do not?
What happened to integrity?
I cannot speak for the priest I admire on that.
In all other matters I know him for, he most certainly is a man of integrity.
I don’t want to get into judging in any way. Even with Romans 1 and 2 in mind, Paul still said “I am the biggest sinner”, not “I was the biggest sinner”.
Although sins are all sins, in life some are far more destructive than others. Materialism, and facets of consumption-based economies rank higher in my view, while sexuality and gender ideologies appear further down my list. Despite the troubling data on intimate partner violence and domestic abuse linked to non-binary, non-heterosexual relationships.
Yes, the issue of people who offer things on behalf of the gospel, possibly well beyond what we ourselves may be able to do, yet also hold views which seem to break one or two of the stones in the foundation of our faith, is quite a challenge to our certainty of what is and is not essential to believe. What does God expect of us in this matter; where is the line between essential and preferable; is it important that we always state the opposing viewpoint; and where do we turn for a defining judgement on these things?
A mature but always open (to the possibility that we ourselves may have got something wrong!) understanding of the whole teaching of scripture is surely the first basis around which we should all be able to agree. We should also remember that actual new birth on the basis of hearing the gospel is the work of the Holy Spirit alone; our human agency, however skilled, is still the work of imperfect people. If that is true, I think it’s perfectly possible for someone to be saved after consulting AI, through simple curiosity on what the Christian gospel actually says. If AI happens to present the truth at that instance (not something that can be guaranteed!), there’s no reason to assume the gospel’s power is somehow annulled for someone within whom the Holy Spirit was already working.
While there may be a time and place for sorting out our differences over Christian teaching, we should not be silent about untrue or misleading statements, and certainly never because disagreement might be awkward. Once the truth becomes negotiable on the basis of outcomes, we’re heading for trouble. Both Jesus and the epistle writers had no time for compromise on that basis!
Christian life is never short on conundrums…
Which Jesus?
There cannot, will not and should not be peace about this issue. The apostle Paul asked rhetorically what fellowship light can have with darkness. The reason there has not been schism in England over the matter, as there has been in other Western countries having the episcopal system, is that the stakes are so much higher, the church being Established and having vast assets that both sides fear losing.
I believe that the unbiblical party will ultimately win those assets by co-opting Parliament. Whether in the meantime to invest your time and energy in internal fighting or external proselytisation is a matter for individuals who pray earnestly about it.
‘I believe that the unbiblical party will ultimately win those assets by co-opting Parliament.’
I wish I could disagree, but I’ve a suspicion that you may well be right.
‘Whether in the meantime to invest your time and energy in internal fighting or external proselytisation is a matter for individuals who pray earnestly about it.’
The change that would make the most difference would a willingness by traditionalists to preach the truth from the pulpit regularly. Too often churches take the easy route of ignoring the issue. My own former parish’s experience was that when a pastoral crisis bought the issue to the centre, most of the PCC, as well as the clergy, went with the ‘inclusive’ agenda. I left.
Yes – Parliament has no interest in truth or coherence. Only in majorities and votes. How amoral – and to think that even good people are ruled by an amoral system. Even (particularly?) devious, moral-free and unintelligent people can have majorities or votes – how far does that get us?
Perhaps a sermon could be preached on ‘National Apostasy’.
Danny Kruger did?
Parliament still leaves Synod to decide doctrine for the C of E
.”..the stakes are so much higher, the church being Established and having vast assets that both sides fear losing.”
“I believe that the unbiblical party will ultimately win those assets by co-opting Parliament.”
So what? Get some perspective!
I would rather the church be faithful to Christ and His word, than risk apostasy and disobedience by a misplaced commitment to the shiny baubles of this world.
Of course, this is hyperbole; the loss of such resources would be a catastrophic and awful loss for faithful communities, irreparably changing the landscape of Christianity in England today, but there is a core of truth to it too. The Kingdom of God does not consist of/in these things, and even if the CofE was disestablished, rendered destitute, persecuted, beaten and seemingly defeated by the forces arrayed against it from all sides, it would be no less loved, and no less the bride of Christ because of it.
Sorry, Anthony, I missed the bit where I meant to agree that the future of the CofE is worth fighting for, and that they should not give up and roll over.
I’m simply engaging in a bit of polemic about what’s actually worth preserving. 🙂 Your comment makes it sound as if the institution is as valuable and essential as the other, more spiritual things, it exists to preserve.
Actually I believe that Establishment inevitably causes compromise and I do not believe that the episcopal system is scriptural or adiaphora. But I wasn’t beating that drum.
But doesn’t a lot of this apostasy happen because the Church is not caring or active enough? Solution: be more so?
Southwark Diocese is both very liberal and in serious decline.
The largest ‘parish’ in the diocese was Dundonald Church. It has now left – relatively easily because it owns its own buildings and is self-funding.
Parishes which are ‘inclusive’ are usually in decline. This includes formerly evangelical ones. The ordination of women has accelerated the process because most ordained women in Southwark have come through local ordination courses and are liberal.
At the same time, there are major demographic changes underway in South London.
Many primary schools, including church schools, are closing because the birth rate has collapsed and London is just too expensive for working people to afford a house *and start a family. So the traditional backbone of parish churches is disappearing.
Many new churches have been formed in Southwark in recent years. But most of these are African Pentecostalist – not Anglican liberals.
Ordained women are expected to skew liberal as long as there’s a decent slice of conservative opinion that disagrees with women’s ordination: you get ‘missing’ conservative women. Men going for ordination can, conceivably, be a reflection of theological spectrum because there’s no one who thinks men should not be ordained. But of course women at churches who don’t agree with womens ordination will not go forward for ordination, and therefore the cohort of women at ordination is more liberal.
I’ve known quite a lot of women from conservative evangelical backgrounds that have been ordained. I also know a growing number from that background who have moved from being traditional on marriage to become pro-gay. Conservative women on courses like SEITE or SMTS are exposed to strong pro-gay arguments in a way you wouldn’t see in a residential college like Wycliffe.
Moreover, many women entering ordained ministry are inclined to a ‘pastoral’ approach to homosexuality rather than theological one, and if they face divorce, or their own children or a friend’s have issues about sexual orientation or gender identity, that tends to be the decider that pushes them into liberalism. I have seen this with 3 or 4 personal acquaintances who, years ago, were conservative charismatics.
A basic observation about women and morality: whatever is perceived to be the prevailing moral consensus, the great majority of women will support that.
Sixty years ago, western society was generally anti-gay, and women supported that. That’s when we had Mary Whitehouse and the Festival of Light.
When the prevailing opinion changed, so did women.
Now women in the west are in a quandary, because pornography clearly degrades women – but it is hard to argue against the secular argument that ‘consent validates everything’ – an idea that also lies behind liberal Christian attempts to validate homosexuality.
The recent rise of transgenderism is also very harmful to women, in a way that male homosexuality is not – but fighting it puts you in the crosshairs of ideological warfare, as J K Rowling, Kathleen Stock and Rosie Duffield, not to mention every nurse in the land, have discovered.
And the transgender wars are the canary in the mineshaft that the Anglican bishops and Charlie Bell don’t want to hear.
That’s a very odd comment. Any ‘prevailing moral consensus’ will by its nature include both men and women, generally both leading and following the direction in question.
As it happens, I am aware of more men than women who have shifted from a conservative position to a liberal one. This does not prove anything, any more than your personal experience does.
The problem with your claim about the (non-existent) transgenderism, is that eomen like Rowling and Stock don’t give a toss (to put it very mildly) about women. Whenever a news item about real harm to women appears (the Cornell rape case, for example), they are oddly silent. They simply have an obsession with the danger of trans women in ‘women’s spaces’; an obsession which is a transphobic dog whistle. They ignore the very real harms which women experience from male partners and friends because it doesn’t suit their ideological agenda. An agenda which is legally nonsense anyway since there is no such thing as women’s sex-based rights, as a quick reading of the EA will show.
The transgender wars and their impact on gay equality is a fantasy. A fantasy indulged in by a minority who don’t really give a damn about the rights of women. (And some of them are now outing themselves as homophobes and racists. Which is interesting.)
Have you ever written anything condemning what Rupert Lowe called the Pakistani Muslim rape gangs?
They don’t ignore the very real harms that women experience from males. JKR has singlehandedly opened and financed a refuge for women; besides, trans women are also males, and rape just like other males.
Anthony
No. Nor have I written anything condemning the white grooming ganga. Perhaps you could tell me why I should comment on every matter of sexual immorality.
OK, but a bit of sexual stereotyping here. Why should it be said that harm is inevitably from gender A towards gender B when this is so far from being the case?
Someone somewhere has cottoned on that most will not kick against the culture – and media, music and soap operas can intentionally create a prevailing culture.
Are you saying that women cannot see how bad pornography is?
There are certainly some very strange and evil things being approved, and never fought in church circles, these days.
As to ‘consent is always right’ anyone with half a brain knows it is necessary but not remotely sufficient. This is another Trojan horse.
-Consent to bad things is fine?
-The consent somehow makes it fine?
-The notable achievement of giving in to animal instincts is praiseworthy?
-If adulterers consent, the other spouse’s failure remotely to consent is fine?
-Parents’ failure to consent to offspring behaving thus is of no import?
It is difficult to see which is greater- the extreme lack of morality of these liberals, their neglect of the children they are wanting to grow up in a system that will psychologically harm them at a formative age, or their extreme apparent stupidity that is not yet able to see any of the obvious points in the list above.
So-called consent-morality is just an excuse for their doing what they want short term, and so is so called situation ethics.
I’ve seen what you describe in quite a few men, including clergy. At least one has a son who is gay and that seemed to be the main factor. Hardly unique to women in the church.
Thank you for this. Sheds invaluable light on the subject
The ethical choices at play for Dundonald are interesting. They were so appalled by the idea of blessing gay couples that they broke communion with their bishop. Oddly though, there was no problem staying in communion with the GAFCON bishops who wanted to kill gay people. Richard Coekin when he went to GAFCON’s meeting in Uganda argued that we needed to take pastoral care very seriously, and be really clear about the love and support we have for same-sex attracted people, in England because our broader culture is accepting of gay people, but that this didn’t apply in African societies where the culture regards same-sex attraction as abhorrent. It was such a cowardly moral stance I found it thoroughly repellent.
You must find God’s view expressed in the laws of Moses repellent too.
Can you please provide a link to the evidence – preferably the ipsa verba – behind your statement that some GAFCON bishops wanted to kill gay people.
It’s just Adam being hyperbolic again. He is probably referring to legislation in west Africa (Ghana?) that proposed the death penalty for homosexuality. Nobody has been executed for homosexuality in Africa since whenever. Even for murder in Uganda in over 40 years.
It is interesting that African states have not succumbed to pressure and threats of curtailment of aid from the British Government or the Biden administration to legalise homosexuality in their lands.
If you’re right, then such casual blood libel – on top of the armchair moralising (‘cowardly’ … ‘thoroughly repellent’) – is something Adam would do well to apologise for. We’ve all said things we later regret. I hope therefore Adam responds, so that we may see if this is one of those occasions. Silence would be the worst response, after speaking out so self-assuredly.
Same sex marriage is legal in South Africa now, albeit no other nation in Africa
By ‘SSM is legal in…’ do you mean that that the State *recognises* it? I don’t think anybody ever prevented two men from exchanging vows in private.
Yes the state recognises it which is vital for passing on your estate to your partner. Hospital visiting rights etc
Lambeth 10 has always been scrupulously observed by those who persecute gay people but not so scrupulously observed by those who were asked to consider that gay people are made in the image of God. Likewise, those churches who have ‘dsobeyed’ Lambeth in a more ‘inclusive’ direction have been sanctioned; those who have ‘disobeyed’ Lambeth by continuing to punish gay people (and their allies) have not.
The church historically was Established but was never settled or strengthened, joined together and built together.
It was ever thus in the time of Jesus and subsequently the Apostles.
“I have told you these things so that you will not fall away.
You will be chased out of the synagogues. And the time will come when people will kill you and think they are doing God a favour”.
John 12:42
Nevertheless, many of the leaders believed in Him. But because of the Pharisees they did not confess Him, for fear that they would be put out of the synagogue. (or perhaps tied cottages and pension fund. ?)
Matthew 10:17-22
But beware of men, for they will hand you over to their councils and flog you in their synagogues. / On My account you will be brought before governors and kings as witnesses to them and to the Gentiles. / But when they hand you over, do not worry about how to respond or what to say. In that hour you will be given what to say…….
As in
: “As the fire was lit at their feet, Latimer encouraged Ridley by saying, “Be of good comfort, Master Ridley, and play the man; we shall this day light such a candle, by God’s grace, in England, as I trust shall never be put out.”
If one party could be victorious what kind of church would rise from the ashes ?
Many were evicted from their preferments and livings but what a fire was lit by the Puritans and thus the early Methodists. realising that there was blazing abundant life outside the “established church.”
Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer… made in Cambridge, burned in Oxford.
In the centre of Cambridge was a ‘royal peculiar’ church, St Edward King and Martyr, over which no bishop had jurisdiction. In practice it was left largely to itself, and it became the cradle of the English Reformation.
Cambridge is doing a good job of burning itself these days.
Sociology is part of the intellectual slums in all universities.
Well, there is a pincer movement and we are in danger of being caught in a trap. What we need is to create a diversion and break out…
But today we have Naming of Parts.
I’m not convinced Bączyk-Bell’s motion is a helpful step. Christian unity is not going to be achieved by simply saying we all value unity. Nor do I think the most pressing concern on this topic is to protect the most liberal churches from interference.
What has happened is that Synod dumped Issues in Human Sexuality, and the Bishops didn’t offer anything in its stead. What then happened was a stunt in the fringes of the last meeting of Synod when Christian Concern and Core Issues Trust put together an event on “sexual identity transformation”. The moves to bring back ex-gay ministries are underway. That is both concerning and an opportunity. Synod may be sharply divided on same-sex marriage. I don’t think it will nearly as divided on questions of whether sexual orientation is real, is chosen, whether it should be hidden or changed, etc.. The first step of living with integrity is to integrate. We’ve skipped over that as a Church and it’s hampered our discussions ever since.
But what about ex-gay *testimonies*?
‘What has happened is that Synod dumped Issues in Human Sexuality, and the Bishops didn’t offer anything in its stead.’
Not quite. What the bishops offered is ‘It is all in the ordinal and canons, and clergy should live by the doctrine of the C of E as they promised.’
‘What then happened was a stunt in the fringes…’ Not really. The stunt was Helen King’s PMM, which was allowed to bypass the due process that had been put in place.
Adam struggles with the fact that there are men with admitted same-sex attraction who are married to women and are in church leadership – even a college principal and a few vicars.
Should they talk openly about this? I’m not sure, since some have children, and I sometimes wonder what it is like for them. And there have been serious casualties along the way, of men (and sometimes women) leaving their spouses and children to begin a same-sex relationship. What we are never told is the events that precipitated these crises.
But at least the ‘Living Out’ movement shows that life isn’t a simple set of polarities.
And we knew this already from the category of ‘Bisexual’, which is where I have long suspected is the ground that most ‘gay’ people actually inhabit.
I see no evidence most gay people are in reality bisexual. That certainly doesn’t describe me.
I think this is partly the confusing terminology of SSA (same-sex attraction). All gay people experience SSA, but not all people who experience SSA are gay because bisexual people also experience SSA. So if SSA is your preferred way of talking about and thinking about gay people what you’ve done is massively expand the category of people you’re referring to, and it is possible that there are a great many more bisexual people than gay people (i.e. bisexuals are the majority of SSA).
It’s always fascinating to see how you respond to someone raising the ex-gay ministries – you either simply ignore it, or quickly try to change the subject. I don’t think I’ve ever seen you even acknowledge they existed, let alone the ignominious collapse in the 2010s, and the subsequent regrets and apologies from its leaders.
Hi Adam, I simply responded to you claim that it was the fringe meeting that hijacked Synod.
It was not. It was the PMM. You seem to want to try and ignore this.
On ‘ex gay ministries”: I have gay friends in all the positions—pro gay and pro trans, pro gay and anti trans, gay and celibate, ‘same sex attracted’, and ‘post gay’. (I am sure there are more).
Women’s same-sex attraction is notably unstable, and even male SSA is changeable, much more than other-sex attraction. See the research by gay campaigner Lisa Diamond, who says the identity argument is dead, and free choice is the only issue.
Some people freely choose to ask for help in ridding themselves of unwanted same-sex attraction. What is wrong with that?
My main objection to the ‘ex gay’ movement is the implication that you have to become straight to be saved. You don’t. Scripture has no interest whatever in ‘orientation’ which is a modern construct.
I didn’t say it hijacked Synod. I said the meeting was a stunt in the fringes of Synod. And I’ve not ignored King’s PMM: we discussed extensively on here at the time and afterwards (and I produced the analysis of how the bishops of the amendment and final motion).
If same-sex attraction is malleable, and you can be rid of it if you don’t want it, why did the ex-gay ministries fail so spectacularly and with so much damage along the way? Why do you want to go back to that nightmare?
Adam, the ex-gay ministries failed because they did claim that you cannot be saved unless you become straight, and therefore over claimed their success.
The mutability of orientation is a well-established research finding, including by those campaigning for gay rights. It is not my idea!
Homosexual inclination is undoubtedly developmental, given that it is not in the ambit of anyone younger than a certain age. (Other than a preoccupation with bringing unnecessary death of the innocent into the sphere of the living, bringing sexual content into the sphere of the young is possibly the thing that most characterises the liberal impulse as we find it in the modern UK and west.)
Modern liberals rarely inhabit multi generational families, or at least tend to speak as though they do not (and cluster in urban concrete surrounds, where family ties have newly become as loose as they have ever been), so sometimes forget that this is not a world of single 18-50s.
Some odd sleights of hand there Ian.
I don’t remember Jeremy Marks saying you had to be straight to get to heaven when he came to my youth group, but I was a teenager at the time so maybe it was all too traumatic for me to remember properly. But I do remember being told that no one had to be gay, that it wasn’t God’s plan for us to be gay, and that we could have a successful straight marriage if we wanted. That was the real promise of ex-gay minstry, and it proved to be a disaster.
I get that you like Lisa Diamond’s work on sexual fluidity, but mutability doesn’t mean it’s malleable. In fact Diamond herself is incredibly clear in her work that therapeutic attempts to force fluidity don’t work and are in fact very psychologically harmful. Nor does she argue that fluidity is universal (she hasn’t experienced it herself and is a confirmed lesbian). Instead she says it’s experienced by some people who experience some degree of same-sex attraction to a greater degree than she was expecting. And it’s worth noting that when Diamond makes assessments of who she thinks she’s observing, she is again at pains to point out the vast majority of people who experience some degree of same-sex attraction are bisexual not gay. She cites an estimate that whilst maybe 1-2% of people are gay, those who report any degree of same sex attraction goes up to 10% for men and 14% for women, and most of them are people who describe themselves as almost entirely straight. So just saying there’s some fluidity doesn’t cut it – there’s some fluidity for some people, most of whom according to Diamond are bisexual.
But in any case so what? Diamond is adamant: fluidity is not universal, and there are people whose orientation is gay and that stays consistently (not least because that describes her). What is the argument supposed to be here? That we must be mean to the gays because if the bisexuals believe that a same-sex relationship is possible they might enter one and that would be awful and must be stopped? The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few? Where does that sort of utilitarian thinking (putting to one side what these ‘needs’ might be) fit in Christian ethics?
Adam ‘so what?’ So Diamond rejects identity-based arguments for gay rights.
For some reason no-one in the C of E debates appears to take that seriously or at all. That’s what.
But I have no idea why you are challenging me about ‘ex-gay’ ministries. I don’t believe in them and have never advocated for them.
Without coercion, no one would believe that there was such a thing as unwanted same-sex attraction.
Penny, if you think that, then you just have not listened, and are imposing by coercion your own moral outlook on others.
Finally, Ian, you admit that scripture is entirely silent on the notion of homosexuality 🙂
Penny, what a very strange comment. Don’t you ever read what I write?
I have for many years said that scripture is not concerned with modern concepts like ‘orientation’, and in that it aligns with a number of modern voices, including gay campaigners, who question whether it has any ontological status.
What scripture does talk about is our sexed bodies and what we should do with them. It tells us that they are a central aspect and expression of God’s intention in the creation of humanity male and female.
Therefore, our sexed bodies align with God’s purposes in the context of fruitful union between one man and one woman.
I have said this many times, including in my Grove booklet—as you surely know.
Yes. I was being ironic. Because you clearly cannot see the inference of your statement.
Penny, conducting debate by saying ‘Look how ignorant you are because you don’t agree with me’ is neither Christian, nor productive, nor welcome here.
Ian
Perhaps I have lived a very sheltered life, but I have never met, or read of, a gay or bisexual person who was uncomfortable with their sexuality without first being told (by some authority, secular or religious) that it was wrong, immoral, or disordered.
Penny, in which case you have indeed led a sheltered life.
Ian, I think you dance around what you think about ex-gay ministries. When you write “Some people freely choose to ask for help in ridding themselves of unwanted same-sex attraction. What is wrong with that?” it’s tricky to square with saying you don’t believe in ex-gay ministries and have never advocated for them.
And I think it’s important to talk about ex-gay ministries for a few reasons:
– when the Church has followed the sort of teachings you advocate on this (sexual orientation doesn’t really matter, is malleable, it’s all about sexed bodies, and same-sex attraction is a sin to be struggled against etc.) the ex-gay ministries was how it did that.
– the colossal failure and implosion of the ex-gay ministries in the 2010s was the catalyst for the current debate that irritates you so much. The Pilling Report got going as the ex-gay ministries went up in flames. So many of those who changed their minds on this issue did so because they realised that gay people couldn’t change their orientation.
– there is now an attempt to resurrect those ministries as we saw in the fringes of Synod, see in what’s happening in the US (e.g. when Rosaria Butterfield denounced Preston Sprinkle), and we see when you keep saying it’s just helping people rid themselves of unwanted same-sex attraction.
Adam, as a matter of fact, I have never advocated for them.
I don’t see how that is in the least incompatible with noting the actual fact that some people do not want to experience same-sex attraction.
It is simply not true that ‘ex-gay ministries’ is how the church ‘did that’.
The debate in the C of E has little to do with ex-gay ministries. The first C of E report was in 1979.
I have never met, or read of, a gay or bisexual person who was uncomfortable with their sexuality without first being told (by some authority, secular or religious) that it was wrong, immoral, or disordered.
War between peoples is the default everywhere except where the message of Yahweh through Moses, then Jesus, has penetrated. We had to be told, so fallen are we.
So, enlighten my naievity. Why would same-sex attraction be unwanted?
Because it is a desire for something that Jesus calls sinful.
Eh? Many behaviours that people go on repeating are things they do not want or enjoy. E.g., addictions, foods that their body is accustomed to, smoking.
It’s a common thing. But because it feels like part of who they are, they persist with it, even when it brings despair rather than enjoyment.
Scripture is silent on ‘homosexuality’?
English concepts do not always map on perfectly to koine Greek concepts. Who knew? This applies to any languages.
However, we are dealing with realities not merely concepts. The realities in question overlap in numerous ways with the realities of today.
But why do you think the failure of different languages to map onto one another is just something that arises with only this topic? It arises with pretty much all topics. And this is a trivial consideration for the reason stated.
Ian
I’m sorry but you are making a circular argument. Even if Jesus had taught ‘that’, this doesn’t explain why (as I asked) ssa would be unwanted for those who don’t believe in Jesus.
Penny, first, I assumed we were talking about Christians.
But I think there is bound to be a sense of unease when your desires are at odds with evident biological design—and out of step with the vast majority (98%) of the population.
That’s a rather heteronormative assumption. And I think more than 2% of the population are queer (allegedly 75% of royal siblings are).
Penny, we had a break from your comments, and earlier on in this piece there was some good engagement.
Since you joined us, you have contributed a long stream of provocative and dismissive point-scoring one liners. It has not added anything to the conversation.
Can you reconsider please?
I can’t really see the problem with any of my comments. In the last I’m simply quoting A.N. Wilson. I do think James ought to withdraw his lie about me though. That is egregious.
I never got the impression the so-called ‘ex-gay’ ministries believed you ‘had to be straight to be saved’. What they believed was that change in sexuality was very possible, from gay to straight or at least to experience a lessening in same sex attraction and an increasing attraction to the opposite sex. Much of their practice was based on the view that homosxuality was caused by bad or a non-existent relationship with one’s same-sex parent, and that by resolving that as an adult change was likely.
Which is often true. Are people seriously denying that parents are key to an individual’s psychology?
And what do you think of the ‘Living Out’ movement? Are they deluding themselves?
Is the ‘Living Out’ movement – which you constantly ignore – false?
As for the failures reported of the ‘ex-gay’ movement and people like Jeremy Marks: was too much claimed and not enough truth told?
I have long believed that people from an Arminian charismatic background have an exaggerated and imbalanced understanding of sanctification and not enough of the realism about Romans 7, at least as Reformed theology understands that chapter: that the struggle against sin is one we take to the grave (but not beyond it).
That is why I think that some basic drives in a person, such as a sexual drive or a proclivity to alcoholism or a fundamental personality type is unlikely to be effaced in this earthly life.
Is anybody ever an ex-alcoholic? Or an ex-introvert? Does a person who develops paedophiliac feelings every fully escape them? The evidence doesn’t suggest so. ‘Ex’ movements can easily over-promise. Sanctification means living with impulses under control, not that they no longer exist.
As I said, we are never told the events that precipitated sexual crises for people, that cause them to leave their marriages for a same-sex relationship. But every breakdown has a pre-history, like pornography, searching the internet – or secret affairs. Or cruising. Sexual sin and infidelity doesn’t happen out of the blue. Rob Parsons used to say that infidelity happens in the first ten seconds, of a look or touch that lingers just too long.
But people rarely or never admit these things in ‘telling their story’. That’s why I say that fiction is often autobiography and autobiography is usually fiction.
Ian writes:
“Women’s same-sex attraction is notably unstable, and even male SSA is changeable, much more than other-sex attraction. See the research by gay campaigner Lisa Diamond, who says the identity argument is dead, and free choice is the only issue.”
My impression is this is largely correct. We do hear of women suddenly seeming to develop a same-sex relationship in mid-life, but often the relationship is much more emotional than sexual, and can reflect poor emotional relationships with former husbands or boyfriends. Lesbianism is frequently ideological in a way that male homosexuality is not. Women in mid-life are often not much interested in a ‘sexual’ relationship beyond physical closeness of hugs and being held, whereas men’s libido lasts a good bit longer. Women also feel differently about their bodies compared to men.
The fact that the rate of male homosexuality is regularly twice that of lesbianism has always suggested to me the developmental nature of homosexuality, being one of the many emotional problems that boys face in growing up.
James, indeed. Evidence set out here:
https://www.psephizo.com/sexuality-2/are-we-born-straight-or-gay/
Even if same-sex attraction is not innate, the assumption that it is a sin which must be struggled against in the pursuit of sanctification is simply silly and ignorant. Some people’s queerness seems to be hard-baked, an essential part of their identity; for others sexuality is a much more fluid experience (though generalisations about the libido of middle-aged lesbians is pretty crass). What is, of course, far far worse is the false (and harmful) equivalence between alcoholism and homosexuality, and, even worse, paedophilia and homosexuality. Where does one even start with such offensive ignorance? Well, a start might be the recognition that pathologisong both alcoholism and homosexuality is unscientific and insulting to both alcoholics and gay people. It is, of course, even more problematic for gays because most alcoholics would recognise that their relationship to alcohol was disordered, whereas most gay people would strongly deny that their sexuality was disordered (unless, of course, they had been seduced by the wiles of the ex-gay movement). The assumption that we heterosexuals are able to withstand sexual temptation whilst the gays can’t is risible and is contradicted by the number of gay couples who are celebrating decades of commitment while their cishet peers embark on another round of serial monogamy. Gay couples struggle against sin in the same ways as straight couples, but so many cishets develop lurid imaginations about queer lives and queer sex, which says a great deal more about them than it does about the gays.
‘Even if same-sex attraction is not innate, the assumption that it is a sin which must be struggled against in the pursuit of sanctification is simply silly and ignorant.’
Well, at least you are clear, Penny. You think the teaching of Jesus in this area is ‘silly and ignorant’.
This sums up the difference between us.
Once again, Penny presents a screed that is long on indignation and very short on facts – but there is a silver lining in her words. First, she misses entirely the point that sexual affections of all kinds, including paedophilia, may arise not consciously chosen in persons, and are not likely to disappear in a person’s life – just like our basic personality types. To that extent, paedophilia is “natural” to that person and the person is not blamed for having these feelings. Similarly a person with a “disordered relation to alcohol” (Penny’s own telling description) is not blamed for having that inner constitution: that is just the way he or she is. But what matters is how he or she decides to act and think.
Where Penny gives the game away is by the use of her expression “disordered relation”. Personally I am delighted to see her use this expression because I am solidly a believer in teleology AKA ordered relationships or Natural Law. I didn’t know Penny was such a traditionalist but there is more joy in heaven etc.
I had always thought Penny was a situation ethics person with a loosey goosey view of the relationship between sexual desires and our bodies, like those modern secularists who think “consent” is the sum total of morality. It is good that she cannot fully endorse the way Peter Tatchell thinks about children, even if she can’t yet justify her unease. If she discovers the words “natural”, “unnatural”, “order” and “teleology” in her moral vocabulary, she might be able to retrieve some of her youthful Catholicism.
Of course Penny the ex-gay ministries spent decades trying to apply techniques like the 12 step programme that was used by folks like AA to address alcoholism to bringing people out of homosexuality. Whilst it has success with alcoholics, it was a total failure with gays. Worse it often created a safeguarding nightmare: mimicking the confessional discussion of alcoholic behaviour (hiding drinking etc.) you can find plenty of gay Christians who were sent to those ministries as teenagers and quickly found themselves being told in great detail about local cruising sites, extreme pornography, and dangerous sexual practices because the ministry assumed that being gay was an addiction that meant hiding addictive behaviour. Teenagers can realise they’re gay without engaging in any gay behaviour (let alone going off the rails in a quasi addiction). No-one is going to AA and saying they’re an alcoholic who’s never had a drink in their life.
Adam
Indeed so. And it’s worth reflecting that AA has a very high failure rate, so adapting that methodology was doomed.
The problem is James that alcoholism and paedophilia are disorders. Different in gravity, but disorders. Homosexuality is not and your false equivalence is just cheap rhetoric. The sad thing is that you probably believe in this fiction and teach it to your congregation. That is a moral failing and, I would argue, a safeguarding issue.
Given that our sexed bodies are clearly, biologically and psychologically, designed for union with someone of the opposite sex, then it is perfectly reasonable to say that a desire for union with the same sex is indeed disordered, even merely at a biological level.
Penny uses the word ‘disorder’ and fails to see that it implies teleology and purpose (design) in the *right use of our bodies and desires. If something is dis-ordered, that implies something else is *rightly ordered. This includes the ordered use of our bodies, according to God’s will in creation.
If homosexuality was God’s will (as Penny strangely believes), then it would also be God’s will to bring up children deliberately without a parent of the opposite sex and to try to induct them into a homosexual culture – as some lesbians do.
Biology, natural law and the Bible are unanimous that homosexual acts are disordered. (The Catholic Catechism agrees with this. Does Penny remember her Catholic days?) How we respond to this fact is of course a matter of prudential pastoral judgment.
Penny can deny this as much as she likes, since that is the privilege of the post-Christian secularist. But my conscience is bound to biology, natural law and the Bible.
(I note also her proto-fascist appeal to punishing thoughtcrime: ‘You vill be reported to ze autorities!’.)
I’m perfectly happy to discuss teleology and will repeat my (oft asked) question: what is the telos of the clitoris?
Once we accept that sexual intimacy has purposes and meanings beyond and beside reproduction, the account of homosexuality as a disorder disappears in a puff of smoke. Unless, of course, you want to argue (as some, but not all Catholics would) that every act of sexual intimacy must be open to the possibility of conception – even post menopause. One of my problems with some Catholic theology (as I think I have observed before) os that natural law is mostly nonsense.
‘Once we accept that sexual intimacy has purposes and meanings beyond and beside reproduction, the account of homosexuality as a disorder disappears in a puff of smoke.’
Sorry, that is just logical nonsense. The telos of the clitoris is pleasure, because the purpose of sex is pleasure, union, and procreation.
You appear to say that the moment we say marriage *includes* pleasure, then we can *reduce* it to pleasure.
That is plain illogical.
And why you think these questions have not been addressed 100 times is a mystery to me.
Ian
Of course these have been addressed hundreds of times since 1930, but you (and others here) seem to ignore the outworking of that particular teleological argument. You recognise (unlike others here) that the telos of the clitoris is pleasure, but ignore that this has little (if any) relationship with reproduction. Sex as pleasure is an end in itself. Even natural law demonstrates that. Which is kind of funny.
‘Sex as pleasure is an end in itself’. That does not follow from sex being pleasurable. You are just wheeling out fallacious arguments.
James
I’m not at all concerned about your private thoughts and beliefs. I am concerned that you are sharing them and maybe leading your flock into error.
I have never studied Alcoholics Anonymous and have little idea of how ‘successful’ it is. But I do know that AA says one is an alcoholic for life and ‘success’ means staying sober, not never feeling tempted.
I have a friend who is married with children. He has SSA but he doesn’t define himself that way. He is aware of the feelings but he doesn’t act upon them. AFAIK, he never has.
I know very little about the ‘ex-gay movement’, but from Adam’s description, it doesn’t sound as if it acted on wise psychological principles.
Penny,
You may not care about my private thoughts and opinions, but God does. Jesus said we sin in the heart even if we keep our bodies pure.
If my thoughts and opinions are morally false, they need correction. Tu quoque. Where is truth found? As a modern secularist, you give a different answer from me.
Get the re-education camps ready.
Penny, I’m not convinced the disorderliness is the lens through which to see this. Child abuse is a problem and deeply wrong not because it’s philosophically unsatisfying, but because of the profound and lasting harm it does to the child and the essentially disposable attitude that abuse has for the child.
Within these discussions it’s always struck me that there is an odd desire on a number of people to centre everything on a single individual, and to imagine the question is: who can I choose to have sex with? And therefore that what I want to do is the only thing that matters. That abstracts away everyone else. So a discussion becomes just about constructing a personal naughty list, and not at all about thinking about what is harmful and what is loving. So if you’re a married man and see a beautiful woman who’s not your wife, she’s on the naughty list so you’re not allowed to sleep with her no matter how tempted you are. But that overlooks a few things: who said she wants to sleep with you? Is it actually much a trial to not sleep with a woman who has no interest in sleeping with you? Why aren’t we giving any thought to the feelings of your existing wife and your life with her that you’re going to damage? It’s all quite misogynistic.
That, I think, is partly why the attempts to analogise gay relationships to adultery and child abuse fall down (putting aside the gross offensiveness etc.). A man having an adulterous affair is ignoring the harm to his wife, even assuming the other woman is a free agent and wants to. Child abuse is, of course, an abuse of the child and extremely harmful to them. When instead we turn to thinking about two gay people entering a relationship, thinking about what is loving and what is harmful, it is difficult to see the harm that is meant to worry us.
Penelope
Human females are the only mammalian females interested in having sex at times of their life when they are infertile. You say this proves that human sex is for more than procreation. I agree. You say it is for pleasure. I disagree. It brings pleasure, to be sure, but its *purpose* is pair-bonding. This is explicit in Genesis 2:24 (check the Hebrew).
Anthony,
You are right, and I am grateful to you for putting it succinctly. Pair-bonding is just the right expression for the one-flesh union of marriage. If the telos of sex was one’s own physical pleasure, then *any kind of consensual sex would be licit. Perhaps that is why Penny is ok with consensual ‘one-night stands’, as she once famously said.
This is the legal question at the centre of the current scabrous affair at Cornell University involving a female student and the male students she is accusing of rape. All the secular law cares about here is consent. But this is very far from the law of Christ and his will for marriage. Secular people today struggle to understand that an act could be fully consensual but also deeply immoral. That is certainly the case as far as the Cornell students are concerned. And that is why the secularist, haunted by Benthamite hedonism, can think only in terms of the individual and his or her pleasure.
Christians also believe in pleasure, or eudaimonia, as Augustine famously said. But the highest pleasure is being in the will of God.
Isn’t it inevitable that any species would favour mutations that brought greater proliferation – in our case, two legs rather than four, greater pleasure rather than less, etc.?
Anthony
If you think the anthropology, theology, philosophy, and sociology of sexuality can be summed up in a couple of verses from Genesis (which actually describe the setting up of a kinship group), further discussion would be futile.
Penny, Genesis 2 is recognised in scholarship as an etiological tale explaining marriage and sexual intimacy between a man and a woman.
James
Penelope has never said on this blog that she is OK with consensual one-night stands. Please withdraw that statement.
Adam
I agree with you. I was trying to grapple with James’s idea of disorder. Disordered desire has, it seems to me, victims: children, spouses; for the alcoholic themselves and their families. James’s argument does seem to pivot on an individualistic view of sin. At least, that’s how it appears to me.
Ian
What nonsense. I cannot ignore something Jesus never taught.
Ian
Perhaps you could look again at the CW marriage service.
Penelope has never said on this blog that she is OK with consensual one-night stands. Please withdraw that statement.
https://www.psephizo.com/sexuality-2/is-the-bishops-policy-on-civil-partnerships-sustainable/comment-page-1/#comment-355708
Penelope Cowell Doe wrote:
‘yes, I would deem such a one-night stand to be ‘moral’, even given consequences like the birth of a child – which might be a joy or a burden.’
Ian
The majority of HB scholars argue that these verses describe the setting up of a distinct kinship group, a recognition of a societal pattern
Recognition of a societal pattern based around marriage and intimacy.
If you think the anthropology, theology, philosophy, and sociology of sexuality can be summed up in a couple of verses from Genesis (which actually describe the setting up of a kinship group), further discussion would be futile.
I was making a rather more specific point than that lot, which is why I quoted only one verse from Genesis. For all of those you need about 50 verses of Genesis, from 1:26 to 3:22.
Poor, poor child, hypothetical or real.
In no possible universe is it half acceptable to label or classify a human child as a burden, or anything other than a miracle.
James
Now that S has so helpfully provided the context (I’m flattered), it makes it much easier for you to withdraw your lie.
Penny, I trawled through hundreds of comments from 2018 to find the words S quoted and the lengthy follow up discussion. You said exactly those words, that there were indeed circumstances (like a fearful soldier in war) when a one night stand was not a sin but could even be “an occasion of grace”. I may be many things, but in this case I am not a liar. You even surmised there that adultery might be justified under some conditions.
Pure situationism (and pure Hollywood schmalz – redemption for the troubled young man from the love-starved girl – the plot of that awful film, ‘Elizabethtown’) straight out of Joseph Fletcher, who I’ve long suspected is your chief ethical guide. You would do better to return to your childhood Catholicism, since Catholics think better than Joseph Fletcher ever did and they offer a better diet than the crumbly liberal smorgasbord Protestantism you currently dine from.
James
Penelope has never said that ‘she is OK with consensual one night stands’. I gave a very specific example which I believe could, in this particular context, be moral.
This was not a blanket approval of one-night stands, as I’m sure you are aware. But since I see that you are not going to withdraw your accusation, I’ll leave it here.
Penelope – which aspect do you disapprove of? Is it the fact that it is at night? Or is it that they do it standing?
“ ‘Sex as pleasure is an end in itself’. That does not follow from sex being pleasurable.”
So how would you explain the fact that well over 50% of women in the UK and USA and higher percentages in Europe own sex toys. And according to research not just one such toy but several. Not for pleasure?
Andrew, what a strange argument. ‘People do X, therefore that determines our theology of Y’. Hmmm
Ian. You have a theology of sex toys or masturbation? Please tell us what it is. I’m intrigued …..
Andrew quotes one snapshot of history (the one that is accessible to those who have done no study) and then treats it as normative. It would be normative only if it were typical. All it shows is that an avowedly sexual revolution culture starts acting in sexual revolution ways. Who knew?
If people wish to misuse their sex organs for solitary pleasure, they are free to do so. The penalty will be psychological, as with drunkenness – which is also not banned in the written Laws of Moses but is thoroughly disapproved of elsewhere in the Old Testament. Sex is meant to be part of a committed relationship.
Christopher
If you believe sex toys to be a modern phenomenon, your classical education is sadly lacking.
No. The clear evidence is that the telos of the clitoris can be purely for pleasure. Rather like the telos of music is aural pleasure. Both bring health giving delights. The abuse of alcohol brings the opposite.
Indeed Penny. It is further evidence of a very limited and biased understanding.
Anthony
Could you elucidate what those psychological penalties might be?
Andrew
Indeed. My follow up question to: what is the telos of the clitoris, is something along the lines of: why did God design something for female pleasure which is very unlikely to be aroused during the act which produces offspring (since offspring have been seen as the chief good of marital union)?
Was God clumsy or is sexuality more multivalent than Western Christian doctrine has been prepared to admit (Cf. The Song of Songs for scriptural witness to the delights of non pro-creative [extra-marital] sex)?
Andrew and Penelope,
You will find in Romans 1:27 that persons who used their sex organs in a way the Bible condemns “received in themselves the due penalty.” I suggest Paul had in mind a distancing from God and greater difficulty in entering into a sexual relationship of the sort that the Bible approves.
Anthony I don’t see sex toys or masturbation being condemned in the Romans passage you refer to. Or indeed women being mentioned at all? And it seems to be a universally natural act so I don’t think it is being referenced here.
Anthony
The Bible no where condemns masturbation. Indeed, it is depicted quite poetically and delightfully in The Song of Songs.
I wonder why people always seem to reach for Romans for their theologies of sexuality rather than The Song?
Even Jesus Christ could not stop people deliberately misunderstanding his words, so what chance do I stand?
Penelope, I agree that the Song of Songs is more explicit in the Hebrew and is done a disservice by conventional English translations, but those passages relate to a couple engaged in foreplay.
Anthony
Foreplay is an interesting construction. It implies that PIV intercourse is the main course. Masturbation and oral sex are not, necessarily, the overture.
Modern phenomenon? Scarcely.
This time, the error is eisegesis.
Penelope,
Oral sex in a hot country where daily bathing is not the norm is going to be unpleasant for the administerer. The unique thing about PIV sex is that the more pleasure ones movements give oneself, the more they give the partner. You might consider that a hint by our maker.
Disease rates increasing exponentially are a hint from the Maker. Anyone who has ever seen the acceleration tables knows it is like the bottom lines of logarithm tables. It absolutely shoots up.
This applies alike to (a) ‘nonkosher’ practices (or what reveal themselves so be such by natural law, statistically confirmed) and to (b) crosscontamination/adulteration through the presence of any former ‘partners’ on either side.
In fact, this is precisely how we identify what are ‘nonkosher’ practices, if we did not already know that by instinct.
Media editorial policies of the abusively neglectful sexual revolution never mention these clearest of all clear statistical deductions.
Supposing that someone has had 3 ‘sexual partners’ and so has their ‘partner’. We do not do just that particular multiplication sum, but also add in the partners of the partners. So you get to 100 associations, or multiple hundred associations, in no time. Does the media tell you that?
Did the media tell people about HPV or chlamydia being so widely effective, or what practices would cause them, before each reached epidemic level?
When was HIV/AIDS first noticed? After extreme lack of hygiene had been flagged through socially or before?
”Open Reception” as regards the ordination of women led to a situation where most in the CofE accepted the innovation, and special arrangements were made for the minority who still don’t accept it, and are unlikely to do so in any future that can at present be foreseen. But the motion being discussed here rather seems to rule out any such arrangements.
For those who would like some relief from Synod’s unwholesome fixation on same sex issues, here is a reminder of what it looks like to advocate passionately for life, humanity and health:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFp5-i5fzyQ
Sophie Winkelman – ‘Why tech in schools is a disaster for children.’
I know nothing about her views on the gospel, but I daresay she is much closer to the heart of God than those for whom legitimising homosexuality in the Church is the number one issue.
It passed in the Deanery Synod, so looks like your silly little campaign didn’t succeed!
I am interested that you think that actually reading what the FAOC, the House of Bishops, and the Anglican Communion have actually said is nothing more than a ‘silly little campaign’.
Treating serious reflection on doctrine and unity as ‘silly’ is perhaps widespread in the deanery, explaining the vote.
Is this a good place to be as a church?
Was it ever in doubt? My first encounter with a Southwark export Bishop was his appalling skeptical sermon at an Easter service. Only my minister stopped me from upbraiding him afterwards as he gladhanded the great and the good. I was a midult newly converted from atheism, solicitor at the time and recognised the limp underpinning philosophy of unbelief. Appalling, it was.
The diocese remains liberal.
And some of its adherents don’t like it being pointed out. A locally ordained minister who I know, in a brief chat outside a local supermarket stomped off in high dudgeon, when I mentioned the point. She was at same sermon all those years ago.
CS Lewis’s, essay, The Inner Ring comes to mind.
The diocese is in decline. Our church that adheres to CoE Articles etc..has more children and youngsters than the whole of the diocese combined. And this is not to gloat, but mentioned with a heavy heart. Back to the future.
Too bad you were dissuaded from upbraiding him.
Being trapped in a message that brings no fruit or harvest and that is self contradictory drives people mad, as in That Hideous Strength.
Yes. Thank you Christopher.
I was thinking more of the person I was talking to, who was effusively thrilled at the visit to her home by said bishop.
Yes. He was I n post for years afterwards as was a new recruit. But the subdequent progress seems to have been unstoppable downhill. The conversation I had outside the supermarket was only 2/3 weeks ago. I was a little surprised at the reaction, as we’re here husband and my wife.
An elephant in the room, which only James seeks to address is ordination of women. If recalled correctly, our host has said it was scripturally permissible but was a political error.
Following on from the Southwark import has been the appointment of liberal female bishops. Liberals seem to be able to get all their ducks in a row.
Apologies for thumb typos and autocorrects due to not reading over before posting.
Of course female ordination and ultimately female bishops did get 2/3 of Synod to vote for it as required to pass. Unless the Synod election results this autumn see a landslide win for liberal Catholic and open evangelical candidates then it is hard to see same sex marriage getting the required 2/3 majority in the House of Clergy or House of Laity. So an ‘open reception’ is not yet on the cards
From the comments, it looks as though several of the participants have been discussing these issues on this forum for many years. I’m wondering – has anybody switched sides? Or at the very least modified their views as a result of reading arguments ‘from the other side’?
I am not sure many have. I think I have modified my own views over the years, in that I think the key questions are different from what I used to think they were.
On here or in life before here?
Adam – either way I would be interested. I suppose the question is: what convinces people (one way or the other) and what new information causes people to switch sides.
It’s an interesting question. I might try and have a proper run through over the weekend.
As far as I can tell this was my first comment on this topic (all the way back in May 2022):
And that is why the debate has become so pressing now. For a very large number of the Church the hope that gay people could become straight (or “return” to being straight) was a key underpinning of how they approached this issue. You can go back all the way to St John Chrysostom preaching on Romans 1 and declaring that “no one can say that it was by being hindered of legitimate intercourse that they came to this pass, or that it was from having no means to fulfil their desire”. For St John Chrysostom the key to the condemnation is that this was about people who had happy heterosexual relationships that they left and could return to. In the Church today, there are very few people who are really prepared to tell 16 year olds that they are commanded to a life of celibacy, in effect to be monks and nuns without holy orders or communities of others to support them, and with their vows already made on their behalf. And this is not least because we don’t actually allow 16 year olds to become actual monks and nuns(!)
The thrust of that argument hasn’t changed for me.
A couple of points where I have moved:
– I used to be pretty open to the idea that celibate partnerships could be an answer. Four years in this place has persuaded me it’s not (not least because of the weird avoidance of the topic, the insistence such partnerships are never real, and the willingness of the conservatives to sabotage such partnerships in PLF and never explain themselves).
– I used to think the proper starting point for this conversation in the church was to ask the question what should gay people do rather than jumping to whether same-sex marriage was permissible or not. After four years on here I think we need to start with more basic questions to stop us talking past each other and to see how much division there really is or isn’t, and where we might have more agreement than we realise if we go straight to the marriage question, because for some this is being used a convenient wedge for schism and they want to keep us at the most divisive point.
Ian
And not at all well defined, or maybe nuanced, on others. The gulf in Eucharistic theologies is significant. This is why generous orthodoxy (not a concept I created) is so critical.
Away from here in my life was where I really changed my mind. In my youth I would have been firmly on the conservative side (courtesy of my evangelical upbringing). My youth group was visited by Jeremy Marks of Courage (back when he was telling you that you didn’t have to be gay and could become straight and get married like him). I remember being furious when Jeffrey John was nominated to be Bishop of Reading in 2003 (I was about 19 at the time). I thought the Scriptures were clear and spent my youth, student days, and most of my 20s thinking that I had to stay in the closet and embrace lifelong celibacy. I prayed endlessly for God to change my sexuality. I never considered trying to date or marry a woman, and thought that would be cruel and almost abusive.
There were a whole bunch of things that caused me to change. I could probably write a book about it at this point (or at least a decent essay) so I can’t really do it justice here. But a few points:
– the experience of prayer. Asking God to change me on this was a thoroughly toxic experience, consumed my prayer life and worship, and was met with silence and not a shred of reassurance. Signs of God’s reassurance came when my views changed.
– reading John Calvin on usury blew my mind. I’d always assumed that Calvinist thought (thanks to a series of Calvinist clergy who led my church growing up) was simply and rigidly biblical – this is what Scripture says, don’t mess around. Reading on Calvin on usury I saw the sort of theological gymnastics I’d associated with liberals. It was shattering.
– reading Ecclesiastes. One of the key arguments for me had been that there was no positive portrayal in Scripture of any marriage-like setting that wasn’t strictly male-female. Discovering Ecclesiastes 4 changed all that: “Two are better than one…If either of them falls down, one can help the other up. But pity anyone who falls and has no one to help them up. Also, if two lie down together, they will keep warm. But how can one keep warm alone?…A cord of three strands is not quickly broken.”
– re-reading the ‘core’ texts afresh: 1 Corinthians, Romans, Matthew 19. Allowing myself to step away from what I’d been told they said, and actually look at what they actually said. What was the message to me? The verses that were being used to say gay people are not to marry, are to stay celibate and single etc., actually weren’t saying anything to gay people. It was all a second-hand inference.
– comparing Lambeth 1.10 to Scripture. Lambeth 1.10 summarises the conservative position that those who are not called to marriage are to stay celibate. But when you look at what is actually said in the passage in 1 Corinthians this draws on, it’s the opposite: St Paul says that those who are not called to celibacy are right to marry…
– finding St John Chrysostom. The argument I always heard is that the ‘traditional’ teaching I followed was the teaching of the church down the ages. St John Chrysostom was the first of the church fathers to preach on homosexuality as part of his series of homilies on Romans. When I got around to actually reading it I was startled to discover that he didn’t think he was talking about gay people at all. The crux of his argument is that the people being talked about in Romans do not have the excuse of being denied legitimate intercourse, and so what they do can be condemned. But that’s completely at odds with a teaching that to be gay meant lifelong celibacy.
Thanks for sharing your honest reflections Adam.
I became a Christian at age 19. I was already gay. I believed the Bible as a whole did not approve of gay sexual relationships, just as it did not approve of straight sex outside of marriage. I do remember wondering if God was going to change me. He didnt. But I still think, all these years later, the same way about the Biblical teaching, and believe me I have read various books on the subject from both angles. I find I just cannot agree with those who think the Bible teaches gay sexual relationships are good and blessed by God. The Bible says the opposite. I think when the Lord looks at us it is with eyes full of mercy. But I cannot ignore His teaching.
Peter, and thank YOU for sharing your story here too.
Thank you so much Adam for being so open and vulnerable. A very evidence based response as well as a personal one.
Both Adam and Peter have been brave and vulnerable. I wish we, and the Church, could leave the discussion there, as a matter of conscience. Both have thought and prayed and come to authentic, if different, conclusions. If only the Church could accept that and be willing to accommodate same-sex blessings (or marriage) for those who wished it, and a better theology of celibacy/chastity(and pastoral support) for those who do not.
‘If only the Church could accept that and be willing to accommodate same-sex blessings (or marriage) for those who wished it, and a better theology of celibacy/chastity(and pastoral support) for those who do not.’
Yes, we could, if we believed:
a. scripture is unclear
b. Jesus’ teaching is not definitive
c. the view of the church catholic has no weight
d. we are a Congregational church with no shared doctrine or shared obligation to each other
e. we believe in a radical privatisation and individualisation of theology.
That is one of several reasons why this discussion is significant. And your desire to simply brush away all these issues demonstrates the problem.
Ian
We are happy to disagree with the church catholic on divorce, women’s ordination, the eucharist, and often on ontological priesthood, paedobaptism, justification by faith, veneration of the saints, the nature of the Theotokos, and others I probably can’t remember. Scripture is unclear or contradictory on quite a lot of these too. In the Church of England, we (just about) live with these differences and are, I believe, richer for it. We could increase our generous orthodoxy if we could accommodate both Adam and Peter.
Penny, I am unsure how your use of ‘generous’ sits with ‘orthodoxy’. The doctrine of the C of E is well defined on many issues, and clergy and lay leaders either being ignorant of or defiant of it is not really a virtue.
Ian
Generous orthodoxy is not a concept I created, but it is an excellent one.
‘Generous orthodoxy’ is an ‘excellent’ principle because it is infinitely malleable, enabling one to arrive at precisely the ‘conclusion’ one always wanted anyway.
Just like ‘situation ethics’ and ‘consent’.
Thanks Peter, I’ve also read a lot on both sides, but I’m struck that so much of the commentary and writing is an argument between two dead ends: one set saying Romans 1, Genesis 2, Matthew 19, Leviticus 18 and 20, 1 Corinthians 6, 1 Timothy 1 are clear in prohibiting gay sex; and another set taking those interpretations apart and saying that they are not prohibitive in that way. But neither is good at saying what the message actually is to gay people about how we should live our lives, and deal with or integrate our sexualities. That part too often gets left blank.
The second question, of how to live, is to be tackled only after the first question – what the Bible says – has been answered.
I am unimpressed by claims that the Bible okays sexual relations between two persons of the same sex. Secular gays have no trouble in understanding these scriptures.
A few years ago I read about an Australian who wished to become a Muslim. He spoke about how much he loved the Quran but he didn’t want to give up drinking beer, and he did all he could to be accepted on those terms. He wasn’t accepted. What do you think?
I think it’s fascinating that some people today are so keen to Islamicise Christianity. They want to do away with the structure of bishops and priests performing sacraments, and have an informal network of imams and schools handing down the law. They want to treat the Bible as a Christian Qur’an, arguing that it rather Jesus Christ is the Word. And they want to take a religion of love and grace, and make it one of submission.
Adam – interesting term ‘Islamicise Christianity’. I’m not remotely interested in the structure of priests and bishops and all that sacramental stuff, but I see interesting parallels. I wonder if you’ve read the novel ‘Malcolm’ and its sequel by George Macdonald. It has a rubbish plot, but on the other hand great social comment. It’s set in Cullen (just west of Banff), written 1875. He describes a situation where The Kirk was churning out rubbish, so the non-conformist meeting started, which was good and sincere at first, but degenerated into ….. well, exactly what you are describing – handing down the law, turning it into something Pharisaical, etc …. the school master (Alexander Graham) getting kicked out of the village school for teaching heretical theology (he is the character in the novel who holds the same theological position as George MacDonald).
You might enjoy it – but you’d be advised to get it in a translation into English – he tries to write it in dialect.
Thanks Jock, I’ll try and look it up – though as you say I think I’ll go for the English rather than Scots dialect version.
The idea of rigid submission is seductive: it hands extraordinary power to people, and it makes life superficially at least pleasingly simple. The problem is of course it’s hard to look around at God’s creation and think that He prefers simple uniformity to complex diversity. And if Christian Church is to be the new Israel, it’s worth remembering what it means to be Israel – when God gave that name in Genesis 32, it means “one who struggles with God”
Adam,
Are you a priest?
I’m not an ordained priest.
But are you a priest and what do you understand by the word?
If you’re trying to make a point Anthony, just make it. These bungled attempts at gotcha questions, particularly this deep into a thread, are tedious.
If I make an assertion you needn’t reply. Bujt if I ask you a question then what (or even if) you reply makes a point.
I have never remotely considered the possibility that there are, in integrity, ‘sides’. There is only one kosher side, namely the side that follows the evidence. If the evidence proves to be different than we previously thought, so does my stance automatically change.
This ‘sides’ mentality is all the proof we need that the debate is, to the extent that it is tribal or polar, carnal not factual. But of course, there will be automatic polarisation between truth seekers and ideologues; and of course, those are often the two main parties.
“There is only one kosher side, namely the side that follows the evidence.”
And there is very clear evidence across the world in many countries and numbers in the millions that same sex relationships and marriages bring goods to the couples involved and the societies they live within. That evidence needs to be followed.
The other evidence that needs to be followed is the kind of language that those who are opposed to it use. If there is disgust and clear prejudice – which is usually evidenced in the comments you make on this subject Christopher – then it is important to ask what might have influenced a primarily emotionally driven response rather than an evidence based one.
Statistics? Their absence?
My published work is awash with them. Where to start?
Where to start indeed. Just because some work is published does not make it correct. Especially if the publisher has a known bias.
And it has been shown many times that your statistics are based on very out dated studies and have all kinds of evidence of bias.
It has also been shown many times that you have no awareness of your own biases. It is crucial that real scholars have such awareness.
And I was not aware you had any qualifications for scholarship in this field. Which perhaps explains what I have written…
Andrew has commented frequently on this same point. I am going to analyse just how low level his contribution is:
(1) After so many comments, he does not know even the name of even one author or paper I cited,
(2) let alone what the evidence was,
(3) let alone the conclusions.
(4) Further, he does not seem to realise that I was speaking in these chapters about multiple topics – so what’s with the generalisation? That is the level of his familiarity with his subjectmatter.
(5) He has a stereotype, which he has no idea whether it is true or not, that I select in and out. Obviously I cite much the same papers that anyone cites, because the large scale studies of any topic are what they are.
(6) Even on the statistics on homosexuality alone, a subsection of what I wrote, I cited 62 publications. So, as I say, where to start? ‘Start’ is something AG has not done.
(7) If there are ‘all kinds of evidence of bias’, then which paper on which topic are you referring to, and what are these ‘all kinds’?
(8) Which ‘publisher’? The 62 studies have multiple publishers – they are mostly journal articles.
(9) He is under the illusion that authors and publishers are responsible for the content of the papers they cite.
(10) He is under that illusion even when it has been pointed out to him so many times.
(11) Citing conclusions and statistics is not scholarship (though it is study), but awareness and quotation.
Good question, Jock.
Could answer it please with resons; why or why not?
The Bishop of Oxford, wrote an essay, setting out why he had changed his mind which was much disussed and commented on here and elsewhere. Present day culture seemed to be the main factor.
I lived through the sexual revolution, permissive society, as a teen and third decade, as an atheist, and though the western sexual culture may not be confined to those times they are times on which the present sexual and social culture is founded.
Have I changed my mind? No.
And I have worked in a charity, as a Christian convert, where colleagues including bosses were openly and promotional homosexual bi-sexual and had adopted children. And they appointed me knowing I was a Christian!
They were excellent colleagues commited to the charity’s cause. One point of note, was that their whole lives revolved around their sexuality and within their closed identitarian communities.
Now, it’s your turn., Jock.
To add, in those earlier times the difference was coined by the terms, straight and gay, strait, became something derogatory and pubs and clubs with a known gay flavour were cool, being part of the “In Crowd”.
And, it is recalled that there was an ideological push for ‘normalisation’ in some quarters.
Geoff – my turn? Well, I don’t have much to contribute here, but I suppose the discussions I have seen on ‘psephizo’ have convinced me that ‘The Church’ should actually keep its nose well and truly out of marriage and blessings. (For example – I didn’t see any evidence of a priest or marriage ceremony when Isaac married Rebekah). I recall Ian Paul’s piece on the verses in Matthew when two opposing factions asked Jesus to judge between them on the issue of ‘divorce’ – and Jesus (of course – as always) transcended the technical point of disagreement between the two sides and laid down the eschatological principles – which could not be converted into some sort of ‘canon law’.
As a preface: personally, I’m very conservative – marriage is clearly one man and one woman in lifelong union, who marry with a view of having their own children together.
Given all of this, why on earth did the C. of E. think it is OK to marry Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles? (who never had any intention of having children together, both divorcees who hadn’t taken their previous marriages very seriously) Also, why was it OK to marry Prince Harry and Megan Markle (a divorcee)? If the C. of E. thinks that is OK, they why not extend blessings to gay couples?
I’m very negative about sexual activities for purely recreational purposes and I’m (of course) negative about women packing themselves full of chemicals so that they can have-it-off without getting pregnant and calling it ‘liberation’, while in reality they make themselves slaves to their own sensual desires. As far as gay sex goes – well, I do remember Rock Hudson getting ill with Aids – and when I discovered how he got it, I thought to myself ‘yeeuch – what on earth would he want to do that for?’ The whole point here being that these activities had and still have absolutely no attraction for me. I can’t understand why it is pleasurable – and hence I haven’t a clue where the temptation comes from.
Absolutely none of the discussion I have seen here has changed my opinion on any of this.
However: I do see that there are serious issues – and I take what ADAM BELL writes very seriously. Same sex attraction is something I personally have never experienced – and I’m not prepared to take a condemnatory stance against those who have. He comes across as a sincere fellow who is writing from experience, unlike (say) Andrew Godsall (who comes across as a total fraud and trouble maker).
I don’t see why the church should give a blessing – the only ‘blessing’ I really see in Scripture is the Aaronic blessing – which was to the *whole* assembly and not to individuals (or couples). The church should be prepared to accommodate those in (say) civil partnerships (although again, by saying this, I’m probably intruding on something that isn’t really my business).
So while my basic position hasn’t changed (and is actually reinforced when I read contributions from people like Penelope Cowell Doe – who seems to be obsessed with demanding the right to succumb to sensual desires – and those like Andrew Godsall – whose main mission is to find ways to attack the people of God), I think that Adam’s contribution shows that there is something to be taken seriously.
As a footnote – by far the greatest evil that I have experience first hand, perpetrated against me personally (rather than something I see on the news or read about in the newspapers) was perpetrated by white, anglo-saxon, straight, privately educated males, who attended a charismatic anglican church. One of them (the boss) did think that the Good Lord had communicated to him through his charismatic cosmic hot-line that I was a ‘bad un’ – and, based on this powerful delusion, he fully believed the somewhat illegal lies, slander and character assassination he was peddling against me. The other was a ‘respecter of persons’ who didn’t want to contradict his boss. Charismatic non-conformists tend to be OK because they have an inherent humility; Charismatic established church people have a toxic mix of the charismata together with the arrogance that comes from belonging to the established church (and not being outside the tent pissing in – like those of us who are non-conformists). I haven’t experienced personally any ‘bad stuff’ at all from people of a non-linear disposition.
Jock it seems to me that not even having the courage to give your name is the very essence of being a fraud and trouble maker.
Andrew – I thought that you weren’t going to interact with people who didn’t use their real name. This in and of itself is an excellent reason not to use one’s real name (but you broke your own promise and did it unsolicited on a previous thread relatively recently). If one has a situation where a serious contributor can express a serious opinion – and get accused of being a ‘safeguarding risk’ (as happened to James Thomson above) then it is actually arrant stupidity to use one’s real name here (since being a ‘safeguarding risk’ is coded language for a very serious offence that can land one in jail – and using a pseudonym does give a minor layer of protection from this).
I’m simply pointing out the impressions created on me. Your contributions actually create a very negative impression and confirm me in my previous views / beliefs and therefore do the opposite of what you intend (I fully accept that this may say more about me than about you).
Adam Bell has the opposite effect and creates the impression, on me at least, that there should be more accommodation of those of his inclination (although I stop short of blessings).
Actually, Adam Bell’s point of view is very similar to that of a gay pianist whom I knew, who showed me a good fingering at the top of the second last page of Alban Berg’s piano sonata and generally showed me how to voice that piece (so I knew him quite well and it’s thanks to him that I was able to get this piece going in a reasonable way – But we didn’t talk very much at all on the subject matter of this thread – our discussions were on piano playing technique and interpretation).
Jock. Rather like S you personify the text book definition of a troll and lack any courage of your strange convictions.
Jock
I believe James’s teaching is potentially a safeguarding risk. Not his views, opinions, or beliefs to which he is, of course, perfectly entitled.
Penelope – then I disagree. I think you are far too liberal with your use of the term ‘safeguarding risk’ (a term which is used to describe somebody who has potential to be a paedophile) and also you ascribe far too much importance to teaching.
After all, he is of no risk to you. If you went along to the church where he was preaching (teaching), you’d probably say something along the lines of ‘what a load of rubbish!’, walk out, and then give a very negative assessment of what you had heard to you family and friends. It wouldn’t have a negative impact (in a ‘safeguarding’ sense) on you personally.
Teaching only ever pushes people in the direction that they want to go anyway (and if someone is convicted of their sins through a sermon that they have heard, then the Holy Spirit was already at work in that person prior to hearing the sermon). So the only people who hearken to James when he is engaged in teaching are those who *are already in substantial agreement* with it – and who may find that James fills out the details and adds the logical structure to something that they already had sympathy with anyway.
I think this is true of all teaching – people who don’t like it think it is rubbish, while only people who are in broad agreement with it in the first place will go along with it.
Your safeguarding problem is the ‘wolf in sheep’s clothing’ problem, someone who looks good and nice and charming, getting people into his/her confidence through saying all the things that sound right – and then abusing the trust that has developed in order to do horrible things. This certainly does not describe James or his teaching.
Penny, we had quite a time when there was not simple point scoring in these comments, and when no-one threw around wild and casual accusations against other commentators.
Sadly, that time seems to have come to an end again…
Ian
My concerns about James’s potential teaching are neither wild nor casual. Jock is quite right that if I heard such stuff from a pulpit I would walk out. I, however, am not a vulnerable queer person being told that my sexuality is disordered and that if I enjoy sexual intimacy I am akin to a paedophile or an alcoholic. That is the sort of dangerous and abusive preaching which still exists in the CoE.
I am not, of course, going to act on concerns which are assumptions. I have no idea if these notions form part of James’s preaching, nor do I know who he is. I do know he is a liar though.
Jock
I was nodding in agreement with much of what you write here until I came to the bit about ‘recreational sex’ and then the rather unwarranted attack on Andrew Godsall and myself. I hesitate to speak for Andrew, but I regard pleasurable sexual intimacy (as an end in itself and within a faithful relationship) as wholly good and healthy (as does the CoE marriage service). I do not, however, in arguing that same-sex relationships can be valid and holy in the sight of God, see this as succumbing to sensual desire (just as straight couples are not simply succumbing to sensual desires).
All marriages and covenantal relationships are sensual, but they are many other things as well. Gay couples don’t have a monopoly on sensuality!
Penelope – OK – so this is precisely where we diverge – and you seem to agree that this is precisely where we diverge; I take the view that the pleasure is only a pale shadow of what it is supposed to be if there isn’t the possibility / hope of it being a prelude to an even greater pleasure (i.e. children).
Other than that (ad hominem about you personally) I do appreciate the way you stand up for what you deem to be right (even though I disagree with it when it comes to matters of sexual intimacy).
Thanks Jock,
If you’ll permit me to give a quick reflection:
One point of divergence that can be overlooked but I think matters is that along with many of the ‘conservative’ side frame this almost entirely as a sex question: is this particular sexual practice permitted or not? But from the ‘liberal’ side the primary concern is a relationship question: can we be boyfriends/partners/husbands? Sexual intimacy is a consequence of that, not the objective. Hence, a few times on here I’ve posed the question about whether or why celibate partnerships would be a problem. Effectively the answer I get is a whole bunch of married men telling me that marriage without sex is a nonsense and they don’t believe it.
One thing that has made me think more deeply about this is Catholic Catechism which argues that sexuality is really important because it “affects all aspects of the human person… especially concerns affectivity, the capacity to love and to procreate, and in a more general way the aptitude for forming bonds of communion with others” and therefore everyone should “acknowledge and accept his sexual identity”. It puts an emphasis on the importance of integrity, i.e. the integration of sexuality within the person, to chastity, self-mastery etc.. The opposite of hedonism is not self-repression (which some argue is another form of hedonism, elevating your feelings about your sexual desires and prioritising that) but integration. That has strong echoes for me (and I’ve heard other gay Christians say similar things): the points in our lives when our sexuality has been most central to how we think of ourselves, the most important thing about us etc., has been when we were striving not to be gay and not to show it. Being ‘out’ is when we can relax, and it is simply one facet of who we are integrated into the whole.
As for the blessings, I’m not ultimately too fussed (though I do think Bishop Croft had a point that it was hard to see why the church couldn’t have services of blessing for people entering civil partnerships given it has allowed clergy to enter civil partnerships for a while now). I am mostly worried about what we are saying to young people in the church as they grapple with this because I remember what it was like for me, and I know what it was like for the generation before me. And I worry now about what our message is to those we evangelise to who are gay and in relationships. We may have been able to pretend 20 years ago that we’re just telling folks to drop their current boyfriend or stop having a series of casual encounters. I don’t think that was ever that true. It really isn’t any more – now you’re as likely as not going to be giving a message to someone who is in a same-sex marriage. Are we going to tell them that the church expects them to divorce?
Adam – well, you’re the Anglican – and Anglicans do blessings. I personally can’t understand why so many people actually *want* to get married, since marriage involves vows before God. Aren’t people worried that when they break vows, this may invoke a curse? If two people intend to have children together, then these vows (which include ‘until death us do part’) are important, the couple should be endeavouring to make a stable environment for the children. If children are not the intended outcome, then it is not at all clear to me why people should be making vows (and hence risk incurring the wrath of God when they break these vows).
The Anglicans have made it sooooo nice – a nice ceremony, people dressing nicely, a day to remember – and they don’t seem remotely bothered by the down-side of solemn vows. As I indicated, I don’t understand why Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles had a church ceremony (both divorcees, absolutely no intention of having children together) or why Prince Harry and Megan Markle had a church wedding (one of whom divorced – no suggestion that the other party may have been at fault).
Does God curse his children or does His grace and mercy flow like a rapid river? Isn’t this what the parable of prodigal son is about?
Adam, well – obviously I don’t believe in curses for behaviour of the parents being passed on to their children! I do believe that a person doesn’t break a vow that he made before God without serious consequences to himself!
Children do have a harder life if their parents don’t stick to the marriage vows – but that’s not what I meant – and God is gracious, especially to the underdog.
What does the tale of the prodigal son mean for Christians? To return to the father when the outworkings of your sin have ruined you is equivalent to repentance. And where do you you find the definitions of what is sinful in scripture?
Jock, vows are serious of course but it’s the marriage and the life together that matters. I think I once quipped to Anthony that marriage might be a sacrament, but weddings definitely aren’t (if I remember correctly this was one of our rare points of agreement). I am uneasy about the extent to which you place having children as the purpose of marriage. I would observe that people get married because they love their partner and want to share their life with them and be committed to that (or at least that’s what they say). Children flow from that, but they’re not the point. A marriage without children isn’t invalid or pointless or lesser. I wouldn’t accept infertility as valid grounds for divorce. People getting married are looking for a partner they love, not deciding they want a child and casting around for suitable breeding stock.
And I think this lines up with what we see in Scripture. In Genesis 2 God observes that it’s not good for man to be alone, and Adam and Eve are joined. There is no mention of children. In Matthew 19 when Jesus is challenged that it might be better not to marry, his response is to the point the timelessness of partnership and sexual desire, and there’s no mention of wanting children. In 1 Corinthians 6 and 7, St Paul writing about marriage and its purpose doesn’t mention children at all. He warns against sexual abstinence in marriage because of misguided ideas of holiness, and he warns against imposing rules of celibacy on those who aren’t suited to it, but he says nothing about needing children.
Adam – at the same time, there isn’t really any mention of a marriage ceremony in Scripture, is there? I think the question is: what is the ceremony for? What are the vows for? If two people like each other very much and want to live together (but don’t intend to have children) then fine, but why have the ceremony and take the vows? Why not just live together? As you say, no mention in Genesis 2 of Adam and Eve having children – at the same time, no mention of a marriage ceremony and taking vows. While I don’t see it explicitly mandated in Scripture, the solemn vows before God do make sense, but are only really something of importance when there is an imperative to create a stable environment for forthcoming children (even if they don’t arrive through, for example, infertility).
Jock, I’m not quite sure whether you’re suggesting people can live together without making any commitment to each other as long as children aren’t in the picture, or that they can make commitment but without vows.
I think the commitment to each other in the couple, and provision of stability for each other, matters enormously. As St Paul would put it, the couple have authority over each other. And if that’s the case, you need to give your partner that authority.
I would observe that gay couples really, really wanted to have the protections of publicly acknowledged commitment. That was the argument for civil partnerships, and it wasn’t necessary for children (the gay adoption laws in this country were passed first).
We don’t see a marriage ceremony set out in Scripture (there’s not even something akin to the baptism in the Jordan or the Last Supper to base things around). But we definitely see weddings. In Genesis you get the wedding of Jacob when he gets tricked into marrying Leah before Rachel (including the custom of a bridal week) . Jesus attends the wedding in Canaan. And there’s a heap of imagery in the New Testament about the Church as a bride on her wedding day.
Adam – well, taking vows before God does make it a much more serious business. I get the impression that this isn’t very well understood and that one shouldn’t expect to be able to break such vows without impunity. Take the example of Gene Robinson, who firstly married a woman, had children with her and then decided it was all a big mistake (due to his non-linear inclinations). If the intention is to have children, then these vows (whether before God, or at a registry making a commitment in the eyes of the law) are very important – for the stability of the children and the environment in which they are going to be brought up. But then, having split with his wife and having lived with a male companion for several decades, he married his male companion – church ceremony where they took marriage vows. Then they divorced. Either his marriage vows (second marriage), which he claimed to be taking before a Holy God were serious, or else they were a total joke. Since you can’t break vows without *very* serious consequence (and it’s certainly not something that a serious person would do lightly), it seems to me that he would have been much better off not marrying his partner.
Of course, there is the whole business of sexual activity, which ought (in my view) to be limited to two people, of the opposite sex, who would like to have children by it. I’m simply looking at the issue of companionship right now, which is very important. I fully accept the rationale behind civil partnerships, which involve both commitment and benefits. The issue here, though, is taking vows before a Holy God and receiving a blessing consequent to this – and the fact that people don’t seem to get the point that breaking such vows will inevitably have very serious consequences (even if they are not fully seen in this life).
Adam – by the way, I don’t really know what Anthony was getting at asking you if you were a priest, but I was under the impression that you were an ordained Anglican, man of the cloth (and I thought that such people were priests). Since you’re an Anglican, that already means that you take a different (and much more serious) view of sacraments than I do (I tend to adopt my mother’s view – she went to the Salvation Army Sunday school as a girl – and the Salvation Army never left her. They don’t have sacraments). Furthermore, you have indicated that you have an inclination towards ceremony and sacraments (i.e. it isn’t simply an ‘operational inconvenience’ that you have to put up with as part of the package of being an Anglican) – so you are clearly going to view the whole business of church blessings in a way that is entirely different from non-conformist types like me. I don’t really see getting a blessing as being all part of the package of getting welcomed into the church.
Jock,
Yes, definitely not an ordained priest. Is it a good or bad thing that someone thinks that I am? I think I’ll take it as compliment on here where we debate theology so much, so thankyou. You’re right that I have a high view of the sacraments, but that’s accompanied by a caution about what is and isn’t a sacrament. To take an example: if a group of friends from church sit down for a lunch together, that is not at all equivalent to the Eucharist; but a wedding that is performed by an atheist registrar in the council offices, has the same validity and seriousness as a wedding performed by a bishop in a cathedral chapel.
I’m not sure we’re particularly different about divorce, though we may talk about it in different ways and come from slightly different paths. The seriousness of divorce is one of the reasons I’m so wary of people advising gay people to enter into straight marriages. One of the startling developments I’ve seen is the shift in the church generally, and for evangelicals in particular, is the relaxation around divorce. When I was a child in the 90s, my CofE vicar would not remarry divorcees; today my mother attends a free evangelical church (and ostensibly conservative) where the majority of the elders are remarried divorcees. I can’t quite shake the suspicion that some of the strength of feeling on the gay issue is because people know how they’ve lost the argument on divorce or have moved themselves, and are desperate to hold the line somewhere so they can still claim to be “conservative”.
(Highly contextual) facts on the ground are not an ‘argument’, and the error here is that they are being confused with one.
The relevant thing on ‘divorce’ is what the minimum figures must unavoidably be, not what they happen to be at some random place and time in history. After all, people pretty slavishly follow the norms of their surrounds, not considering that things not only cna be different but usually have been different.
The ‘argument’ is like saying – This is the 6th time this week I have broken the rule on talking in class, so it follows that you must say from now on that breaking that rule is ok.
To summarise, there is no reason at all why divorce rates should be higher now than at (the majority of) times when they have been lower.
Adaum and Christopher: if it’s the highly contextualised fact that I’m thinking of (Adam’s observation about the ‘evangelical’ church his mother attends) then (depressingly) I’ve seen similar things that substantiate his observation. I have seen divorce among the ‘holy rollers’ – one woman because her husband wasn’t spiritual enough for her (translated into plain English – he had bought a nice posh big house and, since he liked his peace and quiet, he was not at all keen on her turning the east wing into a missionary school for Chinese children).
Christianity is a moral issue, a person who loves Jesus will obey his commandments. Divorce should be unheard of / very much an exception. If someone does get divorced, then he/she has no business belonging to the eldership of the church and should, with humility, understand that his/her position is to sit in the pew and learn, not to stand up front and teach.
If you really have a church where many of the elders are re-married divorcees, then it isn’t a Christian church at all – no matter what sort of hymns, prayers, sermons they have. But I have great sympathy with Adam’s mother – since it is very difficult to accept this and walk away.
Thanks, yes. The attitude one sometimes finds is ‘Everyone’s doing it’. This is low IQ because (a) the question is known to be whether it is a good thing or not, so the person is effectively dishonestly changing the subject; (b) it is not even remotely true, except in the recent sexual revolution culture – thare is no intrinsic reason for rates to be higher than at any other time. That is a fallacy. So – don’t adopt the toxic SR, then.
Christopher – what Adam describes at his mother’s church is utterly sick and vile. Only those who truly hate God would consider remaining in an eldership position within a church if they got divorced. Divorce does happen, but it is always very serious – and a Christian who gets divorced would, in all humility, resign any eldership position and be content to sit in the pew and listen and would humbly accept that he/she was absolutely not qualified to be in a position of authority in a Christian fellowship. Since this is not the case, the fellowship that Adam is describing is a Satanic fellowship and not a Christian fellowship – and I pray for the Christians who have been caught up in it.
I don’t see how this is connected with the sexual revolution, though. I thought the sexual revolution was all about promiscuity, about having-it-off without consequences either of pregnancy or of catching any of the horrid diseases that accompany such activities. Those divorced and re-married elders that Adam pointed to are certainly waving their wicked fists defiantly against the Living God and are certainly ripping up the Holy Writ and using it as toilet paper – but I don’t see that this is necessarily connected with the sexual revolution.
In Adam’s posts, I see that he is mostly concerned about companionship and, if this is the case, it doesn’t have to be connected with the SR (sexual revolution).
SR loosens parameters for (and taboos against) sexual behaviour, and the remainder follows from that. As knock on effects go, one could scarcely imagine anything that produces more.
Maybe we’re not quite as aligned as I thought on divorce. I don’t think my mum is part of a satanic fellowship…
Jock, there is no way that an innocent party should somehow be expected to suffer by association.
Christopher – I agree that there is no way that an innocent party should somehow be expected to suffer by association. What is the context, though? If you’re referring to someone in the church eldership who has been divorced and remarried – well, even if the person is entirely innocent, it does show a lack of judgement. If one has failed to make good judgement in choosing one’s own life partner (and it has been so catastrophically bad that the situation ended in divorce) then one should humbly accept that one is *not* cut out for a church leadership position! and, consequently, immediately resign any church leadership position that one has.
I don’t agree in all cases. Someone in a parallel position could marry, then the culture change, and their spouse become culturally influenced at a point subsequent to the wedding. Or their spouse could have their perception subsequently affected through menopause or trauma, and the culture try (as devil’s advocate) to get them that way.
Or else one could marry a person who is not subject to cultural influence. That means that 90 percent of people would not get married at all, since such partners are few.
However, I do largely agree. People marry enthusiastically, and if anyone were to travel from that to be other than steadfast, that would both a large/considerable journey and a backwards journey. So it is fair to assume that few in their right minds could be expected to travel it. (See para above however.)
If I may: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FH9IJXxHGto&list=RDFH9IJXxHGto&start_radio=1
Enjoy:
https://youtu.be/W3xgcmIS3YU?si=RLmIqGDtZOCzzg1h