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.
There is no need to use B2 to approve the prayers of blessing for homosexual couples. The blessings have already been approved by a simple majority of Synod and it confirmed no change to holy matrimony being between a man and a woman (a change to which may have required B2).
Plus if the blessings went via the B2 route and even they were rejected by Synod as falling short of the 2/3 requirements be assured the Labour Party, which on most polls will almost certainly win the next general election, will then consider imposing full homosexual marriage on the Church of England as the established church via statute. That would of course change Church of England doctrine automatically anyway. Labour MPs like Bradshaw and Bryant were already considering pushing for that if the Synod had not offered any recognition for homosexual couples.
In theory evangelical churches could even be found to then have broken the Equalities Act by refusing to perform homosexual marriages for Christian homosexual couples if such marriages were imposed on the C of E by statute (unless clear exemptions were used)
You might as well write as if you are in China! Does man dictate the will of God? Did the Russian Revolution destroy God’s church? It matters not what man wants – which is mainly to align with sinful thinking and deeds. It matters what God calls his church to be.p – and that is set apart from the world – to be Holy as He is holy. “do not follow the sinful desires of your own heart”.
To Tricia :
Amen!
The words ‘head’, ‘nail’ and ‘hit’ come to mind.
To Pellegrino
I read a piece this morning where a statement had been made in the UN that religious freedom to disagree with LGBTQetc would be removed! we had better start preparing for a fight! And going underground! One world Government is on its way.
Only the UN Security Council can make declarations that are binding on all UN member countries, and its mandate does not extend to their domestic policies.
What happens in the General Assembly of the UN is not binding. So we can ignore this organisation, which is a deplorable democracy of dictatorships (witness the disgusting regimes which have chaired its Human Rights Council/Commission).
Only the UN Security Council can make declarations that are binding on all UN member countries,
And frankly those aren’t all that binding.
Certainly the UN isn’t going to invade anywhere off its own bat to enforce them.
Thanks, Tricia.
Keep fighting the Good Fight !
God bless you.
“One world Government is on its way.”
You’d have to inhabit a pretty restricted information bubble not to observe that this is indeed the trajectory of where we’re heading. None of us can predict the future exactly but global control by the elitists who inhabit the UN/WEF/WHO is a vision which they themselves (and their supporters in national governments) no longer try to hide. Of course they have no democratic mandate whatsoever. On the other hand we’re talking about fallible human beings; perhaps they’ll fall out big time amongst themselves or perhaps the mass of ordinary people will wake up and take action. And then there’s God: he can allow the judgement we all deserve to take its natural course or he can choose to save us from it (if we repent) and sow confusion among the elitists just as he did at Babel.
And that’s where we Christians who can see what’s happening need a) to keep ourselves informed, b) to be praying, c) to be sounding a warning to those around us, d) to use the democratic process – if only by supporting politicians and public figures who have more influence than we ever will.
There’s no denying a sense that things globally are coming to a head. What distinguishes it from the many horrific times that people have faced throughout history is the super advancement of technology (eg digital and medical control of people, and AI) which gives tools of total repression to people who’s vision is to reimagine planet Earth according to their own bleak atheistic creed.
These are grim times for those of us who view our temporary earthly home as amazing just the way God created it, and look with disbelief into the minds of those who think they can improve it according to their own bleak and soulless image.
Good points DON (BENSON);
cf. Luke 17:26-30.
The ‘apokalupsei’ of Messiah Jesus is getting closer.
God bless you, Don.
You’d have to inhabit a pretty restricted information bubble not to observe that this is indeed the trajectory of where we’re heading.
Rubbish.
None of us can predict the future exactly but global control by the elitists who inhabit the UN/WEF/WHO is a vision which they themselves (and their supporters in national governments) no longer try to hide.
So? That’s what they want. But it’s not going to happen. The global elites want to run the world, yes, obviously, they aren’t exactly secretive about that; but the gap between wanting and having is big and, in this case, insurmountable.
In other evangelical churches or the Roman Catholic church maybe. Not in the Church of England which as England’s established church is ultimately responsible to Parliament and the King as its Supreme Governor who can in turn change its doctrines via statute law as they wish
Not in the Church of England which as England’s established church is ultimately responsible to Parliament and the King as its Supreme Governor who can in turn change its doctrines via statute law as they wish
T1 doesn’t want Christianity; T1 wants a State Shinto for England.
Wearily I reply to your fiction.
First, no, the prayers are not yet approved. It was approved that the Bishops could continue to develop them (so long as they didn’t contradict the doctrine of the church). They will be coming back to Synod for final approval.
Secondly, Even labour would hesitate before blowing the establishment of the CofE out of the water. Because that is what that route would do. It would simply precipitate immediate disestablisment.
Thirdly, the doctrine of the CofE is not in fact decided by Statute, nor by Synod, but, as the law of the land declares in Canon A5:
‘The doctrine of the Church of England is grounded in the Holy Scriptures, and in such teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church as are agreeable to the said Scriptures. In particular such doctrine is to be found in the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, The Book of Common Prayer, and the Ordinal.’
Fourthly, your point about being contrary to the Equalities act by refusing to perform marriages is valid. Bring it on, I know that the Spirit will give me the testimony and support I need.
It wouldn’t precipitate disestablishment, as Synod has already voted to approve blessings of homosexual couples. It would likely lead to many evangelical churches being forced out of the Church of England but tough if they refused to accept the blessings compromise that may be the result. Most liberal Catholic C of E churches would fully support a Labour government allowing even homosexual marriages not just blessings in their church and would have no problem with the C of E following the example of their Anglican cousins in Scotland and the US and the established Lutheran Church of Denmark and the Church of Scotland and some Methodist churches which already do allow homosexual marriages in their churches. While also inheriting C of E assets too
Parliament can ultimately interpret scripture for the established Church as it wishes in line with Canon A5, Labour MP Chris Bryant already has said Jesus never opposed homosexuality. The King and Prince of Wales are lgbt friendly too, homosexual Stephen Fry one of the King’s closest friends and regular Highgrove invitee
May I recommend the film Peter’s Friends in which he stars?
That’s not going to happen! And the fictitious differentiation between ‘Holy Matrimony’ (marriage as defined by the church) and ‘marriage’ (as defined by the state) will never stand up in court. To push it all through would require rewriting the canons (which treat ‘marriage’, ‘matrimony’ and ‘holy matrimony’ as identical terms) & that would require a 2/3rds vote in Synod (which would never happen).
Many thanks for this collection of articles. It should worry all us, wherever we stand on this debate, that the house of bishops are prepared to override past precedent to bring about a outcome they have already decided.
T1. You appear to be unaware of the role and responsibilities of the judiciary in this Country.
I anticipate you will declare that no issue there arises because the judiciary will certainly speak with one voice in deferring to Ben Bradshaw in all matters.
Your inhabit an entirely fictional world
Clearly you don’t. We have no written constitution, the supreme power in the UK is Crown in Parliament and English judges therefore must defer to statute law
We have no written constitution, the supreme power in the UK is Crown in Parliament and English judges therefore must defer to statute law
This is true; T1 is correct that nothing constitutionally stops Parliament from eviscerating the Church of England and turning it into State Shinto, and T1 would definitely prefer that to having an actual Christian Church of England.
The question is whether a Starmer-led government would have the political will to push it through. I, personally, rather doubt it.
I never heard such rubbish. Judges and juries have been defending the rights of the individual against the state for centuries.
Judges and juries have been defending the rights of the individual against the state for centuries.
They have, but in Britain, Parliament is supreme. We don’t have a ‘balance of powers’ system like in, say, the United States of America. A British judge cannot simply strike down an Act of Parliament because they consider it wrongheaded.
Although they can get pretty creative when Parliament passes Acts which are incompatible with existing legislation — Factortame and all that — and the chances of any foreseeable Parliament containing the knowledge and legal skill necessary to unwind establishment without simply slamming a wrecking ball into the constitution and creating hundreds of such ambiguities are scarcely measurable even in quantum terms.
Judges do not defer to statute. They interpret and apply it to the facts before them.
You clearly have no idea what you’re talking about and are simply trying to bait people.
Judges do not defer to statute. They interpret and apply it to the facts before them.
The notion we have “no written constitution” is piece of legal gibberish.
You clearly have no idea what you’re talking about and are simply trying to bait people.
For info: the latest updated prayers (as of 26th May) can be viewed here:
https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2023-06/GS%202303%20Living%20in%20Love%20and%20Faith%20update.pdf
Gosh, there is some legal gibberish being talked on this site.
“Parliament is supreme”is one of the statements people make and then sit back and revel in the sense they have just delivered the ultimate legal commentary.
It’s a meaningless assertion. If you think Parliament and or the King have the authority to impose Same Sex Marriage on the Church of England you are either a fantasist or you know you are talking nonsense and just think you are baiting people
Constitutionally they do as even S agrees, certainly if the blessings only compromise is rejected
Of course they do.
I think we’re parliament not so chaotic right now there would be serious questions asked about sexual abuse in the CofE and perhaps even a new law making it a crime for religious institutions to ignore sexual abuse.
I think it’s unlikely, but parliament could easily pass a law to extend the equality act so that it becomes illegal to refuse to marry a couple on the basis of orientation and illegal to fire/not hire someone because they are in a same sex marriage.
I think we’re parliament not so chaotic right now there would be serious questions asked about sexual abuse in the CofE and perhaps even a new law making it a crime for religious institutions to ignore sexual abuse.
Actually the Home Secretary has already announced the government will introduce exactly that law, see https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-measures-to-tackle-child-sexual-abuse
I think it’s unlikely, but parliament could easily pass a law to extend the equality act so that it becomes illegal to refuse to marry a couple on the basis of orientation
It could, but it’s unlikely to do so as it would be in clear contravention of Article 9 of the ECHR; plus of course it would apply equally to, say, mosques and do you think any UK government is ready for what would happen if they tried to make it illegal for a mosque to refuse to conduct a same-sex wedding?
and illegal to fire/not hire someone because they are in a same sex marriage.
This is already illegal (Equality Act).
S
I agree creating the law would be unlikely, but I am saying parliament do have that power, including over the CofE.
It’s not illegal to fire someone for being in a SSM if they are employed in a religious institution. This is effectively what happened to Jeremy Pemberton and others – they lost employment because they got married
It’s not illegal to fire someone for being in a SSM if they are employed in a religious institution.
There is an exception to the Equality Act for certain posts where the employment is for the purposes of religion and therefore the applicant can be required to conform to the doctrines of the religion.
But surely you’re not suggesting getting rid of that exception? That would mean that an atheist could apply to be a minister of a church which doesn’t allow atheists to be ministers (so not the Church of England, which is perfectly happy to have atheist vicars and bishops) and, when told they aren’t suitable because they are an atheist, could sue.
Surely you agree that that would be a ridiculous thing to allow, atheists suing churches for not being allowed to be ministers?
The number of weddings and services of dedication the Church of England conducts is in consistent decline. Since 2012 it has fallen from 57,600 to 26,500 in 2021, tantamount to an annual decline of 6%.
The decline is even more rapid than than the ~3% decline in regular Sunday church attendance. Stats may be found in Statistics for Mission 2021, p 15. The rate of decline can be approximated by a straight line and since 2012 has been running fairly constantly at just under 3500 a year (ignoring 2020, the year of covid). If the trend continues, there will be zero Anglican marriages by 2030, seven years from now. This whole debate is in danger of becoming redundant.
This whole debate is in danger of becoming redundant.
Gosh.
2021 we were still under severe Covid restrictions so not a valid comparison.
However does make clear Church of England parishes need the extra fees from blessing services for homosexual couples as well as blessings for divorced couples to adapt to the times. Unless you are vicar of a very pretty, centuries old village or central London church or chaplain of an Oxbridge college or a wedding is in a cathedral, all of which still have high demand, the average Church is not getting the numbers of weddings it used to.
Indeed the average couple getting married in the UK now will get married in a registry office or hotel in a civil ceremony and have no Christian service at all
In 2019, there were 48 same-sex weddings in ‘religious premises’. That’s not a market that anyone is going to profit from.
Yes because they were banned from having them in the Church of England
Yes because they were banned from having them in the Church of England
You think there’s a huge pent-up demand for same-sex weddings in the Church of England? Approximately how many per year do you think there would be and what is your evidence for that figure?
At least percentage wise as many as the percentage of homosexuals in the population. Indeed given the number of homosexuals who are vicars or organists or sing in the church choir, if anything there are more homosexuals involved in the Church of England today than the population as a whole
At least percentage wise as many as the percentage of homosexuals in the population.
It seems reasonable to assume that there are the same proportion of people who are attracted to the same sex in the membership lf the Church of England as in the general population. But that wasn’t the question. The question was how many same-sex weddings would be wanted.
About 3% of the general population gives their sexual orientation as lesbian, gay or bisexual. That’s about 2 million people. There are about 6,000 same-sex weddings a year. That means about 0.6% of the same-sex attracted population gets married each year (because each wedding involves two people).
The Church of England has has about 600,000 regular attenders. That means about 3% of that will be attracted to members of the same sex, or 18,000 people. That means between about 50 – 120 same-sex weddings, depending on how many of the couples are both attenders.
So no, it’s not going to make any noticeable difference to finances.
In my experience there are more homosexuals involved in the Church of England in the choirs as organists or even as vicars than there are homosexuals in the population at large percentage wise. Probably about 5-10% of regular Church of England churchgoers, more in liberal Catholic churches are homosexuals in committed relationships.
They mostly want their relationships blessed in the churches they attend, so yes there is significant demand for it
Probably about 5-10% of regular Church of England churchgoers, more in liberal Catholic churches are homosexuals in committed relationships.
Evidence for that implausible claim?
Richard Brown
In the UK there are very few religious institutions open to marrying same sex couples.
Although I’ve been unable to find any statistics I would expect the proportion to be much higher in the US. In fact I personally know at least three couples who did.
What nobody seems to be writing about is WHY are the Bishops and Archbishops so afraid to use the Canon B2 route.
Could it be the abuse of power that they are guilty of (in the very same week that the Archbishops’ Council sacked all the independent members of the Independent Safeguarding Board)?
Could it also be that, when they fail to muster the necessary 2/3 majority in all the Houses that it would reveal just how out of touch they are with the people who pay for them, the laity, who make up around 98% of the Church of England but who are allowed just one House out of three in General Synod?
What nobody seems to be writing about is WHY are the Bishops and Archbishops so afraid to use the Canon B2 route.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20415689
Obviously.
All 3 houses voted for women Bishop’s, just the House of Laity by less than 2/3. As a majority of Synod voted to bless homosexual couples, albeit also by less than 2/3
Well technically the wording of (e) in the motion which was carried by Synod was to:
“welcome the response from the College of Bishops and look forward to the House of Bishops further refining, commending and issuing the Prayers of Love and Faith described in GS 2289 and its Annexes.”
So the vote was conditional on what the House of Bishops brought back to Synod after refinement, and note the term ‘Prayers’ rather than ‘Blessings’. What is consciously being avoided in the now revised prayers (as of May 26) is any mention of marriage or sexual relationship, or the idea that God blesses those two things.
Of course, social conservatives in the Church know full well (as do the bishops) that many of those who receive these prayers will be in intimate sexual relationships, and that their whole relationship will be perceived in that context by friends and family present: that it’s marriages that are in many cases really being celebrated. You only have to look at the wording: Celebrating a couple’s ‘love, faithfulness and commitment… their life together…’ ” I offer myself to you…” “my delight in you”… “unite them evermore in your love”… “keep them faithful to the commitment they have made to one another”… not to mention a prayer over rings.
Nevertheless, Synod has asked for these prayers to be brought to them again, at which point there will presumably need to be a further vote. Synod has the right to ‘commend’ these prayers, providing after prayer and reflection they do not believe the prayers contravene ‘essential doctrine’. Technically they may not, but even I as a social liberal admit the technicality masks what’s really being affirmed, and it’s a bit of a pantomime and balancing trick.
Of course, I did not want prayers (which I think are a sop to everyone) and I will only be satisfied when gay and lesbian couples are allowed to be married in the CofE like everyone else. But that’s for the future. Right now, the Prayers of Love and Faith have not been finally endorsed.
Right now, the Prayers of Love and Faith have not been finally endorsed.
That’s a change of tune. And given that we know you are right with your friends the bishops and in on their plans, does this, I wonder, indicate cold feet in the palaces over the strategy?
That would be interesting, wouldn’t it?
I am not in on anyone’s plans.
I am not in on anyone’s plans.
Oh, dear, were you too indiscreet last time so they cut you out?
All 3 houses voted for women Bishop’s, just the House of Laity by less than 2/3
And the bishops were massively embarrassed in front of their worldy friends in the media, and they don’t want that ever to happen again. So they have learnt the first lesson of democracy: never have put anything to a vote unless you’re sure you will win it.
Synod seems to have predetermined that the PLF will be issued by simple ‘commendation’ (presumably by the Archbishops unless a firm majority can be found amongst the HoB) – as per GS 2303, see https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2023-06/GS%202303%20Living%20in%20Love%20and%20Faith%20update.pdf, p.6:
“ e) welcome the response from the College of Bishops and look forward to the House of Bishops further refining, commending and issuing the Prayers of Love and Faith described in GS 2289 and its Annexes;
f) invite the House of Bishops to monitor the Church’s use of and response to the Prayers of Love and Faith, once they have been commended and published, and to report back to Synod in five years’ time.” (from motion 2289 as amended in Feb)
It is suggested that any commendation, must comply with the conditionn that the prayers do not either explicitly (or, it is submitted, impliedly transgress the church’s unchange doctrine of marriage) otherwise the commendation will be ultra vires, the Bishops and unlawful. They can not, of themselves, commend a breach of doctrine. They have no discretion to do so.
In legal terms the prayers are only what they say.
They don’t mention marriage or sex at all.
I agree with you Geoff that they’re a juggling trick, because everyone at most services where they are held will understand the words in the context of the whole of a couple’s relationship, and in most cases that will include marital love and sexual intimacy. They are a balancing trick, to avoid deciding actual doctrinal change, to kick the marriage issue down the road, and to try to keep both different groups inside the Church of England.
I don’t like that approach, but it is what it is.
But just because a congregation may interpret the words as ‘implicitly’ alluding to sex and marriage does not mean in a court of law that the prayers are saying that. The prayers have been very carefully evolved to avoid any mention to sex and marriage. Therefore I believe any challenge would fail, and I’m pretty certain that the bishops know that; just as I’m 98% certain they will not accommodate a ‘third province’ approach to these prayers.
They will proceed with the prayers, and the framework will be: you can use them if you want, but you don’t have to.
Fine tuning (for example, can a gay couple draft in an affirming priest if the resident minister declines to say the prayers in the couple’s parish church) awaits the detail currently being worked on to provide ‘Pastoral Guidance’.
In legal terms the prayers are only what they say.
Explicitly not the case. Paragraph (g) of the Synod motion says ‘ the final version of the Prayers of Love and Faith should not be contrary to or indicative of a departure from the doctrine of the Church of England’.
So Synod was explicit that what matters is not just what the prayers say but what they indicate too.
They are a balancing trick, to avoid deciding actual doctrinal change, to kick the marriage issue down the road, and to try to keep both different groups inside the Church of England.
In other words, they are a dishonest attempt at constructive ambiguity.
Therefore I believe any challenge would fail
The courts have a term for people who try to use careful riding to suck to the letter of an agreement while negating its intention. That term is ‘bad faith’. The bishops are acting in bad faith by trying to abuse the process, and if a challenge ever got in front of an actual city rather than a panel packed with bishops, the court would see that and act accordingly.
careful riding to suck to the letter
Read: ‘careful wording to stick to the letter’.
It is suggested that subjective interpretation and pragmatism would not be part of the canons of constrution (interpretation) that would be uppermost in any Court’s decision.
subjective interpretation and pragmatism would not be part of the canons of constrution (interpretation) that would be uppermost in any Court’s decision.
The question would surely be the same as in a libel trial: how would this have been understood by the intended audience?
It seems pretty clear the intent is that the intended audience, ie, the congregation at one of these blessings, understands the service to be equivalent to the blessing of a marriage — see the prayer over rings, for example.
See https://www.carruthers-law.co.uk/our-services/defamation/determination-of-meaning/ for how courts consider meaning.
Note: ‘ The hypothetical reasonable reader is not naïve, but he is not unduly suspicious. He can read between the lines. He can read in an implication more readily than a lawyer and may indulge in a certain amount of loose thinking but he must not be avid for scandal and not select one bad meaning where other non-defamatory meanings are available.’
So if the clear implication of the prayers to a reasonable member of the congregation is that the Church of England approves of a same-sex marriage then the court will hold that to be the meaning, even if the bishops have been careful to (dishonestly) try not to say that out loud.
It is also suggested that the Burden of Proof would be on the Bishops.
While I’ve been out of the law for a long time, a test in the law of negligence, was not a pesonal subjective one, but a question of what a “reasonable man” would consider to ne negligent, that is an ordinaryember if the public, quaintly described a “man on the Clapham omnibus”
The wording of the prayer must not indicate to an ordinary member of the public that the prayers are not a blessing of the union.
That is, would an ordinary member of the public think what they were seeing and hearing was a marriage ceremony with a new form of words.
It is also suggested that the Burden of Proof would be on the Bishops.
Whichever way the burden of proof fell, the main benefit would be that having to argue a single meaning would destroy the bishops’ efforts at dishonest constructive ambiguity: they would not be able to keep claiming to one side that the prayers meant one thing and to the other that they meant another.
The Church of England does NOT approve same-sex marriage and that is well known.
Not yet, anyway.
The prayers take account of that fact in the exactitude of their words.
They are about other aspects of people’s relationships.
It is not the fault of the Church if people want to ignore the clear legal position, or the clear absence of any endorsement of marriage in the prayers (which the Church has expressly stated cannot happen in Church because gay and lesbian people don’t qualify for ‘Holy Matrimony’.
Now I agree that the prayers could send out a discreet signal in the hands of some priests/ministers: “We accept you and your partner are precious, and we wish we could go further and bless your marriage, but we can’t”…
But nowhere is gay marriage or gay sex being affirmed in these prayers. And the well-known law also makes the Church’s position clear.
The whole thing is a balancing act, and I don’t like it, but the intention is to show welcome, not endorsement of what the Church clearly does not endorse.
What individual priests/ministers think and believe is a very different matter, but providing they adhere to the letter of the prayers, they are doing no wrong.
For those who don’t like the prayers anyway, just don’t say them.
But the proposed prayers
‘The prayers take account of that fact in the exactitude of their words.’ But they don’t—and that shows the dishonesty of what is being proposed. The bishop of London, when asked *in Synod* said that no prayers drew on the existing marriage liturgy. A written answer had already been given showing that 15 did.
It is not the fault of the Church if people want to ignore the clear legal position, or the clear absence of any endorsement of marriage in the prayers […]
Now I agree that the prayers could send out a discreet signal in the hands of some priests/ministers
Tell me, do you think that would work as a defence in a libel action? ‘Your honour, it’s not my fault if some people want to ignore the clear absence of any explicit statement that X is a kiddie fidget in my article. Now I agree that I deliberately wrote it so that some people who do believe X is a kiddie fiddler could use it to send out a discrete signal to that effect. But that’s not my fault, even though I wrote the article knowing that would happen and deliberately made sure that nothing in the article ruled out that impression, even if nothing explicitly stated it either.’
What do you mean ‘it is what it is’?
Just admit that that is a perfectly meaningless phrase, so why use it?
It is what is is, and what it is is dishonest.
So it must not happen in any honest institution.
I really think you are not hearing want you don’t want to hear Susannah.
This has nothing to do with what the minster believes or doesn’t or their conscience permits or doesn’t : it is a question of what ordinary members of the public would think they were witnessing…a marriage ceremony with different words, (even if they even could notice the difference, which may be doubtful).
Neither is it question of balance. The church’s doctrine remains unchanged.
As long as the words marriage are not there then there is no problem. Evangelicals must be warned however if they try and use the courts to stop prayers of blessing, the likely Labour majority in the Commons after the next election, pushed by Bradshaw and Bryant hard, will vote to impose homosexual marriage on the established church. Evangelical churches who fail to perform such marriages in their Church of England churches would then in turn potentially face court action from homosexual couples under the Equality Act unless clear exemptions in the Act
It’s difficult to tell if T1 is engaging in trolling or if he actually believes what he is saying.
There is not the remotest constitutional possibility Parliament could tell the Church of England it must conduct same sex marriages. It is pure fantasy.
Talking gibberish does not somehow turn it into something other than gibberish.
A law imposing homosexual marriage on the established Church of England voted on by a majority of Parliament and signed by the King would be statute law and override even the old doctrines of the Church of England (which Parliament would in turn anyway). Judges cannot challenge clear text in statute law, only amend common law
Parliament would in turn change the doctrines anyway
Cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo.
A constitutional law and CoE, cuckoo can be heard.
A constitutional law and CoE, cuckoo can be heard.
The thing is that technically T1 is correct to say that if the government passed a law it requiring the Church of England to perform same-sex marriages then that would be the law.
But this is kind of the same as saying that if the government built a bridge across the Irish Sea then it would be possible to drive from Belfast to Brighton. Yes, it’s technically true, but it ignores that the challenges would be immense, it would take massive amounts of effort and time, and if it wasn’t done properly the whole thing would collapse into a tangled mess.
Could Parliament turn the Church of England into a controlled state church with its doctrines dictated by government, like in China? Constitutionally, yes. Would a one-page ten-minute-rule bill from Ben Bradshaw do the job? Absolutely not. Would a Starmer government be up for the massive political and legislative challenges of doing so in a first term? Given they’re already backing away from House of Lords reform, which is something that fires up their base far more, highly doubtful.
But I can see bishops discreetly asking Parliament to repeal the legislation currently giving Church of England vicars exemption from the equality laws. That achieves what the Commons and the bishops both clearly want without any constitutional ructions. Then all faithful incumbents have to depart before a provocateur gay couple turns up on their doorstep.
But I can see bishops discreetly asking Parliament to repeal the legislation currently giving Church of England vicars exemption from the equality laws.
Um vicars don’t have exemption from the equality laws? Exactly which sections of which Acts do you mean?
Of course they do. Otherwise they could be sued for refusing to officiate at gay weddings – and you can bet a gay couple would sue them. Do you not remember the phrase “quadruple lock” from Cameron’s legislatoin a decade ago?
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/dec/11/gay-marriage-quadruple-lock-religious-groups
The lock was indeed enacted: here is news from 4 years ago of a gay peer who tried to get the protection removed:
https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2019/8-february/news/uk/peer-tries-to-remove-c-of-e-s-same-sex-marriage-exemption
Of course they have exemption. Otherwise gay couples would have used equality legislation to demand gay church weddings for 10 years now. Look at this:
https://cofe-equal-marriage.org.uk/equal-marriage-the-key-to-the-lock/
Look at this:
Right, the relevant bit of legislation there is https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/30/section/2/enacted which doesn’t exempt ‘Church of England vicars’ from equality laws. It states, and amends the Equality Act to make clear, that no person (other than a registrar) may be compelled to carry out a same-sex marriage. That doesn’t exempt ‘Church of England vicars’, it applies equally to Presbyterian ministers, Baptist pastors, Rabbis, Imams, etc etc.
Do you really think any government would be prepared to open up the possibility of Imams being forced to conduct same-sex weddings? You think they hold their lives so lightly?
Dear S: I said that Churc h of England incumbents have exemption from the equality laws. You said they didn’t. They do. Now you are changing the goalposts by talking about Catholic priests and imams.
It would be a simple matter for Parliament to pass an amendment to the 2013 Acts stating that the exemptions in Section 2 do not apply to the Church of England. And simple for the bishops to ask Parliament. In case you are thinking it is unlikely that the CoE would be singled out, first it is singled out already by being Established, and second there was serious consideration given to singling it out when the Act was drafted.
I said that Churc h of England incumbents have exemption from the equality laws. You said they didn’t. They do. Now you are changing the goalposts by talking about Catholic priests and imams.
My point is that they don’t have any social exemption from the equality laws by virtue of being Church of England incumbents. They just have the same protection from being compelled to carry out same-sex weddings that everyone (other than registrars) has.
It would be a simple matter for Parliament to pass an amendment to the 2013 Acts stating that the exemptions in Section 2 do not apply to the Church of England.
Ah, I see the confusion. I thought you were saying that Church of England clergy had a special exemption due to being Church of England clergy, and that that special exemption could be removed. Whereas actually you were suggesting that Church of England clergy could be exempted from the normal protections that everyone has, and put in the same legal position as registrars. Yes that would be possible but it would be back to the same political and constitutional issue of Parliament effectively turning the Church of England into a Chinese-style state church with its doctrines dictated by the government of the day.
Technically it can in the UK if the laws Parliament has voted through are signed into statute law by the King
Can you imagine it, T1 –
” I’m sorry, but you can’t see the apostle Paul today – he’s engaged in political duties, and will be voting in the Roman Senate.”
The early Christian church was not the established church in Palestine and Judea, whereas the Church of England is the established church in England responsible to Parliament and with the King as it Supreme Governor
Repeating a false claim does not make it true.
Parliament could not pass a statute which required everybody over the age of fifty to kill themselves. (If you are going to insist Parliament could technically do so, you have lost all contact with reality).
More likely is that you will produce an explanation as to why mandatory suicide is a different category to SSM. You will without doubt at all accept that there are limits to the laws which Parliament can pass.
You think SSM is within that limit which is your choice.
It facile to assert “there is no boundary” on the basis the boundary goes where you want it to go.
Parliament could not pass a statute which required everybody over the age of fifty to kill themselves. (If you are going to insist Parliament could technically do so, you have lost all contact with reality).
Laws can’t ‘require’ people to do anything, so that doesn’t even make sense. All laws can do is specify punishments for people who do or don’t do certain things.
You will without doubt at all accept that there are limits to the laws which Parliament can pass.
No, I won’t. As I wrote above, if Parliament can pass a law making it an offence to leave one’s home it can pass any law.
Of course passing a law, and being able to enforce it, are different things. For instance there is a law against theft in the UK but it is not enforced. But the law exists, so theft is de jure illegal even though it has de facto been decriminalised in most of the country.
Your claim is that Parliament can pass a law to any effect. You now assert laws cannot require anything.
They can only specify punishments.
Law can and does stipulate what is required. It also stipulates in some circumstances what the consequences of a breach might be.
You throw legal terminology around without any actual grasp of legal principles.
I am mystified as to what you think your facile comments add to the discussion.
This notion that “Parliament is supreme” means that Parliament can tell anybody to do anything is legal balderdash.
True, Parliament can’t ‘tell anybody to do anything’. But it can make any law it wishes, however ill-advised or unconsidered.
If Parliament can make it illegal to leave your home — as we all discovered it can — then indeed it can make any law.
What complete nonsense.
If you think Parliament can pass a statute which requires everybody over the age of fifty to kill themselves you have lost your grip on reality.
If you think Parliament can pass a statute which requires everybody over the age of fifty to kill themselves you have lost your grip on reality.
Parliament could certainly pass a law with the effect of making it an offence punishable by death to be over fifty.
Firstly nobody doubts that Parliament could reintroduce the death penalty.
Secondly, in 1931 Parliament debated a Bill that would have mandated forced sterilisation of those deemed ‘mentally defective’. So Parliament can certainly make such sweeping laws about entire classes of people.
Of course politically it would be impossible to introduce the death penalty for anyone over fifty — pensioners vote, and in great numbers. But constitutionally there’d be nothing stopping it.
If you think it is constitutionally possible for the UK Parliament to pass a statute that makes it an offence punishable by execution to live past the age of fifty you do not understand the constitution of this country.
In particular you clearly have not the faintest understanding of the role of the judiciary
If you think it is constitutionally possible for the UK Parliament to pass a statute that makes it an offence punishable by execution to live past the age of fifty you do not understand the constitution of this country.
Okay, you’ve asserted that enough without proving any supporting evidence. Now it’s your turn to explain what you think would stop Parliament from passing such a law. What do you think would happen?
S,
You’re right; although it is the people alone who are sovereign, parliament can in reality enact the most heinous legislation it wants subject only to the uprising of the people in order to remove it. In the absence of any reaction from the people, the only thing restraining parliament’s actions is the moral compass of members of parliament themselves.
I would suggest that the witness of Christians and the sense of moral goodness that their witness infuses throughout society should be a significant factor affecting the moral compass of our MPs. It’s partly because I’ve been observing a marked diminution in the expectation of Christians positively to promote their faith, wisely to apply it to human affairs in general, and negatively to challenge public opinion on moral issues that I fear the largely unopposed encroachment of global authority over Western nations (as I mentioned higher up on this page).
Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom: when that goes, people’s analysis, foresight, and good judgement can be seriously diminished. As things currently stand, there’s little that our parliamentarians might do that would surprise me.
You’re right; although it is the people alone who are sovereign, parliament can in reality enact the most heinous legislation it wants subject only to the uprising of the people in order to remove it.
You don’t need to tell me; tell Peter.
What complete nonsense.Parliament cannot make any law it wishes to
If you think Parliament can pass a statute which requires everybody over the age of fifty to kill themselves you have lost your grip on reality.
It can and if the King signed it it would be law and the judiciary would have to implement it. One would hope if public opinion opposed it the King would therefore refuse to sign it
One would hope if public opinion opposed it the King would therefore refuse to sign it
If the King did that then Parliament would simply remove him and find a new King who would, just like it did in 1688.
Judges do not implement law. They are not the servants of Parliament. They are a separate and autonomous authority within the constitution.
They interpret law which quite different. They can and do rule that statute is defective.
You are simply wrong in asserting that judges in this country would be required to “implement” a law to murder people. Judges would do no such thing.
You are holding to a position that is clearly preposterous because you are not willing to accept the flaw in your premise
Parliament cannot pass any law it wishes too. Just accept you were wrong
(But of course if public opinion really strongly opposed it then Parliament wouldn’t do it, because the MPs wouldn’t vote for it for fear of losing their seats at the next election — so the only chance of it happening would be if public opinion was in favour of it.)
They can and do rule that statute is defective.
They cannot and they do not. Point to one instance of this ever happening. You can’t, because it doesn’t, can’t and won’t.
They are a separate and autonomous authority within the constitution.
I think you have watched too much American television and seem to think that the British system works like the one in the United States, where judges are indeed a separate and autonomous authority within the constitution and can order laws they deem unconstitutional to be void.
But the British system doesn’t work like that. We don’t have ‘separation of powers’. The judiciary in the United Kingdom cannot overrule the legislature as the judiciary in the United States can.
That constitutional vandal Blair may have named his abomination ‘the Supreme Court’ because he had seen too many episodes of The West Wing and hoped the glamour would rub off but constitutionally it is nothing like the American one.
Parliament cannot pass any law it wishes [to]
Yes. It. Can.
Not if the King had public opinion on his side, he could simply dissolve Parliament, call a general election and a new Parliament in the Commons would be elected more in line with public opinion
‘They are a separate and autonomous authority within the constitution.
They interpret law which quite different. They can and do rule that statute is defective.’
Wrong. As S correctly states you do not understand our constitution. We are not the USA. Judges have zero power to overrule laws passed by Parliament and signed by the King. They can interpret laws yes but they cannot overrule what is clearly stated in statute law
Not if the King had public opinion on his side, he could simply dissolve Parliament, call a general election and a new Parliament in the Commons would be elected more in line with public opinion
If public opinion were against the law then a Parliament ready to enact it would never have been elected. Even to get into this situation would require public opinion to be at least indifferent and possibly actively supportive of the law.
And anyway the last time a King tried to go against Parliament thinking public opinion was on his side the King ended up having his head chopped off so I doubt Bonnie Charlie would jump at that.
They didn’t have opinion polls in the 17th century or even universal suffrage for general elections to determine public opinion as we do now
They didn’t have opinion polls in the 17th century or even universal suffrage for general elections to determine public opinion as we do now
So in universal suffrage were to elect a Parliament that passed a given law, there’s no way that public opinion could support the Crown refusing to give that law assent; by definition, if public opinion were that much against the law then it wouldn’t have elected the Parliament that made the law.
Not if the law was not in the manifesto it voted on
When is a blessing not a blessing? When it’s a jar.
This whole thing is so farcical. The CofE seems to want to not support gay equality, but is hoping the media won’t notice but then also wanting to appear to offer something, but hoping conservatives won’t notice that.
It’s all so dishonest.
When a church is a byword for dishonesty, corruption and abuse is it any wonder that attendance is in freefall?
‘It’s all so dishonest.’ I totally agree with you here Pete. The bishops and the archbishops are being completely duplicitous on this.
I’m not having a go, and I’m genuinely curious: where do ministers like yourself stand (in the context of what they regard as ‘completely duplicitous’ bishops) when it comes to their Oath of Canonical Obedience?
Does that oath mean that they must obey their bishops’ decisions and their authority? Or is there a ‘get out’ clause if they disagree with the bishops and think they are breaching established canon law? (In other words, can a minister assert “Because the Bishop(s) are contravening church doctrine, my oath does oblige me to ‘obey’ on a matter of disagreement with them”?)
Effectively: ‘If I think the bishop is wrong, I can disobey.’
Or at some point, does the minister resign on grounds of conscience?
I’m just sincerely curious about what you think, because it is quite odd-sounding to hear a priest charge the bishops with being ‘completely duplicitous’. Does that amount to a breakdown in communication, such that either the bishop must go or the priest/minister must go?
Would priests/ministers like yourself resign from the Church of England if these prayers were ‘allowed’ (as proposed)? At what point does ‘different opinion’ become insurrection and rejection of authority? If Synod and the bishops ‘commend’ these (allegedly duplicitous) prayers being allowed, but do not ‘authorise’ them, can you live with that or does it irrevocably subvert what you believe doctrine teaches, and should you consider your position rather than repudiate the bishops (given an Oath before God to be obedient)?
Are demands for new structures (affording so-called orthodox bishops for ministers like you, and your church communities) a red line? Is it, ‘Grant us this or we can no longer accept your authority and we will leave the Church of England?’
Like I say, please don’t be shirty with me for asking these things. We are talking about the future and integrity of the Church of England, and people (on both sides of this well-recognised divide) want to know where they stand. For a lay person like myself, it’s quite strange to hear language of the kind you use hear, and please note I have faced disapproval from my own liberal constituency for opposing these prayers myself, as I believe they side-step the real doctrinal issue, perpetuate a balancing act, and are insufficient for all parties.
But I am not a minister/priest sworn to obedience. Wouldn’t a cabinet minister resign on point of principle, rather than be associated with something they simply can’t accept? I’m asking ‘If assurances and structures of the kind conjectured by conservative evangelical groups are not provided, at what point does honorable resignation become (in conscience) compelling?’
Personally I am genuinely sorry for you, and for gay people, because the proposed measures seem a kind of political ‘fix’ which delays the key issues. But in the end, due process is going to run its course (possibly with legal challenges which I suspect will fail, but I may be wrong). And once due process has happened, at some point there is a crunch time for decisions, because a house divided against itself may not stand, and your charges against the bishops do appear like cracks in a wall already suffering from years of subsidence. I think the ‘PLF’s are an attempt to paper over the cracks (albeit there is sincerity in wanting to make gay people feel loved and welcomed, as you would agree).
I know you hate long posts, Ian, so you either will or will not engage, but I’m voicing genuine concerns I think many have, and the worries about schism, disorder, compromised consciences, and personal honesty are sincere.
typo para 2 – should read ‘my oath does not oblige me to obey’
Hello Suzannah,
I think you this is the elephant in the room in the CoE, not only in respect of the this matter, but it has been the subject of long threads between eg Phil Almond and Andrew G with others adding their pennyworth.
It starts
here with what you describe as a vow. The CoE seems to have jettisoned the very concept and at the outset jetissons, integrity, trust and accountability at its very foundations.
While my livelihood doesn’t depend on it, if I couldn’t come under the authority of a Bishop due to their beliefs ( if they could be ascertained in the camouflage) I’d not join or would leave.
However, if the Bishop’s were not adhering to their vows of office and the “Company” Memorandum and Articles of Association they are the ones who with integrity should resign ( as they would be operating ultra vires the company and their office) nor should they have joined up in the first place.
In a Company there would be processed for removal.
Geoff: “if I couldn’t come under the authority of a Bishop due to their beliefs ( if they could be ascertained in the camouflage) I’d not join or would leave.”
Thank you, and that would be integrity, though it might be costly. Cabinet ministers should do the same if they deeply disagree with a PMs policies. They should not remain part of a government they believe in conscience is doing something wrong.
For that reason, because I don’t in all conscience agree with the proposed prayers (which I regard as a political ‘fix’ and not a resolution of the real doctrinal issue) I took the decision to leave the Church of England last February.
I don’t share your views on sexuality, Geoff, but I recognise the deep reality of your Christian conversion. I guess I’m asking, is it right to stay in a Church if in conscience you cannot agree with the decisions of its leaders?
“it has been the subject of long threads between eg Phil Almond and Andrew G with others adding their pennyworth.
It starts
here with what you describe as a vow. The CoE seems to have jettisoned the very concept and at the outset jetissons, integrity, trust and accountability at its very foundations.”
Geoff I am sorry but you really haven’t read those threads if that is what you think. The discussion between Phil and myself has been on the very specific point of whether clergy are bound in making the oaths and declarations are bound by every one of the historic 39 Articles. Since the late 1960s it has been explicitly stated by the CofE that clergy are not bound by every one of the 39 Articles. I have quoted the reasons for this and the various links etc ad nauseum and I am not going over the ground on this again. The most recent paper on the matter may be seen here here:
https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2022-06/PROCLAIMtextWEB.pdf
That makes it clear that the CofE has most certainly NOT abandoned or jettisoned vows. Any suggestion that it has is simply trolling.
The CofE is a broad Church and the Act of Settlement is one indication of that breadth. But there have been others since 1701 – and that is hardly surprising.
Please stop this facile nonsense about that which is absolutely clear.
Since the late 1960s it has been explicitly stated by the CofE that clergy are not bound by every one of the 39 Articles.
And the dishonesty is that, if that we take the intention, they should have either stopped requiring the clergy to take the view entirely; or they should have rewritten it to make clear what clergy were really vowing. To instead leave the vow seeming like it did before, so nobody raised a fuss about the Church of England changing what its clergy believed, but to change the interpretation of the words instead, is deception most foul.
Then again ‘S’, though people like citing Church of England original fidelity from the good old days, what (for example) do you have to say about wording in the Book of Common Prayer:
Under baptism of infants, ‘the Priest shall say’:
“This child is by baptism regenerate… merciful Father it hath pleased Thee to regenerate this infant with Thy Holy Spirit… he being dead unto sin, and living unto righteousness…”
Now all these words are authorised by the Church of England in the Book of Common Prayer… this wording does not sound very ‘Reformation’ to me. To me it sounds closer to the catholic view of infant baptism.
And after the Gospel reading:
“Doubt ye not therefore, but earnestly believe, that He hath favourably received this present infant… and will give unto him the blessing of eternal life…”
“Seeing now, dearly beloved brethren, that this child is regenerate… let us give thanks.”
This leans more toward catholic than protestant theology. Bear in mind that this infant baptism is itself mandated in the 39 Articles:
“as a sign of regeneration and new birth… the promises of forgiveness of sin, and our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed. Faith is confirmed and grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God. The baptism of young children is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ.”
The Church of England, as we see here in the 39 articles, retains ideas that (as worded higher above) align with aspects of catholicism.
This leans more toward catholic than protestant theology. Bear in mind that this infant baptism is itself mandated in the 39 Articles:
The wording in the Book of Common Prayer certainly does seem to indicate a Roman view of sacramental efficacy; however importantly the Articles do not even imply this view and indeed explicitly rule it out in article 25: ‘ And in such only as worthily receive the same they have a wholesome effect or operation: but they that receive them unworthily purchase to themselves damnation, as Saint Paul saith.’
Pædobaptism itself is of course perfectly consistent with Protestant theology; Calvin himself was in favour of it. The issue with the prayer book wording is only that is implies the sacrament works by itself rather than being a symbol of something internal; but the Articles make it clear that’s not the meaning.
See: https://buriedandraised.org/baptism-in-the-bcp/
Does that oath mean that they must obey their bishops’ decisions and their authority? Or is there a ‘get out’ clause if they disagree with the bishops and think they are breaching established canon law?
A soldier is under no obligation to obey an illegal order and indeed may be under an obligation to disobey. Same applies surely to those in the Lord’s Army.
Thank you. Interesting analogy.
I’ll take it on a bit.
Say your country decided to invade another country. Your army superiors’ orders may be legal (according to the rules of that army) but you may simply feel in conscience it is wrong to follow them.
Should conscience be a justification for insubordination?
I ask because I think the Prayers (and who knows, maybe gay marriage further down the slippery slope) manage to get implemented, using the ‘legal’ processes of the organisation. They may be approaching such a situation in the Church of England over these prayers, and yet what to do about conscience?
Of course I am also aware that resignation and leaving the Church would in effect play into the hands of those sometimes called ‘revisionists’ who might then embed their influence in the remaining church establishment.
On the other hand, being part of an organisation that goes ahead (contrary to your deep conscience) may also compromise a minister/church community if they remain ‘in’. We’d expect a cabinet minister to resign if the PM introduced a policy which caused terrible harm. Should ministers/priests resign as a matter of conscience if they believe their leaders are doing wrong things?
In your example of the soldier, should the soldiers put down their weapons and walk off, or grin and bear it, or turn their weapons on their superiors and set up a rival army?
Obviously I’m talking about what happens if a structured settlement (and alternative oversight/autonomy) is not offered to CEEC and other crew like them.
At that point, an outcome (pushed through using church process) would be imposed on the Church, against the views of a socially conservative (but they would argue faithful) minority.
Is it best to wage war of attrition inside the organisation or, as I suspect some commentators here may feel, best to have left the Church of England yesterday rather than tomorrow.
If ‘conservative’ ministers lead their local churches into their own unilateral organised structure – a possible scenario – does that really mean they are outlaws from the Church of England, and have effectively left it in favour of the Anglican Communion.
Don’t get me wrong on all this. I am against Oaths to obey bishops and archbishops. I believe a Christian should only make an Oath between their own conscience and God.
Say your country decided to invade another country. Your army superiors’ orders may be legal (according to the rules of that army) but you may simply feel in conscience it is wrong to follow them.
You’re mixing up lots of different things there. And indeed the analogy is not exact. In the case of the Church of England what we’re talking about is a division of the army which has effectively ‘gone rogue’ and the Battalion commander has started issuing immoral orders that go against the General’s standing orders.
In such a case the junior officers are faced with the dilemma of respecting the chain of command and obeying the orders of their mutinous superiors, or remaining loyal to their ultimate commander-in-chief.
Which is exactly the position Christian ministers in the Church of England find themselves now the bishops have gone rogue.
Should Christian ministers have made an oath of obedience to their bishop in the first place?
And should they mutiny and join a different ‘brigade’ (to use your illustration)?
That challenge obviously lies ahead, if the Prayers are endorsed without the offer of structural distancing and alternative oversight, thereby effectively imposing the ‘permissive’ plan on them whether they like it or not?
When do they say ‘enough’ and leave to form their own unilateral structure, aligned to parts of the wider Anglican Communion?
Or if it was you, would you leave already?
Should Christian ministers have made an oath of obedience to their bishop in the first place?
Personally I think the whole episcopal structure is un-Biblical so I’m the wrong person to ask.
And should they mutiny and join a different ‘brigade’ (to use your illustration)?
Clearly yes. The only question is whether the Church of England is salvageable or whether it is rotten to the core and must be destroyed. I presume that is what the Christians within it are currently deciding; and I urge them not to delay their decision out of a fear of open confrontation, as to do so will play into the hands of the Enemy’s fifth column.
‘Personally I think the whole episcopal structure is un-Biblical so I’m the wrong person to ask?’ So why be in the Church of England which is based on the apostolic succession of its Bishops? You would be far more comfortable as a Baptist or in the Free Church with no Bishops
TI you must understand that S is not a member of the CofE. Their comments here are intended to correct those of us who are members of the C of E. However, many of their comments amount to the text book definition of trolling but Ian is not minded to act on that.
It’s all so dishonest
It’s constructive ambiguity. Dishonesty is the point.
S
For a great many LGBT people associated with the church, ambiguity has been a real problem because they’ve found they’ve had to guess what’s acceptable and what’s not and it changes from week to week. One week its ok to identify as gay, the nextvits a grave sin etc.
Churches usually deliberately try to conceal their policies and teachings on LGBT people because they know that their straight congregants don’t agree.
That’s kind of what we see here. Who even knows what these blessings even are?!
Are you trying to suggest, Peter, that the Church of England’s primary task should be to ensure that people have a genuine spiritual rebirth (1 Peter 1:23), that empowers them through the holy Spirit, to be free from the law of sin ? (Romans 6:1-23; 8:1-17)
The Church of England’s primary role is to be a Catholic but Reformed Church that applies reason to faith as our established church. It is not primarily an evangelical church like Baptist, Pentecostal or charismatic churches even if it has some evangelicals in it
The Church of England’s primary role is to be a Catholic but Reformed Church /i>
Says who? You? Sorry but I don’t think your opinion carries any weight here.
That certainly wasn’t the opinion of the people who set the Church of England up, who wrote its Articles or its liturgies.
Yes it was, the Elizabethan settlement settled it as a Catholic but Reformed Church after the initial post Reformation swings to being a Reformed Church under Edward VI and a Catholic Church again under Mary I.
Yes it was, the Elizabethan settlement settled it as a Catholic but Reformed Church
It’s actually a Protestant church, as per the coronation oath (and as such it is part of the Church Catholic, as indeed are all other Biblical Protestant denominations like the Baptists, Presbyterians, etc).
But that’s by the by; the point is that the primary role of the Church of England is to proclaim God’s truth to the nation.
Even if it is not officially stated, it is a standard comment that the CofE is “catholic in its orders and reformed in its theology.” It is not an unreasonable statement, even if it lacks the minor orders of the Roman church, and its theology as expressed in the BCP and 39 articles would not satisfy a dyed in the wool Calvinist.
Thank you David. What a very sensible comment. There are those here who think that the Westminster Confession is somehow what members of the CofE hold to without ever having understood the difference between the Articles and the WCF.
There are a good few wiki lawyers on this blog who have some garbled nonsense in their mind which they puff up with a few lawyer words off Wikipedia and churn out some truly eye watering balderdash. My current favourite is S digging his heels in and absolutely insisting that Parliament has the constitutional powers to pass the death penalty on anybody over the age of 50.
I was at a major conference recently at which this site was referenced as a reliable source of information. If you believe in fairy tales could you please find somewhere else to entertain yourself.
The blog is a reliable source but the comments may or may not be.
As Christopher states, the comments section is a fairly wild place at times, with very often more heat than light being shed. There seem to be some characters who are like stuck records. Perhaps others regard me as such 😉
Inevitably, it is the controversial issues which attract the most comments, with most commentator reiterating established positions.
David, the problem is there are people on the site who appear to hold orthodox views whilst also obviously being keyboard warriors who could probably do with some mental health support.
It sends out the message that Christians are a collection of truly strange and disturbed people.
Ian is an important national theologian and his site does have good articles now cited by a national body.
Ian really needs to either moderate it – which he will not do because he had better things to do with his time – or shut down the comments section.
It’s an embarrassment at best to have it alongside an orthodox theological resource.
Yes indeed. I think a lot of people will read the articles, and not bother reading the comments…at least I hope so…
🙂
It is still not a great look to have a collection of cranks and obsessives as your site buddies
I provide much-needed context and sensible corrections
You should log off and touch grass every so often
They are a collection of cranks and obsessives
This is not a playground.
Your analysis is ignorant and lacks intelligence, knowledge and understanding. You are rude to people and respond with petulance when you are corrected.
You have not the faintest idea how to conduct yourself in relation to others in a seemly and courteous manner.
I am rebuking you because you purport to defend the orthodox gospel. Unbelievers would be scandalised by your language and speech.
Ian is probably right that nobody will be reading what you say. However, we are in a really really serious situation in defending the Gospel in this country. This site has been directly cited by national leaders struggling to safeguard the Gospel.
If you are a believer you will moderate your behaviour and act with humility.
If you respond with your characteristic petulance, your display yourself to be an unbeliever.
Your analysis is ignorant and lacks intelligence, knowledge and understanding.
You still haven’t replied to https://www.psephizo.com/sexuality-2/prayers-processes-and-power-b2-or-not-b2-that-is-the-question-part-3-canon-b2/#comment-427608
If I’m so wrong you spot be easily able to give an answer.
If you can’t, maybe it ain’t my analysis that’s ignorant and lacks intelligence, knowledge and understanding.
Hm?
Your have not asked the question to which you refer in order to learn.
You asked the question because you want to display your own superiority.
That is the reason why your question does not merit a response
This is not a playground. Stop behaving like a child.
Your have not asked the question to which you refer in order to learn.
I have asked the question because your inability to answer it proves that you are wrong.
If you have an answer then I will obviously admit that I am wrong.
But if you can’t answer, as apparently you can’t, then everyone reading knows that you are wrong.
In particular regarding your comment ‘In particular you clearly have not the faintest understanding of the role of the judiciary’ I would refer to the following from https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/role/sovereignty/ :
‘ Parliamentary sovereignty is a principle of the UK constitution. It makes Parliament the supreme legal authority in the UK, which can create or end any law. Generally, the courts cannot overrule its legislation and no Parliament can pass laws that future Parliaments cannot change. ’
You clearly think this is wrong — that ‘the judiciary’ can and will overrule Parliamentary legislation. So I think the onus is on you to explain why you think that this is wrong, don’t you?
You make the most extraordinarily authoritative statements about the law yet you clearly neither recognise nor understand an entirely rudimentary piece of technical language relating to the law.
The term “generally” does not define a universal set. It defines a partial set, though one that contains the majority.
If the meaning was that courts never overrule the legislation it will surprise you to learn that it would have said the courts never overrule the legislation. It says no such thing because as I have now told you a dozen times that is not how our constitution works
It says no such thing because as I have now told you a dozen times that is not how our constitution works
You’ve repeated that over and over, yes, but without providing any actual storing evidence. Apparently you think mere repetition constitutes an argument, but I assure you it does not. Not in a court and not on the inter-net.
The ‘generally’ the refers to the fact that the courts have held that some Acts of Parliament have special ‘constitutional’ status that means they cannot be implicitly repealed. In that single circumstance, courts have overruled legislation.
But this is not the courts overruling Parliament , because the Acts so deemed ‘constitutional’ were passed by Parliament in the first place, so the courts are merely implementing laws passed by Parliament. And also the ‘constitutional’ Acts can be repealed by Parliament if it explicitly does so — as the European Communities Act 1972, one of the ‘constitutional’ statutes used by courts to overrule legislation, was repealed by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.
So once again I challenge you: provide one single example of a judge overruling Parliament, ie, doing the thing you say judges can do of ‘rul[ing] that a statute is defective’. You cannot provide an example because such a thing cannot happen.
(Of course judges can and have ruled that a statue is so badly dated that it does not in fact mean what Parliament intended it to mean; but that is not what you are claiming, which is that judges can nullify a correctly-drafted, perfectly clear statute just on the grounds that they don’t like it.)
You are wrong; admit it.
You want to put words in my mouth which I have not said so you can hug yourself with joy at the idea you have won.
I have never at any point said judges can or do overrule Parliament.
You just make stuff up to prove to yourself you are clever.
You are actually just a troll.
You do not deserve any further response
I have never at any point said judges can or do overrule Parliament.
I’m sorry, was this whole discussion not about you claiming that it was wrong to suggest that Parliament could pass a law dictating the doctrines of the Church of England because, and I quote, ‘ Judges do not implement law. They are not the servants of Parliament. […] They interpret law which quite different. They can and do rule that statute is defective.’
Source: https://www.psephizo.com/sexuality-2/prayers-processes-and-power-b2-or-not-b2-that-is-the-question-part-3-canon-b2/#comment-427645
That’s a direct quotation so no ‘put[ing] words in my mouth which I have not said’ and absolutely no ‘mak[ing] stuff up’.
You have been asked to provide just one example of this thing you say judges can and do do, ‘rule that statute is defective’ (direct quote from you!) ever happening. You cannot. This is because it has not happened and cannot happen.
You do not deserve any further response
It would be nice if you admitted you were wrong, but going silent so everyone can see you have no answer will do.
Are you serious ? Do you not know the difference between legislation and Parliament. I said judges can and do rule that legislation is defective – because they do. I did not say judges over rule Parliament. You made that up.
If you do not know that judges can and do find statute to be defective you are either being obtuse or are looking this stuff up on Google just before announcing a constitutional principle and doing your ludicrous “admit your wrong” routine
Do you not know the difference between legislation and Parliament. I said judges can and do rule that legislation is defective – because they do.
Then provide an example. Or admit you are wrong. Or simply stop repeating your baseless claims.
I did not say judges over rule Parliament.
You claimed that if Parliament passed a well-drafted law that would result in the execution of large numbers of people then judges would refuse to apply it. That would be judges overruling Parliament. So yes, you did claim that judges could overrule Parliament.
If you do not know that judges can and do find statute to be defective you are either being obtuse or are looking this stuff up on Google just before announcing a constitutional principle and doing your ludicrous “admit your wrong” routine
Then why won’t you give an example?
Do try to respond to what I actually say rather than making up nonsense about the American system and engaging in a fatuous attempt to pretend I have said something I have never said.
Do try to respond to what I actually say
I have responded to everything you have written; are you going to provide an example of this thing you say can happen, or are you going to admit that you are wrong?
You have provided no credible basis for claiming that Parliament could pass a law requiring the execution of large numbers of people.
Your claim is preposterous. It’s not necessary for me to advance a counter argument in the face of your absurd claim.
This set of exchanges is over.
You are a malicious troll
You have provided no credible basis for claiming that Parliament could pass a law requiring the execution of large numbers of people.
Yes, I have. I have pointed to the evidence that ‘Parliament [is] the supreme legal authority in the UK, which can create or end any law.’ (https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/role/sovereignty/)
I have pointed out that in 1931 Parliament debate a law which would have mandated the sterilisation of large numbers of people — a short step from mandating their deaths, as was seen in Germany.
Parliament certainly has the constitutional authority to pass a law requiring the execution of large numbers of people.
The would be obvious political problems, and there may be problems finding people to enforce the law — though the evidence of Germany suggests that finding willing enforcers might not be as hard as one would like to believe.
But on a purely constitutional level, Parliament absolutely has the authority to pass such a law and judges would have to apply it, as they have to apply all statute law.
It’s not necessary for me to advance a counter argument in the face of your absurd claim.
You have no counter-argument because you are wrong. If you weren’t wrong you could easily provide a counter-argument; you have had enough chances. Your failure to do so shows that you are wrong.
My wife used to say the prayers at school assembly, if she paused for too long the whole school would say “Aaaaaaamen”.
Let me say, on behalf of everybody here assembled, cross legged , “Amen” .
I’m going out side, I may be some time.
Peter: I have tried many times to address the trolling of S. Ian is the only person why has any power to do anything about it but refuses to address the matter. I would add that Ian has on several occasions publicly asked S to provide a valid e mail address and they have refused to do so. They post exclusively anonymously and these two things contravene Ian’s comments policy about comments.
I agree with you entirely that S is aggressive. The only response is to simply ignore their comments and effectively block them. That will eventually have some effect.
Andrew, you and I have disagreed a good deal elsewhere but I stand with you and admire your integrity for calling out abuse.
If everybody on this site refused to respond to s he would still continue his malign activity. The point is it would then be clear to any one else – and in particular to women – that he was an ostracised individual.
By engaging with him – other than to confront his appalling behaviour – people give a platform to harm others.
It needs to stop.
Peter, Andrew: 1) Ian Paul is the only person who can do anything about the comments here.
2) There is only one other site where I occasionally drop comments: Craig Murray’s blog where (politically) I tend to agree with (almost) everything he says (I disagree with him on Scottish independence – but that’s about it). One recent piece that I thought was particularly important was this one:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2023/06/assange-an-unholy-masquerade-of-tyranny-disguised-as-justice/
and I think it is of relevance here when discussing the nature of government, Parliament, what they can get away with, the role of the courts.
One important point is that Craig seems to have a reasonably large team moderating the comments – which is probably necessary if you don’t want it to get out of hand.
I see similarities. On the one hand, much argumentative rubbish gets posted on C.M.’s blog, but on the other hand, there are sometimes some beautiful nuggets which make it all worth while (for example, when he was still alive, Clive Ponting – whistleblower- in – chief sometimes dropped comments.
You are right Peter. I should, but I’m not up to it. I came here originally with a desire to explore Revelation and it’s allusions. I keep getting sucked in to things beyond my interest or understanding…
I end up being the fool in answering back.
Steve, it was not my intention to discourage you from engaging with the excellent material Ian Paul produces.
It is clear from your reply that you are a mature and decent person. I wish you well and understand that tackling malice cannot be placed at everybody’s door.
Peter – it’s also counterproductive. One malicious comment gets a sharp response, which in turn receives a sharp reply – what do you think the comments thread will look like after a long exchange generated in this way? You see the outcome above – and it should be clear to you that it isn’t a useful way to proceed. It does nothing to solve the problem – but rather exacerbates it.
You are entirely wrong. You create a false equivalence which itself is recognised and condemned as complicity in abuse.
S sets out to provoke and antagonise. His comments are obviously aggressive.
You want to then say the people he targets are somehow part of the problem
One of the all too obvious problems on this site is that it is populated by middle aged men who – with some honourable exceptions – are still living in the world of forty years ago
If you see abuse do something about it – don’t claim it’s not actually there
Peter – well, I see you’re still engaging with him even though all the points in your discussion have been made zillions of times …. yes, I do see this as part of the problem.
You will obviously reject the truth because you are fixated on being right but the reason why Parliament cannot pass and law – such as mass murder – is very straightforward. Parliament is subject to the sovereign and the sovereign is subject to the bible. The bible rules out murder.
So how do you think this would work in practice? Parliament passes such a law (including repealing the Human Rights Act and withdrawing from the ECHR). The first person who refuses to apply it is arrested, charged and brought to court.
What do you think the judge is going to say? ‘I refuse to apply this law because it contravenes the Bible; I direct the jury to find you not guilty’? Really? You think a judge would say that? If a judge did say that do you not think the case would be appealed on the grounds that judges are supposed to apply the law of the land, not the Bible; and that the appeal on those grounds would immediately be granted and succeed? Of course it would.
If that’s really your sole argument — that Parliament, constitutionally, can’t pass laws that go against the Bible, and that if it tried then judges would refuse to apply them in the grounds that they go against the Bible — then I’m afraid it is you who has detached from reality.
Do you ever listen to anything anybody says ?
The sovereign could not give assent to a law requiring statutory murder, or any other grotesque anti biblical law.
That is what I said because it is true
Your ignorance is astounding. The bible is fundamental to the legal system in this country, going back eight hundred years.
It is at the very centre of the constitutional settlement seen most recently before a public audience measured in billions at The Coronation.
The sovereign could not give assent to a law requiring statutory murder, or any other grotesque anti biblical law.
The sovereign gives assent to any law properly passed by Parliament. The sovereign does not decide which laws to give assent to and which not based on their content. So yes the sovereign could and would give assent to such a law, if it were properly passed by Parliament.
And if the sovereign did refuse royal assent to any such law properly passed, Parliament can remove the sovereign, appoint a new one, and then have new one give royal assent, just as it did in 1688.
But I note you have moved the goalposts. Yesterday you were claiming that the judiciary would stop such a law; now it’s the sovereign. Assuming this is because you realise you have lost the argument about judges ‘rul[ing] statues defective’ it is I suppose progress of a sort.
It is at the very centre of the constitutional settlement seen most recently before a public audience measured in billions at The Coronation.
A constitutional settlement written by Parliament, eg in the Coronation Oath Act 1689, and therefore amendable by Parliament. That’s the point. Parliament could, if it so voted, rip all the pillars that support our constitution asunder. Constitutional vandal Blair tried his best to do so. It would be an awful thing to do, but there is no legal power in the land that could stop it.
You do not understand the difference between a Bill and an Act.
Parliament has no power to change the constitutional position of either the sovereign or the bible.
You obviously use Google a good deal. I suggest you investigate what is required for a Bill to become an Act. I will get you started. Parliament has no power over the transition.
Parliament has no power to change the constitutional position of either the sovereign or the bible.
Of course it does. Parliament has the power to pass a law abolishing the monarchy and making Britain a republic. There are even active campaign groups trying to get such a law passed.
I suggest you investigate what is required for a Bill to become an Act.
I know exactly what is required: a vote in both Houses of Parliament that the Bill become law, and royal assent, which the sovereign cannot refuse. Indeed these days the process of granting royal assent doesn’t even involve the sovereign at all. You need to look up the Royal Assent Act 1967.
Peter – you have correctly identified a problem and I’m not complacent about it. But if you think your strategy is effective, then I’d ask you to look back over all your comments on this thread and ask yourself what good it has done. I’d say the answer to is rigorously zero.
Having said that, the internet (and social media) is not the real world – and you seem to think that it is.
You really do need to get some training and education in safeguarding.
Social media must be treated as a place in which safeguarding principles apply within the Church of England.
If you do not know that you are not a fit a proper person to have any responsibility within the Church of England.
It is clear from your final sneer that you are not a person who should be in any position of trust.
People like you are the reason for the horrific scandal engulfing the Church of England in regard to safeguarding.
You should hang your head in shame, which of course people like you never ever do
Peter – respectfully – look at your own tone and ask yourself whether it is having the desired effect – or whether it is throwing more sticks onto the fire. You are beginning to trade insults – and I don’t intend to match like-for-like (although I could if I wanted). I’d probably agree with you on what you want to achieve – I simply disagree with you on a tactical level of how to achieve it – and you’re in danger of lowering yourself to the level of those you have a problem with.
I’m doing nothing of the sort.
Open your newspaper. Switch on the radio. Watch the news.
The church is done with looking the other way. It means saying difficult things. Sometimes very difficult things.
The fact you think it’s just me speaks volumes. It’s not just me.
Listen to what is being said. Accept you are wrong. Change your attitude. Confront abuse. Do it all today.
The weakness of the C of E, and I speak as a member of 40 years and a licensed minister for 20 years is that it is an “established church” (established on the fact that Henry VIII wanted to divorce his wife for a younger version and hope of an heir). The fact that we are linked to Government has made a place of prominence and significance whilst Christianity was the official and dominant religion. For the past 30 years or more it has been quietly sidelined. Hymns are no longer sung in all schools, psalms are not read and we have generations of unbelief. My grandson informed me (he is fifteen) that he was the only one in the religious studies class to put his hand up to believing in life after death. It’s a straw pole, but telling. The weakness of the C of E is now showing as opposed to the Catholic Church which has unchanging doctrine. The Catholic Church has withstood disgraceful Popes over the centuries because doctrine is unchanging. The C of E is a construct of the king and there have been many faithful believers over the centuries who did amazing works. I especially have an interest and love for the Celtic Church which was subsumed by the RC church at the Synod of Whitby in the 600’s. Whatever happens with the C of E, God is sovereign and he will raise up those believers to make the church anew.
Tricia,
Like you I have found insight and vision in the history and literature of the Celtic Church, not least it’s awareness of, and relationship with, God’s beautiful creation. I grew up in my formative years in Dal Riata (indeed in the very glen where the early Scottish rulers were crowned) and I think there is much to learn from the early Celtic Church’s spirituality and its connections with land and people. Of course, I also *love* Iona.
Just on one thing, about hymns in schools. As we now live in a much more ethnically and religiously diverse society, and speaking from over 25 years experience as a teacher and school nurse, permit me to just say I take your point (used to love singing hymns first thing to kick off the day) but I do think there are some sensitivities these days, for example where there are a high % of children from Muslim families. I suppose one could argue at Faith schools people know where they’re sending their children. At the same time, as the state is funding even Faith schools, and also parents have limited choices in a lot of catchment areas, I think the growing ethnic and religious diversity in this country does make the singing of Christian hymns a little bit more sensitive.
How does a Muslim child feel if the dominant songs each morning are contrary to what their parents believe at home?
I’m not criticising the beauty of the hymns – I love them myself, including many of the traditional ones. As a child I loved ‘For All the Saints who from their labours rest’ and used to sing my little heart out. Music is so important. I just think life isn’t as simple as it used to be.
Best wishes any time you travel to seats of Celtic Christianity!
Muslim schools would have readings from the Koran, so why can’t Christian schools have readings from the Bible and Christian hymns?
Yes. If Muslims do it, it is fine for Christians to do it.
Exactly
The Church of England has many schools are I am involved with Open the Book taking a team into 2 schools to dramatise the bibles and bring them alive. There are many such teams around the country and the children love the interactive nature and remember the stories. If you send your child to a C of E school you should expect a Christian education.
I attended one of the first comprehensive schools in the 1960’s. We had 2 assemblies as there was and still is a large Jewish population since the second world war. If there are sufficient numbers in a school to warrant different assemblies it should be dealt with in such terms and not by dumbing down the Christian heritage of this country.
The fact the Church is established also ensures it is connected to the community around it not just insular. Involved in local fetes and Remembrance Parades and offering weddings and funerals to all who live in its Parishes
Good morning Peter. I don’t know if I’m right in supposing you are also the Peter who posts at ‘Thinking Anglicans’ but if you are I have very much appreciated many of your posts there (even if some of our theology is different) and I have found you temperate and a valued more conservative voice on what is mainly a theologically ‘liberal’ platform.
I think the concerns you raise here are worth making.
To be fair, I’d like to thank Ian (a) for the bible studies (b) for letting people with diverse views post here.
What I do think is that people sometimes post too much. I will offer my own ‘mea culpa’ on occasions. Mostly I don’t really post here much, but sometimes I try to really engage with the article. Last week I wrote about 10 long posts working down sections of the article. But they were long posts, and Ian asked me to desist and I did. I believe in freedom of speech, and oppose cancel culture, but it’s a problem if a few voices dominate.
To be fair on myself, I was sincerely trying to engage with the article, but anyway I stopped when told to (once I’d read the request). In contrast under this present article a single person posting 50 comments (not many addressing the article itself) seems to me like excess.
What I’d advise as a mature approach is that below the line, Ian sets a limit of posts any one person may submit (how many? 5? 10? 15?) after which they get sanctioned for three or four weeks by not being permitted to post.
That way any of us who get carried away, and crowd out other quieter people, learn to be disciplined by the site owner. But if that was to happen, I do think it would need to be even-handedly applied.
If the same person re-offended, then the discipline could be 3 or 4 months instead of weeks, and next time 3 or 4 years. People would soon dial it down.
I also agree that there can sometimes be quite hostile language here, lacking in grace and civility. I guess I feel that some categories of people may experience that more than others. One thing I discovered when I transitioned in 2008 was how some men can be very dismissive to women, talking down, or talking across us to other men. U have to say I’ve experienced that here sometimes, and possibly even more because being transsexual certain people may ‘look down on me’ even more. Of course, politely, people should be able to critique theological views they don’t agree with. But as I think you’ve noted, fairly, sometimes the climate can get a bit hostile or dismissive here.
To be fair, I expect some tricky interface, given my diversity contradicts people’s deeply-held views. And also to be fair, I’ve also experience quite a lot of patience from a number of contributors here. I was really moved by an exchange of comments with Geoff last week on conversion, and it did move me to reflect deeper on things. There used to be a contributor here called John who I also miss, for his underlying kindness. Sadly a small number of people can get pretty snarky. Anyway I post here from time to time (on scripture articles, not just the LGBT ones) because I don’t think I (or anyone) should be chased away.
In the end, Ian has absolute right to run his website his way according to his rules. The site is worth it for the weekly bible studies which are nearly always excellent and very thought-provoking.
And with that, I conclude my posts on this page!
a limit of posts any one person may submit (how many? 5? 10? 15?) after which they get sanctioned for three or four weeks by not being permitted to post.
Turn it into a game whereby those who don’t have any good arguments try to get their opponents to go over the line so that they can have the last word, you mean? That sounds like an absolutely terrible idea.
Peter – as I indicated very clearly above, I don’t put you in the same bracket as a relentless troll. As I said before – it is a question of strategy and tactics and not the overall objective – I think you got the tactics wrong – your approach clearly doesn’t work.
I am challenging you and others to accept you have a safeguarding responsibility whether you like it or not and the historic attitude of diminishing malice which you adopt has had absolutely horrific consequences.
If you chose to ignore that, my “tactics” are not therefore wrong.
If you point is I sustained a set of exchanges with a troll to leave him in no doubt he is an ignorant and malicious individual, I did that because it is the truth. Obviously it had no impact on him. Trolls relish being rebuked.
That does not mean saying nothing is the right “tactic”
Peter – I, for one, wasn’t attempting to diminish the malice – I was simply pointing out that I didn’t (and still don’t) think that your approach worked – or did any good. As far as safeguarding goes I’m probably in agreement with you.
Ian,
There do seem to be WordPress plugins for content moderation.
Yes, but I am not prepared to moderate every comment. I am going to delete a large number of threads here.
Some points/observations..
1. This site has been commended, nationally. Is it a presumption too far to say that whoever commended was aware of the comments section.
2 I came to this site through Alisdair Roberts site, when Ian was running his ( first?) Festival of Theology.
3 Comment on Ian’s theology, Biblical, liturgical discussions and liturgical are comparitively thin.
4 Biblical revision in the context of ssm, sss, stimulates the most comment.
5 Discussion is really at an end in regard to point 4.
6 As a former solicitor who engaged in criminal and civil court advocacy in an adversarial system, with at times robust exchanges I see that the whole question of biblical revision is reduced to adversial advocacy.
7 But that is not uncommon even in the realms of theology.
8 what frustrates me in particular is the scatter gun approach to comments and the off topic, tangential nature of many of them down rabbit holes of speculation and opinion. And I’m comparing this with civil court pleadings, with point, counter-point, admissions and where they are unanswered, they are deemed to be conceded without any formal admission necessary.
9 One tangent that has drawn Peter in is the question of Constitutional law. I studied Constitutional and Administrative Law in the first year of a law degree. I no longer have any reliable authoritative resource’s so would get drawn in save to .ake some basic points. 1. we do have a written Constitution, but it is not codified. 2 There is a separation of powers, including an independent judiciary ( with a long history of contentions with parliament.
In this question, I do not see that Peter has provided much authority referencing and has not really answered S’s points. S keeps to the points he makes until a conclusion can be made.
And the state Constitution is a question which overlaps the topic and questions of Jurisprudence.
10. One thing that S seems to do well is what litigators do, harness a record of correspondence, a paper, evidence, trail. Here it is a record of comments made.
11. Anonymity:
11.1 many of us here are named, but remain anonymous. Sure the question is not who you are, but it is a question of content.
12 Andrew G would love to see S removed. S has pushed AG’s arguments on the Bible and scripture and how is is used to post-post modern illogical self -contradiction.
It is little wonder Andrew would like to see S’s none participation.
It is to S, I think Ian was referring when he said in effect, useful comments had been made. David Runcorn described S as a guardian.
11.2 It seems that some of us are known to each other.
Peter’s comment ( and there are three Peters who have commented on this site) on this thread has, to me, a little fragrance of elitism to it.
12 Why do we comment at all? Maybe we should all examine own impure motives.
13 To attribute age, young, old to commentators is to do what?
14 To attribute abuse to following through with argumentation is what? Without defining abuse and context is what?
15 BTW I’m male, in my 70’s married for over 40 years to my female wife.
16. Perhaps we all can benefit from the adage that while an argument can be won, the room ( or tribunal) may be lost. And while the room may be lost, the truth will remain, known or known, accepted or denied.
What is truth?
Who is the Truth? Who was and is and is to come?
Who was and is trolled, by some gathered in his Name…did Jesus really say…?
One example – S continues to repeat that I do not believe in the virgin birth
In my defence, it did take a long time for you to confirm that you think it is true that the genetic material in Jesus’ Y-chromosomes did not come from any human man. And until you confirmed that explicitly it was reasonable, based on your other responses, to think that you did not believe in the virgin birth.
But since you have confirmed that you, Andrew Godsall, are certain that it is a true fact that the genetic material in Jesus’ Y-chromosomes did not come from a human male, and you are happy to put your name to that statement, I have not questioned your belief in the virgin birth and I will not do so again.
I am still not sure how you square that with your expressed belief that God does not intervene in the operation of natural forces but that is a discussion for another day.
Andrew Godsall has affirmed his belief in what the scriptures and the early Church has understood about the mystery of the incarnation – that Jesus Christ was born of the Virgin Mary and was fully divine and fully human. The hypostatic union was discussed endlessly by the early Church and the matter was settled. The term essence is key. The term chromosome did not, to the best of my knowledge, arise in these discussions and settlement. I have likewise never referenced it. Andrew Godsall would be fascinated to read any reference to the discussion of chromosomes when it comes to the incarnation and the fact that Jesus Christ was born of the Virgin Mary. Any at all.
If we reference chromosomes let’s also talk about the speed that Jesus Christ arrived in heaven when he ascended and what mode of transport he chose.
Andrew – he got beamed. Everybody knows that.
The term chromosome did not, to the best of my knowledge, arise in these discussions and settlement.
That’s because they didn’t know chromosomes existed. But we do, and therefore we know that Jesus must have had chromosomes, don’t we? Otherwise He would not have been human. And we also know that they cannot have come from a human male, because Mary was a virgin, right?
Just like when Jesus turned water into wine, the guests at the party didn’t know that the molecular composition of the liquid had changed, because they didn’t know what molecules are. But we know that’s what must have happened, correct?
If A logically implies B then if you believe A you must also believe B. That’s how logic works. It’s called modus ponens. You should look it up.
And if A necessarily implies B then if you don’t believe B then you cannot believe B. That’s how logic works. It’s called modus tollens. You should look it up.
‘Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born’ logically and necessarily implies ‘the genetic material in Jesus’ Y-chromosomes did not come from a human man’.
Therefore if you believe that Mary was a virgin you must believe that that genetic material in Jesus’ Y-chromosomes did not come from a human man. And if you don’t believe that that the genetic material in Jesus’ Y-chromosomes did not come from a human man then you don’t believe in the virgin birth.
So I’m afraid, despite your claim to believe in the virgin birth, you now seem to be denying the virgin birth again!
Andrew Godsall, if you do not believe that the genetic material in Jesus’ Y chromosomes did not come from a human man then you deny the virgin birth, by modus tollens. So either confirm that you think it is a physical fact that the genetic material in Jesus’ Y-chromosomes did not come from a human male or stop claiming that you believe in the virgin birth, and every time in future that I point out you don’t believe in the virgin birth I will link to this comment in explanation.
Oh no! You mean God is limited by logic? And you mean that the bible wasn’t aware of everything? Goodness!
Do tell me *any* book or article about the Virgin Birth that discusses chromosomes. There are none. Still, maybe you could publish your own thesis? Think of the fame! And you can tell us how Jesus ascended into heaven – the exact speed and mode of transport – at the sane time? Maybe Jock is right. He was beamed up! 🙂
Have a great day S.
You mean God is limited by logic?
Of course God is limited by logic.
And you mean that the bible wasn’t aware of everything?
God, who wrote the Bible, was obviously aware of everything; but He did not put everything He was aware of in the Bible. It is quite long enough already.
Do tell me *any* book or article about the Virgin Birth that discusses chromosomes. There are none.
So? True things are true even if they haven’t been written in a book.
Still, maybe you could publish your own thesis? Think of the fame!
Why would anyone publish something so obvious? It would be like saying I could get famous by publishing a book called The Sky is Blue
Anyway I note you haven’t got any actual logical counter-arguments and have immediately descended to attempted ridicule. And I note that you are still denying the virgin birth.
And you can tell us how Jesus ascended into heaven – the exact speed and mode of transport – at the sane time?
Are you saying you don’t believe Jesus physically ascended into Heaven? Like you don’t believe in the virgin birth?
Though if you do want an article on chromosomes and the virgin birth, this is a good one by a senior lecturer in biochemistry, so someone who knows what he in writing about:
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/the-miracle-or-myth-of-the-virgin-birth-2-000-years-ago-1.264579
‘If we rule out parthenogenesis, but accept the virgin birth, then half of Christ’s chromosomes came from Mary and the other half came from the Holy Ghost (or perhaps, more appropriately, from God the Father).’
S you do such a great job of ridiculing yourself that I never need to contribute to that particular exercise. 🙂
Oh yes I definitely believe in the ascension as well as the virgin birth. I was just hoping you’d explain how Jesus got there, and what speed it was. But I see you don’t have any theories about that.
Oh yes I definitely believe in the ascension as well as the virgin birth.
You don’t believe in the virgin birth.
Oh well if a biochemist says it’s correct then it must be. Half of those chromosomes obviously did come from God the Holy Spirit. Or God the father.
Someone please alert the writers of the Chalcedonian definition – they didn’t quite get it all sorted!
Oh well if a biochemist says it’s correct then it must be.
You think you know more biology than a biochemist?
Half of those chromosomes obviously did come from God the Holy Spirit. Or God the father.
So where do you think they came from?
They must have come from somewhere.
If Mary was a virgin then they couldn’t have come from a human male.
So where do you think they came from?
If not the Holy Spirit or God the father then you must think they came from a human male … and then means you deny the virgin birth.
You mean you missed the part where I said “well if a biochemist says it’s correct then it must be.”?
Chalcedonian definition. Emphasis mine.
“Following, then, the holy Fathers, we all unanimously teach that our Lord Jesus Christ is to us One and the same Son, the Self-same Perfect in Godhead, the Self-same Perfect in Manhood; truly God and truly Man; the Self-same of a rational soul and body; co-essential with the Father according to the Godhead, the Self-same co-essential with us according to the Manhood; like us in all things, sin apart; before the ages begotten of the Father as to the Godhead, but in the last days, the Self-same, for us and for our salvation *(born) of Mary the Virgin Theotokos*as to the Manhood; One and the Same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten; acknowledged in Two Natures unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the difference of the Natures being in no way removed because of the Union, but rather the properties of each Nature being preserved, and (both) concurring into One Person and One Hypostasis; not as though He was parted or divided into Two Persons, but One and the Self-same Son and Only-begotten God, Word, Lord, Jesus Christ; even as from the beginning the prophets have taught concerning Him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ Himself hath taught us, and as the Symbol of the Fathers hath handed down. “
You mean you missed the part where I said “well if a biochemist says it’s correct then it must be.”?
You mean that wasn’t sarcasm?
So: does that mean that you think it is a physical fact that the genetic material in Jesus’ Y-chromosomes did not come from any human male? Or do you still deny the virgin birth?
Those really are the only two opinions and if you don’t conform explicitly the former I will be forced to continue to assume the latter and make sure everyone knows it.
S I think if you were bright enough you would have realised from the outset that my comment that the incarnation and virgin birth was a ‘great deal more than a conjuring trick with chromosomes’ didn’t eliminate the fact that God was the father and supplied the chromosomes – or however you want to describe it. I have never denied it. The fact should be obvious that I have no interest in biochemistry and am interested in theology. The hypostatic union has always been a particular interest. The early Church came to a clear view about all of that including the clear statement about the virgin birth that I have already supplied from part of the Chalcedonian definition.
Anton asked me very specifically and kindly about my belief in the virgin birth and I replied in unequivocal terms which he was entirely happy to accept. I don’t need to repeat it for you or anyone else. You can say whatever you like. You only make yourself look a little more foolish than you already do.
Focus all you like on biochemistry. I’m simply not interested in that field. But I am fascinated by the theology, as I have made clear above.
I’m flattered that you take such an interest in my opinions. They clearly matter to you.
my comment that the incarnation and virgin birth was a ‘great deal more than a conjuring trick with chromosomes’ didn’t eliminate the fact that God was the father and supplied the chromosomes
Obviously it didn’t eliminate that. But it also didn’t eliminate the possibility that you thought that the genetic material in Jesus’ Y-chromosomes came from a human male, which would mean that you thought that Jesus’ father was a human male — which would deny the virgin birth. So if you really do believe in the virgin birth as a physical event, then you must also be clear that the genetic material in Jesus’ Y-chromosomes did not come from a human male.
Are you now prepared to be clear or do you still wish to deny the virgin birth by leaving open the possibility that Jesus had a human father?
Focus all you like on biochemistry. I’m simply not interested in that field. But I am fascinated by the theology,
By the theology is inseparable from the biochemistry, as I am explaining. Because if Jesus was human, then He had human biochemistry. And if He was born of a virgin, then the genetic material in his Y-chromosomes did not come from a human male.
This is important because theology is a science, not an art. Theology is statements which make truth-claims about real, ontological things, statements which can either be true or false, and theology is about trying to work out which are true. Theology is not about trying to work out how to put together the best story, or the most psychologically satisfying explanation. Theology is not about trying to work out what the writers of the books of the Bible were thinking.
Theology is about trying to tell the truth about God. It’s about making true statement, and some of those statements are about physical events — for example, if you had done a chemical analysis on the water in the stone jars before Jesus turned it into wine and another afterwards, you would have found that the molecular composition had changed. That is a truth-claim about a real physical event which actually happened in history.
The early Church came to a clear view about all of that including the clear statement about the virgin birth that I have already supplied from part of the Chalcedonian definition.
And that definition is a truth-claim about a real objective fact that actually occurred in the physical history of the world, not some post-modern ‘grand narrative’. Either it really physically happened that Jesus was born of a virgin, with all that entails on a biochemical level, or all of Christianity is bunk.
Either the events in the Bible really happened as described, in which case Christianity is the most important thing in the world; or they didn’t, and it is utterly unimportant, just a myth. The one thing it cannot be is an interesting area of study that may or may not be true.
I’m flattered that you take such an interest in my opinions. They clearly matter to you.
If it were just you I wouldn’t care, but sadly the Enemy has seeded your ‘it doesn’t matter whether it actually happened or not, what matters is the “deeper truth ” that it expresses’ heresies throughout the Church. I once heard a sermon (not in a Church of England church) that stated explicitly that it didn’t matter whether you thought that the resurrection had actually happened or not!
My hope is that by pointing out the manifold logical contradictions in your propositions I can save some souls from the Enemy’s snares, counteracting the efforts of the fifth column to which you, wittingly or unwittingly, belong.
I do not agree with your theology. However I have repeatedly observed you being subject to relentless badgering by S which has been intellectually vacuous in its nature. The idea that you needed to comply with a demand to comment on genetic models is simply absurd. You have my sympathy in dealing with such obvious trolling.
S seems to think the incarnation boils down to chromosomes!
If his theology is bad, his grasp of legal principles is much much worse.
I’ve heard some tosh in my time but the idea judges can be directed to carry out mass murder is a new low
S seems to think the incarnation boils down to chromosomes
Well, so do you, as you agreed that you think it is true that Jesus did not have a human father: He was conceived in His mother’s womb without any sperm.
But yes indeed. If the incarceration was a physical fact then it must have involved chromosomes, mustn’t it? How could it not?
“expressed belief that God does not intervene in the operation of natural forces”
Another piece of trolling. I have never expressed such a belief.
I have never expressed such a belief.
https://www.psephizo.com/sexuality-2/what-are-paul-bayes-goals-for-the-church-on-sexuality/#comment-396074
In answer to the question: ‘God can send a storm, for example, right?’, you wrote:
‘I don’t think so, in such a specific way no. Storms are part of the natural world, even if extraordinary.’
In other words, you claimed that God cannot affect the operation of natural forces, like storms (despite there being several recorded instances in the Bible of God sending storms).
That’s a great thread and I hope people will read it all. Context is everything and it makes it clear that I have never expressed such a belief.
It tells us that you are rather more of a Mormon than a Christian.
Your belief in an ink spilling God is priceless!
And the incarnation is a most beautiful miracle. But it is a lot more than a conjuring trick with chromosomes, thank God.
Now run along dear and troll somewhere else.
This is a reply to S below.
If Andrew Godsall thinks storms are part of the natural world I think we are probably ok with that.
Still great to have you keeping us all on our toes.
And for the avoidance of all doubt I do believe that God did and has intervened in the natural world. What I do not believe God does is take away our free will.
What I do not believe God does is take away our free will.
That doesn’t make any sense. Sending a storm doesn’t take away anyone’s free will. So your position that God doesn’t send storms is logically inconsistent.
But it is a lot more than a conjuring trick with chromosomes, thank God.
Oh, of course it is more than a conjuring trick with chromosomes.
But the point is that it is at least a conjuring truck with chromosomes, and I am glad that you, Andrew Goodall, agree that it is a physical fact that the genetic material in Jesus’ Y-chromosomes did not come from a human man.
Geoff. I called you both guardians by which I meant this tendency to turn up without fail (esp S) to confront any wicked liberals who have turned up with a point of view, policing encounters and more often than not effectively gridlocking discussion. I nearly called you the bouncers of Club Psephizo but I decided not to.
Geoff is very loose with his analysis.
He must have made pleadings before the Crown Court and the High Court.
He knows perfectly well the judges would have wiped the floor with his Counsel if they had come out with the drivel that S fondly imagines is a professional standard of legal analysis.
Geoff is I suspect a kind hearted man. He realises S has been found out.
Even stupid people can elicit sympathy.
Decided not to, but just have! I nearly said, pathetic and devious but decided not to.
Holiness, remember that question you have said you have addressed but have not deigned to produce here any evidence that you have done so?
Bye, bye.
I am trying to engage with you Geoff. I don’t actually have a problem with your insults. I need to understand what you are saying.
This really matters Geoff. The idea Parliament has despotic powers is both wrong and terrifying. You know it’s not true. Please stand with reason and sanity.
Peter – on the subject of Parliament, the judiciary, etc …. please read the piece by Craig Murray that I linked to earlier about Julian Assange. It is clear and plain to me that Assange has been banged up in Belmarsh for the crime of Very Good Journalism, nothing more nor less and the shenanigans, in their details, tell me that something dark, corrupt and sinister has happened. The problem with the judicial system is trial-without-jury and I’m convinced that Clive Ponting would have been banged up if he had been on trial today. As far as I’m concerned, the UK has become a fascist ‘security state’.
Peter
My comment was meant to be a response to David Runcorn.
You are being teased Geoff .
The peasants are revolting.
Pleased to be a peasant, David… bound for glory! For the Bible tells me so.
See you there!
David
I’m afraid that wicked liberals are getting very weary of this tiresome tosh.
There’s enough bad theology on Twitter!
“Tiresome tosh”.
I must make a note of that phrase.
Thank you, Penny.
God bless you, Penelope 🙂
There’s enough bad theology
Out of interest what exactly are the criteria which make theology ‘bad’?
Just so we know to avoid it.
Peter,
Your response to me has lost both the argument and this room, ( me) as a former lawyer.
Maybe you could reflect on why that may be?
I could provide written reasons, but that would provoke an appeal?
You could take it up with a lawyers forum on Constitional Law and Jurisprudence ( including Natural Law). In comments to earlier blog articles there has been some great discussion with James Byron on Constitional law and comparatives with the USA, which included the “rule of law”, and Dicey’s blue eyed babies.
It is clear that other forums are available.
BTW, it seems to me that T1 (troll number 1? Here to attempt but fail to fear- monger with his speculative power play inevitability) kicked this off.
Maybe it’s time the full time whistle is blown.
Geoff,
Just look at the comment from S below. He does not understand the difference between a Bill and an Act.
Seriously, Geoff. You are a kind hearted man but you know he is talking nonsense.
If he wants to yapp away about Mendelian genetics, who cares ? I don’t.
If you go on a public forum and claim Parliament has the power to organise mass murder, you are going to get taken to pieces – because that has to happen.
And don’t tell me I am taking it all too seriously. If you do not know the horrors that are already emerging around the powers of the state then look around and across to Canada.
Peter,
You continue to have lost the argument and this room, and your last response compounds the reasons, that you do not begin to recognize as it falls into a category of twitter abuse, abuse of which you accuse S.
As a former lawyer, I was trained to succumb to neither fear nor favour.
David Runcorn wanted to describe me as a bouncer for Ian, (hardly kind -hearted), you describe me as kind- hearted, well a definite maybe). Neither ad hom ridicule nor your patronizing will be effective in my coming to a conclusion.
BTW did you ever comment on the contents of the articles?
The problem Geoff is that you too often bear false witness, and that has led me to comment on more than one occasion that I am mightily relieved that you have not acted for me.
It’s reciprocated, Andrew G,
I’d have to put your case and leave it to the jury of lay people to decide whether to believe you.
If I were a barrister, in theory I could return your brief under the cab-rank convention. But as I was a solicitor, I could have declined your instructions.
And again, Andrew G, I don’t know how you would frame your oath to the Court.
Love you too Geoff.
Parliament is subject to the Sovereign.
If that were true then Parliament could not remove the sovereign. But it has done so, twice.
If that were true then Parliament could not remove powers from the Royal Prerogative and make then subject to statute. But it has done so many times.
If that were true then Parliament could not, by an Act, abolish the monarchy and make Britain a republic. But nobody doubts that it could do so, and there are active pressure groups campaigning for it to happen.
In actual fact you have got it exactly the wrong way around. The sovereign is subject to Parliament, and has been so unambiguously since 1689.
Technically Crown in Parliament is sovereign. Any new law needs both the King to sign it as well as Parliament to vote for it to be enforceable. Any major disagreement between the 2 and you are in a constitutional crisis. The King can overturn laws passed by Parliament even if judges can’t. Though no monarch would likely do so unless huge public opposition to the new law Parliament passed
Technically Crown in Parliament is sovereign.
Yes.
Any new law needs both the King to sign it as well as Parliament to vote for it to be enforceable.
No. The King doesn’t need to sign anything. Royal Assent Act 1967.
Any major disagreement between the 2 and you are in a constitutional crisis.
True, but there is no doubt as to how it would be resolved; same as the last one in 1937.
The King can overturn laws passed by Parliament even if judges can’t.
No, the sovereign cannot overturn laws passed by Parliament.
Though no monarch would likely do so unless huge public opposition to the new law Parliament passed
Even if there were huge public opposition the sovereign couldn’t overturn a law, though they might become a focus for discontent. Then the fate of both sovereign and government would be decided by the next general election. If the government lost the new government would repeal the unpopular law; if the government won then the sovereign would be replaced or possibly the monarchy would be abolished.
The Royal Assent Act 1967 merely enables the monarch to assent by letters patent in writing to laws passed by Parliament rather than in person. The monarch’s assent is still required. If the King refused to sign a law passed by Parliament then it would not become statute law and yes in that very unlikely event he could call a general election to see if the law was upheld by the voters
The Royal Assent Act 1967 merely enables the monarch to assent by letters patent in writing to laws passed by Parliament rather than in person. The monarch’s assent is still required.
No it isn’t; nowadays the Lords Commissioners give royal assent.
If the King refused to sign a law passed by Parliament then it would not become statute law
The King doesn’t need to sign bills. The Lords Commissioners would sign them.
If the monarch tried to prevent the Lords Commissioners from signing a bill, then Parliament could simply remove that monarch and appoint another; see below.
and yes in that very unlikely event he could call a general election to see if the law was upheld by the voters
See this is interesting. Dissolving Parliament is about the one thing the monarch still has discretion on, true (that and deciding who to call first to form a government in the event of a hung Parliament).
However, between 2011 and 2022, when the Fixed-Term Parliament Act (a rare piece of heinous constitutional vandalism not perpetrated by Blair) was in force, the monarch did not have the discretion to call an election. That discretion was only restored with the passage of the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022 (which fascinatingly managed to answer the vexed question ‘can prerogative powers removed from the Crown to statute be restored?’ by simply, erm, doing it).
So if Parliament got wind that the monarch was minded seriously to try to refuse royal assent by dissolving Parliament, the first thing it would do would be to pass an Act removing the monarch’s power to dissolve Parliament, just like the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act did. Then it could at its leisure draft an Abdication Bill, pass it into law, and a new Act of Settlement naming a new monarch, who could then retrospectively give royal assent to the new Parliament Act, the Abdication Act, and the Act of Settlement.
And lest you accuse me of making all this up or it being far-fetched, that’s basically how it was done in 1689, so there’s precedent.
Obviously all this relies on Parliament being able to count on the support of the military, as the only institution which could actually remove Parliament by force. But these days that’s pretty much a given.
So royal assent is still given then, even if on behalf of the King in a few cases.
As you say the King still has the power to call general elections and even under the Fixed Term Parliaments Act could replace Prime Ministers. The King can also refuse to sign an Abdication Bill and new Act of Settlement and remove the PM proposing them and replace them with a PM more loyal to him.
The military takes an Oath of loyalty to the Monarch NOT Parliament so would remain loyal to the King in a clash between the 2. Albeit if the King lost the support of public opinion even the military might turn if the Law the King refused to sign was popular (which is why the King would only ever refuse to sign an unpopular law and then would still probably not do so)
So royal assent is still given then, even if on behalf of the King in a few cases.
In all cases, not a few; which means that the sovereign can’t refuse to give it.
As you say the King still has the power to call general elections and even under the Fixed Term Parliaments Act could replace Prime Ministers.
No, the sovereign couldn’t replace the Prime Minister under the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act because the Prime Minister has to be the leader of the largest party in the House of Commons, and that can’t change without either a general election, lots of defections, or the party changing its leader, none of which were in the sovereign’s control while the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act was in force.
The King can also refuse to sign an Abdication Bill and new Act of Settlement
In which case the sovereign would be removed and replace and the new sovereign would give royal assent. That’s what was done in 1689.
Or of course Parliament could just pass a bill abolishing the monarchy entirely and making Britain a republic.
and remove the PM proposing them and replace them with a PM more loyal to him.
No, because the sovereign is required to accept as Prime Minister the leader of the largest party in the Commons (technically, whoever can command a majority in the Commons, but in practice that’s the same thing).
The military takes an Oath of loyalty to the Monarch NOT Parliament so would remain loyal to the King in a clash between the 2.
No, the military would take orders from the Defence Council, which is chaired by the Secretary of State for Defence. The monarch is not in the chain of command. The monarch’s role as commander-in-chief is purely ceremonial.
My point about the military was simply the universal truth that all governments rely on the support of their militaries.
By convention the PM is leader of the largest party in the Commons but if the King could find an alternative PM who could win a majority in the Commons eg in a hung parliament with the combined opposition parties, he could make them PM instead.
Had James II kept the loyalty of the army he could have remained King in 1688.
The Defence Council runs day to day military operations not the King but the army still take an oath of loyalty to the King NOT the Defence Council and NOT Parliament. So Parliament would have to win over the army to force out the King. Remember in the civil war it took Parliament raising its own army, ultimately led by Cromwell, to defeat the King’s troops and ensure Parliamentary supremacy
By convention the PM is leader of the largest party in the Commons but if the King could find an alternative PM who could win a majority in the Commons eg in a hung parliament with the combined opposition parties, he could make them PM instead.
One if the previous Prime Minister resigned or lost a vote of confidence. The sovereign can’t just sack a Prime Minister because they want to.
Had James II kept the loyalty of the army he could have remained King in 1688.
And if wishes were horses…
So Parliament would have to win over the army to force out the King.
No, they wouldn’t. All it would take to abolish the monarchy and make Britain a republic would be an Act of Parliament.
They can as the prime minister is technically the King’s chief minister. As William IV dismissed Lord Melbourne as PM and appointed Peel as PM instead of him.
The King would refuse to sign a proposed law removing them from the throne so it would never become an Act of Parliament without his consent if the King had not already agreed to abdicate
As William IV dismissed Lord Melbourne as PM and appointed Peel as PM instead of him.
And Peel lasted all of, what, four months before having to hand back to Melbourne? This proving that the sovereign can’t just sack a PM and appoint someone else. If they try the old PM will be back soon enough.
The King would refuse to sign a proposed law removing them from the throne so it would never become an Act of Parliament without his consent if the King had not already agreed to abdicate
Funnily enough we know what happens in this case because it had already happened, in 1689. Parliament just appoints a new sovereign and the new sovereign gives royal assent to whatever in necessary.
So last time a sovereign sacked a Prime Minister it lasted four months; last time a Parliament sacked a king it lasted, well, 334 years and counting. I think that proves my point rather, doesn’t it?
Besides, Parliament could just pass a bill abolishing the monarchy, removing the need for Royal assent, and making Britain a republic. That wouldn’t need any sovereign to sign it (obviously) and would get around the whole question.
Not if the new PM can get a majority in Parliament behind them.
Parliament was only able to appoint a new sovereign in 1689 as they had the support of the army, that is not guaranteed given the armed forces oath of loyalty to the monarch.
Again a bill abolishing the monarchy does not become law without royal assent. You also would need to get a House of Commons elected on such a manifesto first
Not if the new PM can get a majority in Parliament behind them.
But if they could do that then they would already have been Prime Minister, so they can’t.
Parliament was only able to appoint a new sovereign in 1689 as they had the support of the army, that is not guaranteed given the armed forces oath of loyalty to the monarch.
It is guaranteed because the military takes its command from the Defence Council. The sovereign’s role as commander-in-chief is purely ceremonial.
Again a bill abolishing the monarchy does not become law without royal assent.
That is silly. Everyone knows that Parliament could abolish the monarchy; it would be ridiculous if that could only happen with the monarch’s consent.
(Of course what would actually happen if there ever were to be such a Bill is that, like all bills nowadays, it would just be given royal assent by the Lords Commissioners and what the actual sovereign thought about it would be neither here nor there).
You also would need to get a House of Commons elected on such a manifesto first
No, that would only apply if the House of Lords objected so the Salisbury convention had to come into play. If the House of Commons and the House of Lords agree (which is what I meant by ‘Parliament’) then it doesn’t matter what was in the manifesto.
Because — as I keep trying to tell you — these days royal assent is just a ceremonial formality. It doesn’t actually mean the sovereign assents to the law. The sovereign has nothing to do with it.
Not necessarily, especially in a hung parliament.
The Defence Council only has day to day control of the military and its operations, here and abroad, derogated from the monarch. In a direct conflict with the monarch that would not override the armed forces oath of loyalty to the monarch.
Parliament can only abolish the monarchy if the monarch abdicates, otherwise no bill becomes law without royal assent and it would need overwhelming public opposition to the monarch and the support of the army to overthrow the monarch. Lord Commissioners powers are only derogated from the monarch, if the monarch refuses to assent to a bill then their assent is irrelevant. Constitutionally only the monarch can sign and assent to bills becoming law.
Not necessarily, especially in a hung parliament.
Hung Parliaments are very rare. They are the exception, not the rule.
The Defence Council only has day to day control of the military and its operations, here and abroad, derogated from the monarch. In a direct conflict with the monarch that would not override the armed forces oath of loyalty to the monarch.
The monarch could not give orders to the military. The chain of command for that simply does not exist.
Parliament can only abolish the monarchy if the monarch abdicates,
No, that’s rubbish. Everyone knows that if Parliament were to pass a bill abolishing the monarchy, the monarchy would be abolished, no matter what the sovereign at the time might think. It would be ridiculous if Britain could only become a republic with the sovereign’s consent.
Lord Commissioners powers are only derogated from the monarch, if the monarch refuses to assent to a bill then their assent is irrelevant.
No, that’s not how it works. The monarch doesn’t assent or refuse to assent; the whole process is automatic and entirely ceremonial.
‘No, that’s rubbish. Everyone knows that if Parliament were to pass a bill abolishing the monarchy, the monarchy would be abolished, no matter what the sovereign at the time might think. It would be ridiculous if Britain could only become a republic with the sovereign’s consent.’
It only could if a party won a majority of MPs with that as a manifesto commitment
It only could if a party won a majority of MPs with that as a manifesto commitment
No, it being in the manifesto is neither here nor there. Manifestos have no legal or constitutional effect. The only thing being in the manifesto would matter for us id the Salisbury convention were too come into play. But if the House of Lords were to back the Bill abolishing the monarch then that wouldn’t matter.
But the point is the sovereign gets no say. Only the two Houses need to agree and then Britain becomes a republic whether the sovereign likes it or not.
Yes they do. The monarch would never veto a manifesto commitment of the elected government. However he could certainly refuse to sign a bill putting forward proposals that were not voted on as they were not in the winning party’s manifesto, especially if they meant abolition of his position as monarch. He could dissolve parliament for starters and hope for election of an opposition party that wanted to keep him in post
Yes they do. The monarch would never veto a manifesto commitment of the elected government. However he could certainly refuse to sign a bill putting forward proposals that were not voted on as they were not in the winning party’s manifesto, especially if they meant abolition of his position as monarch.
No, the sovereign could not refuse to sign any bill properly passed by both Houses as the royal assent process these days is automatic and purely ceremonial. The sovereign has no actual say and certainly doesn’t have veto power.
He could dissolve parliament for starters and hope for election of an opposition party that wanted to keep him in post
He couldn’t because the bill abolishing the monarch would certainly have to remove the royal prerogative for dissolving Parliament and replace it with some other mechanism like the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act.
Peter – I confess I didn’t follow the discussion between you and S all that much – just enough to note that the main dividing lines had already been expressed after a few iterations and that most of the exchange was simply re-iterating that which had already been stated, except that it was getting more and more inflamed.
As I said above, I strongly believe that not only is there scope for ‘despotism’ in the UK, but that it has already happened. Read Craig Murray, particularly his detailed accounts when he followed the extradition hearing of Julian Assange. There are more than enough senior judges who can be found to give the ‘right answer’ (i.e. the answer that the Security State wants) and there has been a systematic dismantling of the trial-with-jury system; if Clive Ponting were tried today, there wouldn’t be a jury and it’s a dead certainty that he would be banged up.
I, for one, am very worried about the direction in which all this is going. I fully accept that the Lord is Sovreign; in the words of one of Luther’s hymns ‘He hides his face so wondrously’ and this is what seems to be happening today.
Jock. I apologise for the harshness with which I have addressed you
Hello Peter,
I have not been offended by you. Dad fought in WW2 in the RAF, grandad somehow survived the Great War, through permanently injured.
I survived Baby Boomer years, the robust rough and tumble of criminal law,(and litigation in general) in defence and as CPS prosecutor agent. I just avoided the death sentence years.
The Bible. As a 47 year old lawyer convert to Christ, I am deeply offended that the Bible is not accepted as the ultimate law in the Church, is not the word of God, those who seek its revision. From S’s comments on this site, though I can’t speak for him, S would agree… and that is the nub of contention with Andrew G and David R and T1.
It is the nub of contention in this whole farrago –
what the Bible is and its role in our lives personally and collectively in church life.
Geoff what you always need to remember is that the New Testament was a product of the Church, and not the other way around.
Anglicans will always explore scripture as the primary source, but will also explore tradition – the Church primarily in that field – and reason, which God gave us, and experience, which humans are rich in.
You and S seem to be more in tune with Calvinism and the Westminster Confession. Those things are not Anglicanism even if there are some overlaps.
Geoff what you always need to remember is that the New Testament was a product of the Church, and not the other way around.
The New Testament is a product of God and that is what matters.
Not forgetting the Old Testament.
Not forgetting the Old Testament.
Who could forget the Old Testament?
I know next to nothing of Calvin, nor the WCF.
I belong to an Anglican Church that accepts the 39 Articles of faith, as do I.
It would be good to hear your conversion to Christ testimony as part of Christian experience.
You and S seem to be more in tune with Calvinism and the Westminster Confession. Those things are not Anglicanism even if there are some overlaps.
The Bible being the Word of God isn’t Calvinism, it’s basic, fundamental Christianity. You seem to be saying that Anglicanism isn’t Christianity. Which, you know, I’m not going to argue with you, but you said it, not me.
No Geoff, indeed we wouldn’t forget the Old Testament. But that clearly was not a product of the early Church. It was a product of God’s ancient people the Jews, interpreting their experience of God’s dealings with them.
And framing stories like the Creation in order to try and make sense of the world in which they found themselves. They too used tradtion, reason and experience.
Fascinating isn’t it!
It was a product of God’s ancient people the Jews, interpreting their experience of God’s dealings with them.
No, it is a product of God who used His ancient people the Jews to communicate His truth to the world.
My grandfather’s brother died in the Great War. My grandfather was ruined by the war and proceeded to ruin my father. The cost of those wars has scarred generations.
King George was surely a devout man who carried us through the War.
I find this disdain for the bible and the King unbearable and the ignorance and conceit of the generation to which S belongs heart breaking.
I am genuinely alarmed that there is a generation of people out there who do not understand that the bible is the ultimate Law in this country
The Bible is most definitely not the ultimate Law in this country. Most judges are atheists and do not care one little bit what the Bible says. And if one of the rare Christian judges were to decide to direct the jury to acquit on the grounds that a law were un-Biblical, what do you think would happen, in reality? I’ll tell you: the case would be appealed, the verdict would be overturned, a retrial would be ordered, and the judge in question would be put out to pasture.
And the King is not a Christian; he is an Omnist.
Your belief that the law of this land is somehow guarded by the Bible is touchingly naïve. I wish it were true, I really do. It would be great if it was. But it isn’t. The United Kingdom is not a Christian country, and hasn’t been fit s long time.
And frankly thinking it is — thinking that there’s some magic protecting us from bad laws — is a pretty dangerous bit of complacency. The truth is there is no guard rail; that’s why we have to be so careful about who we let in charge of the country, because of the immense damage that could be caused if the wrong people end up in charge.
You make the most preposterous assertions about what will and won’t happen.
The King takes an oath to uphold the law of God and the Gospel. He is given the bible. He is sovereign over Parliament.
Your arrogance changes nothing. What I am telling you is the reality.
Stop defaming God.
You make the most preposterous assertions about what will and won’t happen.
So what do you think would happen if Parliament passed a law which went against the Bible? I have given a plausible account of what would occur; if you disagree then you have to give a more plausible account, and then people can judge which of our accounts is more plausible.
The King takes an oath to uphold the law of God and the Gospel.
The first section of the original coronation oath reads: ‘Will You solemnely Promise and Sweare to Governe the People of this Kingdome of England and the Dominions thereto belonging according to the Statutes in Parlyament Agreed on and the Laws and Customs of the same?’
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/WillandMar/1/6/section/III
That is, the sovereign first and foremost agrees to be bound by ‘the Statutes in Parlyament Agreed on’.
He is sovereign over Parliament.
No, he isn’t. Parliament chooses who the monarch is (through the Acts of Settlement). Parliament can by an Act strip the Crown from a monarch and grant it to someone else (as it did in 1689 and 1937). Parliament could, if it wished, abolish the monarchy and make Britain a republic. The sovereign cannot refuse royal assent to any law passed by Parliament.
All these things show that Parliament is sovereign over the monarch, not the other way around.
Stop defaming God.
How on Earth have I defamed God?!?
The sovereign can refuse assent.
You listen to literally nothing that is said to you. Nothing it all.
I’m not interested in winning an argument with you. You make no argument that merits a response.
You will not accept that Gods law is – whether you agree or not – the highest authority in this country.
I will not leave you to defame His name and authority.
The sovereign can refuse assent.
No, the sovereign cannot refuse assent.
You will not accept that Gods law is – whether you agree or not – the highest authority in this country.
Because it isn’t. Most of the people who run the country are atheists and couldn’t give a fig about God’s law. I wish that were not the case, but it is.
I will not leave you to defame His name and authority.
How have I defamed His name and authority?!?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_assent
For the avoidance of further ludicrous exchanges see the above which is a perfectly serviceable summary.
In response to the inevitable mis direction in response: the English language distinguishes between “never”and “ almost never”
They do not mean the same thing.
The sovereign can deny assent
In response to the inevitable mis direction in response: the English language distinguishes between “never”and “ almost never”
No, they can’t. The important words in that sentence are not ‘almost never’ they are ‘in theory’. The English language distinguishes between ‘in theory’ and ‘in practice’ and while the sovereign can in theory deny assent, in practice they cannot.
You cannot pick and choose the words to suit your case.
It says “almost never”. The fact you want that to be treated as less significant that the words “in theory” has no significance at all.
There is no basis in the text for asserting a hierarchy of importance between the terms.
There is no basis in the text for asserting a hierarchy of importance between the terms.
The basis is when was the last time royal assent was refused, and what were the circumstances?
That will tell you whether in practice royal assent is refused ‘never’ or ‘almost never’.
Hint: it’s ‘never’. The sovereign cannot refuse royal assent. Royal assent is, these days, a ceremonial formality. It happens automatically when a bill passes both houses.
“Almost never” does not mean “never” and no amount if flailing around by you can alter that
The matter is settled.
The matter is settled.
Indeed. You are wrong. Royal assent is a formality; it cannot in practice be refused.
By the way could you explain how I have ‘defamed God’? Because I am seriously curious what on Earth you can have meant by that.
Sure the Sovereignity of God is supreme
I’m beginning to wonder if we’re talking at some kind of massive cross purposes, and Peter means something like God’s law determines right and wrong (which is true) rather than that God’s law would be upheld by the United Kingdom courts (which is false).
Otherwise I have honestly no idea what the stuff about ‘defaming God’s name’ is about.
But he’s still wrong about Parliamentary sovereignty. Parliament is sovereign over the monarch — that’s what 1689 was all about. Aughrim and all that.
You’re putting words in my mouth. I have used the term Gods law.
That is the term used by the King at his coronation.
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/royals/2023/05/06/oath-full-text-coronation-king-charles.html
oath-full-text-coronation-king-charles.html
‘ Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, your other Realms and the Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs?’
‘Respective laws and customs’ means, for the United Kingdom, the laws passed by Parliament. It’s the butchered* version of ‘the Statutes in Parlyament Agreed on’ from the actual legal Coronation Oath in the Act (cf https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/WillandMar/1/6/section/III)
In other words, the monarch swears to abide by the laws passed in Parliament.
So the monarch cannot refuse assent to a law passed by Parliament.
* butchered because of the personal union with the Crown’s other realms and territories eg Canada, etc
Ignoring the bits of text that do not suit your case is not a recognised form of legal analysis.
Your analysis falls because it fails to read the first half of the oath
Your analysis falls because it fails to read the first half of the oath
That is the first half of the oath.
The second half is ‘Will You to the utmost of Your power Maintaine the Laws of God the true Profession of the Gospell and the Protestant Reformed Religion Established by Law? And will You Preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of this Realme and to the Churches committed to their Charge all such Rights and Priviledges as by Law doe or shall appertaine unto them or any of them.’
And relates to the establishment, not to Parliamentary sovereignty.
George III thought that the second half of his oath meant that he could refuse royal assent to the Catholic Emancipation Acts because the would fail to maintain the Protestant religion established by law. He was told in no uncertain terms that his duty to give assent to any law passed by Parliament came first. Thus precedent was established.
The oath is the totality of the invitation and response.
The oath, in its legal form, is given in its totality at https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/WillandMar/1/6/section/III. I have not ignored any of it.
By the way could you explain how I have ‘defamed God’? Because I am seriously curious what on Earth you can have meant by that.
You are asking about your defamation of God. If you are asking out of a spirit of humility I will explain what you have done
If you simply want to do your unrelenting “why you are right and everybody else is wrong” routine, I am done with that for a good while.
Let me know if you are affected by a welcome spirit of humility
If you are asking out of a spirit of humility I will explain what you have done
I am asking out of curiosity. I honestly have no idea what you could mean.
So, do I have an undertaking from you that you will accept the explanation with humility.
Do not say yes if your intention is to reject what I say
Do not say yes if your intention is to reject what I say
How can I possibly know whether I will accept or reject your accusation before I have the faintest idea what I am actually being accused of?
Obviously I’m not going to plead guilty before I know the charge. Who would ever do that? I’m sure you wouldn’t.
So are you going to tell me or not?
I am telling you that you have made a serious mistake. I will explain the mistake if it is clear you will accept correction.
If you are simply asking so that you can tell me why I am wrong, then it is wrong to speak of sacred things to some one who will not listen
I am telling you that you have made a serious mistake. I will explain the mistake if it is clear you will accept correction.
How can I know whether I have actually made this serious mistake you are accusing me of, before you tell me what the mistake is?
Surely you understand that I can’t promise to accept correction until I know what exactly it is I’m supposed to have done wrong. How could anyone promise that? Could you?
S. If I was in your shoes I can honestly say I would give an undertaking to hear a correction with humility.
I might learn something important and the only cost to me is accepting what is said without then justifying myself in response. That is no great cost in reality
If I was in your shoes I can honestly say I would give an undertaking to hear a correction with humility.
I can certainly give an undertaking to read and consider your accusation carefully. But obviously I can’t undertake to agree with it until I know what it is, for at the moment I can’t even guess. And I can’t defend myself without knowing what I am accused of; that’s basic justice.
Are you going to let me know what I am supposed to have done or must I remain in suspense?
All I am offering is advice. The language of justice and right of defence is to entirely miss the point.
If all that intrigues you is a sense of curiosity then let the matter go.
If you are concerned about the possibility you have offended God then commit to receiving the advice with humility. It may help you. And what purpose is actually achieved by justifying self ?
If I am wrong what difference does it make what I think. If I am right you gain nothing by rejecting what I say
All I am offering is advice.
You made an accusation.
If all that intrigues you is a sense of curiosity then let the matter go.
I’m curious what I’m being accused of. Is that not understandable?
If you are concerned about the possibility you have offended God then commit to receiving the advice with humility. It may help you.
I am fairly sure I haven’t offended God, but mostly I don’t know who you think you are to go around telling people they have offended God. So I’m curious to know how you think I have offended God, but I have no ides whether your advice will be good advice or not until I read it. It may be good advice but it may be terrible advice, I just don’t know until you tell me.
And what purpose is actually achieved by justifying self ?
Well, your accusation may be false — I can’t know until I know what it is — in which case the purpose is justice.
If I am wrong what difference does it make what I think. If I am right you gain nothing by rejecting what I say
That’s why I am curious to know what you are accusing me of. But of course I have no means of compelling you to tell me. I can only ask. So, will you tell me? Or not?
You are operating under the illusion I am affected by what you say. I am not. I am aware of your personality type. I am sure you are too. It would be unremarkable for you to be entirely content with your personality type,
You are made in the image of God. That is the reason I engage with you. You belief that you are having an impact on me is a delusion.
The Spirit can reach anyone. I pray he reaches you.
You are operating under the illusion I am affected by what you say. I am not.
I am beginning to realise that. Why would someone who bears the burden of being right all the time, seeing the faults in everyone else, and having the doleful duty to correct them on God’s behalf, listen to what mere mortals like me have to say?
So anyway I guess you’re going to just throw out your bizarre accusation of ‘defaming God’, whatever that means, and refuse to explain, personally on the grounds that it’s obvious to you and you are clear that in your head you are the only one whose opinion matters, because you’re the one whose opinion unfailingly matches God’s opinion.
Well, that’s fine by me.
S. Christians are specifically instructed to rebuke and admonish one another. It is a routine part of Christian discipleship.
The answer to your question “who do you think you are going round telling people they have offended God” is that I think I am a Christian. It’s uncomfortable and distasteful correcting people. It also happens to be what we have been told to do.
The one relevant condition is that we only correct people who are open to correction. It is entirely pointless rebuking somebody who will never listen.
Christians are specifically instructed to rebuke and admonish one another.
Though not, I think, to fire off wild accusations and then refuse to actually say what they are accusing people of.
It’s uncomfortable and distasteful correcting people.
Goodness, supercilious much?
Look, tell me what you’re accusing me of or don’t. In the time it’s taken to do this silly dance you could just have told me a dozen times over, but if you don’t want to I can’t make you.
S on a matter of detail. I remain happy to offer you advice. It would be the morning before I would now do so
As I see you are from Thinking Anglicans, I can inform you I am on the opposite side of the theological debate. Your wanting to call anyone the sort of words you have mentioned are a way of shutting down debate. No Christian should be calling other Christians names and debate is necessary to ensure biblical truth. My best wishes to you.
Indeed
Equality, oppression, minorities, progress, freedom. Are feelings more important than facts?
How did we get to this point?
Here is the first in a series of talks, by Dr Sharon James, tracing the roots, with clarity and alacrity and bringing us bang up-to-date to where the predominant church culture is, with its social activism in all its colours, (including marriage). Unsettling, challenging, edifying, shining a light; fostering and fuelling courage, faith and perseverance.
Who knew and who didn’t? Who are the players, and who is being played?
We may have facial recognition today, but do we have recognition of philosophical and theory societal drivers?
Do we hear echoes in the voices of the CoE hegemony today, even within the confines of the blog articles and comments on this site?
Dr Sharon James –
https://www.christian.org.uk/resource/critical-theory-are-feelings-more-important-than-facts-2/
You misunderstand me.
No, I understand you perfectly. For instance …
You are a malicious troll and you need to be obstructed from harming people.
… I understand that, as here, you like making wild accusations without a shred of truth in them. Though at least with this one, unlike the ‘defaming God’, one, it’s at least clear what I am being accused of, and that it is not true.
I suggest you focus on the second point I made that your are of infinite value to God
I suggest you focus on the second point I made that your are of infinite value to God
No I am doing you the credit of simply ignoring the most condescending of your remarks (and that’s a high bar)
Quite. This terminates contact between us,
This terminates contact between us,
Fair enough, but obviously if you make another error in fact or logic I will be sure to point it out to make sure that others are not misled.
Yes – that sums it up. Debate and the quest for truth are always immediately advanced by pinpointing logical errors and by the naming of specific fallacies. The process of elimination is thereby advanced and the truth comes that bit more into focus. This is often misunderstood and mischaracterised. I have never seen why people who care about truth would do otherwise.
In addition, S is obviously right that otherwise people would be in danger of being misled.
In fact, all this is of the essence of what debate is. And debate is the raison d’etre of debate platforms and to some extent of life itself.
Dr Sharon James, Part 2 (of 4)
https://www.christian.org.uk/resource/confronting-critical-theory-2/
Dr Sharon James, Part 3 (25 mins)
“Pregnant men? We discuss non-Christian responses to Critical Theory in the shape of two books: ‘Cynical Theories: How Activist Scholarship Made Everything About Race, Gender and Identity – And Why This Harms Everybody’ by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay, and ‘The Madness of Crowds: Gender, Race and Identity’ by Douglas Murray.”
https://www.christian.org.uk/resource/non-christian-responses-to-critical-theory-2/
s do of course continue to out point errors of fact and logic to protect everybody from being misled, as you put it,
Your cross examination of Andrew Godsall when he revealed that he thinks storms are part of the natural order was widely respected as the work of true intellectual. Where would we be without your sharp mind and forensic skill.
do of course continue to out point errors of fact and logic to protect everybody from being misled, as you put it
I shall. Contact not as terminated as all that, then?
Where would we be without your sharp mind and forensic skill.
I dunno but you’d certainly be operating with a much lower standard of sarcasm.
Not for the first time, you misunderstand me. Contact between us is terminated in regard to your repeated request for me to explain your position as one who defames God.
You have grown used to bullying people on this site. You will have observed a decision by not just myself that you have had your fun. You will be confronted in future. For your own sake and for the sake of everybody else. Malicious trolls such as yourself are young men who have never been required to take No for an answer.
Contact between us is terminated in regard to your repeated request for me to explain your position as one who defames God.
To be fair to me, that’s not what you wrote in https://www.psephizo.com/sexuality-2/prayers-processes-and-power-b2-or-not-b2-that-is-the-question-part-3-canon-b2/#comment-428006
Of course I still haven’t actually defamed God at all.
That’s a powerful comeback.
You really have defeated me with the force of your analysis the fluency of your speech.
I must admit defeat in the face of such an obvious intellectual superior.
That’s a powerful comeback.
Given that I don’t know how I am supposed to have defamed God, I can hardly be more specific, can I?
It’s like you’ve accused me of murder but not said who I am supposed to have killed or when or where. And then complained that when I write ‘I haven’t murdered anyone’ that that’s not a very strong defence. Tell me when the crime is supposed to have taken place and I can give an alibi.
If you let me know what I am supposed to have done then I can reply properly. Until then all I can do is point out that I haven’t.
Turn to God. Ask for His forgiveness.
I can’t ask for forgiveness if I don’t know what I am supposed to have done, now can I? Don’t be silly.
Every single one of us needs to ask Him for forgiveness every single day.
Ask Him for forgiveness and ask Him to show you where you need to be forgiven. They are prayers He will answer for you as he does for any person who ever offers such prayers
Every single one of us needs to ask Him for forgiveness every single day.
Yes, and I can think of several things I need to ask forgiveness for. But ‘defaming God’ isn’t one of them because, well, I haven’t done that.
In that case ask Him to forgive you for the things you know have offended Him and ask Him to show you where else you have offended him.
Not, incidentally, because of anything I have said but because that is what everyone of us should do daily
Not, incidentally, because of anything I have said but because that is what everyone of us should do daily
Is this you admitting that your bizarre accusation of me ‘defaming God’ was nonsense?
In which case I accept your apology.