Andrew Goddard writes: In this third part of three articles, I consider the use of Canon B2 for the proposing of the Prayers of Love and Faith. You can find Part One here, Part Two here, and a summary of the whole argument here.
The place of General Synod
Under the Church of England (Worship and Doctrine Measure) 1974 it was established that the church was autonomous as regards the regulation of its worship: “It shall be lawful for the General Synod…to make provision by Canon with respect to worship…including provision for empowering the General Synod to approve, amend, continue or discontinue forms of service”.
Under the canons (B1 to B5A) which were passed under that Measure, General Synod may “approve forms of services for use in the Church of England”, “amend any form of service approved by the General Synod under this paragraph”, “approve the use of any such form of service for a limited period, or without limit of period” and “extend the period of use of any such form of service” or “discontinue any such form of service” (Canon B2.1). In so approving the General Synod also establishes that in its opinion the service “is neither contrary to, nor indicative of any departure from, the doctrine of the Church of England in any essential matter”.
B2 or not B2?
There is no doubt that this B2 authorisation by General Synod is the normal, standard route of liturgical authorisation which, when successful, offers “a clear and robust outcome” (GS2055, para 41). It:
- secures the consensus of the widest group;
- engages and gains the consent of the most representative body of the church for the form of service, in contrast to all the other routes;
- thereby helps preserve the unity of the church;
- ensures proper scrutiny of the forms of service before authorisation;
- makes the service available across the whole of the church;
- gives the highest security and protection to all clergy using the form of service that they are not liable to legal action; and
- it does this, in large part, because it definitively establishes that the form of service passes the crucial doctrine test.
This route is the best on any matter that relates to doctrine because the General Synod is the body with authority in this area. In the words of Norman Doe:
General Synod is the only authority within the Church of England competent to alter the legally approved doctrines: no doctrinal development may occur unless the three Houses of General Synod consent to it. Indeed, it has been understood judicially that General Synod possesses in law an unlimited power to change the church’s fundamental doctrines, provided the required procedures are followed. The procedures are rigorous and, by requiring the participation of the whole church as represented in General Synod, they give juridical expression to the theological principle that doctrines ought to be derived from a consensus fidelium (Legal Framework, p. 258).
In order therefore to clarify (without recourse to expensive, long drawn out, and painful legal action in the courts) what the doctrine of the church does and does not permit, the B2 route is clearly the most effective and secure of all the processes.
For all these reasons B2 is the overwhelming preferred means of authorising services. As we have seen, the alternative route of authorisation – canon B4 – is only used in very rare, always uncontroversial, circumstances.
Why not B2?
There is, however, a major challenge in using the B2 route compared to all the others. This is not that it is more time-consuming (a dubious claim given the amount of time – and money – likely to be taken up in legal proceedings if another route is used) and less able to be controlled by bishops and Archbishops and the Liturgical Commission. The challenges is that in order to ensure that any new service has widespread support across the church, to provide a strong test in relation to compatibility with doctrine, and to prevent too quick and easy a change of doctrine even implicitly through liturgical innovations, the B2 process – under the Standing Orders and the Constitution of General Synod – has various safeguards. Three, in particular, stand out.
First, if Synod material is designated liturgical business then various bodies can “call for a report by the House of Bishops on a question of doctrine arising out of the business” and the business then stands adjourned until the report is delivered and formally taken note of by the Synod (SO 82). As it stands, PLF is not being designated liturgical business when it is discussed by Synod and the House of Bishops have not produced a report on how it relates to the doctrine of marriage. Nor, under any other routes than B2, can such a report be required and considered by Synod.
Second, because of the importance of our liturgy and the need for it to be doctrinally faithful and liturgy which does not divide the church, in order for any liturgical business to be passed by Synod there are special processes under Article 7 of the Constitution of General Synod. This relates to “a provision touching doctrinal formulae or the services or ceremonies of the Church of England or the administration of the sacraments or sacred rites thereof” (Article 7(1)). It puts in place a number of possible safeguards. Processes can be triggered which, before the provision is brought to Synod for a final decision, first requires approval separately by each House of the two Convocations (i.e. both clergy and bishops in both Canterbury and York) and by the House of Laity. Should it fail to get a simple majority in any one of these five votes then (unless other conditions are met under 7(5)) it cannot be “proposed again in the same or similar form until a new General Synod comes into being”. In other words, liturgical innovation is so important that not only the General Synod but each of its constituent bodies can be required to assent separately under B2. In contrast, under B4 or B5 the whole Synod is bypassed.
Third, usually in General Synod votes are decided by either a simple majority (i.e. more than half of those present and voting) or by a simple majority in each of the 3 Houses. However, under SO 36(4) certain categories of business are seen as so significant that “a question is carried only if at least two-thirds of those in each of the three Houses present and voting are in favour”. Among these is “the Final Approval of liturgical business”. In the words of leading ecclesiastical lawyer, Mark Hill,
Synod may approve, amend, continue, or discontinue any form of service, provided that it is of the opinion that it does not represent a departure from the doctrine of the Church and that any such decision is finally approved with a majority in each house of not less than two-thirds of those present and voting (Mark Hill, Ecclesiastical Law, 4th edition, 5.03).
These safeguards to protect the Church of England’s doctrine and liturgy (in particular this third immovable and longstanding requirement within the B2 route for more than a simple majority) explain why those wishing to introduce PLF are seemingly so opposed to the prayers being authorised by General Synod. They would prefer one of the other routes in order to dodge the synodical scrutiny and majorities required by B2. Certainly no other serious objection to using B2 has been raised.
The reality is that while many of the prayers would be able to pass these tests for liturgical business (a number have already done so and are already authorised by General Synod under B2), others likely would not. The more radical and contentious elements within PLF (most obviously the use of prayers of/for blessing and perhaps prayers over rings), and some of the contexts in which, and purposes for which, it is proposed the prayers would be used (such as for same-sex married couples and possibly for couples in a sexual relationship other than holy matrimony) will apparently struggle in this Synod to get the necessary 2:1 support in all 3 Houses. This is in large part because a significant proportion of the church believes such prayers fail the crucial doctrine test.
Prayers, Processes and Power: What sort of church do we wish to be?
If the uncertainty about B2 being able to secure the desired outcome is the principal and decisive – perhaps sole – argument against using this route then we appear to be arguing that we should determine which route to follow on the basis that “the end justifies the means”. We therefore return to the questions of processes and power with which we began. All other routes bypass General Synod. They all involve the use of power by a small group, in many cases just bishops, or even just the Archbishops. The commendation route also then makes parish clergy vulnerable to legal challenge. The doctrinal test is still applied in all of them because it is essential (though it is unclear whether, for example, two-thirds of the House would need formally to agree the prayers were not indicative of a departure from doctrine for them to be commended). It is applied, however, by a much smaller and less representative number of people. Under B4 it is simply the opinion of those authorising which provides the test with no public explanation or deliberation needed (as it is under B2). There is thus limited scrutiny and transparency (e.g. the House of Bishops is by default public as a meeting of a House of General Synod as set out in its Standing Orders (SO13) but apparently always votes under SO14 to reconstitute itself as a Committee of the Whole House and so exclude members of the public). There is also, in all other routes, no involvement of the laity.
The argument may be made that those authorising by other routes (or the bishops in commending) would be acting on behalf of the majority. This, however, would need not just to be asserted. It has somehow to be clearly demonstrated. A response also has to be given to the concern that having only a simple majority is not sufficient as it disregards the long accepted principle of the need for two-thirds in all three Houses.
Above all, it also needs to be recognised what the risks are in intentionally bypassing the normal, accepted means of authorisation in order to introduce such contentious prayers. Those B2 means of Synodical scrutiny and enhanced majorities have been put in place for good reasons. They are generally respected – particularly in matters of controversy – as the means best able to secure a number of good ends in the life of the church and thereby enable her flourishing. These include:
- as wide a consensus as possible for developments;
- keeping worship, which is at the heart of our calling, faithful to speaking the truth of God and speaking truth to God;
- enabling public discernment on doctrinally disputed matters;
- securing widely-recognised doctrinal consistency and coherence and/or careful and considered (rather than hurried and unaccountable) doctrinal development;
- the involvement of (and so ownership by) laity and clergy not just bishops and Archbishops;
- fostering trust in the church’s institutions of government and confidence in its leadership;
- limiting the threats to unity.
The decision about B2 or not B2 is, therefore, not only a legal nicety concerning procedures. It is a decision – faced with our deep disagreements over sexuality – about the sort of church we want to be or not to be.
Refusing to use B2 is to disregard established practice for matters relating to liturgy (especially where it is contentious) and doctrine. It is to ignore the pastoral principles and instead to adopt a process which involves colluding with such “pervading evils” as fear, power, hypocrisy and silence rather than confronting them. It runs the serious risk of splitting the Church of England not simply on sexuality but because of mutual recriminations due to failing to follow established legal processes.
Twenty years ago I co-authored a resource for the first Primates Meeting under Archbishop Rowan in May 2003. We called that resource “True Union in the Body?” and its final paragraph picked up the play on words within that title:
For many the issue of officially blessing same-sex unions is precisely a boundary issue. Confusion here massively affects our identities both as sexual beings and as a public body. For, as Paul so insightfully grasped right at the outset, what we do with our bodies is not immaterial but truly affects the Body of Christ. The union of physical bodies can affect the union of the ecclesial Body. Something which seems so small and immaterial can evidently have an explosive effect. Policy about sexual behaviour is not just a private matter. The Christian community has an interest in what Christians decide about sex and all believers have responsibility to the whole Body. Our prayer, therefore, is that the Body of Christ, listening to the voice of Christ, may rise up with new strength and purpose to show forth the light of Christ in all its grace and truth (6.24).
At that 2003 meeting, after discussing the booklet, the Primates stated
The question of public rites for the blessing of same sex unions is still a cause of potentially divisive controversy. The Archbishop of Canterbury spoke for us all when he said that it is through liturgy that we express what we believe, and that there is no theological consensus about same sex unions. Therefore, we as a body cannot support the authorisation of such rites.
The bishops of the Church of England quoted that passage as recently as December 2019 in their pastoral statement (para 18). The question we now face is why they have reversed that position and why they have not explained that reversal – what has changed? There is no doubt that blessing same-sex unions “is still a cause of potentially divisive controversy” or – one hopes – that “it is through liturgy that we express what we believe”. The key question therefore is whether or not there is now “theological consensus about same sex unions” and sufficient consensus for us to be able to introduce liturgical innovations that still recognisably express what we believe without causing division. How as a church we answer such questions has long-established, tried and tested answers: we discern this together, led by our bishops, through General Synod, and when it relates to liturgy we do so by means of using canon B2.
Tragically, it increasingly appears that the scenario already replicated across the Communion since 2003 and also in other churches (notably most recently the Methodists in the US) is now being played out within the Church of England.
How we are handling the process of discernment following LLF, currently focussed on PLF, is bringing to the surface deeper questions about the nature and calling of the church – who we are and are called to be and to become. We cannot simply focus on our substantive disagreements over the proposals or on finding the quickest means to achieve some people’s desired outcomes. If we claim to be acting in the name of unity and talk constantly of “walking together” (a term which of course points us not to the exercise of archepiscopal powers but to synodality) then that means we need also to consider carefully our processes. If we fail to do so, and especially if we fail to pay attention to power and how it is being used and possibly abused within those processes, we are likely to harm rather than to heal the body of Christ.
(All three articles can be found combined as a PDF on Andrew’s website here.)
Revd Dr Andrew Goddard is Assistant Minister, St James the Less, Pimlico, Tutor in Christian Ethics, Westminster Theological Centre(WTC) and Tutor in Ethics at Ridley Hall, Cambridge. He is a member of the Church of England Evangelical Council (CEEC) and was a member of the Co-Ordinating Group of LLF, and a member of the subgroup on Pastoral Guidance, which has now been closed down.
You have the Gospel of forgiveness just in front of you.
I already said I accept your apology, there’s no need to beg for forgiveness.
Okay folks, scores on the doors:
112 posts – ‘S’
75 posts – Peter
33 posts – T1
21 posts – Geoff
19 posts – Andrew Godsall
13 posts – Susannah Clark
10 posts – Jock
7 posts – Anton
5 posts – Tricia
5 posts – Pellegrino
5 posts – Peter Jermey
3 posts – Ian Paul
3 posts – Christopher Shell
3 posts – Penelope Cowell Doe
3 posts – Steve
3 posts – David Runcorn
2 posts – Don Benson
2 posts – Francis Scott
2 posts – David B Wilson
1 post – Matt
1 post – Thomas Pelham
1 post – Steven Robinson
1 post – Richard Brown
1 post – Andy
“We have erred and strayed from Thy ways like lost sheep.”
Oh dear – does that mean that I have to write another 102 posts on this thread?
Bahhhhahhh
🙂
That’s your fourth comment, Steve !
We’re going to have to rename this thread :
” The ‘S’ and Peter Show” !
and a safeguarding risk.
A safeguarding risk?
Hilarious. How do you make that out?
I am more than happy to withdraw the statement that you are a safeguarding risk subject to one condition only.
If somebody – for example Andrew Godsall – tells you that your behaviour is trolling you stop it immediately and issue an immediate apology to the person concerned
I am more than happy to withdraw the statement that you are a safeguarding risk subject to one condition only.
I couldn’t care less whether you withdraw ludicrous statements, I’m just curious what you are on.
If somebody – for example Andrew Godsall – tells you that your behaviour is trolling you stop it immediately and issue an immediate apology to the person concerned
Oh, actually a thought has just struck. So if I tell you that your behaviour, throwing out ludicrous accusation, is trolling, you presumably will stop it immediately and issue an immediate apology to me, yes?
If not, why not?
Is sauce for the goose not sauce for the gander?
Peter – I’d say you’ve lost this completely. You have resorted to the lies-slander-character assassination method of encounter by accusing people of being a ‘safeguarding risk’, guilty of ‘misogyny’, ‘homophobia’ (and, as PC1 pointed out to you on another thread – he hasn’t seen homophobia here).
You therefore are the one who looks like a troll.
I’d also like to see a different style of commenting here – people state their position, some probing to find out something of the – for want of a better expression – ‘axiomatic base’ from which their position is coming, once that has been established, then leave it at that. Endless cycles of re-iterating the same basic position, escalating into a civil war when people try to convince each other that they’re wrong doesn’t add anything at all.
If this is what you are trying to achieve (and it isn’t clear to me that it is), then your method of going about it clearly doesn’t work and -indeed – makes you look like the troll – particularly the incendiary lies-slander-character assassination style of engagement which you seem to enjoy.
I hold a position of responsibility within the Church of England. I am requested to say something if I witness what I believe is a safeguarding risk, misogyny, homophobia or other malicious activity.
As I said to Susannah you are entitled to disagree. You are not entitled to dismiss a safeguarding concern in the mind of another person.
You are not entitled to dismiss a safeguarding concern in the mind of another person.
Actually who doesn’t hold a position of responsibility in the Church of England is entitled to dismiss anything they like — especially a ‘safeguarding concern’ that is self-evidently ludicrous.
On the crucial issue of homophobia, I notice you and others are entirely indifferent to the fact that Andrew Godsall has made it clear he has experienced malice on this site.
Is there anything in particular you dislike about Andrew ? Am I to assume it is entirely coincidental that he supports SSM (incidentally I do not).
You sound like a homophobe to me. In case you were wondering, if that it what I think, that is what I am entitled to say. I am afraid you will find the Church of England is with me and not you on this one.
Is there anything in particular you dislike about Andrew ?
I have never even met Andrew Godsall. How therefore could I dislike Andrew Godsall? I have no opinions on Andrew Godsall at all.
However the opinions Andrew Godsall espouses are precocious, evil, demonic, and must be fought with every fibre of our being and I will not rest until those ideas are driven out of the Church forever.
But it’s only the ideas I care about defeating. There is absolutely nothing personal between us. As I say; How could there be? We have never met.
In case you were wondering, if that it what I think, that is what I am entitled to say.
Of course everyone is entitled to say whatever they like. That is what freedom of speech means. The problem is when you tell people they are not allowed to say things, like point out that your ludicrous accusations make you sound like a slanderer (I have never accused you of slander, by the way, because slander implies malice and I, unlike you, prefer not to impute malice to people I have never met. Your wild accusations against me are outlandish and absurd, but I prefer to think you are making them not out of malice but out of some bizarre error in your perception — which is part of why I was curious as to what you were actually accusing me of, to try to understand what has gone with your thought processes that brought you to this point of hysteria).
Am I to assume it is entirely coincidental that he supports SSM
Well, it’s not coincidental, but it’s not the root cause either. The demonic ideas that must be fought are:
1. The idea that the Bible is not the Word of God but just the writings of humans trying to make sense of their experiences of the divine.
2. The idea that Christianity does not operate in the realm of claims about objective facts that are either true or false (and the ‘non-overlapping magisteria’ view more generally).
3. Universalism.
Views on same-sex marriage really are merely far downstream symptoms. These are what matters.
“I’d also like to see a different style of commenting here – people state their position, some probing to find out something of the – for want of a better expression – ‘axiomatic base’ from which their position is coming, once that has been established, then leave it at that. Endless cycles of re-iterating the same basic position, escalating into a civil war when people try to convince each other that they’re wrong doesn’t add anything at all.”
Completely agree.
Axiomatic base.? Eloquently put.
Completely agree.
As do I. The problem is that some people won’t give straight answers to straight questions, or engage in equivocating over terms, so it takes a lot of probing to get them to reveal what they actually think.
The difficulty – and it a particular and shocking feature of “orthodox” Christians it their ignorance of basic safeguarding.
If a person says they believe there is a safeguarding risk the one thing you do not do is accuse that person of slander etc.
My personal experience on this site is of malice. I am afraid you don’t get to tell me I am wrong. If I say I have experienced malice then that is a reportable risk
If I say I have experienced malice then that is a reportable risk
I think you need to listen to the lessons on the difference between feelings and facts.
So when Andrew Godsall says he is being trolled that matters to you not at all.
Why would that be ? ?
The Above is addressed to Chris bishop
Peter,
I have refrained from making any extended comment on these recent exchanges but since you have addressed me after I have expressed agreement to Jock’s succinct and accurate assessment, I do so here.
I have to say that your responses to ‘S’ and others are some of the most strange I have ever read on this blog. To assert that ‘S’ is a ‘safeguarding risk’, a ‘homophobe’ and ‘malicious troll ‘ i.e. intent to cause harm is simply untrue. Furthermore I think most of us haven’t a clue what you mean when you say he has ‘defamed God’. Perhaps you could explain to the rest of us if you won’t to so to ‘S’. Certainly ‘S’ is vehemently opposed to liberal theological thought but malicious? – really?
That ‘S’ pursues a vigorous and forensic approach to attacking peoples arguments is entirely up to him ( I am assuming ‘S’ is a male) and if people wish to engage with him, then that is entirely up to them. They are completely free to ignore his responses or not.
But as Jock says – ‘style’ is important. Is is essential that one sets out your position unambiguously and then leave it at that. Both parties are then free to discuss or not. You are not compelled to engage.
However, I do perceive from many of your remarks that you seem to have a fixation with safeguarding that I suspect may have something to do with your personal experience within the Co E on this matter, particularly in view of the current controversy involving the ISB and the dismissal of two prominent members. To that end I surmise that in your mind, you are classifying ‘S’ in that category.
Yet I am afraid we do get to tell you if you are wrong. Simply saying that you think someone is a troll does not necessarily make them so. This platform is not an Anglican church community. Many of us are not even Anglicans. It is a forum for discussing questions related to the opening article published by IP although regrettably, it goes off at tangents fairly frequently. Personally I like to read other peoples comments and to see if they challenge my own and occasionally dissect them if I think they are remiss or incoherent. I learn a great deal here as well . There is also a great deal of room for humour.
Coming back to ‘S’ then I would not be in least be surprised it he concludes that you are trolling him because this is what it does seem to many of us who are reading these quite frankly bizarre exchanges. And if ‘S’ thinks you are a troll then unlike you, I am sure he would you give you the right to tell him that he is wrong.
Personally, I wish Ian would terminate comments on this thread as it is now going nowhere and unedifying to read.
I have to say that your responses to ‘S’ and others are some of the most strange I have ever read on this blog.
The most bizarre thing is that this started off as a disagreement about the constitutional limits of parliamentary sovereignty! I’m still bewildered how we got from that to ‘you’re a safeguarding risk’ and ‘defaming God’.
And the trolling of Andrew ? You remain indifferent to it.
You are in no position to criticise me until you address the issue of the abuse of Andrew
Peter – by asking Chris Bishop directly for his opinion, you forced him into a level of participation that he had not been intending – and he did you the courtesy of giving you a full response. This response included his ‘take’ on the trolling of Andrew Godsall – he made it clear that he doesn’t see it as trolling – and explained why.
I don’t think anybody here is indifferent to ‘abuse’ – that includes myself and it also includes Chris Bishop. The problem is that AG seems to have a – shall we say – more nuanced view – and hence his answers or statements sometimes aren’t so clear, while S seems to see everything black and white and uses a harsh forensic style to try and pin down a vague statement into something more specific.
I still have no idea what Andrew Godsall means by ‘Salvation History’ (although – to his credit – he has done his best to explain it) – but let’s not get started on this here.
The distinct lack of courtesy and arrogance that you displayed in your response to Chris, when he took the trouble to give you a serious, thoughtful, multi-line reply speaks volumes.
uses a harsh forensic style to try and pin down a vague statement into something more specific
Andrew Godsall has not been abused, but I will admit to badgering.
“I still have no idea what Andrew Godsall means by ‘Salvation History’ “
Jock it is a technical term used by German Theologians (hence called Heilsgeschichte). The explanation is quite basic. It simply means that the bible doesn’t just state the facts of what happened but its primary purpose is to explore the meaning of what happened in God’s saving plan for the world. So, the important thing about the virgin birth is how it was unique in history for enabling the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob etc to become human – one of us. Take John’s Gospel. Imagine that was the only Gospel you had. It says nothing at all about the Virgin birth but instead tells us something of the most profound and beautiful meaning of this unique birth. The history isn’t the focus. But what it means for our salvation is what is absolutely crucial. Our salvation history is that which matters primarily.
Hope this helps
S – I’d agree with that – ‘badgering’ is probably a correct description. More to the point – you do tend to keep trying long after we’ve figured out where you both stand (including AG’s creative lack-of-clarity on issues such as what he means by ‘Salvation History’).
Andrew – thanks for this. It seems we were writing at the same time – and my further response to S got posted after your reply to me.
What you say does make a certain amount of sense – and I still have (as a download) an article that you referenced on it on a previous thread.
But let us take the discussion in a different context – rather than within the context of the insane situation that has arisen here!
Jock you might also value this article
https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/salvation-history-heilsgeschichte
“(including AG’s creative lack-of-clarity on issues such as what he means by ‘Salvation History’ “
Jock this is a little disingenuous. I am not inventing anything called Salvation History. As I have explained, it is a technical theological term that enables us to understand that the the bible isn’t simply a book of historical facts. I mean unless you really do think there was a flood that wiped out all people apart from Noah and his family?
And I am not exercising any creative lack of clarity. Firstly, not all things are clear. That’s just a fact. Secondly, if you are not clear then all you have to do is ask or do a little more research.
Can I commend Tim Chesterton’s really helpful blog from an affirming evangelical perspective.
https://www.inclusiveevangelicals.com/post/from-rejection-to-affirmation-my-personal-journey
His own journey demonstrates how a black and white approach to scripture simply isn’t followed by anyone – even if that is what they think they are doing. Even S has conceded that the bible doesn’t tell us everything because ‘it was already long enough’ – though quite what reasoning that is for not telling us something we might need to know, I have no idea.
It simply means that the bible doesn’t just state the facts of what happened but its primary purpose is to explore the meaning of what happened in God’s saving plan for the world.
See, this is a brilliant example of why I do what I do with Andrew Godsall and why it is so vital that someone, not necessarily me, but someone, does that work.
Because I totally agree with the statement above: the Bible doesn’t just state the facts of what happened indeed, and its primary purpose is to explore the meaning of what happened in God’s saving plan for the world.
But the thing is that doesn’t actually seem to correctly describe how Andrew Godsall actually uses the Bible. Take Andrew Godsall’s description of the record of Jesus stilling the storm:
‘Was there an event when Jesus was in a boat with his disciples? Yes, it’s highly likely given that some were fishers, and that boats and trains and planes didn’t exist. Was there a storm? Highly likely. Did it die down? Storms generally do. Is that the significance of the story? No it isn’t. Is it a significant story that gives us some information about relationships between the disciples and Jesus and his future followers? Yes, as I have explained before, it is significant. Do I believe in Jesus because he can perform signs and wonders? No, I don’t. I believe in Jesus because he enables me – and you – to have a relationship with the father. Even in the midst of storms.’
https://www.psephizo.com/sexuality-2/what-are-paul-bayes-goals-for-the-church-on-sexuality/comment-page-1/#comment-396187
Now this to me reads (and if anyone else can read it differently then please tell me how) like Andrew Godsall thinks that the event in question did not actually happen as recorded. Andrew Godsall things that it may have been inspired by a real event — a storm which subsided — but that Jesus did not miraculously cause the storm to subside.
How to square this with the definition of ‘salvation history’ given above? Here’s where the ‘hiding in equivocation’ that I mentioned comes in. I think the key is the clause ‘doesn’t just state the facts of what happened’. Because I would read that as meaning the Bible does state the facts of what happened, accurately, but then goes on to ‘explore the meaning’ as well as stating the facts accurately. But Andrew Godsall seems to take it as meaning something like the Bible states some facts that happened accurately, and other ‘facts’ that are actually put in as metaphors or figures to ‘explore the meaning’.
See the difference? On interpretation says the Bible doesn’t just state the facts of what happened (but what facts it does state are accurate); the other says that the bible doesn’t just state the facts of what happened (some of the ‘facts’ it states what happened and some are actually made up to illustrate the meaning).
It’s like there are two possible definitions of ‘salvation history’:
a) The Bible accurately records real events which happened as described in the physical history of the universe, and these events, if correctly read, show the history of God’s saving plan
2. The Bible authors had an idea of God’s saving plan for the world, and when they wrote the Bible, they based it on real events, but they added and embellished certain details to illustrate what they thought God’s saving plan for the world is.
How you can see that these two are totally incompatible. You can’t possibly believe both of them! They are in fact direct opposites. Definition (a) starts from the physical facts and works from them to God’s saving plan. Definition 2 starts with a preconceived idea of what the lan is, and them makes up the details to illustrate that idea.
So it’s vitally important, when someone says ‘the Bible is salvation history’, to pin them down to which of the two they mean. Because the first one is god and accurate; the second is an evil, pernicious and, yes, demonic idea that the Enemy has seeded to try to bring down the Church from within. Because the second one says, ‘you know what? It doesn’t matter if any of this stuff actually happened, what matters is what it means to you.’
And this is why I go so hard on the virgin birth. Because it’s true that an ‘important thing about the virgin birth is how it was unique in history for enabling the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob etc to become human – one of us’. But an equally important thing about the virgin birth is that a miracle occurred within Mary’s womb where the normal laws of the natural universe were suspended, and that if modern scientific measuring equipment were able to be pointed at Mary’s womb at the right time it would have recorded Y-chomosomes forming themselves out of nowhere, an egg being fertilised without a sperm, and cell division beginning with no genetic material from any human male present.
Because if that didn’t really happen as a real physical event in the real history of the world, then all of Christianity is a lie and we are, as Paul put in to the Corinthians, of all people the most to be pitied, for all our hope is in an illusion and when we die that will be the end of us.
So anyway I invite Andrew Godsall to state if I have made any errors in my reading and if so spell out — clearly and without any ambiguity! — what my error is. Or to explicitly state whether when Andrew Godsall writes ‘salvation history’ the meaning is (a) or 2.
Andrew – thanks for this – you actually substantiate (rather than otherwise) the main point – which is that you take a broader view, that not everything is clear – while S sees binary yes/no answers and does a relentless forensic cross examination until he gets them. It’s completely clear how this creates a situation where, in the initial stages, an exchange is interesting, but how it can rapidly degenerate into a bad tempered exchange where there is more heat than light.
But – as I indicated – I’d rather continue discussion on the substantive points (about Salvation History) on a different thread with a greater level of normality. This thread seems to have become ever so slightly insane.
THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CANON B2!
This has everything to do with you thinking you are a policeman, ‘S’.
I can’t believe this absolute clusterf**k is still going on! It’s become surreal.
You are now, as I type, on 135 posts in response to this article (or rather, not in response.
Fortunately for you, I am not the moderator of this site. But would it be fair to observe that for a person looking for comments on the Canon B2 article, and having to wade through almost 400 posts irrelevant to the article itself, it gets a wee bit hard to see the wood for the trees? When you post (and police) with this degree of frequency, doesn’t it strike you that you may be ‘dominating’ and kind of disrespecting the author and everyone else?
I got pulled over here the other day for a dozen comments (I was analysing the actual article, section by section). Fair enough. I accepted the moderation, and that maybe I was being too dominant, and withdrew. You post 135 comments (so far)…
I’m not calling you a troll. That would only kick off yet another thread. I will not be replying further. It’s a basic internet rule, whether it’s you who’s a troll or anyone else:
“Do – Not – Feed – The – Troll.”
Comments on Andrew Goddard’s article have been nuked. Congratulations.
So when Andrew Godsall says he is being trolled that matters to you not at all.
Why would that be ? ?
Presumably because when Andrew Godsall says that, Andrew Godsall is factually incorrect.
Andrew is not factually incorrect. Many of your posts, S, are textbook definition of trolling.
Andrew is not factually incorrect.
As I pointed out, ‘trolling’ is insincerely and dishonestly putting forward arguments one does not hold, in order to provoke a reaction; and that I have never done to you.
cf http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/T/troll.html
Trolling is when someone posts or comments online to ‘bait’ people, which means deliberately provoking an argument or emotional reaction. In some cases they say things they don’t even believe, just to cause drama. In other cases, they may not agree with the views of another person or group online, so they try to discredit, humiliate or punish them. This may include online hate – personal attacks that target someone because of their race, culture, religion, gender, sexual orientation or disability. The troll may also encourage mob mentality, urging others to join in the attack so it becomes a pile on.
Trolls often post under a fake name or anonymously, so they can say things without being held responsible. This can make them feel more powerful and less cautious than they would be if they were talking to someone ‘IRL’ or in person. This makes it difficult to identify who actually left the post or comment.
Trolls also often try to downplay the impact of their behaviour, claiming anyone who’s upset by their posts or comments is overreacting. They may say it was just a joke, or the person who they targeted needs to toughen up. This can make the person who was trolled feel even worse.
Textbook definition and exactly what S does here
Trolling is when someone posts or comments online to ‘bait’ people, which means deliberately provoking an argument or emotional reaction.
Which I have never done to you. Every comment I have addressed to you has been designed either to elicit information about your ideas (which is difficult and requires perseverance as you persistently refuse to give straight answers to straight questions, or resort to equivocation to hide what you are actually saying), or to point out the logical inconsistencies in your ideas so that no one else falls for them. Never have I ever attempted to provoke an argument, much less an emotional reaction — emotion has no place in debate.
So even by that definition, I have never ‘trolled’ you.
S – the very fact that you frequently will post things like ‘unless you confirm explicitly such and such a thing I will then say such and such about you’ is classic trolling behaviour. You have done it on this thread and many many times.
I am not going to continue any debate with you.
the very fact that you frequently will post things like ‘unless you confirm explicitly such and such a thing I will then say such and such about you’ is classic trolling behaviour.
No, it isn’t; it’s necessary to get you to to spell out what you actually think, due to your refusal to give straight answers to straight questions and your hiding behind equivocation; and that in turn is necessary in order to expose the logical inconsistencies in your ideas so that no one else falls for them.
(And indeed to expose when you are being dishonest, such as claiming to believe in the virgin birth but not actually believing in it).
S
Neither Andrew, nor anyone else on this site owes you an explanation for their beliefs and reflections on scripture and tradition. No one appointed you the arbiter of orthodoxy, which is just as well, since someone who doesn’t recognise that St Paul was a mystic nor understands and chreishes the revelations of mediaeval mystics has no right to act as a guardian of Christian tradition. You have your particular model of fauth which undoubtedly suits you and which will, no doubt, guarantee your salvation since you appear to hold a contractual soteriology.
I cannot even see why you are so invested in the future of the CoE since you don’t seem to be a ‘member’ of it. I can only agree with others that you take a particular pleasure in trolling and gaslighting others. That is yours and Ian’s concern and, if he permits you to continue, that’s none of my business.
But you have been recognised for what you are. A few people who agree with your take on faith may continue to engage with you in good faith; the sensible people will either ignore you or continue to highlight your inadequacies.
Neither Andrew, nor anyone else on this site owes you an explanation for their beliefs and reflections on scripture and tradition.
Then they are free to ignore me. I can only ask questions and point out what conclusions can be drawn when people do not answer or avoid them; I have no means to force anyone to respond.
You have your particular model of fauth which undoubtedly suits you and which will, no doubt, guarantee your salvation since you appear to hold a contractual soteriology.
Are you suggesting that different people can be saved by different means? Because you seem to be suggesting that but that would be, you know, very unorthodox. Ephesians 2: 8-9, Article 28
No, S, your inferences drawn from what people say or don’t say are yours alone. Because you conclude that X believes or doesn’t believe something does not mean that others agree with your – sometimes eccentric – interpretations.
You seem to think silence as a response is a gotcha; believe me it is either weariness with your gaslighting or the sudden recollection that we have better things to do on a sunny Sunday than give credence to the outpourings of trolls.
Because you conclude that X believes or doesn’t believe something does not mean that others agree with your – sometimes eccentric – interpretations.
Correct. Which is why I always set out my reasoning in detail so that anyone who reads it can see whether I have made any logical errors.
Incidentally If anyone does find I have made any logical errors I hope they would be kind enough to point them out so that I can correct them.
But if I haven’t made any logical errors then — by definition — my conclusion must be correct.
Andrew, I do owe you an apology, though I have acted out of good intentions.
The things which S says about you make me physically sick. He uses the language of demons. You and I both know where the demon is in this matter and you are not the problem.
I do hope that he has now revealed himself for what he is and that others will now expel him until and unless he repents
I really sorry that I have caused such monstrous behaviour from this man towards you
He uses the language of demons.
Gosh. Was C. S Lewis a troll, too?
Thank you Peter and I appreciate your concern. Just the sheer number of comments that S makes suggests that they have issues. And the sheer number they make are an absolute indication of trolling.
And even now you will see the classic troll behaviour that ‘of course I never troll anybody’, belittling other people and the points that they wish to make.
And even now you will see the classic troll behaviour that ‘of course I never troll anybody’
Denial of the crime is proof of guilt? How Stalinist of you. Would you like me to confess to killing Kirov too?
Peter, You are neither being personally vilified or excoriated on this site. Your assessment is simply being disagreed with.
And this site is not ‘evil’.
You, Jock and s have done much much more than “disagree” with me.
The gaslighting on this site is extraordinary.
You, Jock and s have done much much more than “disagree” with me.
If that’s true you will be able to point to specific examples of such. Please do or withdraw the accusation.
And this site is not ‘evil’.
It is quite plain though (which is a good thing, I like a nice clean design).