The bishops and LLF: integrity, division, or power-play?


Andrew Goddard writes: Shortly before General Synod, in the light of what I had earlier written at the start of the discernment process concerning what was needed from the bishops and possible ways forward, I argued for a pause rather than a rush to judgment in the form of a vote. This did not happen and now, a month on from the marathon debate spread over two days (and able to viewed here and here) and with a meeting of the College of Bishops imminent on Thursday 23rd March, it is perhaps good to take stock on where we are in three parts:

  1. Look back at what the bishops proposed and their original motion (passed with one amendment by 250 members for to 181 against and with 10 abstentions, though only just in the House of Laity where the vote was basically 52/48) and the reception of it particularly in the light of the voting in Synod.
  2. Look at some key theological and legal issues particularly given the Cornes amendment (to “endorse the decision of the College and the House of Bishops not to propose any change to the doctrine of marriage, and their intention that the final version of Prayers of Love and Faith should not be contrary to or indicative of a departure from the doctrine of the Church of England”) added to that original motion by Synod.
  3. Look ahead at some of the challenges facing us as a church, particularly the bishops seeking to implement their response post-Synod.

I explore the first question, looking at the details of voting, in my article at Fulcrum here. In this piece, I explore questions 2 and 3, also available on Fulcrum here and here respectively.

Looking at the issues

No change to the doctrine of marriage

The bishops in their response to LLF stated “we have agreed at this time to maintain the doctrine of Holy Matrimony which the Church has received, and which is set out in its Canons and authorised liturgies” (p 7) and they continued “namely that Holy Matrimony is between one man and one woman for life”. That final phrase is, however, only one aspect of the doctrine of marriage as both Canon B30, and the Book of Common Prayer it summarises, say much more than this.

In particular, as the Bishop of London said in an answer to a question raised in November last year (Q 38) as to whether Canon B30 “represents the doctrine of the Church” and so “any sexual relations outside of this definition of marriage is a sin”:

Canon B 30 does indeed continue to articulate the doctrine of the Church, including asserting that holy matrimony is the proper context for sexual intimacy.

This view was also clearly stated in the Pastoral Statement of December 2019 (para 9), quoting the last teaching document on Marriage from the House of Bishops. It is referred to in the LLF book (p 33) and it has in the past been regularly stated by Archbishop Justin as his own understanding.

However, the response to LLF simply claims (p 8) that “while not explicitly stated in the Church’s Canons, for many years the church has taught that the only rightful place for sexual activity is marriage”. At Synod, the Bishop of London seemed (while repeating e.g. in answer to questions 146 & 147 and 150 the current teaching in this area) studiously to avoid referring to the Church’s doctrine in this area. She and others, including the Archbishop of York, have made statements that suggest either that this is no longer the Church’s doctrine or that the bishops are still to decide whether it remains the Church’s doctrine and will do so in their pastoral guidance.

There would, in the light of this, appear to be 3 options open to the bishops:

  1. In line with past statements and their commitment to maintain the doctrine of marriage to reaffirm this teaching concerning sexual behaviour as part of that doctrine and be faithful to it in the final version of the prayers and their pastoral guidance.
  2. To seek to revise this teaching concerning sexual behaviour and so renege on their commitment to maintain existing doctrine and either claim they as bishops have the authority to alter the doctrine unilaterally and perhaps by a simple majority or to propose such a change to see if can gain the support of 2/3 of each House of Synod.
  3. To revise this teaching concerning sexual behaviour and to claim that all previous statements have been in error in stating that it is the doctrine of the Church and defend this rapid reinterpretation and overturning of the supposedly unchanged doctrine.

This is the first of five issues that are important in relation to what the bishops, now supported by Synod, say is the case in relation to their response to LLF, namely that it is and should be

Neither contrary to nor indicative of a departure from the doctrine of the Church of England

There are also a number of challenges facing the claim that the proposed prayers are not even “indicative of a departure” from the doctrine of the Church of England. Four, in particular, stand out.

1. Marriage and Sex

Assuming it remains the case that the doctrine of marriage includes “asserting that holy matrimony is the proper context for sexual intimacy” (Bishop of London, November 2022) then, as supported by legal advice in 2016 (in appendix to GS 2055, especially para 9) and 2018 there would be major difficulties in using the prayers for any relationship (whatever its goods, disciplines or virtues) that was a sexual relationship but not holy matrimony. While ways around this might be found, they are likely to result in prayers being pastorally unusable on the part of most clergy, couples, and congregations who would wish to use them as those using them generally do not support that doctrine.

The alternatives as noted above are to change the doctrine or to claim it was mis-stated previously. These, however, involving altering the historic and publicly stated moral teaching of the church concerning sexual immorality. We then need to ask, drawing on the work of the Faith and Order Commission in Communion and Disagreement and summarised in the LLF book (230-4), about the seriousness of this change: what level of disagreement do our differences over this matter represent? It would be difficult, given the biblical witness and its consistent warnings concerning sexual immorality, to see this as a relatively unimportant matter or adiaphora (one of the ‘things indifferent’).

2. Same-sex civil marriage and the doctrine of marriage

As I set out in an earlier article, ever since the introduction of same-sex marriage, the bishops, and the Church of England in a legal case, have argued that to enter a same-sex civil marriage is to depart from the church’s teaching whether one is ordained or not (e.g. 2014 statement, paras 21, 26 and 27). In the case of a clergyperson doing so “he or she is fashioning his life in a way that is inconsistent with the doctrine of Christ as expounded by Canon B 30” according to the 2016 legal advice (para 12). It would therefore appear that the proposal that prayers of celebration and blessing may be said to mark a civil marriage between people of the same-sex is also “inconsistent with the doctrine of Christ as expounded by Canon B 30”. That legal advice set out (para 13) the view that this could only change by amending Canon B 30 or issuing a teaching document explaining “that a person who enters into such a civil marriage should not, merely by doing so, be considered as acting in a way contrary to the doctrine set out in Canon B 30”.

The attempt by the bishops and their legal advisors to offer an explanation for this shift not only falls well short of either of these routes, a central element of its logic—the separation of civil marriages from holy matrimony, despite the vows at a civil ceremony possibly including ‘I do solemnly declare, that I know not of any lawful impediment why I (your name) may not be joined in matrimony to (your partner’s full name)’—has, it seems, convinced nobody.

The presumption must, therefore, be that the prayers if used in relation to a couple in a civil same-sex marriage (and perhaps even a civil partnership given that legally this is seen as equivalent to a same-sex marriage) are, as proposed, in fact “indicative of a departure from the doctrine of the Church of England” until some better legal advice and teaching from the bishops persuasively argues otherwise.

3. Prayers distinct from marriage prayers

In her presentation to General Synod, the Bishop of London, stated that the Prayers of Love and Faith enable “welcoming and celebrating the Christian virtues of faithfulness, mutual love and lifelong commitment of so many same-sex couples in our churches and in wider society” and they do so “without changing the Church’s doctrine of holy matrimony” because “they do not use any of the liturgical material of the Church of England’s authorised services of marriage”. Here we have a clear statement as to one of the conditions that the bishops recognise need to be met if the prayers are not to be indicative of a departure from the doctrine of the Church of England.

Yet the Synod had already been given details “of the original liturgical sources from which the prayers, acclamations and promises in ‘Prayers of Love and Faith’ are drawn” by the Bishop of Lichfield in answer to a question (Q 176) from Andrew Atherstone. These reveal that 15 of the 31 draft prayers are lifted or adapted from the marriage liturgy in Common Worship: Pastoral Services. Putting together this fact from the Vice-Chair of the Liturgical Commission with the criterion presented by the Chair of the Next Steps Group shows that considerably more work needs to be done.

4. What does it mean to bless?

There also needs to be greater clarity about the nature of blessing—biblically, theologically, liturgically, and pastorally—and what is being proposed. This is key to the bishops’ response but a matter which was unaddressed in the LLF materials and so is a novelty needing careful scrutiny. There have been a number of claims made and at least five important outstanding issues:

First, the Archbishop of Canterbury, at the press conference, stressed that “this seeks to bless people and that’s really important”.  There can be no objection to praying for God to bless a person—we are commanded even to bless those who persecute us (Romans 12:14)—but the prayers very clearly are for the people as a couple and for their relationship. The legal advice acknowledges this even as it seeks to make another distinction by stating “any blessing is of the couple and the good in their relationship, not of the civil status they may have acquired” (para 4).

Andrew Davison, author of a book-length study of blessing, wrote an article for the Church Times entitled, “We will bless couples, not just people” in which he was clear:

There have been suggestions that we are blessing people, not relationships. That is not a good distinction to make. Anthropologically, it is not tenable to talk about people or couples in abstraction from their relationships, commitments, or households.

Second, whether it is simply on people or on the relationship is important in relation to the prayers’ compatibility with doctrine because Isabelle Hamley’s paper on blessing which resourced the bishops states that

A prayer of blessing specifically over the relationship would imply a judgement that this relationship is in keeping with what we understand of God’s divine purposes (p. 7, italics added).

This is at best in tension and perhaps total contradiction to another claim that has been made to defend blessing as not indicative of a departure from doctrine: “God’s blessing…is not a statement of approval” (Bishop of London to General Synod).

This highlights a serious challenge to the approach taken by the bishops of offering prayers with no clear commitments being made by those prayed for (unlike the service of prayer and dedication after a civil marriage). Either it is to be held that praying for people in a particular relationship “is not a statement of approval” in which case it would appear that the prayers could, perhaps should, be offered to everyone with no concern as to the pattern of relationship just as we bless those who persecute us. Or there needs to be some discernment and, in the proper sense, discrimination shown (as, for example, in relation to remarriage in church after divorce). It would appear that—despite the comments above disconnecting blessing from approval and stressing its universality—the bishops are inclined to follow the second path given the Bishop of London responded to Q163 at the February Synod by saying that the Pastoral Guidance

will include setting out unequivocally the necessary qualities for a relationship to be considered chaste, faithful and holy. This will necessarily include ensuring that the relationship does not transgress existing legal relationships, such as a marriage or civil partnership.

The key issue here is captured again by Andrew Davison, a supporter of the proposed way forward:

Nor, ethically, can we relinquish the need to be discerning over what we bless, and what we do not. It won’t work to evade that by shifting from the relationship to the people. I would not bless arms-trading. By no means, then, could I go to an arms fair, and bless it anyway, saying that I’m only blessing the arms-dealer, and not his work or way of life. Blessing requires discernment. I look forward immensely to blessing same-sex couples, but that has to mean that I would not bless a relationship that is clearly abusive, for instance, or openly promiscuous.

If this path of discernment is the one the bishops take then, for the prayers to conform to the amendment, judgments concerning which relationships can be prayed for will need clearly to be consistent with the church’s doctrine of marriage.

Third, those who carefully read the bishops’ response noted that the prayers included prayers of dedication and thanksgiving but prayers for God’s blessing. Some who clearly uphold the doctrine of marriage have highlighted this distinction between prayers of and for blessing in justifying their support for the proposals. Whatever the validity of such a nuanced distinction in principle (itself a matter on which there are major disagreements) or its importance in enabling some bishops to support the proposals, it soon became clear that the Archbishop of York and other bishops were not committed to carefully upholding it and were happy to talk of same-sex couples now being able to receive a blessing or God’s blessing.

Fourth, these developments need to be set within the wider Anglican Communion where the 1998 Lambeth resolution I.10 made clear that the bishops of the Communion “cannot advise the legitimising or blessing of same sex unions”. As recently as their December 2019 statement on Civil Partnerships the bishops (para 18) quoted the previous Archbishop’s statement that “it is through liturgy that we express what we believe, and that there is no theological consensus about same sex unions” and the Primates conclusion that “therefore, we as a body cannot support the authorisation of such rites”. At the Press Conference the current Archbishop claimed the prayers “fall very clearly within” Lambeth I.10 but the reality seems to be quite the opposite and the Archbishop of York, other bishops, and the CofE comms department have described the proposed changes in a way that fall very clearly outside Lambeth 1.10. The logic of the House now appears to amount to, “there is no theological consensus about same sex unions. Therefore, we as a body support commending prayers and forms of service for the blessing of same-sex unions including same-sex marriages”.

Fifth, in determining whether or not, in the light of the above, the prayers are indicative of a departure from the doctrine of the Church of England it is important that attention is not paid solely to the words on the page. The current draft wording, by not referring to the couples as married and not speaking of sexual intimacy, could perhaps be argued to be in conformity with the doctrine of marriage. I suspect I could pray many, perhaps most, of the prayers for an unmarried cohabiting couple or a couple in a same-sex civil marriage, if I were doing so privately and in the context of pastoral care and discipleship where I am explaining and commending to them the church’s doctrine of marriage and encouraging them to order their life together in greater conformity to it.

But the test of whether a departure from doctrine is being indicated depends on the prayers as acts of the worshipping church and so the context in which, and the people and relationships for which, they are prayed are crucial. The same prayers said in a public service which makes no reference to the doctrine of marriage or teaching about chastity and instead simply celebrates whatever non-marital commitment two people have made to each other, probably in the context of a sexual relationship, are very different. This is particularly the case given the likelihood of the service, perhaps following soon after a civil ceremony of marriage, and involving much of the ceremonial and choreography associated with a wedding (the prayers themselves refer to rings) as is, it seems, the case with such services when they occur unofficially at present as explained in a recent study:

All four priests indicated that all services of blessing they attended or officiated at were seen and discussed as marriages by the clergy involved, the couple themselves and their guests. Typically, Father Peter answered my question about the vocabulary that was used with and around the same-sex couples whose union he celebrated by saying that whereas “publicly it was a service of prayer and thanksgiving, privately we talked about marriage and wedding. The guests talked about ‘the wedding.’ In the reception hall, the decoration, everything was about a wedding” (“Blessing Same-Sex Unions in the Church of England, Journal of Anglican Studies (2019), 17, p. 156).

In summary, if the bishops are to take seriously their own commitment to continue to uphold the doctrine of marriage and not to act in ways indicative of a departure from it then (as Christopher Cocksworth has set out) there are several major theological, liturgical, and legal questions they need to answer. This is particularly so given they are now arguing for developments which they rejected when they sought in GS2055 to uphold the doctrine and to enable “maximum freedom within it”.

Looking ahead—where do we go from here?

What the bishops have offered in their response and what the Synod has (with the significant Cornes amendment) supported was described as indicating the direction of travel. In much of the CofE comms, print and social media reporting, and in a video produced and shown to Synod and now posted online, the impression given is of full-steam ahead. This portrays there now being an irreversible move to accept blessing non-marital unions, including same-sex marriages, and perhaps changes to the patterns of life permitted to those in ordained ministry.

If, however, the bishops’ own commitment to uphold the current doctrine of marriage, now supported by Synod, is taken seriously then this creates major challenges to this narrative. It would appear that the bishops face four broad options:

  1. To admit their current proposals fail to meet these conditions and so, if they are to be implemented, there needs to be a change of some form to the doctrine of marriage; or
  2. To clarify and revise the proposals in such a way that what they permit clearly does not indicate a departure from the doctrine. The difficulty here is that this is likely to lead to proposed changes that (as in GS 2055) are so limited that what is offered is something which few (if any) are seeking and is likely, to use words found in past legal advice, to “be considered pastorally unusable in respect of the occasion for which it was intended”; or
  3. To recognise that there are deep disagreements within the church, and perhaps among the bishops themselves, as to whether or not what is being proposed passes the doctrinal test and take time to address this further. This would be in the hope that greater clarity and consensus and/or some settlement as to how we live best together across our differences will emerge in a process of reception; or
  4. To exert episcopal and archepiscopal power in order to drive forward what they have now been understood to promise, while still insisting they have kept to the constraints set down in the amendment even through effectively this means overturning or disregarding past legal advice and clear episcopal teaching as to the doctrine of marriage.

The worrying signs so far are that this fourth option is the one being pursued. Leadership does not here involve listening and responding to the significant and substantive concerns being raised in relation to these proposals and taking seriously the need for a process of reception. Leadership, in this perspective, involves viewing the concerns as the storm caused by people who are upset, a storm that was predicted and needs to be ignored in order to reach the intended destination as quickly as possible.

Among the many negative effects if this is what happens is its effect on the respect and trust in the LLF process and, even more seriously, the episcopate of the Church of England. There is strong anecdotal evidence that respect and trust has already been significantly eroded. One bishop reported on their group at General Synod which met before the debate and vote:

In my group, all expressed their fear and confusion about the LLF process; why Synod hadn’t been given more agency in the LLF process and there was a sense of their being silenced and of betrayal by the Bishops, which was reinforced by the Bishops’ ‘leak’.

If, instead of addressing this, the bishops yield to the temptation to plough on with their plans and keep to the tight timetable of completing the process by July, they will not only have appeared to sit loose to their commitment to conform their actions to the church’s doctrine and to pay attention to power.  They will have increased the levels of fear and confusion and deepened the experience of being silenced, disregarded, and betrayed already identified.

All this will, inevitably, make it much more difficult to accomplish their goal of us walking together as far as possible and as closely as possible. To achieve this goal will require, instead, facing up to what for me and others was one of the significant fruits of the LLF process but one which the bishops’ response simply sidesteps or turns a blind eye to: our disagreements arise because of the deeply and sincerely held, divergent and often incompatible, theological convictions within the church on these matters.

In the recent words of the Bishop of Rochester to his Diocesan Synod:

My profoundest instinct as a pastor is to seek for a way forward that could be embraced by all. However, the divided nature of the votes at General Synod, together with the reactions of people with very diverse convictions about these issues, have led me to believe that this is simply not possible. There are fundamentally different conceptions amongst us of what God requires of his people in terms of how we live out our relationships and our sexuality.

In the end, each of us has to make a choice about our own understanding of these hugely important and deeply personal issues. As Bishop of the Diocese of Rochester, I am having to make a choice on where I stand, painful though that is. My fellow bishops up and down the country will each make their choices – and one thing is certain: that we will not all agree. And then we as God’s people will have to work out how we will relate to one another, care for one another and love each other as followers of Jesus Christ and children of our heavenly Father.

Whatever path we eventually take, consideration is going to have to be made as to what taking it means for the very significant minority who fundamentally disagree with it and want to take a different path.  Few of them are likely to wish simply to “walk apart” but they cannot, in good conscience, simply “walk together” down the chosen path. It might even be the case that, even if not in relation to the prayers, then in relation to the pastoral guidance which more directly addresses the exercise of episcopal ministry, this dilemma of conscientiously following different paths will soon have to be faced among the bishops themselves.

Appeals to unity are right and proper but we cannot ignore the other marks of the church and the sad reality that in every other Christian denomination, (as the CEEC pointed out in their important Gospel, Church and Marriage: Preserving Apostolic Faith and Life), when a church is perceived by a significant minority to be moving away from ‘apostolic’ and ‘catholic’ teaching concerning what it means to be ‘holy’ this will tragically mean it becoming less visibly ‘one’.

If the bishops are serious about being a focus of unity both within their dioceses (most of which as we have seen appear significantly divided) and the Church of England, then they cannot simply carry on “full steam ahead” given the many questions that remain unanswered about why they have chosen this path. Nor is it helpful to suggest there is ultimately a binary choice between either accepting the proposals, however reluctantly, which have the support of a majority, for the sake of unity or being guilty, by resisting them, of causing division and schism. Such an insistence on “unity” framed in these terms will, paradoxically, probably make it more difficult to achieve the highest degree of communion possible and even risks not just the falling apart of not just the Church of England but the total collapse of the Anglican Communion.

Rather, we each need to recognise the sad reality of which the Archbishop of York spoke in his Synod speech – “I am already living, as all of us are, with impaired Eucharistic communion within our church”. And that means, as he would subsequently write, we need, based on recognition of our baptismal communion with one another (and with those who are not Anglicans and in quite separate ecclesial structures of jurisdiction) that has helped ecumenical relations, “to apply the same ecumenical theology to some of our own internal disagreements as members of the Church of England and the worldwide Anglican Communion”.

This is the best, perhaps only, way to avoid repeating the sad history “where disagreement usually leads to division, division to conflict, and conflict to schism”.  But if we are to do this then we need what in Synod he called “discussions about some kind of settlement”, discussions that can only benefit from being set in the wider Communion context of reflection on what the ACC agreed (Resolution 3(a)) shortly after General Synod met: how we might secure some form of “good differentiation” through exploring “theological questions regarding structure and decision-making to help address our differences” and “learning from our ecumenical conversations how to accommodate differentiation patiently and respectfully”. As those words from the Communion context signal, this challenging process cannot be limited simply to giving pastoral reassurances or a focus on individual consciences without reference to structures and decision-making.

These discussions cannot be expected—even within the Church of England—to reach an agreed solution by this summer. That, in turn, means that—assuming most bishops agree with the Archbishop of York that “I won’t be able to support commending these prayers until we have the pastoral guidance and pastoral provision” (italics added)—there is no point in driving forward the current proposals as they stand. Much better to take the third option suggested above: continue a process of reception in which the prayers and new pastoral guidance can be developed with serious theological consideration as to whether this is possible within the limits set by the church’s doctrine while also engaging in exploration of our own “settlement” in order to secure sufficient “pastoral reassurance” and “provision” and, where necessary, “good differentiation” in some structural form, consistent with that being discerned in and for the wider Communion.


Revd Dr Andrew Goddard is Assistant Minister, St James the Less, Pimlico, Tutor in Christian Ethics, Westminster Theological Centre (WTC) and Tutor in Ethics at Ridley Hall, Cambridge.  He is a member of the Church of England Evangelical Council (CEEC) and was a member of the Co-Ordinating Group of LLF.


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

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


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

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


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

247 thoughts on “The bishops and LLF: integrity, division, or power-play?”

  1. Even the Roman Catholic Church of Germany has just approved blessings of homosexual couples in its churches. Evangelicals have got to realise there is no turning back now, blessings only rather than full homosexual marriages within the Church of England is as far a compromise as liberal Catholics will accept.

    This week Ben Bradshaw is even proposing a bill in Parliament to impose homosexual marriage on the Church of England to bring the established church in line with UK law. Now while that likely fails if the blessings now approved by Synod are not swiftly approved that may well be what you get if Labour win the next general election, especially with a majority

    Reply
    • The German RC church has no such power, but I’m not sure what their decision has to do with evangelicals in the church of England or the decisions of the church of England which are governed by canon law, the 39 articles and historic ordinances and primarily by scripture, not German Catholic synods.

      Parliament are welcome to try and interfere with the doctrine of the church of England. Frankly it would be a rapid road to disestablishment which I personally welcome.

      Reply
      • Parliament ultimately can alter the canons, articles and ordinances of the Church of England as it likes, it being the established church. However Synod having formally approved blessings for homosexual couples that is now unlikely provided the Church of England sees that through. The Church of England will of course always be the established church, evangelicals who won’t even accept the blessings with an opt out clause are welcome to leave for their nearest Baptist, Pentecostal or charismatic evangelical church

        Reply
        • Of course the Church of England dosn’t always have to be the established church. It would be quite possible to disestablish with enough political will: Parliament wouldn’t keep it established against its will (what sort of state would do that?)

          Why should I leave? I firmly believe that the Canons, 39 articles and the Ordinal of the BCP, and the episcopate bear true witness to the scriptures. i.e. I am Anglican – I believe the Baptists, Pentacostals and FIEC err in a number of (minor) ways.

          Reply
          • Of course it does, the Church of England was founded as the established church. That is by definition its core purpose. We traditional Anglicans and High Church Anglicans in the Liberal Catholic tradition are adamant about that and we are ready to fight anybody within the Church who supports disestablishment every step of the way.

            The Church of England as the established church however also has to partly reflect the values of society in which it operates, including blessing homosexual couples even if not full homosexual marriage. If you will not even accept that then you are quite welcome to leave for the Free Church of England or another GAFCON church

          • T1, you say: the established church however also has to partly reflect the values of society in which it operates.

            That is, in my opinion, precisely wrong. The job of a church, any church, who claims allegance to Christ, should be to call people to repent and believe the Gospel. It should not be in the business of providing teachers who will say what the world’s itching ears want to hear.

            Clergy and lay ministers swear to uphold the faith as revealed in the Holy Scriptures, as set forth in the Catholic Creeds and as witnessed to by the historical formularies of the Church, the BCP the 39 articles and the ordering of bishops priests and deacons. There is no requirement to pander to the current zeitgeist.

            It is those who want change who should leave, and see how they get on.

          • There are umpteen churches who refuse to even allow gay blessings you can go to. Synod has voted for homosexual blessings and that is what will now happen in the Church of England. The BCP affirms the King as head of the Church and the 39 articles say nothing against blessings of homosexual couples (though Parliament can of course change them if they did as it is the established church)

          • There are umpteen churches who refuse to even allow gay blessings you can go to.

            And there are umpteen ‘churches’ that will marry (not just bless) same-sex couples that you can go to. So you leave.

          • I am fine with the blessings compromise

            Do you not think it’s important for doctrine to be logically consistent, then?

        • Parliament ultimately can alter the canons, articles and ordinances of the Church of England as it likes, it being the established church.

          It can, but quite often Parliament does cack-handed, idiotic things that end up having consequences quite beyond what Parliament intended. This would be one such case.

          However Synod having formally approved blessings for homosexual couples that is now unlikely provided the Church of England sees that through.

          Surely what’s been approved is blessings for homosexual individuals, quite specifically not blessings for couples?

          The Church of England will of course always be the established church,

          I suppose Parliament could legislate that the official name of the new National Multi-Faith Community would be ‘the Church of England’. But it wouldn’t actually be the Church of England, would it? It would be a totally new thing that just happened to share the same name as what had once been the established church.

          Reply
        • T1 writes: ”The Church of England will always be the established church”.
          -That is not the only thing that is true of the Church of England, but one thing among many.

          ”The Church of England came into being because of Jesus Christ, and rests on his work and words.”
          -That is another thing that is true of it.

          It is clear which of the two is much more important. Which one is cosmic and which one is parochial and small-town.

          Reply
          • The Church of England came into being as Henry VIII wanted to break with Rome and create a new church they would allow him to marry Anne Boleyn. If worshipping Jesus Christ alone is paramount you could just as well be Baptist or Roman Catholic or Pentecostal. Only being a liberal Catholic Church with the King as its supreme governor and the established church in England makes the Church of England unique

          • That is a daft and partial reading of history. The specific question of Henry opened the door for the Reformers, who had rather bigger concerns.

          • Nonconformity in England was effectively illegal as much as Roman Catholicism was from 1662. ‘Reformists’ as you call them included Presbyterians, Baptists and Calvinists and Congregationalists and were not part of the established Church of England, not least as they rejected episcopal ordination and many refused to swear loyalty to the King. Only in 1828 were all nonconformists able to legally hold public office

          • If you won’t mention Jesus of your own initiative, you can still say where you think Jesus fits into the picture, fits into the hierarchy.

    • “Even the Roman Catholic Church of Germany has just approved blessings of homosexual couples in its churches.”

      Just to be clear, the ‘Synodal path’ process has recommended such blessings be considered, and the form of them explored, which is what some Bishops are now committing to do. In this, you could argue, the Catholic Bishops in Germany are at a similar point in the process to the CofE. It is reasonably plausible that Bishops who depart in their practice from the official CCC will be censured and declared schismatics.

      There may yet be major consequences for this decision.

      Reply
    • I have been in touch with Ben and this Bill is not going to get on the statute book. There is insufficient time to do that in the present sitting of Parliament. Rather, its purpose is to signal to the bishops that Parliament is troubled by the perceived discrimination that continues to operate in the Church of England – the National and Established Church – and continues to follow the issue attentively.

      I don’t want to regurgitate all the arguments for and against gay marriage in the Church of England. My position has been made clear to MPs here: http://anglicans.co.uk

      If you want to listen to Ben Bradshaw presenting his Bill this morning, he should rise to speak around 11.30 and of course proceedings can be followed on BBC Parliament:
      https://www.bbc.co.uk/tv/bbcparliament

      Reply
    • Ben Bradshaw’s Bill easily passed its first reading in the House this afternoon. He was kind enough to mention my wife and me in his speech. The second reading is not until November, by which time who knows what kind of state the CofE will be in… most probably drifting along with the proposals made in the February Synod, which are frankly unsatisfactory for almost everyone. It just means more attrition and rancour lie ahead. The present aim of this Bill was to advise the Church of England that Parliament is unhappy with what it perceives as discrimination and a failure to allow freedom of conscience on this issue. Yes it has the powers to intervene further if it wishes, but in fact its main target would be the removal of Parliament’s part of the quadruple lock. Then it would be up to the Church of England as to whether it chose to allow a permissive approach to ‘plural consciences’ – in other words respect for religious freedom and freedom of conscience – but at least Parliament would not then be party to discrimination itself.

      I have no wish to regurgitate the arguments for and against gay marriage here, but I am happy – in a democracy – for Parliament to have a say. It is clear that the Bill has support even if, given limits on Parliamentary time, and changing circumstances in July, it may never become law.

      I simply believe that those who wish to oppose gay marriage be allowed to do so (on theological grounds that I respect), and those who wish to affirm gay marriage in church should also be allowed to.

      There’s no other realistic way to end this debilitating impasse and doctrinal logjam in the Church. If the bishops can’t sort this all out, perhaps in the end, the Church of England will indeed need help from outside.

      I would have voted against the bishops’ proposals in February. I support those who want the whole thing re-booted in July. However, what I suspect is that the bishops aim to string this whole affair on for years to come, and in this they are supported by liberal Christians who hope the ‘slippery slope’ approach will lead first to public church blessings and eventually to church weddings for gay and lesbian couples.

      Personally I believe that policy may lead to some degree of schism, and I should prefer to see a ‘settlement’ sooner because this total train-crash can’t carry on.

      Reply
      • There’s no other realistic way to end this debilitating impasse and doctrinal logjam in the Church.

        Of course there is (and, given your suggestion isn’t realistic, it’s the only realistic way): a split, with or without disestablishment.

        Reply
      • How can you be happy, Susannah, to see a church have its regulations dictated by a Parliament which is largely secular? The church should govern itself under Christ, and let Parliament persecute it if Parliament chooses. And it is high time to insert a comment about adhering to the biblical definition of sin into the Creed.

        Reply
        • Thank you for your question, Anton.

          I don’t believe that Parliament largely dictates doctrine to the Church of England. The majority of doctrinal assertions are formed within the life and tradition of the Church.

          Even on sexuality at this stage, Parliament is expressing a view, and suggesting it may take a step back from involvement itself by distancing itself from the Quadruple Lock. That’s a focal part of Ben’s initiative today (not just Ben – he was speaking for other MPs as well). If the Church of England wants to refuse marriage to gay couples, that doesn’t mean that Parliament has to sustain its own part in that (as it seems to see it) discrimination.

          All that said, the Church of England is not simply a standalone denomination. It is part of a constitutional arrangement, involving potential tensions, but a co-existence over time with Parliament and the Monarchy.

          It has powers of autonomy devolved to it by Parliament and the King, but it is not independent of them. It is an Established and National Church that exists for *all* the people who want it, and not just its membership. It offers, for example, a right of marriage in their own parish church to any parishioner who wants it (even if they don’t regularly attend church)… unless… they happen to be lesbian or gay.

          It has privileges, such as 26 seats in the House of Lords, the right to crown the King, and oversight of 4600 schools. In short, it is part of the fabric of society – especially with its historic presence and buildings in parishes up and down the land – acting as a focus for great state occasions, tragedies, royal weddings etc.

          As such, for better and for worse, it is wedded to the State. And yes, I know, you will say that it should be wedded to Christ. But it’s also accountable in human terms to Parliament. That’s the historic reality.

          Personally I AM happy, Anton. My position is anti-disestablishmentarianism. I believe over many centuries God has used the Church of England, and formed it with possibilities of grace, through the very Church-State-Monarchy tensions. That changes the nature of its operations and stops it becoming a one-legged stool more prone to toppling over into puritanism or sectarianism. Instead, at various times, it has evolved as a ‘Broader Tent’… with a need to tolerate diversity of views, and find grace to keep on loving those with different views.

          It forces people to fall back on love rather than cerebral dogma as its modus operandi. Or, at least it can work that way… with the influences that come from decent secular values, necessary engagement with the body politik, and its very close links with thousands of communities, and many people not consciously ‘born again’ who still regard the Church of England as ‘their’ Church. Which it is, because it’s set up to a presence for *all* the nation, not only the holy few.

          Parliament is one of the three legs of the stool, and The Church lives in some degrees of balance within the constitutional arrangement. Parliament has every right to express a view on what it regards as discrimination and limits on people’s religious freedom and consciences imposed on them by a doctrine which even Andrew Goddard seems to recognise may not have majority support in reality.

          What irks the Parliamentarians is what looks like a moral failure to them, committed by a State body that’s supposed to uphold morality. Just as telling a black person ‘You must go somewhere else to get married’ would be regarded as completely unacceptable, to many MPs, telling gay couples the same is seen as appalling and disgraceful.

          When the House was asked today if it consented to a second reading of the Bill, there was a resounding Yes. When asked if there was dissent… there was silence.

          I’ve made my own appeal to MPs, setting out the reasons why they should be concerned. They should indeed be concerned because the bishops’ ‘cunning plan’ impacts not just regular churchgoers, but the wider public, and the friends, family, neighbours and colleagues of gay and lesbian couples devoted to each other. The Church of England’s position offends sense of decency, and as part of the State it is practising what many regard as discrimination – so they wonder: can such people be trusted to oversee the education of our children, the 4600 schools? And should people who want to be married in the National Church be allowed to? Even if others (like yourself) don’t have to take part in the services.

          Anyway, the division in the Church drags on. I’m as unhappy about that as you probably are. I think the February Synod was a disaster. Personally, if Church can’t sort itself out, it may need some outside assistance. Just saying. Because of constitutional realities.

          Reply
          • 1) Gay and lesbian people can, of course, get married in church.
            2) The church schools were founded and funded and run by the church before the government got in on it, why should they be taken away? Are you arguing against the right of any religion to run schools? Or against the right of people to educate their child in a religious enviroment?
            3) You misunderstand the nature of establisment: it cements Christianity in the state, not the state in christianity. The former would be intolerable, the latter is a byproduct of christendom.

          • Apologies for double post – edit function required!

            1) Gay and lesbian people can, of course, get married in church.
            2) The church schools were founded and funded and run by the church before the government got in on it, why should they be taken away? Are you arguing against the right of any religion to run schools? Or against the right of people to educate their child in a religious enviroment?
            3) You misunderstand the nature of establisment: it cements Christianity in the state, not the state in christianity. The latter would be intolerable, the former is a byproduct of christendom, which looks more and more unsustainable
            4) Parliament might have the authority to change canon law, but it would almost certianly lead to immediate disestablishment, so as an anti-disestablismentarian presumably you’d be against that.

          • The majority of doctrinal assertions are formed within the life and tradition of the Church.

            No they aren’t. None of the Church of England’s doctrinal assertions are formed within the life and tradition of the church. All of the Church of England’s doctrinal assertions are founded upon the Bible. Canon A5.

            It has privileges, such as 26 seats in the House of Lords, the right to crown the King, and oversight of 4600 schools.

            None of those are privileges of the Church. Having 26 seats in the House of Lords isn’t a privilege, it’s a responsibility, to help ensure the good governance of the country according to Christian principles. The church isn’t privileged to crown the King; the King is privileged to be crowned by the church, showing that his authority comes from God. If the Archbishop were to refuse to crown the King, on the grounds that the King was wicked, then it would be the King’s authority which was shot, not the church’s.

            And running 4,600 schools certainly isn’t a privilege; the word for that is burden.

      • Ben Bradshaw… “Of course, discussion about the potential impact of the Bill is somewhat academic, given that it has no chance of becoming law”

        In any case this would create an even bigger gateway for the Trojan horse of world first, God never…

        And he calls those opposed “bigots”…. He doesn’t show any biblical understanding of Church or Mission in his 10 minute rule speech …

        Reply
        • It has no chance of becoming law now yes as we have a Conservative government which is not giving it the support and time needed to pass. If after the next election the Synod has not followed through on its endorsement of blessings of homosexual couples then that situation may be different

          Reply
      • That is precisely why governments are not trusted. Just a few years ago they put into legislation a so-called quadruple lock that was supposed to be ‘iron clad’. The whole point of which was to assure the CoE the government would not try to force said church into performing gay ‘marriages’ regardless of society’s changing views. Now it’s back-tracking. Disgraceful.

        Reply
        • That is precisely why governments are not trusted. Just a few years ago they put into legislation a so-called quadruple lock that was supposed to be ‘iron clad’. […] Now it’s back-tracking.

          To be fair, the government has nothing to do with this silly Bill. It’s the pet project of an obscure opposition backbench MP who wishes his career had ever got far enough that he could be regarded as a has-been.

          Reply
  2. If such a measure is forced through by secular government, would an incumbent be forced to perform services they felt was against their consciousness, or could the fudge be to allow each parish church to make its own discernment?

    Reply
    • If such a measure is forced through by secular government, would an incumbent be forced to perform services they felt was against their consciousness

      Presumably any who did not wish to perform such services would be quietly encouraged to retire (if over a certain age) or would be moved into non-customer-facing roles where they wouldn’t be called upon to perform services at all. That would avoid the whole question.

      Reply
  3. Isn’t all of this a bit academic? The reality is that any clergy who conduct a service of blessing for a same-sex couple can do so already using any material – or just make something up – and no bishop can (or will) now do anything about it.

    Reply
    • The reality is that any clergy who conduct a service of blessing for a same-sex couple can do so already using any material – or just make something up – and no bishop can (or will) now do anything about it.

      That still means that a same-sex couple has to ‘shop around’ for a clergy-person willing to do that and a church willing to host it, rather than being able to expect it as of right, which I understand is objectionable.

      Reply
  4. The Christian Church must follow the teaching of Jesus and the apostles as laid out in the New Testament. 1 Thessalonians 4:3-8 clarify this. We are to live holy lives, set apart for God. This includes sexual purity and Paul States that this teaching is from God.

    Reply
        • Bring back the ex-gay movement? Why do you think it was such a disaster last time around, and ultimately organisations like Exodus International collapsed so spectacularly?

          Reply
          • Its successes mostly live quiet lives whereas its failures are trumpeted in the media, and some persons claimed it to be valid for every gay, which is not the case. But read Rosaria Butterfield or Jackie Hill-Perry’s books.

          • Plus, it becomes harder the more normal it is in surrounding society.
            It is society that changed, not the ability to desist from SS relations.

          • It is not the only such organisation and, as I said, successes mostly live quiet lives whereas failures go to the media to trumpet it. You can read the eloquent testimonies of Rosaria Butterfield and Jackie Hill-Perry, former secular lesbians now Christians and married.

  5. While it’s correct to point out in detail the hopeless web of confusion into which the C of E bishops have spun themselves, I imagine everything in reality will boil down to manipulation of church politics. If, by hook or by crook (careful wording, fine promises, etc) they can get the necessary votes at the July General Synod, it will be job done. Thereafter those who cannot accept the result will have to choose between the painful path of leaving the church and the murky path of stitching up arrangements which might push their own personal can down the road for a while longer.

    For a majority of the bishops it appears to be all about determination rather than doctrine, fixation rather than faithfulness, and there’s little evidence to suggest that it has ever been anything else. People just do what they want to do unless their consciences or immovable circumstances prevent them from doing it. I think it’s fair to say that those in the Church of England who oppose any notion of blessing same sex arrangements have failed to be that immovable circumstance which would have (long since) placed a block against the steady ratchet propelling the church to the current position. And signing up to the LLF process, however well intentioned, offered the perception that endless talking could obscure any troublesome vision of there being a certain place where a red line was drawn.

    So here we are. I wonder what Jesus or the epistle writers would say about a church which approached a plainly revealed biblical and biological boundary in terms of forms of words for getting around it. Have we in our 21st century sophistication lost that rather simple guide which can prompt us to know pretty clearly where right and wrong lie long before we apply our own intellectual genius to an issue? I know it’s a way of testing an issue which can be misapplied or manipulated, but that shouldn’t rule out our Christian’s instinct based on what we have learnt from the Master we serve. There’s everything about the Balaam story in all of this; and that’s a very troubling thought.

    Reply
    • I wonder what Jesus or the epistle writers would say about a church which approached a plainly revealed biblical and biological boundary in terms of forms of words for getting around it.

      No need to wonder, Don. Just read 2 Peter 2:1-3:

      … there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. Many will follow their depraved conduct and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. In their greed these teachers will exploit you with fabricated stories. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.

      Reply
  6. In an ideal world it would be done on a conscience basis but nothing to stop Parliament imposing homosexual marriage services on every Church of England church if the established church does not even implement the agreed blessings for homosexual couples

    Reply
    • nothing to stop Parliament imposing homosexual marriage services on every Church of England church

      Well, except that the constitutional chaos that would result would pretty surely end up in disestablishment and the replacement of the Church of England with a National Multi-Faith Community.

      But you’re right, I don’t think that many MPs understand or care about the foreseeable result of such cack-handed meddling, so disestablishment and a horrendous split seems pretty much inevitable now. Hope you like it.

      Reply
        • What rubbish. The vast majority of the country and indeed the King too support homosexual marriage, he is Supreme Governor not you and he has no problem whatsoever with the Church of England blessing homosexual couples. If you disagree then you must go and go now!!!

          Reply
          • You will not tell me where or when I will go.

            Charles is King by the authority of God, and will be crowned by authority of God by the archbishop. If you remove religion from the monarchy, you simply end up with hereditary priviledge, which would be manifestly unjust. If you disestablish the church you cut the monarch off from any rightful authority.

            But better a republic than a church cowed and run by a godless parliament.

          • The vast majority of the country and indeed the King too support homosexual marriage, he is Supreme Governor not you and he has no problem whatsoever with the Church of England blessing homosexual couples.

            So? It’s not up to the supreme governor of the Church of England. It’s up to the head of the Church of England. Remind me who that is again?

          • Oh I most certainly will. If you refuse to respect the will of Synod to bless homosexual couples, then there is no point your being in the established church. Charles will be anointed Supreme Governor of the Church of England yes however he has also made clear he will be defender of faith more widely too. The whole point of blessings of homosexual couples is to recognise the Church is the established church of a nation where homosexual marriage is legal. If you disagree, then in the words of that infamous non Anglican Oliver Cromwell, ‘in the name of God go!’

            The fact the monarchy and the Church of England reflect 21st century England better is a good thing and makes a republic even less likely

          • The head of the Church of England is the King, the Archbishop of Canterbury is just the most senior Bishop in it

          • No as only the Church of England is the established church and faith. However even the Church of England has correctly agreed as the established church to bless homosexual couples married in civil ceremonies in England while still reserving holy matrimony for heterosexual couples in its churches

          • However even the Church of England has correctly agreed as the established church to bless homosexual couples married in civil ceremonies in England while still reserving holy matrimony for heterosexual couples in its churches

            So does the Church of England regard the same-sex couples who have had civil ceremonies as married?

            If yes, then the Church of England has changed its doctrine of marriage.

            If no, then it obviously shouldn’t be blessing them as they are living in sin and the Church cannot bless sin.

            So: which is it?

          • Married in the eyes of the state yes though not the eyes of the Church. However as the established church the Church of England had correctly decides to bless couples married legally in the eyes of the state

          • However as the established church the Church of England had correctly decides to bless couples married legally in the eyes of the state

            So they are not married in the eyes of the Church. So they are, in the eyes of the Church, involved in a sinful sexual relationship. So the Church cannot correctly bless them, because to do so would be blessing sin, which the Church cannot do.

        • Christ is arguably the true head of the Roman Catholic church not the Pope, he isn’t head of the Church of England, even if the latter via apostolic succession still claims links to the former

          Reply
          • Christ is arguably the true head of the Roman Catholic church not the Pope, he isn’t head of the Church of England, even if the latter via apostolic succession still claims links to the former

            Sorry could you just repeat that? You’re coming right out and saying that Jesus Christ is not the head of the Church of England?

          • As I want the King to be head of my church and the Roman Catholic church doesn’t allow blessings of homosexual couples in England or ordination of women which I back

          • How can you, who claim to be a Christian, worship in the CoE if you deny that Christ is its head yet He is the head of other churches? Why do you not move to those?

          • As I want the King to be head of my church

            But I thought you were all about the apostolic succession. Where does the King come in the apostolic succession?

        • No the Church of England would remain part of the established church even in a Multi Faith community

          Whatever remained in a Multi-Faith Community wouldn’t be the Church of England, though, would it? It might be called ‘the Church of England’ but it wouldn’t be the Church of England for the rather blindingly obvious reason that it wouldn’t be a church, would it?

          Reply
  7. That’s a detailed flowchart in written form, Rev’d Goddard, and thank you. But it is written entirely as “If the bishops do this, then that…”. In other words it is purely reactive to what the bishops do. It takes no account of what evangelicals might do between now and July. They should, in short, declare war on the bishops, spiritual war. Unlike the bishops they have the sword of the Spirit on their side.

    Reply
      • If you oppose even the blessings Synod proposed you have no business being in the Established Church. You must leave tomorrow and found your own Gafcon Church or join a charismatic evangelical church. The law in England allows homosexual marriage and the established church must reflect that by blessing homosexual couples, even if it leaves full marriages for registry offices.

        Reply
        • I’m begining to think the ‘T’ in your pseudoname simply stands for Troll. Ian can you not remove this person? All he does is repeat the same fiction across multiple threads and derails potentially interesting conversation with rank trolling.

          Reply
          • Yes, he is very tiresome and he manages to hijack many discussions. That’s why I ignore him and I encourage to do the same.

            Do NOT feed the T(rol)1.

          • I’m not sure I’d go as far as calling T1 a troll. But they are certainly tin-eared to any arguments that don’t accord with their own views and blunt with their view that such people don’t belong in the CofE as they see it. And I find their assertions about the relative roles of Parliament and the CofE lacking in any significant historical understanding or logic. And their assertions about the priority a putative Labour government would accord to rewriting that particular arrangement especially naive. But then that’s just me…. I guess they’re as entitled to their, in my view mistaken, views as the rest of us who comment here.

          • I am a regular attendee of my local Church of England church which I attend every week, I am a reader and server there. I am on the electoral roll. I have just as much right to be hear as you and I will say what I think. Tough. Hardline, uncompromising evangelicals like you may refuse to hear alternate opinions, I will not appease you. I and many like me will take you on and hard.

          • I am a regular attendee of my local Church of England church which I attend every week, I am a reader and server there.

            Which is admirable, but makes it all the more bizarre that you don’t understand that the Church of England exists to serve God, not to serve the King or Parliament or society.

            Do you actually listen when the Word of God is read in your local Church of England church? Or do you just like the pretty sounds of the words?

          • I listen to the words of Christ, who never said a word against blessing homosexual couples. Like most Anglicans however I am not a biblical literalist on every word, I eat shellfish for starters

          • And I eat shellfish for main course, not just starters. Christians are not under the Law of Moses but what God calls toevah remains toevah in his eyes after the crucifixion, does it not?

          • Christ himself as I said never opposed blessings of homosexual couples, so there is nothing wrong with an established church doing things which don’t contradict his teachings. Even if the Church of England was of course founded over a 1000 years after Christ walked the earth as a breakaway from the original Christian Church of Rome Christ told St Peter to found.

          • Christ himself as I said never opposed blessings of homosexual couples, so there is nothing wrong with an established church doing things which don’t contradict his teachings.

            Christ never opposed nuclear weapons either, so presumably you’d be fine with the established church blessing a pre-emptive nuclear first strike, if asked to do so?

            And Christ never opposed slavery, so presumably you’d be okay with the Church of England blessing slave-owners, if Parliament decided to make slavery legal in the UK?

            After all, in your view the Church of England exists to serve the King, Parliament and society, not Jesus, right?

          • Either you take the word of Christ literally or not, unless Christ expressly forbids it then it is up to we humans how we manage our lives. Hence we no longer allow slavery but we do not make homosexual unions illegal, certainly in the western world

          • As we progressively reach enlightenment… at least artificial intelligence is consistent. I asked GPT4:

            Did Christ oppose same-sex relationships?
            There is no record of Jesus Christ discussing homosexuality in the Bible. However, some Evangelicals cite Matthew 19: 1–12 as evidence that Jesus defined marriage to exclude homosexual relationships and further indicating that all homosexual activity is sinful.

            It’s important to note that there are a variety of views on sexual orientation and homosexuality within Christianity.

            Did Christ forbid the use of nuclear weapons?
            There is no record of Jesus Christ discussing nuclear weapons in the Bible. However, the Catholic Church has long opposed the use of nuclear weapons, especially against non-nuclear threats, and the development of new nuclear weapons1. The Church urges that nuclear deterrence be replaced with concrete measures of disarmament based on dialogue and multilateral negotiations.

            It’s important to note that there are a variety of views on nuclear weapons within Christianity

          • Better still… I asked GPT4:

            Will the Church of England exist in ten years time?
            A: The Church of England has been experiencing a decline in worshippers over the years. According to an article by Church Times, there has been significant decline in English Anglicanism since 1980, but there has been limited growth too. David Voas’s work shows that between 1980 and 2013 electoral-roll members fell by 41 per cent, and usual Sunday attendance by 37 per cent. The Church of England has hemorrhaged just over half a million worshippers in just over 30 years, a decline of just over 40%.

            However, it’s difficult to predict whether the Church of England will exist in ten years time as it depends on various factors such as social trends, political changes and religious beliefs. According to an article by Anglican Ink, The Church of England will cease to be a national church, and the Churches of Scotland and Wales will disappear by the middle of this century.

            Instead, God will work through the next cycle of denominations – Pentecostal and Evangelical ones, picking up the pieces left by the extinct historic churches. [my emphasis]

            I hope this helps!
            ——————-
            … it does mighty AI, oh it does!

          • The Church of England has more members than Pentecostals or Independent evangelical churches in every age group in this country. It also attracts local people who don’t regularly go to church in its Parishes, especially in rural areas and market towns to get married or buried in its churches which independent evangelical churches don’t. The Church of England will be fine, whatever a ChatGPT4 preprogrammed by evangelicals on this topic decides

          • T1: ChatGPT4 preprogrammed by evangelicals

            Cutting edge tech preprogrammed by evangelicals?! Now that’s some serious mythmaking.

            Aren’t they all luddites strumming their guitars and singing Shine Jesus Shine?

          • The Church of England has more members than Pentecostals or Independent evangelical churches in every age group in this country.

            If you put Pentecostals, Baptists and independents together, though, they are bigger than the Church of England.

            And on its own the Roman church in England is bigger than the Church of England.

            The Church of England will be fine, whatever a ChatGPT4 preprogrammed by evangelicals on this topic decides

            You do realise that these ‘chat robots’ just search the inter-net and find whatever blocks of text appear most frequently next to other blocks? If the question produces that output, it’s because that’s what lots of people of the inter-net associate with the question.

            That’s not to say that the most frequent opinion is always correct — the crowd is not always wise — but it’s certainly the most widespread.

          • This seems somewhat harsh, Ian! Whatever happened to free speech?
            I thought this site was intended to encourage debate. Attempting to silence valid opinions that do not accord with the perceived majority view is a retrograde step. Personally, I find T1’s contributions a refreshing contrast to the biblical literalism and highly conservative theological and social attitudes expressed by so many of your contributors. I hope that T1 will not be cowed and will continue to provide much-needed grit for the Psephizo oyster!

          • There are so many things wrong with your comment, John.
            Nothing has any value by being majority, nor has anyone said it has. Things have value by being in accord with evidence, logic or both.
            Second, you use the word ‘valid’. What is the measure of what is or is not valid?
            ‘Refreshing contrast’ – in other words being different is a plus? Doesn’t it depend what it is different from and what it is actually saying?
            Biblical literalism and theological conservatism? It sounds like you are thinking in a binary way. You are in addition judging things by their conclusions not by the evidence on which those conclusions depend as academics would do. This is where the phrase jumping to conclusions comes from. It means that no thinking is necessary.
            The main objection to many of T1’s tweets is that he has not addressed questions, thereby making questionable whether his position stacks up – because the only reason to avoid a question is that one is unable to answer it. For example the questions about: where Jesus (the unmentionable Jesus) fits into the proposed system: and what exactly is a church given that Jesus seems to be no more than a sideline in the whole setup.

        • S: You do realise that these ‘chat robots’ just search the inter-net and find whatever blocks of text appear most frequently next to other blocks?

          The latest AI oracle (GPT4) is acing almost every exam based on language (90th percentile for the universal legal bar exam). I doubt it will ever be tested on theology but it’s also unlikely to be ‘curated’ on that subject as well – as the tech titans and elites think that religion is beneath them.

          Another no-nonsense question I put to GPT4 (Bing search)…

          Is gay sex sinful?
          GPT: The answer to your question depends on who you ask. Some religious institutions believe that all homosexual acts are sinful, often referring to their interpretation of scripture. Other churches today are influenced by a century of psychoanalytic thought promoted through a powerful minority in the field of medicine. They see homosexuality as some kind of sickness.

          According to the Bible, homosexuality is considered a sin. However, it is no more a sin than any other sin and is just as forgivable. The Catholic Church teaches that homosexual behavior—that is, acts intended to arouse or stimulate a sexual response regarding a person of the same sex—are always sinful.

          How long will it be before Jayne Ozanne demands that AI gives us the “correct” answers to these questions?

          Reply
          • The latest AI oracle (GPT4) is acing almost every exam based on language (90th percentile for the universal legal bar exam).

            Yes, because the answers are on the inter-net in close proximity to the phrases in the questions.

            How long will it be before Jayne Ozanne demands that AI gives us the “correct” answers to these questions?

            They just need to get their preferred answers on the inter-net (or the subset of it they use as input, probably more practical) more frequently than the others.

          • I think every agrees that these Large Language Models (LLMs) are doing something different. They aren’t looking up complete ‘answers’ on the net – but inferring the next likely word in any given sentence. The benchmark tests are always on novel questions.

            Maybe our brains, to some extent, do the same thing – even though we have the added capacity to reflect on any ‘output’.

          • I think every agrees that these Large Language Models (LLMs) are doing something different.

            They’re not. They’re just statistical engines. They just have bigger and bigger databases.

            They aren’t looking up complete ‘answers’ on the net – but inferring the next likely word in any given sentence.

            Yes, that’s the statistics. They analyse the frequency with which blocks of text appear near other blocks of text, and when you give them a prompt they use those frequencies to pick out what blocks of text would most likely appear near that prompt.

            Maybe our brains, to some extent, do the same thing – even though we have the added capacity to reflect on any ‘output’.

            Our minds don’t work that way at all, no. Not even close. The statistical engines don’t have any understanding of their input or their output; they’re just pattern-matching. We, on the other hand, understand.

          • Why is pattern-matching ruled out for human language? Isn’t most of infant talk and some adult small-talk a form of auto-complete?

            These chatbots lack agency at the moment but children are fluent conversationalists before they start reasoning about stuff that isn’t directly relevant to their survival/developmental needs (feeding, sleeping, comforting, playing etc).

          • Why is pattern-matching ruled out for human language?

            Well, it’s not how I use language. I can’t speak for you.

            Isn’t most of infant talk and some adult small-talk a form of auto-complete?

            No. It isn’t.

            These chatbots lack agency at the moment

            They don’t just lack agency, they lack thought entirely. What they are doing isn’t thinking.

          • How do you know the thinking part (attention to the assembled thought) doesn’t come after the string of words have been formed?

            Children babble first, then delight in learning repetitive phrases (nursery rhymes), then say grammatically correct but charmingly ‘incorrect’ phrases long before they carefully choose every spoken word.

          • How do you know the thinking part (attention to the assembled thought) doesn’t come after the string of words have been formed?

            Because that’s not how it works. I put the string of words together by thinking; I don’t generate a string of words and then epiphenomenally think up why those words came out.

          • All you have access to is the conscious layer of processing information- so it will definitely seem like you are selecting the next word in any sentence.

          • All you have access to is the conscious layer of processing information- so it will definitely seem like you are selecting the next word in any sentence.

            It seems like that’s what I’m doing because that is what I am doing. If you want to claim otherwise the burden of proof is on you to provide convincing evidence as to why my perception is inaccurate. Otherwise you’re doing no more than saying, ‘ah, but how do you know you’re not a brain in a jar and everything you perceive is just carefully-constructed false stimuli?’

          • In fact worse than that, because even Descartes wasn’t able to do what you apparently can and doubt that thinking is even taking place at all.

            Or as someone put it, ‘if consciousness is an illusion, who is it fooling?’

          • I’m not denying the thinking part at all.

            Grammar is a pattern matching skill that children get the hang of long before develop a theory of mind (aged 8) and ascribe mental states to others. So their use of language does differ from adults. And it’s practically impossible to know the subjective state of a 3 year old (who can talk fluently) because none of us retain memories of that initial stage of language development.

          • I’m not denying the thinking part at all.

            Yes you are. You’re suggesting that what I am doing when I put together a sentence is that same sort of thing as what these statistical models do. Well, these statistical models don’t think; so by saying that what I am doing when I write this is the same as what the statistical models do, you are denying that I am thinking.

            Which is more than even Descartes ever managed to doubt.

            It basically puts you in the same camp as Daniel Dennett.

            Grammar is a pattern matching skill that children get the hang of long before develop a theory of mind (aged 8) and ascribe mental states to others. So their use of language does differ from adults. And it’s practically impossible to know the subjective state of a 3 year old (who can talk fluently) because none of us retain memories of that initial stage of language development.

            It’s impossible to know the subjective state of anyone who isn’t you, because that’s what subjective means. But the point is that children have a subjective state. Children think.

            Statistical models do not think and do not have a subjective state.

            Therefore you are wrong to suggest that what children do when they use language is in any way like how the statistical models work.

          • Yes you are

            No I’m not. I keep saying chatbots don’t have the ‘thinking’ feedback layer of self-reflexive attention.

            What I’m not ruling out is pattern matching, or a form of auto-complete, as a part of what we do.

            This is a Christian website so I shouldn’t diminish our uniqueness as created conscious agents (souls) but 21st century developments in AI are going to be as disruptive to religion as Darwinism was in the 19th century.

          • What I’m not ruling out is pattern matching, or a form of auto-complete, as a part of what we do.

            And you’re wrong to do so. What we do — ie, think — is qualitatively different to what predictive statistical models do.

            This is a Christian website so I shouldn’t diminish our uniqueness as created conscious agents (souls) but 21st century developments in AI are going to be as disruptive to religion as Darwinism was in the 19th century.

            No, they aren’t. I recommend you (and anyone else susceptible to the over-excitable hype) to read: http://rodneybrooks.com/the-seven-deadly-sins-of-predicting-the-future-of-ai/

            Especially sections 3 & 4 because they are about the exact mistakes you are making.

          • But young children don’t learn vocabulary and grammar by “thinking”. Thinking is built on a pattern-matching skill of selecting the right words for things and stringing them together in the right order.

            That’s an interesting blog from a skeptic.

          • But young children don’t learn vocabulary and grammar by “thinking”. Thinking is built on a pattern-matching skill of selecting the right words for things and stringing them together in the right order.

            But that’s exactly the point! Children learn by selecting the right words for things!

            These statistical models aren’t doing that. They aren’t selecting the right words for things. They have no conception of what ‘things’ are.

            These statistical models are just selecting the word which is most likely to occur after the words it has already produced, according to a frequency analysis of its input data.

            It’s a totally different process to what children are doing. A child learns that when it makes a certain utterance — ‘I’m hungry’, say — then food appears. So it learns to associate certain utterances with certain concepts — the word ‘hungry’ with the concept of ‘wanting food’.

            Statistical models don’t do that. They can’t. Because they don’t have concepts. All they have is frequencies, ‘when words X, and Z occur then word A follows them 80% of the time’. That’s it. That’s all they do. They don’t think. Even the smallest baby thinks: it thinks simple thoughts like ‘I’m hungry’, ‘I’m in pain’. And it has to learn how to use language to express those. But statistical models don’t have thoughts at all. Therefore they have nothing to express using language. So what they are doing when they produce text, by using frequency models, is totally different from what a child is doing when it tries to use language to express its thoughts.

            That’s an interesting blog from a skeptic.

            The author of the article is not ‘a skeptic’, he is someone who — if you look up his achievements — knows more about the subject than you or I or any idiot spouting nonsense about ‘artificial intelligence’.

          • <i?Children learn by selecting the right words for things!

            But not all of those things are actual things. Young children absolutely delight in story telling long before they question the validity of the stories being told.

            Yes some of what children talk about is directly linked to physical needs (LLMs aren’t embodied in that sense – although embodiment is gradually being added to their current set of skills via task specific/directed robots) but a lot of what they say is “word play”.

          • But not all of those things are actual things. Young children absolutely delight in story telling long before they question the validity of the stories being told.

            Indeed — sometimes the things are ideas. But again that just shows how different what children do is from what statistical models do, because statistical models don’t have ideas!

            Yes some of what children talk about is directly linked to physical needs (LLMs aren’t embodied in that sense – although embodiment is gradually being added to their current set of skills via task specific/directed robots) but a lot of what they say is “word play”.

            Which again is different from what statistical models do, because statistical models don’t play. All they do is predict what word is most likely to come next based on the frequencies with which words occur near other words in their input.

            Seriously everything you say is just showing how different what children do with language is from statistical frequency analysis, and I don’t understand how you can’t see that.

            Children think. They think about physical needs; they think about objects; they think about ideas; they think about fun ways to play with words. They then use language to express these thoughts.

            Statistical models don’t do any of these things, because statistical models don’t have thoughts to express. They just have frequencies with which words appear next to clusters of other words. That’s it. That’s all.

            I guess you could maybe say that statistical models are what Daniel Dennett thinks we are. But we are not what Daniel Dennett thinks we are.

          • It includes links to technical details of how these things work. This is a good introduction: https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2023/02/what-is-chatgpt-doing-and-why-does-it-work/

            It explains how what the statistical process is doing is different from what humans, even children, do: the process is ‘ Just Adding One Word at a Time’. Even children* don’t just add one word at a time based on word frequencies; they construct utterances to express meanings.

            * especially children, actually, because children will have been exposed to less language than adults and therefore have less data on which to determine frequencies; and as that technical article makes clear, generation-by-frequency-analysis requires huge amounts of data. So whatever children are doing to generate their utterances, it must require limited amounts of input data, far less than would be required to do frequency analysis.

        • Pentecostals, Baptists and Independents even combined are less than the membership of the Church of England, certainly amongst over 45s. Pentecostals and Independents are not even proper denominations like the Church of England is anyway but independent churches.

          Reply
          • Including Christmas and Easter, Weddings and Funerals and Baptisms, more attend a Church of England service at least once a year than attend a Roman Catholic service in England

          • Pentecostals, Baptists and Independents even combined are less than the membership of the Church of England, certainly amongst over 45s.

            Not according to the figures I can find, which are admittedly from 2015, though I can’t imagine the picture has got much rosier for the Church of England:

            Church of England weekly attendance: 660000
            Baptist: 226000
            Independent: 170000
            Pentecostal: 298000

            You may be right about over-45s, I can quite imagine that the others skew younger and the Church of England is mostly attended by the nearly-dead.

            Pentecostals and Independents are not even proper denominations like the Church of England is anyway but independent churches.

            And what does it take to be a ‘proper denomination’ (and who died and put you in charge of such definitions)?

          • So even on your figures the Church of England is comfortably ahead and more even than Pentecostals and Baptists combined. Indeed in rural areas like mine the historic Church of England churches are the only Christian churches, we don’t even have a Roman Catholic or Baptist church. You have to drive 15 minutes to the nearest town for that.

            The Pentecostal and Independent evangelical churches you talk about attracting lots of young
            people are almost all in big cities or suburbs or a few university towns. In rural areas like here we don’t have any.

          • So even on your figures the Church of England is comfortably ahead and more even than Pentecostals and Baptists combined.

            But not if you include independents.

            Indeed in rural areas like mine the historic Church of England churches are the only Christian churches, we don’t even have a Roman Catholic or Baptist church. You have to drive 15 minutes to the nearest town for that.

            A fifteen-minute drive is hardly much to ask to go to church (and all independent churches will arrange rides for those unable to drive).

          • 15 minutes drive to the nearest town and all the petrol costs every Sunday there and back is quite a lot actually, especially when you have a Church of England church within walking distance for many in the village or hamlet nearby. Even if you get to the nearest town, while it will likely have a Roman Catholic Church or a Baptist Church if that is your denomination of choice it may not have a Pentecostal or Independent church and unfortunately may not have a Methodist or Reformed church now given recent closures of Methodist and United Reformed churches.

            So you would have to drive to the town with petrol costs, then park and pay a train fare too to get to the nearest city which does have a Pentecostal or Independent church. Leading to a round trip of 1-2 hours every Sunday. It is just not practical when you have a Church of England church down the road. Indeed rural Church of England churches are often the most beautiful and historic in the country, most originally being Roman Catholic churches pre Reformation and therefore dating back to the Middle Ages. At that time of course most of the population lived in rural areas, town and city churches are more modern and often from the 19th, 20th or 21st centuries and post industrial revolution when most people moved to urban or suburban areas

          • 15 minutes drive to the nearest town and all the petrol costs every Sunday there and back is quite a lot actually,

            To do your duty to worship the living God who died to save you? No, it’s not. If you think it is then your priorities are all wrong.

            Indeed rural Church of England churches are often the most beautiful and historic in the country,

            What does it matter if they’re beautiful? You go there to worship God, not to admire the decor. The early Christians met in houses and catacombs. Do you think they were bothered about the aesthetics of their surroundings? Or do you think they cared about paying tribute to their Lord and Saviour? What do you think you should care about?

          • You can worship Christ in your local Anglican church and most Christians in rural areas do indeed worship in their Church of England Parish church.

            Part of the problem with the current Welby led Church of England is too much time has been given to church planting and evangelical mission rather than preserving our historic churches, especially in rural areas. Fortunately on the natural cycle the next Archbishop of Canterbury will be a liberal Catholic like Stephen Cottrell not an evangelical and we can go back to the proper role of the established church, preserving worship and communion in our historic churches. Church planting and other such schemes you evangelicals are so obsessed about are really the role of evangelical Pentecostal or Independent churches or the Baptists not a Catholic and Apostolic church like the Church of England

          • You can worship Christ in your local Anglican church and most Christians in rural areas do indeed worship in their Church of England Parish church.

            Do you have a source for that statistic? I know independent churches in towns that have lots of people worshipping there who commute in from villages with empty or even closed Anglican churches. It wouldn’t surprise me to find out that the majority of Christians in those villages actually worship in gathered congregations in non-Church-of-England churches; but I don’t have any real statistics, just a suspicion. Do you have real statistics, or just a suspicion?

            we can go back to the proper role of the established church, preserving worship and communion in our historic churches.

            The proper role of the established church is actually to proclaim the truth to the nation, and call all those who live there to repentance, that they might be saved from Hell.

            Perhaps you don’t think it’s worth trying to save people from Hell?

          • I don’t know anybody in my rural area who goes to the small independent church in the nearest town they have to drive 15 minutes there and back to. Why on earth would they? It is in a modern hall, no great beauty to it and they would have to mix with the likes of you who spend most of your time ranting about homosexual marriage!! No, our beautiful, historic medieval churches are full every Sunday with families as well as pensioners who value their community and heritage and tradition. We share a multi parish benefice of 4 and it works well.

            So no, the majority in our villages do NOT worship in your independent churches, indeed I know the congregation of the independent church in our nearest town is 20, compared to our weekly Church of England congregation of 40 to 50 (as I do know an evangelical from that town who goes there).

            The role of the Church of England is not to rant about homosexuals no, indeed once Welby goes it will revert more to its traditional, Parish based liberal Catholic roots engaged in the local community

          • Indeed the Church of England liberal Catholic church in the town has a Sunday congregation of 100-150, combining BCP 8am I occasionally go to and the main 9 15am service

          • I don’t know anybody in my rural area who goes to the small independent church in the nearest town they have to drive 15 minutes there and back to.

            Well of course you don’t know them; why would you? They don’t go to your church. But the fact you don’t know them doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

            No, our beautiful, historic medieval churches are full every Sunday with families as well as pensioners who value their community and heritage and tradition. We share a multi parish benefice of 4 and it works well.

            That doesn’t exactly ring true now does it. If the churches were ‘full every Sunday’ then they wouldn’t be in a ‘multi parish benefice’, would they? Multi-parish benefices are for when neighbouring churches are each too empty to support themselves so they have to be lumped together to make it worth keeping them open. If your church really was ‘full every Sunday with families’ then it would be self-supporting, not in a ‘multi-parish benefice’, wouldn’t it?

            The role of the Church of England is not to rant about homosexuals no

            Did anyone say it was? I didn’t say it was. I’m not aware of anyone else who says it is.

            What I wrote was: The proper role of the established church is actually to proclaim the truth to the nation, and call all those who live there to repentance, that they might be saved from Hell.

            Perhaps you don’t think it’s worth trying to save people from Hell?

            So I’m guessing you really don’t think it’s worth trying to save people from Hell?

          • Even the handful of evangelicals locally who theologically would be closer to Baptists than Anglicans go to the village Church of England church as it is more convenient and as they come from local farming families for whom it is their church. They are multi parish benefices of 3 hamlets and 1 village, combined they have a congregation of about 50 which travels between the churches which alternate services between them over the month and other works well. In particular for the hamlets which otherwise would not get as big a congregation. Indeed there are more pensioners worshipping in rural churches every Sunday than under 30s worshipping in big cities.

            In 21st century England most people don’t believe in hell and those who do think it is a personal matter between them and Christ. Christ himself certainly said nothing against committed homosexual unions, certainly not in terms of condemning then to hell

          • They are multi parish benefices of 3 hamlets and 1 village, combined they have a congregation of about 50

            So that’s, what, a congregation of 12 or 13 per church. Hardly ‘full every Sunday with families’!

            In 21st century England most people don’t believe in hell and those who do think it is a personal matter between them and Christ.

            Doesn’t that just make it more urgent for the Church of England to proclaim the truth to them? Otherwise they’re going to end up in the Hell they don’t believe in, aren’t they?

            Do you not think it’s important to try to save people from ending up in Hell, which they surely will if they don’t believe in it?

          • No, because there is always a congregation of 50 each week as they alternative between the 4 churches over the month, going to different ones each week. Bear in mind also this is over a combined parishes area with a population of less than 1,000.

            I don’t believe homosexual couples in loving unions will go to hell no, for starters I am a Christian and Jesus himself never said anything against homosexual couples in loving unions

          • No, because there is always a congregation of 50 each week as they alternative between the 4 churches over the month, going to different ones each week.

            So that’s 12 or 13 people per church, yes. Hardly ‘full every Sunday with families’!

            I don’t believe homosexual couples in loving unions will go to hell no, for starters I am a Christian and Jesus himself never said anything against homosexual couples in loving unions

            Who said anything about homosexual couples in loving unions? Everyone who doesn’t repent will go to Hell. Homosexual couples, heterosexual couples, single people, children, everyone will go to Hell if they don’t repent. The main job of the established church is to proclaim this truth to the nation, that as many people as possible might repent and be saved from Hell.

            But maybe you don’t care about people being saved from Hell. Maybe you don’t mind people going to Hell. Is that it? You think it’s fine for people to go to Hell?

          • as they alternative between the 4 churches over the month, going to different ones each week

            So let me get this straight. Your churches don’t have enough for any of them to actually have a viable congregation on their own — only 12 or 13 each. So they join together to make a rather paltry congregation of 50.

            And then they meet in each of the churches in turn.

            But above you rubbished the idea that people might drive 15 minutes to a church in town when there was a Church of England church in the village.

            Except what you’re now saying is that your Church of England churches are so pathetically attended that three out of every four weeks they have to drive to it anyway because the rotating service merry-go-round isn’t in their village?

            So they might as well be driving to a church in town? Where there is probably a bigger congregation than a mere 50, and it’s always in the same place so they don’t have to remember where the game of musical churches is stopping this week?

            Have I got that right?

          • Unlike you I am not obsessed with hell, nor indeed was Jesus Christ. He wanted people to follow him, he did not spend all day ranting about hell fire and brimstone

          • How dare you come out with your pathetic insults!! The population of the village and hamlets combined is about 1000, so 5% attendance of the local population at the local Church of England church is about one of the highest in the country. Come back to me when you get 400,000 at your Independent churches in London every week, which would be the same percentage of the London population or 3.5 million at your Independent churches every week nationally, which would be the same percentage of the UK population

          • Unlike you I am not obsessed with hell, nor indeed was Jesus Christ.

            So you’re saying you don’t care about saving people from Hell? You’re fine with people going to Hell?

          • How dare you come out with your pathetic insults!!

            Wow, the pot calling the kettle black there with two (count ’em) exclamation marks.

            As you’re avoiding the question I’m assuming you realise now that there’s no possible way that 12-13 attenders per church can be construed as ‘ full every Sunday with families’ and that your thing about people not wanting to drive 15 minutes when that’s exactly what the people at your church have to do three weeks out of every four is nonsense.

          • We have 50 in our congregation every week each Sunday, pensioners plus families and each church is this full as we alternative over them within the month. As I said the total population of the 4 parishes combined is 1000, so 50 in our congregation every week equates to 5% of the population of the rural area. More than the 3% of Londoners who attend Church of England services in London every week for example. More also than the percentage who attend Pentecostal or Independent churches relative to the overall UK population.

            The distance by car even between the further hamlet from the village within the Parishes is half that still to the distance to the nearest town by car

          • We have 50 in our congregation every week each Sunday, pensioners plus families and each church is this full as we alternative over them within the month.

            So each Sunday one church has 50 people in it, and the other three are empty. So that’s 50 / 4 or 12.5 people per church. This is basic mathematics, I don’t know how I can make it any simpler for you.

          • The village plus 3 hamlets have a population of 1000 combined but 4 churches between them. The overall congregation for those 4 churches is 50, alternating between each this week. So 5% of the population of the area goes to church each Sunday, well above the average population weekly attendance at church in either a city or town. So the only one whose Maths is wrong is you!

          • The overall congregation for those 4 churches is 50, alternating between each this week.

            So that’s 50 people between 4 churches, or 12-13 people per church.

            Honestly, it’s not rocket science!

          • Either way a higher proportion of the local population attending each church (in 1 church for instance the population of the entire parish is less than 100) than the national average

          • Either way a higher proportion of the local population attending each church (in 1 church for instance the population of the entire parish is less than 100) than the national average

            You claimed your church was ‘full every Sunday with families’, but it turns out the truth is that it has a paltry 12-13 attenders.

          • I claimed every Sunday they are full of families and pensioners, which was CORRECT.

            I claimed they have a higher percentage attending them than the UK average, which was CORRECT.

            Nationally just 1% of the population attend a Church of England service each Sunday. Even in London just 3% attend a Church of England service each Sunday.

            However round here 5% of the local rural population attend a service each Sunday. Indeed even on your claim 12 to 13 in Church in a local population of less than 100 in one of the Parishes is over 10% of the population attending that Church!!!!

          • I claimed every Sunday they are full of families and pensioners, which was CORRECT.

            It’s not correct. Of the four, ONE (see I can used capitals too) has 50 in, which is hardly ‘full’ to start off with (‘full’ would be 2-300), and the other THREE are EMPTY.

            So per church there are 12-13 people. That’s the truth.

          • The 50 congregation comes from all the 4 Parishes. In the Parish of less than 100 population even 12 to 13 in the congregation from that Parish is OVER 10% of that Parish in the local Church of England church. Well above average.

            I also want to know from you what is the population of the town or city or Parish you go to Church in? I also want to know what is the average weekly congregation in the evangelical church you attend? If you want to criticise lets see if you can back it up. I expect at least 10% of the population of your Parish area to be in your Church every week before any more lectures from you!!!!!!!!

          • The 50 congregation comes from all the 4 Parishes.

            Exactly what I’ve been pointing out.

            I wouldn’t keep going on about it except that you made such a big thing about it being important that the Church of England church was local and in the village, and that this was far better than having to drive to town.

            So to discover that that is not in fact the truth of the situation, and that three our of every four weeks people have to travel to the Church of England church just like they do to the church in town, that you were disparaging, well, you can see how I think it’s important to get the truth of the matter out there.

            I expect at least 10% of the population of your Parish area to be in your Church every week before any more lectures from you!!!!!!!!

            I haven’t ever used my church as an example. It was you who brought up your church as an example, and if you do that then I think we all have a right to expect that you give an accurate and not misleading picture of the church you are using as an example.

            But in fact the picture you gave was inaccurate in two ways:

            1. You wrote that the church was ‘ full every Sunday with families’ when in fact the total of the gathered congregations is only 50 people, which would not fill any church.

            2. You put emphasis on the church being local and in the village, when in fact three weeks out of every four the service is not in the village at all but in a different village.

          • Yes it is important the Church of England has a strong presence in rural areas, for starters as half the churches in the Church of England are in rural areas and almost all of the oldest and most historic Church of England churches apart from some of the ancient great cathedrals are in rural areas too.

            As I also pointed out the distance by car from the church of the 4 at the furthest end to the furthest at the other end is half that to the nearest town by car.

            50 fills our small rural churches quite nicely thank you and percentage wise of the population of the local area beats percentage of the local population church attendance in most towns and cities hands down.

          • Yes it is important the Church of England has a strong presence in rural areas

            It doesn’t have a strong presence in your rural area though does it? Fifty people spread over four churches! If that presence was any weaker it would be homeopathic!

          • Yes it does, 5 to 10% of the local rural population as I have pointed out , well above the English average where just 1% of the local population attend their local Church of England church.

            I note you have yet again failed to mention the percentage of the local population in the area that you live that attend your evangelical church. I want figures! You should be practising what you preach and have well over 10% of the local population at your evangelical church every Sunday

          • Yes it does, 5 to 10% of the local rural population as I have pointed out , well above the English average where just 1% of the local population attend their local Church of England church.

            So it’s pathetic, but it’s slightly less pathetic than the national average, is your claim?

          • It is above average, as you have failed consistently to give any stats for percentage attendance from the local community at your local evangelical church I think we can draw our own conclusions about whether your congregation size is pathetic or not!!

          • It is above average,

            It is pathetic. But the point isn’t that it’s pathetic, it’s that it doesn’t match the inaccurate impression you gave of a church that was ‘full every Sunday with families’. In fact you have four churches that even between them can’t fill a single church on any Sunday.

            You were the one who made the ‘full every Sunday with families’ claim — a claim which doesn’t mention the average and a claim that was highly inaccurate. And that’s the point, however much you keep trying to distract from it by changing the subject onto averages.

          • Every pew is full every Sunday.

            Quite clearly our rural churches get a higher percentage of the local population in our area attending them than your evangelical church does as a percentage of the population in your area. Your inability to provide any figures to refute that confirms it

          • Every pew is full every Sunday.

            With fifty people? I’m sorry, that’s just not plausible. Even the narrowest church has pews that would hold at least ten people either side of the aisle. and would have at least ten rows of pews. So fifty people would be at most a quarter of the building’s capacity.

          • No it wouldn’t unless you squashed them all in.

            Percentage wise I repeat we have more in our rural church congregation from the area than your evangelical church clearly does from its local population

          • No it wouldn’t unless you squashed them all in.

            Sorry, again, that’s just not plausible. You can easily fit 200 people without squashing in 80 square metres. Go to https://facultyonline.churchofengland.org/churches and you can search for churches filtered by ‘size’; a ‘small church’ is under 200ms square metres, but I found it very difficult to find one under 120 squares. Those would easily hold 200 people, even taking account of the chancel.

            To be full with 50 people would mean a floor area of about 60-70 square metres. Finding a single church that small… well, maybe there are one or two, but it just isn’t plausible that there are four in as close proximity as you’re claiming.

            Percentage wise

            Since you keep going on about church attendance as a percentage of population I thought I’d look up some statistics of countries that have established churches and countries which don’t. England has an established church and attendance is about 5% of population. Scotland has an established church and attendance is about 9%. Sweden has an established church and attendance is about 6%.

            The USA on the other hand has no established church and attendance is about 36% — varying a lot by state, obviously, but no state is below 20%. Australia has no established church and attendance is 17%. Northern Ireland has no established church and attendance is near 50%!

            So it looks to me that it is much better for a country not to have an established church, would you agree?

          • You do realise in one Parish the population is less than 100, so even if every person living in the Parish went to the Church it would still have less than 200 people. In the US and in Scotland and in Wales and Northern Ireland less than 1% attend the non established Anglican Episcopalian Church or the Scottish Episcopal Church or the Church in Wales or the Church of Ireland every week which is an even smaller percentage than attend Church of England services every week. The Anglican churches in Canada, Australia and New Zealand are also smaller percentage wise than the Church of England. So no it is much worse for Anglican churches not to be the established church.

            In Denmark 70% of the population are members of the established Lutheran Church of Denmark, so it is much better for Lutherans to be the established church too as there are far more Lutherans percentage wise in Denmark than most of the rest of the world.

            Evangelical churches like the Baptists and Pentecostals have never been established churches anyway like the Anglican churches were in the rest of the United Kingdom or Canada, Australia or New Zealand until the 19th century or in the United States before the American colonies declared independence from the Crown and Britain

          • There is no established church in Sweden now, the Swedish Royal family belong to the Lutheran Church but it was disestablished years ago. In Scotland the Church of Scotland is not an established church either, the Kimg is not Head of it, he just attends its meetings or sends a representative to observe

          • Roman Catholic churches are not established either but they do take their lead from the Pope and the Vatican as most Eastern Orthodox churches though non established do from the Grand Patriarch of Constantinople (the exception being the Russian Orthodox church where Patriarch Kirill takes his lead from President Putin)

          • You do realise in one Parish the population is less than 100, so even if every person living in the Parish went to the Church it would still have less than 200 people.

            What is the floor area of the church? That way we can tell whether it is ‘full’ with fifty people. Or tell us which church is it and we can look it up on https://facultyonline.churchofengland.org/churches and that will give us the floor area.

            In the US and in Scotland and in Wales and Northern Ireland less than 1% attend the non established Anglican Episcopalian Church or the Scottish Episcopal Church or the Church in Wales or the Church of Ireland every week which is an even smaller percentage than attend Church of England services every week.

            So what? It doesn’t matter how many people attend episcopal church services; what matters is how many attend Church. Denominations aren’t like Coca-Cola and Pepsi, competing for market share. It doesn’t matter which is biggest in any given territory, or worldwide. Do you think Jesus will care on the Day of Judgement whether you went to an Anglican or a Baptist or a Presbyterian or a Pentecostal church, as long as you went to church?
            In Denmark 70% of the population are members of the established Lutheran Church of Denmark, so it is much better for Lutherans to be the established church too as there are far more Lutherans percentage wise in Denmark than most of the rest of the world.

            In Denmark weekly church attendance is 3%. 3%! It’s clearly not better for church attendance to have an established Lutheran church, if Denmark is any guide!
            In Scotland the Church of Scotland is not an established church either, the Kimg is not Head of it, he just attends its meetings or sends a representative to observe

            The Church of Scotland is the church established by law in Scotland. That’s the reason the Free Church of Scotland broke away from it in 1843, because they objected to the state interfering in church affairs, which the state could do because it was the established church — exactly as you want the state to interfere in the affairs of the established Church of England (and likely with similar results).


          • I am an Anglican, theologically a believer in a Catholic but Reformed Church. Yes we want more people to attend Christian churches generally but for me most importantly is getting people to attend Anglican Church services and in England particularly Church of England services.

            Denmark has a higher percentage of its population attending weekly Lutheran churches than the percentage of the population of any other western nation that attend Lutheran Churches, so clearly being the established church helps the Lutheran Church in Denmark.

            The Presbyterian Church of Scotland is not the established church of Scotland, the King is not Head of it and it doesn’t even have Bishops unlike the Anglican Scottish Episcopal Church. The Free Church of Scotland has a smaller weekly attendance than the Church of Scotland despite being anti homosexual marriage unlike the Church of Scotland which blesses homosexual marriages. Though the Free Church of Scotland may produce the next First Minister of Kate Forbes is elected SNP leader tomorrow

          • Yes we want more people to attend Christian churches generally but for me most importantly is getting people to attend Anglican Church services and in England particularly Church of England services.

            Wait what?

            Why?

            Do you really think it’s some kind of competition? Do you think on the Day of Judgement Jesus is going to present a cup to the denomination that had most attenders?

          • The King is not Supreme Governor of the Church of Scotland,

            True.

            the Church of Scotland doesn’t even have Bishops.

            True.

            It is NOT the established church in Scotland.

            False.

            A church doesn’t have to have bishops to be established.

            A church doesn’t have to have the monarch as its supreme governor to be established.

            But you’ve ignored the main part which is: do you really think that on the Day of Judgement, Jesus will be giving prizes to the denominations which managed to get most attenders? If not then why do you care whether your particular denomination is biggest? Surely you should care that as many people as possible are saved — whether they are saved through your denomination or a different one is secondary?

            Because it sounds a lot like you’re saying that you’d rather someone went to Hell than was a Presbyterian — but you can’t mean that surely? That would make you a psychopath.

          • Wrong it means its duty to preserve the Protestant religion in Scotland. It is NOT the established church just the national church.

          • If the Church of England was disestablished or even worse ceased to exist it certainly wouldn’t lead to more attending hardline anti gay marriage churches like yours. In fact the opposite, most Anglicans like me would stop going to church full stop and you wouldn’t get any current non Church goers who don’t have a problem with homosexual marriage and couples but like Church of England weddings etc. They would just get married in a registry office and cease all contact with Christianity. You might get a few evangelical churches switching from Anglican to Pentecostal or Baptist or Independent that would be it

          • Wrong it means its duty to preserve the Protestant religion in Scotland. It is NOT the established church just the national church.

            It is the church established by law in Scotland. That is what ‘established church’ means. The church established by law.

            What on Earth do you think ‘established church’ means, if not the church established by law?

          • If the Church of England was disestablished or even worse ceased to exist it certainly wouldn’t lead to more attending hardline anti gay marriage churches like yours.

            Laying aside your obsession with sex, the evidence suggests that where there isn’t an established church, church attendance is higher than where there is an established church. So there’s at least a chance that if the Church of England were to be disestablished then there would be higher church attendance in England.

            So, hypothetically, if that were to be the case, would you support disestablishment?

            Because if not it looks a lot like you are saying that you’d rather people went to Hell than that the Church of England was disestablished. Can you just confirm whether or not that is you position? Do you think it’s more important to keep the Church of England than to save people from Hell?

            In fact the opposite, most Anglicans like me would stop going to church full stop and you wouldn’t get any current non Church goers who don’t have a problem with homosexual marriage and couples but like Church of England weddings etc. They would just get married in a registry office and cease all contact with Christianity. You might get a few evangelical churches switching from Anglican to Pentecostal or Baptist or Independent that would be it

          • No it doesn’t, only 4 nations have established Christian churches now, England and Denmark, Greece and the Vatican City. In England there is a higher attendance in Anglican churches than elsewhere in the Western world and in Denmark a higher attendance at Lutheran churches than elsewhere in the Western world. In the Vatican city there is of course the highest rate of church attendance of any nation on earth. In Greece too where the Eastern Orthodox church is the established church more go to church percentage wise than in any other western European nation.

          • No it doesn’t, only 4 nations have established Christian churches now, England and Denmark, Greece and the Vatican City.

            And Scotland. But let’s stick with the three you give (Vatican City doesn’t count as it obviously isn’t a proper country).

            England about 5% of the population attend church regularly.

            In Denmark it’s 3%.

            In Greece, a princely 16%!

            So in the countries you say have established churches, church attendance is very low.

            Let’s look at some countries without established churches:

            Australia, 17%

            Ireland, 20%

            Canada, 20%

            United States, 36%

            Obviously, these are cherry-picked. There are countries like France and Germany where there’s no established church but attendance is down at 12% and 10% respectively. But, the point is that all the countries which have established churches have absolutely abysmal levels of church attendance — you can’t deny that. And all the countries (and provinces, like Northern Ireland) which have less terrible levels of church attendance do not have established churches.

            Conclusion: an established church does not improve a country’s level of church attendance, and maybe even harms it.

            In England there is a higher attendance in Anglican churches than elsewhere in the Western world and in Denmark a higher attendance at Lutheran churches than elsewhere in the Western world.

            So? It doesn’t matter what the attendance at Anglican churches is. What matters is how many people are going to Heaven and not Hell, right? Not how many are Anglcians.

        • As the royal family website states ‘Monarchs have sworn to maintain the Church of Scotland since the sixteenth century. The duty to “preserve the settlement of the true Protestant religion as established by the laws made in Scotland” was affirmed in the 1707 Act of Union between England and Scotland.’

          It is only preserved as the national Protestant church in Scotland it is not the established church as it is not answerable to Parliament, is entirely self governing and the King is not its head.
          https://www.royal.uk/lord-high-commissioner-general-assembly-church-scotland

          I never disputed we want to get more people attending churches regardless of denomination but I am theologically an Anglican so I want to increase attendance in Anglican churches most of all

          Reply
          • As the royal family website states ‘Monarchs have sworn to maintain the Church of Scotland since the sixteenth century. The duty to “preserve the settlement of the true Protestant religion as established by the laws made in Scotland” was affirmed in the 1707 Act of Union between England and Scotland.’

            Do you even read the things you copy and paste?

            ‘ The duty to “preserve the settlement of the true Protestant religion as established by the laws made in Scotland” was affirmed in the 1707 Act of Union between England and Scotland.’

            ‘As established by the laws made in Scotland’.

            That means it’s the established church in Scotland. Because it’s established by the laws of Scotland.

            That’s what being and established church means. It doesn’t mean the monarch is supreme governor. It doesn’t mean that the church is subservient to Parliament. It doesn’t mean that it has bishops.

            Being an established church just means that the church is established (clue’s in the name!) by law.

            I never disputed we want to get more people attending churches regardless of denomination but I am theologically an Anglican so I want to increase attendance in Anglican churches most of all

            But why? Surely what matters is that people are saved, not whether they are Anglicans?

            If it turned out that disestablishing the Church of England would lead to a collapse in numbers attending Anglican churches, but would also lead to many more people being saved through other denominations, such that the total number of people saved was much higher without the Anglican denomination that with it, would you support that disestablishment?

            If not then it really does sound like you would rather have fewer people saved from Hell if it meant that you could maintain numbers of Anglicans… which really would make you a psychopath.

          • Some cherry picking from you there and I also query some of your figures. In France, for example, with no established church, weekly church attendance is now only 5% ie no higher than England and much less than Greece which has an established church. Indeed in Greece 17% attend church every week, higher than you claimed and more than Spain for example where 12% attend weekly.
            https://about-france.com/religion.
            htmhttps://culturalatlas.sbs.com.au/greek-culture/greek-culture-religion
            https://www.statista.com/statistics/992875/attendance-to-religious-services-among-believers-in-spain/

            In Denmark with an established church you say 3% attend church weekly, well that is still higher than attend say the 2% Dutch Reformed Churches in the nearby Netherlands every week which has no established church. It is also higher than the mere 2% who attend church every week in fellow Nordic nations Norway, which has had no established church since 2017, or Finland where a mere 1.8% go to church every week.
            ttps://www.statista.com/statistics/527795/religious-participation-in-the-netherlands-by-denomination/
            https://www.newsinenglish.no/2009/09/30/church-attendance-hits-new-low/
            https://yle.fi/a/3-5539349

            You also failed to mention weekly church attendance in New Zealand which at 9% is well below that in Greece for example. New Zealand with no established church also has more without religion now than England, which has an established church. Only 37% in New Zealand now call themselves Christians and 48% of New Zealanders say they are irreligious whereas in England 46% still call themselves Christians and 37% irreligous
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_New_Zealand
            https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/religion/bulletins/religionenglandandwales/census2021

          • Some cherry picking from you there and I also query some of your figures.

            Figures from https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2018/06/13/how-religious-commitment-varies-by-country-among-people-of-all-ages/

            You seem to have found examples of countries without established churches which also have dire church attendance. You have not found any examples of a country with an established church which has decent church attendance, whereas there are countries without established churches which do have church attendance that is, if not decent, at least less dire than the ones with established churches.

            So what we can say is that on the evidence we have an established church does not help church attendance, so there would be no down-side to disestablishment of the Church of England; it’s not like church attendance in England could get much lower anyway.

            Only 37% in New Zealand now call themselves Christians and 48% of New Zealanders say they are irreligious whereas in England 46% still call themselves Christians and 37% irreligous

            It doesn’t matter what people ‘call themselves’, it only matters what they actually are. Anybody can call themselves anything. I can call myself Napoleon, but no Frenchmen will follow me to conquer Europe.

      • “Let’s work and pray to enable this to be a ‘shout’ for biblical orthodoxy !”

        Yes I agree.

        But I also pray and hope that CEEC will repeat this approach for other truths of biblical orthodoxy which are, in my view, more important than marriage/sexuality:

        That the whole Church should believe and preach that we all face the wrath and judgement of God from birth onwards, that the death of Christ propitiated the wrath of God, that the unsaved face eternal retribution, that to enter the Kingdom of Heaven it behoves us to be born supernaturally from Above.

        I realise that nobody is seeking to amend the Articles and Homilies which testify to these truths like some are doing to the Marriage/Sexuality doctrines. But the liberal and anglo-catholic and some evangelical theologians just don’t believe them.

        Phil Almond

        Reply
    • And yet the evangelicals are remarkably reluctant to say what they actually think about the issues in question. It has to be dragged out of them bit by bit, kicking and screaming.

      It’s only been in the last couple of days that the CEEC published their FAQs that revealed that they agree with those of us who don’t believe being gay means you are called or commanded to celibacy (Matthew 19 and 1 Corinthians 7). It’s just that they think gay people who are not called to celibacy ought to be entering into straight marriages. They’re seeking a return to utter disaster that was the ex-gay movement, but have been extremely reluctant to say so. I imagine they’re worried it would wreck their credibility with their own congregations.

      Reply
  8. The phrases ‘doctrine of the Church of England’ and the ‘doctrine of Christ’ are used interchangeably, but I am not convinced this is right. Canon B30 states:

    The Church of England affirms, according to our Lord’s teaching, that marriage is in its nature a union permanent and lifelong, for better for worse, till death them do part, of one man with one woman, to the exclusion of all others on either side, for the procreation and nurture of children, for the hallowing and right direction of the natural instincts and affections, and for the mutual society, help and comfort which the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity.

    How much of this is in fact ‘according to our Lord’s teaching’? The only distinctive teaching in the gospels that I am aware of is, “What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate,” where Jesus says that God sanctions and thereby hallows the union of one man and one woman.

    While monogamy was the norm in his day, it was not always so. Men were taking more than one wife from as early as Gen 4:23. Jacob had two wives, David had many. Marriage certainly had legal form in Israel – hence the mention of divorce (e.g. Deut 22:19) – but the idea that marriage was definitionally a union of just one man and one woman seems to have been relatively late. (Note that ‘wife’ in Hebrew was simply ‘woman’. )

    Marriage predated Christ’s teaching, and Christ did not change the idea of what marriage was, but (re-)affirmed what was ordained ‘from the beginning’. Marriage (Gen 2:24) as a sanctified union was between just two individuals (the man leaves his home to be join his wife, not vice versa) and the two individuals were male and female, because biologically only they could join to become one flesh. I think the Church, for clarity, should be making it clear that its teaching is based not on Christ’s teaching but on what God ordained at creation. The Bible teaches both what marriage is and what it is not (viz. porneia, I Cor 6:9, 13-18).

    The one new element in the New Testament – one could here extend the concept of the Lord’s teaching to what Paul received from the Lord – is the revelation of the mystery that the marriage between Adam and Eve was spiritually a prefiguring of the union between the last Adam and his bride the Church (Eph 5:32, I Cor 15:45f, Rev 19:7). In this light marriage is all the more a union between one man and one woman. Here Paul emphasises its sacred character: Christ sanctifies his bride by water and the word, so that she might be holy and without blemish. He uses the same language in I Cor 6:11. It is vital, in these days, that we live up to this revealed mystery and the calling to lead holy lives.

    If we are to be faithful to the doctrine of Christ, as given to us in all Scripture, we will not bless sexual relationships between two individuals of the same sex nor sexual relationships between two individuals of the opposite sex which are not lifelong and exclusive.

    Reply
    • Well the Church of England already blesses marriages of remarried divorcees and has done for years, so you have missed the boat on that one

      Reply
  9. I am reminded of what I believe to be Tom Wright’s final words as the Bishop of Durham at Synod “The day the church ceases to be able to say we must obey God rather than human authorities we cease to be the church”

    Reply
    • It is kind of obvious, though, so I am sure he would not claim authorial credit for reminding people of a basic Christian principle.

      Reply
      • It is kind of obvious, though, so I am sure he would not claim authorial credit for reminding people of a basic Christian principle.

        You can claim credit for a particularly pithy expression of an idea even if the idea itself is obvious (and from a legal point of view there is no copyright in ideas however un-obvious they are, only in expressions).

        In this case though I think the credit being given was for the timely reminder, not for the idea or the expression.

        Reply
  10. The video flagged up by Andrew should disabuse anyone who thinks that the sanctification of homosexual relations is not yet a fait accompli. To the inevitable accompaniment of looped music and smiling faces we hear: “We are united in our desire to nurture a church where everyone is welcomed, accepted and affirmed.” “We are deeply sorry and ashamed for when we have failed to do so,” says another bishop [even the CEEC says this], “causing pain, exclusion and rejection.” “We welcome unreservedly and joyfully same-sex couples in our churches,” says another bishop. “We want to celebrate the faithfulness of same-sex couples to each other and the desire to put God at the centre of their relationship” (voiced over a picture of Jesus on the cross). “These prayers and services will not change the Church’s understanding of Christian marriage,” says another. “We continue to walk together respecting our differences and collectively embracing a radical Christian inclusion as the agreed way forward.”

    No mention at all of sin, repentance and faith in the atoning work of Jesus on the cross as the condition for being welcomed and accepted as a Christian – that this is the way to put God at the centre. This is pure, demonic deceit. As in 592 BC, six years before the destruction of the Temple, the Spirit has departed.

    Reply
    • Indeed; did you watch any of the LLF materials? These featured a considerable number of same-sex churchgoing couples, who uniformly ended their testimonies with “We are Maggie and Sally [or whatever names], and we’re living in love and faith”. Entirely unbiased CoE script and editing, of course.

      Reply
  11. Evangelicals who are unwilling to share a church with persons who bless gay relationships should be agitating and working to marginalise, discipline and remove such persons now. After July might be too late. An interesting four months lies ahead.

    Reply
    • Bradshaw’s Motion today clearly intended primarily to stop that and ensure the blessings take place in our established church, rather than the less realistic face motion of enabling homosexual marriage in the Church of England. As Bradshaw told the House of Commons today when his ten minute rule bill passed its first hurdle through Parliament ‘..Of course, discussion about the potential impact of the Bill is somewhat academic, given that it has no chance of becoming law. The main motivation in introducing it is to encourage the bishops to stick to the commitments and timetable agreed by February’s Synod and resist any delay or backsliding at the next Synod in July. There has been sustained pressure from a vocal minority inside the Church against the very modest proposals on the table.

      Some conservative provinces in the global Anglican communion have disowned the Archbishop of Canterbury, and a small number of homophobic parishes here have stopped paying their diocesan contributions in protest. There is a small minority in the Church of England who will never be reconciled to treating gay and lesbian people equally. They are holding the majority back. The Church leadership should stop indulging them and focus on their primary mission to the majority of Anglicans here. That might also make it easier for them to focus on the many important things the Church has to say and offer about the 21st century.’
      https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2023-03-21/debates/92586257-2E3C-49B3-9026-DACC541A1E27/SameSexMarriage(ChurchOfEngland)

      Reply
    • I’m sure those who are very concerned to uphold Lambeth 1.10 will be along any minute now to condemn this as incompatible with Church teaching. Any minute now…

      Reply
      • It’s entirely wrong and should be condemned. Homosexuality should not be criminal let alone punishable by death.

        I do not know any evangelical leaders who would say otherwise.

        Reply
        • Define homosexuality. Behaviour or present orientation?
          Often the things that harm most are at the second or third remove from immediacy. Ingrained norms can cause millions of times more harm in total than individual actions, but it is the latter that are treated as criminal.
          Every sensible person knows that behaviour must be treated at root. That is always the key. Whether you are a parent, a teacher, a psychiatrist.

          Reply
        • Without discussing the difference between covenant and non-covenant nations, do you consider God was wrong to criminalise homosexuality in the written laws of Moses?

          Reply
          • I said the written laws of Moses, of which the Ten Commandments are mererly the paragraph headings. Read the full code.

          • No, He had his reasons, and they must have been just.

            But we don’t and shouldn’t transplant the civil or moral code of Israel into our own civil law: that age has passed, although the moral code is still binding on those who are in Christ.

          • Agreed, Thomas, the moral code is still binding within the church, and the moral code is what this is all about.

    • Are you unaware that the Moral Welfare of the Council of the Church of England asserted in the 1950s that that sexual morality was a matter for the church, not the law?

      Reply
  12. Surely one key issue not being addressed is that the bishops are attempting to lord it over the rest of the church so that’s say c 100 bishops including Area bishops, suffragan bishops etc are telling 800,000 or so C of E members what to do?
    How does this fit with Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 20:25-28:
    25 Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 26 Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 27 and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— 28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
    Presumably the bishops think they know better than Jesus, which is how the CofE got into this mess in the first place?

    Reply
    • Except they aren’t. The majority of Synod voted for the Bishops’ proposals to allow homosexual couples to be blessed and evangelical churches which don’t want to do the Blessings have an opt out

      Reply
      • evangelical churches which don’t want to do the Blessings have an opt out

        You can’t ‘opt out’ of a redefinition of the doctrine of marriage.

        Reply
        • There has been no redefinition of marriage. Synod affirmed holy matrimony was between 1 man and 1 woman for life but it would also allow blessings of homosexual couples in C of E churches. If you will not even accept that you are welcome to leave the Church of England

          Reply
          • Synod affirmed holy matrimony was between 1 man and 1 woman for life but it would also allow blessings of homosexual couples in C of E churches.

            Those two positions are logically incompatible, though, aren’t they?

          • The church’s doctrine of marriage includes that the only place where sexual activity is permitted is within holy matrimony which is between a man and a woman. Therefore, the blessing of a sexual relationship which is not a marriage between a man and a woman is the blessing of something which is not permitted.

          • Yes it is permitted, Synod has just voted to permit blessings of married homosexual couples. The Church of England already blesses divorcees who remarry of course, even when there was no adultery involved. Jesus himself, while condemning adultery didn’t actually technically condemn sex outside marriage either, even if marriage was still something he strongly supported, especially for the creation of children

          • No as the Synod also made no change to holy matrimony, despite the attempts of some evangelicals to try and block even blessings of homosexual couples by claiming that. Efforts which Synod rejected

          • No as the Synod also made no change to holy matrimony

            But it must have done. Because Church of England doctrine was that all sexual relationships outside holy matrimony are sinful. So if same-sex civil marriages aren’t holy matrimony then they must be sinful, right? Because they are sexual relationships outside holy matrimony. So to bless them would be to bless sin.

            The only way you can bless same-sex civil marriages while saying that they aren’t holy matrimony is to say that not all sexual relationships outside matrimony are sinful — which would be a change to the Church of England’s doctrine of marriage.

            So according to you the Church of England has changed its doctrine of marriage, from a doctrine which says that all sexual relationships outside matrimony are sinful, to a doctrine that says some sexual relationships outside matrimony are not sinful and can therefore be blessed.

            Which is a redefinition of marriage.

          • Well if you say so. Jesus himself never said sex in lifelong loving homosexual unions was sinful so if you say Synod’s voting to bless homosexual couples means sex in loving homosexual unions is not sinful then so be it. That is now the Church of England position and a good thing too

          • Well if you say so.

            No, not if I say so; because of logic.

            if you say Synod’s voting to bless homosexual couples means sex in loving homosexual unions is not sinful then so be it. That is now the Church of England position and a good thing too

            So you admit that the Church of England has changed its doctrine on marriage, then. And that you think it’s a good thing it has changed.

          • Great argument, T1.
            Jesus did not comment on something that had not even yet been conceptualised in his day. There’s a thing.
            Secondly, his remarkable no-comment means he was in favour of that thing. Yes, T1, it does.

      • T1, if you put bishops above Christ (or even not below him), then that just comes across as odd. Hence, people are liable not to take seriously your points.

        Do you think that it was bishops that gave rise to the church?

        Reply
        • Christ never said a word against blessings of homosexual couples. The Bishops got Synod approval for their plans. Christ did tell St Peter to found the Church, which via Apostolic Succession is reflected in the Bishops of today

          Reply
          • 1.What is sin?
            2. What is the evangel.
            3 Which god do you believe? And worship?
            3.1 and on what is that based?
            4 on what evidence do you base the so called apolostilic succession of the current crop of specifically CoE bishops?
            5 does your idea of exclusivity of succession include Anglican bishop outside the CoE?
            6 you seem to enjoy tying (T) yourself in first class (1) knots.

          • Christ called Peter to be the first Bishop and first Pope and create the Church on Earth. Anglicans as well as Lutherans and Orthodox share that apostolic succession in their Bishops as much as Roman Catholics do

          • Christ called Peter to be the first Bishop and first Pope

            No He didn’t. Jesus never used the word ‘bishop’ or the word ‘Pope’, in any language.

          • Whatever authority Christ gave Peter, where do you find the apostolic succession in scripture as you claimed?

          • How could he say a word against or indeed for something that had never been conceptualised by anyone at that date?
            Great argument, T1.

          • Which was – where does Jesus fit in your hierarchy, below the bishops and synod?
            Level six perhaps?

          • Matthew 18 ‘And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.’ Peter as the first Pope therefore followed through on God’s will and created what would be the Church in Rome, from which the Church of England directly branched off via apostolic succession in the 16th century

          • You have still failed to cite any verse commanding the apostolic succession, despite your assertion that it is in scripture.

        • Matthew 16 18 ‘And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.’ Peter as the first Pope therefore followed through on God’s will and created what would be the Church in Rome, from which the Church of England directly branched off via apostolic succession in the 16th century

          Reply
          • And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.

            I don’t see the word ‘bishop’ or the word ‘Pope’ and I don’te see anything about apostolic succession there (for example, Jesus didn’t say ‘and I want you to appoint a successor’).

          • But you don’t believe that scripture is the reliable uncorrectable word of God! You have no basis for your belief.

          • It rather depends on what one thinks “this rock” refers to. Was important by hardly “top dog” or “always right”.

            Eg “John Chrysostom (d. 407), in his 52d Homily on the Gospel

            What then saith Christ? “Thou art Simon, the son of Jonas; thou shalt be called Cephas. Thus since thou hast proclaimed my Father, I too name him that begat thee; all but saying, As thou art son of Jonas, even so am I of my Father. Else it were superfluous to say, Thou art Son of Jonas; but since he had said, Son of God, to point out that He is so Son of God, as the other son of Jonas, of the same substance with Him that begat Him, therefore He added this, And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church; that is, on the faith of his confession.”

            Not on the person of Peter….

  13. Here is a great maxim, Don’t tell God you have a big problem, tell your problem that you have a big God. See ISAIAH 40 vs.21 – 31 and JAMES 4 vs.1 – 12

    Reply
  14. P.S. To quote Ian Paul in The raising of Lazarus
    Rather than focus on the problem, Jesus’ response it to look to the ultimate resolution of the situation, which will result in demonstrating God’s glory—this future focus exactly paralleling his response to the disciples’ question about the man born blind in John 9.1–3. The narrator is careful to juxtapose the comment of Jesus’ love for the family with his apparent inaction; in response to petition, his apparent failure to act is not a sign that he does not love them. Rather, his love will be shown in the final resolution of the situation, even if that comes later than expected

    Reply
  15. As I read it, the Synod [whole Church reps] voted for SS blessings and the Bishops tasked with formulating the blessings
    This speaks of the current mind of the Church or at least a major part of the Church
    I read it that those who are called by His name[Christians collectively]
    2 Chronicles 7:14 If My people, which are called by My name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.
    This is searching for Him, not getting something from Him. It means both to crave Him, and craving to worship Him. It’s a call to intimacy. When our thoughts and actions flow out in love and relationship with Him, we do things out of purity.
    Seeking His face also means seeking to be in agreement with Him.

    In this time of Lent I have heard of many novelty abstentions but little of repentance, humbling and fastings
    2 Cor 7:11 For behold this selfsame thing, that ye sorrowed after a godly sort, what carefulness it wrought in you, yea, what clearing of yourselves, yea, what indignation, yea, what fear, yea, what vehement desire, yea, what zeal, yea, what revenge! In all things ye have approved yourselves to be clear in this matter

    Lent began on Ash Wednesday wherein at one time a cross of ashes was imprinted on the forehead significant of sackcloth and ashes
    and a sense of deep contrition.
    Ezek 34:4 The diseased have ye not strengthened, neither have ye healed that which was sick, neither have ye bound up that which was broken, neither have ye brought again that which was driven away, neither have ye sought that which was lost; but with force and with cruelty have ye ruled them.
    Ezek 34:16 I will seek that which was lost, and bring again that which was driven away, and will bind up that which was broken, and will strengthen that which was sick: but I will destroy the fat and the strong; I will feed them with judgment.
    What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
    For ye are bought with a price: therefore, glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s.
    This is a biblical way to address any differences we may have.
    Being just a keyboard warrior on social media is not one of them.

    Jesus did not mention SSM Because he formulated the Law; he also
    Defined the spirit of the Law and lived according to the statutes, precepts and testimonies of the Law,
    not in the letter only but in it’s spirit .He came to fulfill it not destroy it.
    “Go show yourself to the priest” that he may confirm you that you are healed. that a work of mercy and grace have been wrought in you.

    Reply
  16. Further more- Pharases at least confirmed the unclean to be clean.
    Our Bishops have been asked to confirm the Church in it’s sin; can they then confirm sinners to be clean following a work of mercy and grace if they cannot discern between good and evil by acceading to Synods request? We must heed the call to repentance as Daniel prayed; Daniel CH.9
    9:15 And now, O Lord our God, that hast brought thy people forth out of the land of Egypt with a mighty hand, and hast gotten thee renown, as at this day; we have sinned, we have done wickedly.
    9:16 O Lord, according to all thy righteousness, I beseech thee, let thine anger and thy fury be turned away from thy city Jerusalem, thy holy mountain: because for our sins, and for the iniquities of our fathers, Jerusalem and thy people are become a reproach to all that are about us.
    9:17 Now therefore, O our God, hear the prayer of thy servant, and his supplications, and cause thy face to shine upon thy sanctuary that is desolate, for the Lord’s sake.
    9:18 O my God, incline thine ear, and hear; open thine eyes, and behold our desolations, and the city which is called by thy name: for we do not present our supplications before thee for our righteousnesses, but for thy great mercies.
    9:19 O Lord, hear; O Lord, forgive; O Lord, hearken and do; defer not, for thine own sake, O my God: for thy city and thy people are called by thy name.
    9:20 And whiles I was speaking, and praying, and confessing my sin and the sin of my people Israel, and presenting my supplication before the LORD my God for the holy mountain of my God;

    Reply

Leave a comment