Andrew Goddard writes:
This painful and contested situation cannot continue, for the sake of the proclamation of the Gospel in England and our own integrity and peace as a Church.
These words particularly struck me in a surprisingly un-publicised but important public letter on the LLF process that was released last week. It came from 28 individuals aligned with 17 inclusive organisations within the Church of England and is very self-consciously a response to an earlier letter from 27 individuals aligned with 11 varied networks/organisations (though the size and reach of the respective networks is strikingly different). That preceding letter called for the proposed Prayers of Love and Faith (PLF) to be scrutinised by General Synod under canon B2 meaning they would require two-thirds majority in all three houses to be approved. In contrast, the latest letter rejects the B2 proposal. It urges the bishops to press on and introduce the prayers and to issue “more realistic and humane pastoral guidance” simply on their own authority as bishops. Despite their deep disagreements, I suspect most of those signing the original letter would agree that “this painful and contested situation cannot continue”. We may at last have found consensus! The problem, however, is that we then have very different understandings of where we go from here.
As this most recent letter makes clear (there have also reportedly been two similar contrasting letters written by groups of bishops), we disagree not only on what we now need to do, but how we should do it and why we are in the position we are in. As a supporter of the case for B2 it has been interesting to read and reflect on the response rejecting this pathway in order to understand the concerns of those eager for rapid change. I am struck that much of the letter is backward looking—the first three of its four headings are “Resistance to LLF”, “Misrepresentation of history”, and “The journey to the Prayers of Love and Faith”. In one sense this is helpful and illuminating. It reminds us that among our many differences is how we tell the story of how we got to where we now are. As I have set out in a more detailed engagement with its content here, while there are some hopeful signs of commonalities I also have a number of significant problems with its account. In at least one case—the claim that “groups like the Church of England Evangelical Council [CEEC] have actively discouraged churches from making use of the LLF resources”—it is demonstrably false. Like the authors, I regret that some evangelicals (like some pressing for inclusion) refused to use LLF, Nevertheless, simply clicking here shows how difficult it is to justify such a strong critical statement as “actively discouraged churches” in relation to CEEC’s response to LLF.
As this misrepresentation—and the blaming of conservatives for the church’s problems—shows, there is the real risk of the letter being guilty of othering and even scapegoating. For example, the earlier letter arguing for B2 is reduced to a campaign “to delay and obstruct” and “simply a political manoeuvre”. That letter’s substance is largely ignored. Its genuine theological and pastoral concerns for how the way in which we proceed legally affects the well-being of the church are not mentioned. There is no recognition that a core underlying motivation is one that I think the inclusive organisations would share: that we need as a church to respect the rule of law and protect against potential abuse of power. In response it is tempting to play a similar game. For example, the letter interestingly provides support for a common conservative argument that the real reason we have ended up where we are is that for decades there has been a disregard for the church’s teaching and discipline due to “a state of dishonesty and hypocrisy in which bishops as well as candidates and those who administer the process are jointly complicit”.
Rather than looking back and rehearsing different narratives, however, I want here to focus on the fourth of the letter’s headings: “The future before us”. I want to do so building on another key statement with which I found myself in strong agreement: that a central gift of the LLF process is that it “is the beginning of a move to a more honest Church”. It appears to me that the honest way to describe how the discernment process following LLF has developed, not least between the February and July Synods, is that we are stuck. The songwriter Paul Simon once described how, when writing “Bridge Over Troubled Water”, he found himself in a situation where “everywhere I went led me where I didn’t want to be so I was stuck”. The problem we face is that it seems that while there is widespread agreement that “this painful and contested situation cannot continue” it is also the case that everywhere we might go as a church leads us to somewhere where a very significant number within the church do not want to be as a church. That is why the present situation is so difficult, perhaps particularly for those who are so eager for change. The situation is made more difficult still by growing uncertainty about, and lack of confidence in, the structures taking LLF forward set alongside wider concerns and mistrust about the church’s current leadership.
One of the reasons we are stuck is that on crucial theological questions—including those of moral theology and ecclesiology—we know that we are deeply divided but we do not know for sure quite how divided we are. The authors refer to the 1987 Synod motion which proved so determinative for subsequent episcopal responses to our rapidly changing culture. The vote there in favour of the current teaching of the church concerning sex being for marriage between a man and a woman (which the motion described as “biblical and traditional”) was an incredible 403 to 8. We do not know the mind of the current Synod on these questions and the House of Bishops itself seems significantly divided on them. In February the bishops seemed ready to proceed apace with the pastoral guidance to replace Issues which had appeared in 1991 and was therefore shaped by that overwhelming 1987 vote. This has not happened despite the earlier commitment and the clear, and not unpredictable, questions put to it by the Pastoral Guidance group to enable progress (see the update to July Synod, GS 2303, paras 16-17). The bishops have not yet provided answers but only been able “to give informal steers” (para 18). A major reason for this appears to be that they themselves are far from being of one mind and they are aware that this is representative of the wider church.
It would appear that there may now be a simple majority (i.e. over 50%) in all three Houses of Synod that wants to reject that 1987 Synod motion and the more recent 2007 one (which the letter seems to have forgotten) that affirms the need for the CofE to be seen as having an unqualified commitment to “the entirety of the relevant Lambeth Conference Resolutions”, including 1998 1.10. It is, however, clear that if there is such a majority then it falls short, probably well short, of a two-thirds majority in some, perhaps even all 3 Houses of Synod. It is also clear that there is no settled consensus as to what alternative to the existing teaching should replace it. The letter makes clear however that for many wanting change the only outcome they will not continue to contest is the introduction of same-sex marriage. Can we be “a more honest Church” and acknowledge that this is where we are as a church rather than people on either side claiming they clearly have the support of the overwhelming majority and are being frustrated by the power plays of those who disagree with them?
The letter supporting PLF is also helpful in relation to becoming “a more honest Church” in another way. It recognises that even though what is currently being proposed are for them only baby steps in the right direction, they would, if implemented, be of great consequence. They would, they note, represent “a new phase of reception”, “a crux”, and “a significant moment which will make some question their place in the Church”. It is precisely in the face of decisions which are of this form that proceeding with only a simple majority has been seen as unwise if we are committed to the unity and flourishing of the church and respect for the fact that the current CofE is only a small part of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church across time and space. That is why there are processes, such as two-thirds support across Synod and/or referral to the dioceses (remember the proposed Anglican Communion Covenant?), before taking such steps. It is sad but understandable that calls for using B2 are seen as “obstructive”. The mirror image of this, however, is that the refusal to use B2 for matters which are acknowledged to be so important and clearly relate to doctrine is also seen as bypassing the normal legal and synodical means only because they will not give the desired outcome.
So, where do we go from here? What might it mean to move closer to being “a more honest Church”?
What if those pressing for change were to acknowledge that they lack the two-thirds support which would normally be required for introducing PLF (unless the prayers were only to be used for those in non-sexual unions which did not claim to be marriage) and that they have to recognise and respect that constraint rather than rejecting the concerns and pleas of those protesting that this well-established principle is being discarded?
What if those keen to continue to maintain the doctrine of marriage not just in theory but in practice were to acknowledge that a very significant minority, perhaps a simple majority (it seems among the bishops and perhaps across Synod) do not any longer accept that doctrine as it has been understood and applied in the past and that they have to recognise and respect that constraint? What are the implications of many in the church believing that how our received doctrine is now shaping the church’s response to our culture, and particularly how it limits the approved ways in which we “welcome LGBTQIA people”, is damaging and an affront to their consciences?
An appeal to permitting freedom of conscience here is important but it (like the “agreeing to disagree” soundbite) does not get us as far towards a solution as many seem to think or need (I sketch some of the reasons for this towards the end of this article). The letter’s handling of “Pastoral Reassurance” is therefore too limited and far from reassuring to those of us who cannot accept the proposed changes. The reality is that various elements point to the need for more much more thinking and care than appealing to individual conscience. These include:
- the nature of the issue as touching on doctrine and the definition of sexual immorality;
- the simple maths that we are well short of two-thirds for change but likely have a majority for change in some or all Houses of Synod;
- the question being one of the identity of the church to which we belong and whose doctrine its leaders commit to uphold (not simply one of the subjective consciences of individuals);
- the need to respect the consciences of bishops who wish to continue to uphold current practice in their ministries and among their clergy.
These all signal that some form of structural reconfiguration is going to be necessary if we agree “this painful and contested situation cannot continue” and we want to move beyond being “stuck”. At least one of the signatories has been part of discussions in the past which sought to address these matters and were known as the St Hugh’s Conversations. The Archbishop of York during the February Synod called for “discussions about some kind of settlement”. However, nothing further has been done since then.
Our current situation is undoubtedly “painful and contested”. Several years ago at a conference, Robert Song suggested that rather than viewing this pain in terms of a marriage headed to divorce it might be better viewed in terms of the birth pains of something unexpected and new. This seemingly more positive metaphor was then met with the suggestion by one participant that “it might be twins”. To complicate the imagery further it increasingly seems that the situation we now find ourselves in might be compared to the experience of conjoined twins. These conjoined twins are increasingly unable to find a way to live well together, they compete for control of their shared body, and, for their mutual well-being perhaps now require some complex surgical intervention after which they may both be able to live better and then find some way to “walk together” better with one another than they would if they left as they are.
How might we then try to discern the future before us? We could do worse perhaps than the bishops and people such as the signatories of these two contrasting letters sitting down together and returning to the final stage of the LLF journey for those using the resources. Session 5 of the course and the fourth and final conversation in the LLF book (along with the earlier Chpt 11 on the life of the church) provide I believe some of the keys that might help us to unblock the current stalemate.
For example, the fifth course session in its section on “Disagreement and Life Together” mapped out three broad types of disagreement:
In the first kind, some Christians warn others they’re contradicting the good news of Jesus or the Bible’s teaching. In the second, the differences are seen as less serious, but still sharp enough to make living and working together as one church difficult, perhaps impossible. In the third, Christians still view each other as wrong, but accept this as a diversity that can be held within a church’s shared life (p 57).
The bishops appear to be insisting, without offering a theological justification, that the third view is the right one in relation to their proposals and possible changes to the Pastoral Guidance. It is clear, however, that many in the church view this disagreement as in the first or second category.
This session also sketched different approaches we can see in churches to questions of sexuality and marriage. Here, in effect, the bishops are seeking to move the Church of England from the first which “maintains the Church’s traditional teaching but stresses listening to and walking alongside individuals who live differently” to the second which “permits local churches to respond in different ways. For instance, some might bless or conduct same-sex marriages, while others might continue to view them as wrong”. For many people, however, the bishops have not yet satisfactorily answered the question the course then raises about this option: “whether this is possible without changing church doctrine, liturgy or law. Can a church bless or marry a same-sex couple while teaching marriage is between one man and one woman?” (p 58).
What if people with different hopes and fears in relation to PLF, the best route for their approval, and the content of the new pastoral guidance, re-engaged honestly with these LLF materials together in the light of recent events? At the very least we may find ourselves able to agree not just with the words quoted at the start of this article but with some of the LLF course’s final words from 2 Chronicles 20:12: “We do not know what to do, but our eyes are on you”. These are words which I have returned to again and again since early in the wider Communion crisis. Words which if spoken sincerely across our differences may help us become “a more honest church”. Words which if then taken seriously across our differences may somehow enable us to find a new way being opened up by God through our current “painful and contested situation….for the sake of the proclamation of the Gospel in England and our own integrity and peace as a Church”.
Revd Dr Andrew Goddard is Assistant Minister, St James the Less, Pimlico, Tutor in Christian Ethics, Westminster Theological Centre(WTC) and Tutor in Ethics at Ridley Hall, Cambridge. He is a member of the Church of England Evangelical Council (CEEC) and was a member of the Co-Ordinating Group of LLF, and a member of the subgroup on Pastoral Guidance, which has now been closed down.
“What are the implications of many in the church believing that how our received doctrine is now shaping the church’s response to our culture, and particularly how it limits the approved ways in which we “welcome LGBTQIA people”, is damaging and an affront to their consciences?”
From the recent statements on marriage by Welby and Cottrell, they seem to think that the current culture should be changing the church’s doctrine.
Appeasement. The Ahab spirit.
@Chris Bishop July 19 at 11:05am :
The ‘tail’ should never ‘wag the dog’.
Thank you, Andrew.
Can we be “a more honest Church” and acknowledge that this is where we are as a church rather than people on either side claiming they clearly have the support of the overwhelming majority and are being frustrated by the power plays of those who disagree with them?
Yes, most certainly. What matters, though, is not the support of numbers of men but the support of Jesus Christ. So long as both sides claim His support there can be no compromise, because this is about what He considers right and wrong to be. There is a place where believers have looked for that for 3000 years.
Anton : July 19 at 11:54 am
Are you suggesting that there are some relevant persons who’s attitude is :
“What’s the Bible got to do with it” ?
You might very well think that. I could not possibly comment.
To anton. “I beseech you brethren in the vowels of Christ to think it possible that you might be wrong” (from memory- but the point remains).
It seems to me that the largest problems arise when people think it impossible that they might be wrong.
Yes of course. I regularly set out my exegesis here in order to subject it to criticism from those who disagree.
Well both cant be right. And who has the invested interest?
@ Pete Hobson – July 19 at 12:10 pm
Re : “when people think it is impossible that they might be wrong”.
May you be alluding to a state of ‘intellectual infallibility’ upon a particular issue, derived from claims to being “inspired’, allegedly by the holy Spirit – which can result in multiple rounds of voting upon said issue, until the “right result” emerges – and then of course, there are to be no more rounds of voting ?
Andrew, great article as always, but one point. You swallowed whole the nonsensical absolute use of the word ‘inclusion’. That is exactly what they want you to do – that is precisely why they use it without preamble, so as to normalise and thereby universalise its use without preamble.
Christopher
I think one of the many many things that are disagreed on is whether this split is *only* about sex and marriage or whether it’s about the wider treatment of LGBT people, married, single or otherwise.
That is likely true, but why are you forcing people to use this category ‘LGBT people’ as though somehow everyone regarded that as a coherent category. It might not even be coherent (in lumping all these together as one) even if innate states were referred to, which they are not.
The CofE acknowledged the existence of gay people (if not bisexual and trans people) in Lambeth 1.10.
AFAIK the only Anglican groups still opposing that aspect of theology have already formally declared a schism with the CofE
The CofE acknowledged the existence of gay people (if not bisexual and trans people) in Lambeth 1.10.
Depends what you mean by ‘the existence of gay people’.
It acknowledged that there are people who are exclusively sexually attracted to members of the same sex.
It did not acknowledge that God intended those people to be that way.
Since they are the foremost international experts on the matter, we should bow to their knowledge.
Though it is passing suspicious that they were (as usual) following international trends.
So what is next required is that you do not treat two things as one thing.
(1) People who are by their nature G or B etc;
(2) People who have by circumstances etc become that way and (because they are not that way by nature) may change again.
At present you are collapsing these separate categories together. So does society as a whole, which makes me think that your thinking may be second hand.
S
“While rejecting homosexual practice as incompatible with Scripture, calls on all our people to minister pastorally and sensitively to all irrespective of sexual orientation and to condemn irrational fear of homosexuals”
Lambeth 1.10
So it recognizes the concept of orientation- that some people are not attracted to the opposite sex and to the existence of “homosexuals”.
Homosexuals or gay people are people who experience exclusive attraction to the same sex, although confusingly gay is sometimes used as a wider umbrella category. Lambeth 1.10 acknowledges gay people exist.
What’s frustrating is we could have had ten years of discussion on ministering pastorally and sensitively to gay people, but that’s all gone out of the window. It’s constantly amazing to me that conservatives just ignore this stuff while treating the “don’t let them marry” part as sacred. It’s all one document
People like to listen to want they want to hear. Issues in Human Sexuality pretty firmly rejected conversion therapy and ex-gay movement in 1992. Conservative evangelical churches ignored that for another 20 years or more.
Christopher
Can you explain what circumstances you think can change a person’s orientation and why you think this?
Yes, there is a vicious civil war at Pink News over trans.
Not only at Pink News!
Anton
Really? I read PinkNews from time to time and have not seen ay articles denying the existence of trans people.
Nor have I. That isn’t what I said.
Anton
Civil War usually means people on both sides in the same organization. Is that not what you meant?
I ask because outside of PinkNews I see a lot of articles trying to split away trans people from LGBT, but my lived reality is that the vast majority of gay people support full equality for trans folk
My use of the phrase ‘civil war’ is relative to the self-defined “LGBT community”. I have a friend who is G and who supports the inclusion of T in his extended community. At a blog I used to frequent there was a chap who was G who disputed that T should be categorised with him. Granted that this is a sample size of one, but so is your lived experience.
When you speak of “full equality for trans folk”, would you be more specific, please?
Anton
There are of course gay people who oppose trans rights, but the vast majority of gay people are passionately in favor of full inclusion and equality for trans people.
For the last 3 or so years there have been some dark money groups, like LGB Alliance, whose entire reason for being seems to be to promote the idea that gay (and bi) people generally oppose trans rights, but this claim has fallen rather flat, not least because all of the people who oppose trans equality also oppose gay equality
As for a ‘painful and contested situation’, how effete. There are people suffering war and malnutrition.
Of course, it will be a contested situation when carnal desire (which sees itself as above research) faces down reality and researched study.
What is surprising is (a) that anyone expected otherwise and (b) why they take those in the carnal desire corner remotely seriously.
I agree. Stop all church weddings forthwith. Carnal desire must be eliminated.
Christopher would do well to read Professor Ludlow’s excellent article here:
https://viamedia.news/2023/07/19/giving-up-sex-what-macrina-tells-us-about-celibacy/
I had read it an hour earlier. It said that anyone who defends celibacy for same sex couples is unchristian, unbiblical and unkind. Since Jesus and his earliest followers were well known for their belief that there was such a thing as same sex couples and that they should certainly not necessarily be celibate, they thankfully avoided being ‘unchristian, unbiblical and unkind’.
We are getting closer towards the gobbledegook of the climactic speech in That Hideous Strength.
Goodness. CS Lewis is revered so highly in the comments sections here I’m surprised he hasn’t been elevated as an archangel.
Perhaps you should read it again.
Christopher
I don’t know whether you are being wilfully obtuse or mischievous, but that is not Morwenna’s argument.
I suggest you read it again. Carefully. Without bias. And with respect for an esteemed Patristics scholar. Who knows whereof she writes.
Andrew
I sometimes think Lewis is more revered here than Holy Writ.
Wait till they find out about the BDSM!
PCD-
Apart from those who knew about it already and that it was in his preChristian days.
My representation of her message was accurate. If not, point out wherein it was not. It will be interesting to hear what you say.
She says it so much better than I:
‘Thirdly, and most importantly, this kind of celibate life was voluntary. Holy men and women were praised for their choice—a choice often made against the wishes of their families and friends. Macrina is a good example of this. It is true that these men and women often felt their calling as a kind of compulsion. Many, like Augustine, undertook it after deep and long struggles. Those called to ministry today might recognise that grappling in response to a calling. In time, celibacy was expected of priests and bishops (in the west) and bishops (in the east). But even if celibacy was experienced as a challenging call imposed by God and connected with a call to ministry, it was never required by the church of certain sets of people simply because of the way they were born. Indeed, there is clear evidence of rules designed to prevent certain people being pressurised into celibacy. Families were not to send a young girl off to a nunnery against her will. Husbands or wives could leave a marriage to pursue a life of celibacy, but only with the agreement of their spouse; if they did leave their marriage, they could not force their husband or wife to join a community of celibates too. This is not of course to say that these rules weren’t broken. The hierarchical society meant that women and slaves were vulnerable to cooption (and there were rules forbidding slaves to join communities without their masters’ permission). But the point is that the Christian doctrine of celibacy clearly taught that it was a voluntary dedication of one’s whole self and one’s whole life to God and a rejection of society’s pressure to accumulate wealth, improve one’s status and pass both down to the next generation.’
The key word is “voluntary”.
The key word is “voluntary”.
But it’s clearly not true that celibacy is always voluntary. Lots of people would dearly love to get married, but never find a suitable partner who is willing to marry them.
Exactly. So, to follow her argument through, ‘celibacy’ should have had a different definition in premedieval and medieval and postmedieval times.
But it didn’t. Why?
And celibacy is indeed voluntary. Whereas sleeping with those you are not married to is out of bounds. And secondly sleeping with those of the same gender is out of bounds. A combination of the two is especially out of bounds. If she appeals to the medieval world as an example, then it is in the medieval world that this was the case. But you all knew that perfectly well already.
And also the premedieval world.
And also the postmedieval world.
S
But there’s a HUGE difference between not finding the one and being prohibited from seeking the one.
In conservative churches gay youth cannot find someone attractive, date, kiss, hug, hold hands or commiserate with their friends. In some churches gay youth are even discouraged from having gay friends.
Also I’m really not sure how many people there are who genuinely cannot find any form of relationship, even if they have not married. The only people I have met who have expressed to me that they feel that way are people constrained by church teaching who would otherwise be married.
But there’s a HUGE difference between not finding the one and being prohibited from seeking the one.
No one is prohibited from seeking the one. But there are things that make a potential partner not suitable. Being already married to somebody else is one. Being the same sex is another.
Celibacy as a charism is voluntary. As a freely chosen calling it requires abstinence, but celibates were often widowed or married (or, like Augustine, willing to give up their concubines).
Obviously enforced singleness is not.
There is a stream of thought in modern protestantism which sees celibacy as involuntary (i.e. the fate if one is gay) and which some frame (very mistakenly in my view) as martyrdom.
Your point that SSM wasn’t a ‘thing’ in Mediaeval Europe is straw manning.
Oh, S, all this time and you’re still left peddling that no one is really gay they just haven’t met the right girl yet?
Even you must know it’s a nonsense. If it was your real answer to gay people it’d be part of your opening points, not something that has to be dragged out of you when you’re running out of steam.
you’re still left peddling that no one is really gay they just haven’t met the right girl yet?
What? No. Of course not. I never wrote that.
S, so when you said no one is prohibited from seeking “the one”, it’s just that a partner of the same sex is unsuitable what did you mean? Who is the gay man supposed to be seeking, if not “the right girl”?
when you said no one is prohibited from seeking “the one”, it’s just that a partner of the same sex is unsuitable what did you mean?
Um, I don’t know how to put it more clearly than you just have there. No one is prohibited from seeking ‘the one’, but a partner of the same sex is unsuitable.
Who is the gay man supposed to be seeking, if not “the right girl”?
It may be the case for a particular person that all the potential partners happen to be unsuitable. As well as gay men this could apply to, say, someone who finds everyone they are attracted to is either not attracted to them, or us already married.
So if seeking “the one” doesn’t mean looking for a partner of the same sex, it must mean looking for a partner of the opposite sex, right? aka “the right girl”
Glad we got there eventually.
So if seeking “the one” doesn’t mean looking for a partner of the same sex, it must mean looking for a partner of the opposite sex, right?
Yes; though obviously if someone is exclusively attracted to members of their own sex, such a suitable partner won’t exist.
No one is prevented from seeking ‘the one’, but there is no guarantee that the search will be successful or that ‘the one’ will exist. This is not a case where all those who seek shall find.
So you think I’m allowed to date and have boyfriends? I just can’t marry one, is that it?
So you think I’m allowed to date and have boyfriends? I just can’t marry one, is that it?
I think exactly the same standards of Christian sexual ethics apply to every Christian. I don’t see what is hard to understand.
S
But that *is* what happens in conservative churches. I can give you a great long list of anecdotes if you want. Gay people are told that to remain part of the church they cannot date, they must recognize any romantic feelings as sinful and usually are told they cannot publicly admit to being gay.
Part of why you do not know this is that conservative churches deliberately hide their policies around this stuff, hence the church clarity movement, which tries to get churches to actually be honest about their positions
S
Especially in this age of travel and communication I think you’d struggle to find anyone who cannot find any single person they are attracted to!
Especially in this age of travel and communication I think you’d struggle to find anyone who cannot find any single person they are attracted to!
Some people have standards.
And if they do find such a person that person might not find them attractive, or might already have got married, or might have incompatible views.
I mean the fact is, lots of people never get married even though they would have liked to. Such people do exist. I haven’t made them up.
S
Of course lots of people don’t get married, but failing to marry is not the same thing as being required by your religious leaders to quash any and all desire for relationship
@ Andrew G
But its concluding paragraph is not supported by the preceding text. It springs from nowhere!
I expressed myself inexactly. What I meant was carnal desire as determinative and so strong as to block out reason. And/or carnal desire as promoted by those who think themselves above the use of reason.
The only time I have seen carnal desires as overcoming was at the altar rail when couples who had waited until the ceremony were wed. Embarrassing.
so they did the right thing. Good for them, unlike many ‘Christian’ couples who have sex before marriage.
That is a truly nasty comment.
That is a truly nasty comment.
Quite spiteful, and more than a little reminiscent of the fox declaring of the grapes, ‘well they were sour anyway’.
It does make you wonder if some who promote promiscuity do so because they envy what those who have kept keep themselves pure have, and so they want to drag everyone down into the gutter with them.
Not spiteful at all. In one case the reflection of the priest who celebrated the marriage. He thought cohabitation before would have been wiser.
And sex before the wedding ceremony doesn’t equal promiscuity.
Not spiteful at all. In one case the reflection of the priest who celebrated the marriage. He thought cohabitation before would have been wiser.
A Church of England minister was this? I wish I could say a Church of England minister advocating sin was a shock.
And sex before the wedding ceremony doesn’t equal promiscuity.
It does; and you’re also on record as supporting one-night stands and people having multiple sexual partners, which are also promiscuity.
S
No. A CoE priest.
Sex before the wedding ceremony doesn’t constitute promiscuity.
Have I advocated multiple sexual partners?
No. A CoE priest.
You’ve misspelt ‘minister’ again.
Sex before the wedding ceremony doesn’t constitute promiscuity.
Anything that isn’t monogamy is promiscuity.
Have I advocated multiple sexual partners?
Yes — you’ve said you don’t see any a problem with people having had multiple sexual partners before marriage.
S
1) Read the Ordinal
2) I don’t recollect saying that multiple sexual partners before marriage was fine. But you seem to collect everything Andrew and I write, so maybe you would be good enought to cite the reference.
But if people are bitter, there is a source of the bitterness.
Stopping all church weddings is idiotic. There is a place in Church for faithful matrimony and we need to celebrate it.
In both Mathew and Mark’s gospel. our Lord Jesus Christ doe tell us what marriage is.
Jesus was once asked about tax and famously doesn’t tell anyone what tax was. but, instead asked to be shown whose head was on a coin: In the same way pharisees once asked Jesus about divorce, yet Jesus doesn’t tell anyone what divorce is, but, instead tells everyone what marriage is.
@ AJ Bell
The trilogy is a good read – Tolkien’s better though!
They’re not in the same business, Jack.
I think highly of That Hideous Strength, but less so of its two precedessors.
Lord of the Rings is wonderful. You and I have differed before over whether it is a genuinely great book (not quite, say I), but we both love it.
Jack was just being mischievous, Anton.
I think part of the separation of views on CEECs conduct is that to them any compromise goes too far, whereas other groups are willing to accept compromise and willing to believe that different people can read the same Bible and genuinely come to different conclusions.
I seem to remember that CEEC released a video around the time of LLF resources. I haven’t seen it, but I remember a lot of LGBT people were offended by its content. I think this, together with a continual belittling of other people’s beliefs is why many LGBT groups believe CEEC is acting in an obstructionist manner. Put simply most LGBT people involved in LLF don’t believe CEEC is engaging in good faith.
I think it’s fair to say that most LGBT people see the failure to address sexual abuse as part and parcel of the “failure” to engage in good faith in LLF and are especially concerned that younger LGBT people dont share their experience of being LGBT in the church. CEEC probably see these two issues as totally separate and when they speak of pastoral issues are thinking more of keeping people from sin, rather than protecting people from predation.
Basically there’s a lot of using the same words to mean different things, which then upsets everyone.
The two sides don’t even agree on the definition of “gay” or “trans”. I think the best solution is for anyone who supports LGBT equality to leave the CofE, and many have, but many are committed to reform
Why should orthodox Christians leave the CoE to the schismatics and Calvinists?
For their own good!
I think it’s called cultural capture these days! I think the orthodox will fight to rescue the church from the neo puritans.
Better than the sexual neo-libertines!
Starting with the North American revisionists, those who want to introduce a new doctrine of marriage other than that between a man and a woman and in defiance of 2000 years of christian orthodoxy, are the true schismatics. You can’t gaslight the conservatives for this. If they weren’t pressing for SSM, there would be no schism. So far they have managed to alienate 70% of the Anglican Communion.
As John Cleese would have observed – they started it.
Chris Bishop
I think you’d be hard pushed to find a conservative in or nearby the communion who agrees with all of Lambeth 1.10. Certainly they don’t practice it
“What if people with different hopes and fears in relation to PLF, the best route for their approval, and the content of the new pastoral guidance, re-engaged honestly with these LLF materials together in the light of recent events? ”
Do LLF again? (This time with feeling…?)
I’ve been thinking about this all afternoon. What is the purpose behind Andrew’s suggestion? I can’t tell whether the idea to work up the theological discussion more substantially, or if there are areas where Andrew has changed his mind in the last few months.
“What is the purpose behind Andrew’s suggestion? “
Further delay and kicking the can down the road….
Divine intervention?
As Teresa of Ávila says: “Christ has no body now but yours. No hands, no feet on earth but yours.”
Actually he does
Well, yes. The Church is the body of Christ but we are individual members of it and have different roles. And, St Paul teaches that this membership will bring sufferings for the sake of His body.
Time to stand-up!
I agree. This suggestion is baffling. Starting again for what? Six years ago the launch of LLF was pre-empted by a glossy CEEC video stating the bible could not be simpler on this – ‘crystal clear’ – only conservative beliefs on this were possible and floating the idea of third province. Has anything changed on that side of the debate? And who wasn’t being honest this time around? I am genuinely puzzled.
Has anything changed on that side of the debate?
Had anything changed on the other side of the debate? What was the point of it all? (Other than to try to delay a decision until after the Synod election in the hopes that the new Synod would be willing to vote for doctrinal change).
I suppose that depends on who you think pressed for the points on celibacy, singleness and covenanted friendships (i.e. efforts to make provision for the Side B part of the spectrum). The extent to which all that has been ignored since February makes me suspect it came from the so-called “liberals” – they have to spend their time now defending the whole concept of PLF, and if had been the so-called “conservatives” I’d have thought they’d be making much more of a fuss about right now.
I suppose that depends on who you think pressed for the points on celibacy, singleness and covenanted friendships (i.e. efforts to make provision for the Side B part of the spectrum).
What points, and what’s a ‘Side B part of the spectrum’?
In the Bishops’ report, there is a section “Areas for the Church to attend to and develop”. Within that there is a discussion on the need to do more work on singleness, celibacy and chastity. The Bishops’ explicitly recognised that for Christians who cannot in conscience enter sexual relationships (i.e. they cannot in conscience marry) they need “authentic acceptance of celibacy as their path of discipleship”. They also recommended developing prayers for people forming a non-sexual covenanted friendship or companionship.
Side B is reference to the debate amongst gay Christians – Side A being those who believe that same-sex marriage is possible or good, and Side B being those who believe that being gay requires lifelong celibacy. Side B folk would include people like David Bennett, Wesley Hill, Ed Shaw, and Eve Tushnet. They do not have a problem saying that they are gay/LGBT, and firmly reject ideas of conversion therapy or the ex-gay movement.
The hope that more conservatives will be voted onto Synod and the hope that financial blackmail and separate ‘legal’ structures will prevail.
Or, more cynically, the hope that LGBTIQA+ Christians will be so hurt and dispirited by the continuing abuse they will leave.
People should be wise how they use their money – that isnt ‘blackmail’.
The hope that more conservatives will be voted onto Synod
I thought it was a firm article of faith for the ‘progressives’ that ‘the arc of history’ was bending their way, and therefore any delay could only result in a Synod more progressive and less conservative.
Or has faith in the ‘arc of history’ been shaken?
I don’t know which progressives you are talking about.
I don’t believe in the arc of history.
Andrew, the full passage from 2 Chronicles 20:12, reads: O our God, will you not execute judgment on them? For we are powerless against this great horde that is coming against us. We do not know what to do, but our eyes are on you.”
The members of the Church of England are not powerless in the face of this “great horde” – yet! And they do know “where to look”. With respect and apologises to those Christians within the Anglican “communion” who hold to Traditional teachings on sexual morality, one has to be pretty dumb not to see where all this is heading.
The agenda is clear, as are the moves. They’re the same as those used for the entry of of women to clerical ministry – small steps by stealth, and deception.
In February 2023, On BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, Archbishop Stephen Cottrell told presenter William Crawley that “LGBTIQ+ people, people entering into same-sex marriages, people in civil partnerships are able to come to the Church of England and those relationships and marriages can be acknowledged and celebrated. People can receive God’s blessing, and that’s a good thing.”
Crawley later asked: “Can we just clarify one point? Is it still church teaching that gay sex is a sin?”
The Archbishop’s reply: “physical and sexual intimacy belongs in committed, stable, faithful relationships and therefore where we see a committed, stable, faithful relationship between two people of the same sex, we are now in a position where those people can be welcomed fully into the life of the Church, on their terms.”
Crawley pressed him on this, saying: “And given a blessing: you don’t bless sin, right? So you must be blessing something you believe to be good.”
Cottrell reiterated: “As I say, we believe that stable, faithful, committed, loving relationships are good. They are the place for physical intimacy.”
Isn’t that position in direct contradiction to the Church of England’s teaching on chastity and the place for “sexual intimacy”?
At the same time as Stephen Cottrell’s radio interview, Bishop of London, Sarah Mullally was asked by a reporter if the move meant sexual intimacy within a same-sex marriage was now no longer regarded as sinful.
Mullally replied: “What we’re doing is proposing prayers for people as a stage of their relationship. And within that relationship, and we’re specifically saying it is a faithful, lifelong relationship between two people … So there will be the opportunity for those people in a same-sex relationship to come and have that relationship blessed. And, of course, some of those will be sexual.”
If you’re going to “acknowledge and celebrate” same sex acts, deem them moral, because they are “committed, stable, faithful relationship”, even though there’s no sexual complementarity, then why not hold a marriage ceremony? You’ve already effectively stripped sex of its purpose and, by default, the true meaning and purpose of marriage.
Surely ‘inclusion’ in the church is for everyone who responds to the words of Jesus ” follow me” and then importantly adheres to His teachings. Chris x
Indeed. I am an inclusive Christian.
Jesus taught
Love your neighbor as yourself, not make up some conspiracy theory about your neighbors sex life like “its impossible for gay people to consumate, have children, be monogamous, have safe sex” etc etc
its impossible for gay people to consumate, have children, be monogamous, have safe sex
No one ever claimed it’s impossible for gay people to have children. Of course gay people can have children: with a member of the opposite sex .
What is impossibly is for a same-sex couple to have children.
S
Ive been told that gay people cannot have children repeatedly and I’m pretty sure you’ve been one of the people claiming this.
Ive been told that gay people cannot have children repeatedly and I’m pretty sure you’ve been one of the people claiming this.
Do please link to an example of me claiming it then.
Because I haven’t, because it’s obviously silly. Of course a gay man can have sex with a lesbian and produce a child; there’s no physical reason why not.
What is impossible is for two people of the same sex to produce a child. It’s got nothing to do with whether they are gay or not: two heterosexual men can no more produce a child than two gay men. It’s just about biology.
So a same-sex couple can’t have a child. If it’s two women, of course, then one of them could be impregnated with a donor’s sperm and have a child; but that child wouldn’t be the child of the same-sex couple, it would be the biological child of the mother and the sperm-donor.
Oscar Wilde had two sons. If that’s not proof that a gay man can have children I don’t know what is.
(Philip Schofield also has children, again proving that a gay man can have children — with a woman ).
Does the fact that 2 men or 2 women cannot have a child naturally not speak volumes?
S
And yet in the US one fifth of same sex couples are raising children
And yet in the US one fifth of same sex couples are raising children
Not their own biological children. At most the biological child of one member of the couple.
PC
Volumes about what?
S
Do you know how many millions of children of straight couples have at least one parent who is not their biological parent?!
You need to stop making up standards for gay marriage that straight people have never followed.
Do you know how many millions of children of straight couples have at least one parent who is not their biological parent?!
I’m sure it’s a few, but do you know how many children being raised by same-sex couples are the biological child of both of them?
The answer is zero.
HC,
One reason is that until the civil law of marriage was changed, a marriage had to be consumated otherwise it could be annulled. Consumation involved a physical act that can not be carried out in ssm, that is full penetration between male and female. Which follows the becoming “one flesh” and ‘be fruitful and multiply” biblical theological warrant.
The requirement for consummation has been removed at civil law in ssm and if theological telelogical and
complementarian covenantal reasons for marriage have been culturally consigned to extinction along with categories of sin and holiness (as Chris Bishops first comment above evidences) there remains few secular substantive reasons to retain the boundaries and distinctions even while one will remain outside God’s remit and scope for marriage.
It also seems significant that the change sought in the CoE is a result of planning change of doctrine by decibels of vosiferous minority.
It seems that ssm marriage represents only approx 3% of all marriages and it is more prevalent with lesbians than gay.
( Reported in Anglican Mainstream here:
https://anglicanmainstream.org/3-per-cent-of-all-marriages-were-of-the-same-sex-in-2020/)
And this tiny minority seek to overthrow Christian doctrine
To Geoff
Totally agree with you. The Same Sex Marriage Acts incoherent as it states that a male/female couple must consummate (annulment otherwise) but that a same sex couple do not. The physical union is what gives us a share with God in creation. Also children – the fruit of that union – need to know their parents – we know this from children who are adopted and seek to know their heritage. A same sex couple can never offer that stability as there needs to be either a male or female involved as a third party.
I weep for the children being casualties in this hideous societal experiment.
Geoff and Tricia
The much better solution would be to dispense with the idea of consummation as integral for any marriage. It is an outdated and patriarchal notion.
Why Penelope?
That is a mere assertion from a Queer Theory strategist, methinks.
Where does the idea that it is a patriarchial notion come from?
It is nothing of the sort. It follows, God’s scriptural theological, telelogical warrant and remit, as reveal by Him in the canon.
Geoff
It meant if your wife refused to have sex you could get rid of her without the stigma of divorce. It’s not some special holy ritual.
It meant if your wife refused to have sex you could get rid of her without the stigma of divorce.
And also that if your husband refused to have sex you could leave him and find another husband.
PIV sex shows God’s scriptural warrant?
Penelope – it is not a patriarchal notion. Christian marriage calls a man to monogamy – even the disciples struggled with that idea. Their response was: “It is better not to marry”. Christian marriage calls for a man “to care for his wife as if his own body”, it calls for self restraint and putting the other first.
Marriage is also proven to give the best outcomes for children.
As we are all flawed humans, we fail, but if we stop trying we are no better than animals. Your utopia creates hell.
It’s not a utopia 🙂 and I am not recommending polygamy 🙂
Dropping consummation as a requirement for a marriage to be valid (which it isn’t by the way) doesn’t stop couples having sex or babies, or becoming one flesh (though that refers to kinship rather than sex).
But it does mean that couples who can’t or won’t consummate the marriage by PIV sex (I’ve forgotten the exact inches of penis inserted deemed necessary by the Vatican) are not left in some legal wasteland by a patriarchal insistence on a certain sex act being the only one mandated.
Couples have all kinds of sexual intimacies and it’s time both Church and State butted out.
It’s perfectly possible for spouses to care for each other whatever kind of sex they are having or not having.
Penelope,
We’ve been here before. Consummation is neither patriarchal, nor outdated. Instead, it is a reasonable and lawful expectation based on marriage’s built-in contingency for natural procreation (presumption of legitimacy).
There is nothing patriarchal about this presumption which minimises state intrusion on family privacy and is still rebuttable by objective evidence to the contrary.
The rebuttable presumption is based on:
1. the couple’s solemn marriage vows of lifelong fidelity
2. the fact that they have been able to consummate the marriage through sexual congress
3. The child being born to the mother during the subsistence of that marriage.
Since divorce might have significant financial and reputational repercussions, it is unfair for dissolution to be the prescribed route by which a wife or husband can opt out of a marriage in which complete deprivation of sexual intercourse (even through incapacity) denies them any hope of engaging their desire to procreate through sexual union.
While some spouses might be entirely accepting of that situation, it reasonable and fair to have legal provision whereby such a wife or husband may seek an annulment of the marriage.
Consummation in other sex marriages is necessary and desirable if the couple want and produce children.
The necessity for consummation in a deliberately or accidentally infertile marriage is a hangover from a culture in which the male was required to penetrate the female in a prescribed manner in order to perform his masculinity and her inferiority and submission.
Secular marriage could certainly lose the concept of consummation.
The necessity for consummation in a deliberately or accidentally infertile marriage
Deliberately making your marriage infertile for selfish reasons or for convenience is extremely immoral.
“The necessity for consummation in a deliberately or accidentally infertile marriage is a hangover from a culture in which the male was required to penetrate the female in a prescribed manner in order to perform his masculinity and her inferiority and submission.”
There has never been a necessity for consummation in marriage because the presumption of legitimacy is no more than a contingency for procreation.
Since consummation only relates to this contingency, whatever culture might dictate, the legal provision for annulment on account of non-consummation has never been based on the male being “required to penetrate the female in a prescribed manner”.
There is nothing patriarchal or chauvinistic about permitting a wife or husband to opt out of a marriage in which complete deprivation of sexual intercourse (even through incapacity) denies them any hope of engaging their desire to procreate through sexual union.
S
Read the NT.
The law could ‘permit’ a spouse to escape a marriage because the other spouse denied them offspring. There is no legal necessity for consummation/non consummation as a lever.
“The law could ‘permit’ a spouse to escape a marriage because the other spouse denied them offspring.”
The consummation requirement has never had anything to do with inability to produce offspring per se. Otherwise, Henry VIII could have more easily obtained an annulment on those grounds.
In fact, in English common law, the potential of any married couple to produce offspring is never ruled out. As Sir William Blackstone, the noted English common law authority, put it: “the possibility of issue is always supposed to exist in law, unless extinguished by the death of the parties; even though the donees be each of them an hundred years old.”
Consummation (one of the three coherent principles upon which the presumption of legitimacy is predicated) has everything to do with capacity to fulfil the reasonable, lawful and normative expectation in marriage of procreating through sexual union.
During the passage of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) bill through Parliament, one of the key arguments of its proponents was that extending marriage legislation to accommodate same-sex couples would not change existing marriage law for straight couples.
That self-same argument is undermined by your proposal to remove a key principle upon which the presumption of legitimacy is predicated.
Tricia
That’s not true!
There’s no Office of Sexual congress checking that straight couples have had sex and issuing annulments to those who have not. Annulments are only granted to couples who apply for them. And actually this is an area where straight couples have better legal rights than gays because it’s far harder for gay couples to get an Annulment
That is because it can never be consumated. What would be the purpose of seeking annulment if the CoE doesn’t distinguish between none sexual and sexual ssm?
The CofE does not recognize SSM
Gay married couples can and do have sex
Are you asking what the purpose of marriage is beyond just sex?
You miss the point. Consummation is the “union” that God blesses us with children. Same sex couples cannot consummate or make new life, therefore it is not marriage apart from the Government making a new law saying it is.
So infertile couples are not blessed and have not consummated their marriages?
So infertile couples are not blessed
Indeed not. Sometimes God chooses not to bless a couple with children.
But there’s a qualitative, essential difference between a male/female union which can be so blessed (even if it so happens that it isn’t) and a same-sex union which is inherently barren.
Should post-menopausal women be allowed to marry in church?
Tricia
Same sex couples make new life all the time.
Tricia
In the US roughly half of same sex couples are raising children. About half these couples adopt. Sorry I could not find the statistics for England, but I expect they are comparable.
I find it really really sad that 10 years of going in circles and conservatives are still pushing obviously untrue claims about gay people instead of seeking to
“minister pastorally and sensitively to all irrespective of sexual orientation and to condemn irrational fear of homosexuals”
This is for Peter Jermey at 12:02
How, precisely, does a same-sex couple, of themselves, create a new life?
The creation of a new human being requires one male and one female gamete. Only men produce the former and only women the latter.
The heights of delusion.
You can foster or nurture but how on earth can you make new life? What world are you in?
David
There are lots of different ways.
In my generation lots of gay Christian men were counseled by church leaders that they should marry women and that by doing so they would become straight. It didn’t work. But lots of them have children.
Younger couples either adopt children straight people have discarded or get a surrogate if they can afford it
If one of the couple is trans then they can just go the standard pregnancy route.
It doesn’t show good faith to continue to deny these things. None of these activities are scorned at when straight couples do them. Indeed, often, straight couples are celebrated for doing them.
Younger couples either adopt children straight people have discarded or get a surrogate if they can afford it
If they adopt then they didn’t create the child.
If they use a surrogate — itself a hideous practice that should be outlawed — then the baby is not the child of the gay couple, it’s at most the child of one of them together with the mother who donated the egg.
If one of the couple is trans then they can just go the standard pregnancy route.
If one of the couple is trans then they aren’t a same-sex couple so of course they can have a baby like any other couple consisting of a man and a woman.
Penelope,
Please see my reply above. The ‘infertile couples argument’ is shop-worn and wrong-headed: https://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/articles/reflections-on-the-public-purpose-of-marriage/
S
It’s pretty frustrating that when we discuss these things, conservatives continue to rely on holding LGBT people to standards that they don’t hold non LGBT people to and/or deny our existence. These are not good faith arguments. The difficulty with pushing bad faith arguments is that it just reinforces negative feelings amongst the people you are disagreeing with
The legislation confirmed that non-consummation cannot be a ground on which same sex marriage is voidable because of the impossibility of defining sexual intercourse within same-sex marriages. Just what would “sexual intercourse” between a same sex couple be?
Also, same sex couples who are “married” cannot divorce on the grounds of adultery. The definition of adultery is “voluntary sexual intercourse between two persons of the opposite sex, of whom one or both is married but who are not married to each other”. The Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act amended the Matrimonial Causes Act to add that “only conduct between the respondent and a person of the opposite sex may constitute adultery for the purposes of this section.”
So, unless one of the couple has sexual intercourse with a person of the opposite sex, a same-sex “spouse” would be unable to obtain a divorce based on adultery. Any alleged infidelity could be used as evidence of unreasonable behaviour in support of a divorce application.
The wicked thought occurs to me that at some point in this century, during the drafting of our present laws, civil servants had to consider what consummation meant in the context of same-sex marriages.
@ Anton
Just imagine an episode of “Yes Minister” on this. How would Sir Humphrey deal with this? And, pity Jim Hacker!
What is the joke supposed to be?
To Penelope
I know a number of couples who have not been blessed with children and have struggled with infertility. It certainly does not mean that they have not consummated their marriage or that they are not married. A same sex couple will never conceive without assistance from a third party and medical means.
Anton, Jack
Some civil servants are gay so they would not need to speculate what gay sex might involve. If only there were some way for straight people to find these things out…
@ Peter JERMEY
The point is that same sex acts, by definition, cannot be “sexual intercourse”.
And, scandalously, these days our children are being exposed to the ‘mechanics’ of same sex genital stimulation.
Happy Jack
I have two kids in public schools. They are not being exposed to the mechanics of same sex sex. This is simply a lie put about by politicians and religious leaders who have a vested interest in stirring up literal homophobia.
Again if gay people can’t have intercourse anyway then why are conservatives so aghast at allowing priests to bless us?
The law for marriage (between a man and a woman) states that some marriages are ‘void’, i.e. the situation is as if the marriage had not taken place. This is the case, for instance, if you marry while already married to someone else. It is also true for marriages which break the rules on consanguinity, which, curiously, do still apply. These rules are based on the sensible grounds that closely related people should not procreate. Clearly, this danger does not apply to SSM. Sp, why should not two sisters marry?
Then there are some marriages which are ‘voidable’, which can be but need not be annulled. One such ground is non-consummation. Another is if the wife turns out to carrying a child not fathered by the husband. Annulment requires that one party in the marriage seek it.
To Peter Jermey
The Welsh Government have brought in the UN structure for sex education and parents are trying to fight this. It is incorrect to say that children are not being given inappropriate sex education. The UN goals state that 3 year olds should be taught to m*sturb*te. This is straight out of the Kinsey writings from the 1960’s – that children are s3xual beings from birth. Then there is the genderbread person where you can choose your gender.
Tricia
Someone is lying to you.
The UN guidance covers ages 5-18, not 3! And these ages are split into 4 different age groups I don’t have time to read it now, but I would encourage you to. I very much doubt the youngest age group are talking about masterbation.
I think it’s important that teens are taught about masterbation. I know when I was a teenager it was a source for a lot of shame and self esteem issues.
Keeping sex silent and shameful pushes kids into harmful behaviors and makes them vulnerable to predators
Geoff
My marriage has been consummated.
Much conspiracy theory stuff around the consummation issue, but occasionally razor says it was actually left out because Parliament didn’t want to waste its time on an archaic issue.
Full pentration of penis in vagina? Which is as a matter of civil law, what consumation is. And by nature physically, biologically impossible in ssm. It is not simulated nor artificial.
And all ssm is naturally, biologically, physically infertile, without exception.
Indeed. As I pointed out. And why is it a necessary requirement of any marriage?
Penelope : a scriptural theological teleological reason; it provides for, full deep penetration and implantation of seed for impregnation and human fruifulness.and multiplication.
why is it a necessary requirement of any marriage
It’s not. A non-consummated marriage is voidable, not automatically void.
The possibly of consummation is a necessary requirement of a marriage, but if it isn’t possible for some non-inherent reason (eg, an injury) that doesn’t make the marriage void. The essential nature of the marriage in that case is such that it could be consummated.
But if the consummation is impossible for an inherent reason, eg, because the two parties are of the same sex, that does make the ‘marriage’ void because the essential nature is such that consummation is not possible.
Yes S I know this as I pointed out above.
Some folk seem to think it is necessary or has a theological telos.
Some folk seem to think it is necessary or has a theological telos.
Well they are right that it has a theological telos, and it is necessary that it is part of the essential nature of the marriage, even if the accident is that it doesn’t actually happen.
I just wanted to point out that a marriage where one party has suffered an injury that makes consummation impossible is still a valid marriage, provided that the essential nature of the marriage is that it could be consummated.
In short Penelope, consummation is in furtherance of God’s overall creation, pro-creation ordinances.
Infertility, inability would be *exceptions* outliers. In ssm procreation is a natural *impossibility*.
Geoffeand S
You are describing one church tradition that is extra biblical and giving it a teleological spin.
And there was I thinking you were both staunch Protestants 🙂
Oh, and seed doesn’t implant Geoff.
Basic biology.
Oh, and seed doesn’t implant Geoff.
Basic biology.
‘Basic biology’ would tell you that the zygote or ‘seed’ does indeed implant in the uterine lining.
Penelope, you have asked for a reason.
I gave a scriptural theological teleological, biological reason. Ssm marriage is biologically infertile, without exception. Consumation, as legally defined would further and enhance, increase the possiblity of conception.
You unsurprisingly don’t accept a reason put forward.
To repeat, ssm is infertile without exception. And without exception negates and contradicts and countermands God’s procreation ordinance.
The exceptions to m+f marriage consummation, do not negate,countermand, or irradicate or diminish God’s procreation ordinance in a fallen world.
Bye, bye.
S
A zygote is a fertilised ovum.
Basic biology.
I may be wrong, but I think Geoff was using the seed/sperm metonymically as the (male) generative force. As was thought. In ‘biblical times’.
A zygote is a fertilised ovum.
Yes. Biologically equivalent to a seed.
Basic biology.
Basic, as you say, biology.
S
The zygote (which is not a seed, we are talking about human biology) does not implant iteslf in the uterine lining. Its moved beyong being a zygote by the time that happened.
Anyway, this is a long way from Geoff’s spurious teleological argument to which St Paul would like to have a word …
@ S
Catholic Canon Law covers the Church’s requirements for a valid marriage.
While actually consummating a marriage is not required for validity (canon 1061 §1), being physically able to consummate the marriage is required for validity. Therefore, if a couple was unable to consummate the marriage, then the priest should not marry them.
Can. 1061 §1, states: “A valid marriage between the baptized is called ratum tantum if it has not been consummated; it is called ratum et consummatum if the spouses have performed between themselves in a human fashion a conjugal act which is suitable in itself for the procreation of offspring, to which marriage is ordered by its nature and by which the spouses become one flesh.”
https://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2013/12/19/canon-law-marriage-consummatum/
Catholic Canon Law covers the Church’s requirements for a valid marriage.
No, it doesn’t. It covers the Roman denomination’s opinions on what makes a valid marriage.
>>No, it doesn’t. It covers the Roman denomination’s opinions on what makes a valid marriage.<<
Its a teaching; not an opinion.
You do know the worldwide Catholic Church consists of consists of 24 particular churches – the Latin Church and 23 Eastern Catholic Churches? The pope, the bishop of Rome, is the chief pastor of the church.
Anyway, that's really besides the point HJ was making concerning the purpose of marriage, its consummation and validity.
Geoff
We keep being told that the reason conservatives are so against blessing same sex married couples is the sex part. Now you’re telling me gay couples can’t actually have sex. You can’t have it both ways.
But most cultures, most religions, and especially Jesus and Christianity, have always had it ‘both ways’.
And you know it.
Your error is to pretend there are only 2 options.
Once again, you know that there are more than 2.
Christopher
Jesus didn’t mention gay people and said very little about sex or relationships.
He did say these were matters for this life only and that most second marriages are adultery
Why are we wasting so much time and energy on this? It is quite clear that the enemy has sown weeds in the C of E fields and that those weeds are now choking growth of much that is good.
On Monday many of us read the following verses from 2 Corinthians 6 as part of Morning Prayer:
Is it not time to accept that much of the C of E has chosen apostasy over faith and that if somehow the archbishops can gerrymander a means of approving their rejection of the teaching of God for thousands of years, then it will be time for those who hold to the faith contained within the Scriptures to do the honest thing and leave?
So after a decade of work we still have conservatives calling gay people “the enemy”. No growth, kindness or compassion.
He didn’t say that … You are jumping, it seems, to a comfortable conclusion for your own prejudice.
and that Jesus used the term “enemy” in his Parable of the weeds.
So who is the enemy Jesus is referring to?
Spot on, Andy.
There seems to be a desperation about this current article; it reveals the pain of someone who cannot let go, who can’t come to terms with the fact that, whatever we once had, it’s over. For the Christian in these circumstances the question which cannot be avoided is this: “Where does your treasure lie?” Is it in your sonship as a child of God or is it in the benefits of remaining in the Church of England even though it has crossed the boundary signposted ‘Did God really say?’
I put it in those stark terms because I believe staying will involve anything but ‘walking together’ along a blissful path of mutual respect, guaranteed in perpetuity. That’s not how these things work. Our church has been taken over by people who have been captivated by an ideology which will demand ever more subservience: compromise after compromise. For the Christian it can only lead to a place where the voice of God will no longer be heard at all. For those who know him and love him, that is the greatest pain imaginable. Every other consideration pales into insignificance in comparison with that fate.
Strange though how few actually choose lifelong celibacy for themselves, despite that assurance of treasures in heaven, and Paul telling us it is better not to marry because you will be spared worldly troubles.
Strange though how few actually choose lifelong celibacy for themselves, despite that assurance of treasures in heaven, and Paul telling us it is better not to marry because you will be spared worldly troubles.
Lots of people are celibate not through choice, though, but simply through not finding someone suitable to marry.
But why aren’t lots of Christians choosing it?
But why aren’t lots of Christians choosing it?
Seems an odd question. Why do you think they would be?
St Paul tells us it is better not to marry because you will be spared worldly troubles.
St Paul tells us it is better not to marry because you will be spared worldly troubles.
Nobody ever said becoming a Christian would make you better at taking good advice.
Shouldn’t you be taking Scripture more seriously than that?
AJ
In my opinion married people should not telling anyone else not to get married.
Paul also warns us of people who will try to stop other people getting married in 1 Tim 4. It’s funny how those who oppose SSM don’t seem to recognize that verse yet claim “the whole Canon of scripture” supports their cause.
In my opinion married people should not telling anyone else not to get married.
Nobody’s telling anyone not to get married.
The point is that a same-sex couple can’t be married because a marriage is a union of one man and one woman.
S
… is your belief. Fine.
Other Christians don’t share it. We’ll find out who’s right at the eschaton won’t we?
I’m on Paul’s side.
Paul, that well-known advocate of the view that a man can marry a man, and a woman a woman.
Fallopians 6.23.
S
Because they accept the existence of gay people, the current leadership of the CofE is indeed telling gay people they may not marry.
I agree that if you deny the existence of gay people then you are merely telling bisexuals that they must enter opposite sex marriages
Because they accept the existence of gay people, the current leadership of the CofE is indeed telling gay people they may not marry.
No it isn’t. Because that would be like telling them they couldn’t levitate, or breath underwater, or change sex, or make two plus two equal five. You don’t need to tell someone they ‘may not’ do something which is not possible, like two people of the same sex being married.
S
I’m gay and married.
Time for Synod to have a debate, the motion being: That this synod believes that God does/does not recognise gay marriage as defined by the State.
Time for Synod to have a debate
‘This Synod believes in God’?
Anything to avoid the real question, eh?
In this world or the next?
Well, there’s no marriage at all in the next is there? (See Matthew 22:30)
But there’s judgement.
Being viciously against the gays isn’t going to save you from that.
There is marraige, but it is between God and his people. This unity of difference is the thing that male-female marriage has been pointing to, and in which it will find its fulfilment.
There isn’t a literal marriage Ian. It’s a metaphor to explain Christ and the Church, or more accurately it’s a metaphor of a wedding – the Church is presented at its best, like a bride made up on her wedding day. Metaphors are to help us understand, but we need to focus on the real truth, not the handy metaphor. Otherwise, we end up in a mess. Paul wanted to explain Christ and the Church, and used the wedding metaphor. That does not mean that God decided it would be good to have such a metaphor available for Paul in the first century, and therefore instituted marriage in Genesis so after a couple of thousand years it would be sitting around conveniently waiting to be used.
Taking metaphors and concepts literally can lead to strange and erroneous conclusions. In Ephesians 5 Paul says that “two shall become one flesh” from Genesis refers to Christ and the Church. If you were to say that was literal, you end up in the absurdity of saying we’re all going to be having sex with Jesus.
That does not mean that God decided it would be good to have such a metaphor available for Paul in the first century, and therefore instituted marriage in Genesis so after a couple of thousand years it would be sitting around conveniently waiting to be used.
That’s not the claim though. The point is that unity-in-difference is a fundamental part of the Trinity, and so that theme keeps being expressed in everything God makes, just like a writer who keeps returning to the same themes again and again, putting a different spin on them each time.
Marriage wasn’t created as a metaphor for Jesus’s coming Union with the Church; but both that union and the union of male and female in marriage are expressions of the same theme of unity-in-difference that pervades God’s creation.
Thus the two are connected but not because one comes from or is the model for the other, but because they share a common conceptual root in God’s nature as a union of there different persons in one substance.
Bell: God has told us what he regards as sin and not sin, and for 3000 years nobody has disputed that definition; they have either embraced God or turned Him down. Now, though, we have the unprecedented situation that some people wish to tell God that he got it wrong.
Ian
Can you explain why male female marriage fits that image of Christ and the church, but female female or male male does not?
I can see that Jesus is male. but in what sense is the church female? Most of the leaders are men!
Furthermore how would allowing a small minority of people who are not going to be in OSMs anyway mess this up?
But male-male, female-female is against biology and eccentric in most cultures, so why are you so surprised? It sounds like you are normalising your own eccentric culture and also showing little awareness of the broad sweep of history (nor of biology).
Can you explain why male female marriage fits that image of Christ and the church, but female female or male male does not?
Because Christ and the Church are different, complementary types of thing — like male and female. One is divine and one created.
‘Female female’ or ‘male male’ would echo not the union of Jesus and the Church but two divine beings or two created things.
Hang on S, you just said it was actually about the Trinity. And that’s all divine. Your arguments are getting very slippery…
Hang on S, you just said it was actually about the Trinity. And that’s all divine.
Yes. Different persons, one substance. All these things are echoes of that original unity-in-difference.
Christopher
‘Against biology’.
What is against biology? Not same-sex couplings. They are very ‘biological’ and quite common in nature.
The problem wuth S’s analogy (as always when this metaphor is reduced to the literal) is that God/Jesus is Man and Woman is a creature.
It’s a metaphor. Don’t strain it. Two men can be Bride and Groom, as can two women. Two humans – one with a penis, the other with a vagina – does not mirror Christ and His Church simply because tab A can be inserted into hole B. It’s a profound failure of theological imagination.
@ AJ Bell
You do well to point out the kind of absurdities at which we arrive if we take metaphors literally. It simply is not possible for two people to become LITERALLY one flesh, and if they did, life for them would become quite intolerably complicated and inconvenient.
It used to be quite common to refer to nuns as “brides of Christ”, although I haven’t heard that epithet used for many years now. If taken literally, not only would it imply a polygamous Christ; it would also prompt the question, “If nuns are brides of Christ, then what are monks?”
The problem wuth S’s analogy (as always when this metaphor is reduced to the literal) is that God/Jesus is Man and Woman is a creature.
You are confusing a metaphor and an analogy.
S
No. You are confusing metaphorical language with literal description.
Which produces rather absurd hermeneutics and dubious theology.
The thing about the Christ and His Church metaphor is that it’s always gloriously slippery and gender bending (some might even say queer).
Read Bernard of Clairvaux.
Nonsense, Penny. There is a clear asymmetry, which has been pretty universally obvious. But to spell out the obvious again:
You think that the fruit of a baby is roughly equivalent imprimatur to the fruit of zero.
A baby is approximately equal to zero, according to this theory.
However, far from that, a human, baby or otherwise, is the peak of the vast known universe.
An asymmetry to end all asymmetries.
Christopher
I think I’ve interpreted your word salad.
No-one (I think) is denying that human offspring are the result of the fusion of male and female gametes.
What I am querying is why acts which cannot result in the fusion of two gametes are ‘against biology’ and where is the scriptural warrant for this policy?
Which ‘Scriptures’? The Scriptures that often affirm SSM and same sex sleeping together?
You didn’t get my point.
‘Word salad’ is often said by people not intellectually up to understanding. Revd Bernard Randall was penalised in his court case because his opponents were not clever enough to understand his words, and of course we should always prioritise the less clever over the more. You are better than that.
My point was that a baby is a sign – the sign of all signs – that biologically we are doing it right. I referred to the imbalance here. The only way this can be ignored is if a baby is equivalent to zero. Since a human is the item of most worth in the known universe, there is nothing imaginable that is less equivalent to zero. So the equation / parallel is not even close – in other words the disparity is as great as it is possible to be.
But I have made this point several times before. Are you one of those who forgets points that have previously been made and/or fails to build on them?
Christopher
A baby is rather more than a sign of a couple doing something right I hope.
But, once again, you are straw manning. Because I argued that in scripture there is no mandate for all sexual intimacy to be open to conception, you immediately start asking where scripture approves SSM.
We know it doesn’t. It doesn’t approve of IVF either but a scriptural case can be made for it.
‘Biology’ leads to lots of things. Some like miscarriages and cancer are undesirable. Some, like sex between faithful couples which isn’t PIV sex, is morally neutral (BDSM included!)
Not all sex which is open to conception results in a live birth. Which is probably just as well. But the telos of such intimacy is love, faith, trust, care, pleasure, reassurance, comfort.
Honestly Christopher, why bother to pretend you care what the Scriptures say when your argument about babies and doing what is biologically right is so utterly unScriptural?
In Genesis it’s companionship and intimacy, not procreation, that is the true purpose of sex. Neither Jesus nor Paul were overly bothered about fulfilling their biology – they didn’t marry or father children, and instead said that lifelong celibacy was better.
Christopher prioritises ‘science’ over scripture. And natural theology.
When it suits his purposes.
“You are confusing metaphorical language with literal description.
Which produces rather absurd hermeneutics and dubious theology.”
Thank you for pointing this out Penny. It is something S does over and over again and of which they have simply no awareness. But it makes a mockery of any real grappling with scripture and hermeneutics.
S
All couples have differences and similarities. I’m an otter. My husband is a bear.
“ ‘Word salad’ is often said by people not intellectually up to understanding. Revd Bernard Randall was penalised in his court case because his opponents were not clever enough to understand his words”
I think it is worth readers understanding exactly why the court case went against Bernard Randall. The Church Times account of the case is balanced and fair.
https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2023/3-march/news/uk/former-school-chaplain-loses-appeal-for-unfair-dismissal-from-c-of-e-college
Christopher
I’m not sure what you mean about “goes against biology”. My own personal biology goes against heterosexuality.
Homosexual orientation is a minority characteristic, like left handedness or red hair. By definition it is unusual or eccentric. That in itself doesn’t justify requiring gay people to remain single
Homosexual orientation is a minority characteristic, like left handedness or red hair.
Well that’s the question: is it a normal variation like left handedness or red hair, or is it a disorder like schizophrenia or a predisposition to alcoholism?
You are confusing metaphorical language with literal description.
No, you are confusing metaphor with analogy. You think that ‘Jesus’s union with the Church echoes the marriage union, and both are instantiations of the theme of unity-in-difference that recurs throughout Creation’ can be reduced to a simple equation, ‘Jesus is to the Church as man is to woman’.
But that would be an analogy, not a metaphor.
But it makes a mockery of any real grappling with scripture and hermeneutics.
I’m actually perfectly capable of understanding metaphorical language. It’s Andrew Godsall who seems to have great difficulty distinguishing between different types of literature; for instance he thinks, bizarrely, that what are clearly eyewitness accounts are actually metaphorical fairy-tales.
(The only way you could think that the gospels aren’t eyewitness accounts is if you approach them with the a priori assumption that the events they describe can’t possibly have happened.)
‘A baby is rather more than a sign of a couple doing something right, I hope.’
Which is why I frequently call babies and children ‘precious’. But you knew that already.
Certainly it is rather more, but it could never fail to be at least that, as a baseline, and moreover a clincher one.
Peter, you are wilful.
You know perfectly well people are *born* with red hair or lefthandedness. And that the science of sexual orientation foregrounds circumstances and environment and culture and family.
How many sexual babies have you met? The revoltingness of the idea is one and the same with the revoltingness of the philosophy of its proponents.
Bernard Randall-
Are you denying that the Headteacher complained that he could not understand the words of BR;
or, secondly, that the judge largely failed to engage with them?
Email me if you want my riposte to the Church Times article.
How many sexual babies have you met?
I haven’t met any alcoholic babies either, but there is such a thing as a congenital predisposition to alcoholism.
To an extent, but the vast majority of the proportion of relevant factors are environmental when it comes to alcoholism. Also it could be that alcoholism was logically connected to a direct factor.
Christopher
A baby is a baseline to what?
S
If homosexual orientation is a disease then why are conservatives so horrid to those of us who have it? Surely if someone is suffering then you should try to help them, not campaign against them?
@ S
>>Well that’s the question: is it a normal variation like left handedness or red hair, or is it a disorder like schizophrenia or a predisposition to alcoholism?<<
The genesis of same sex inclinations are unknown. The inclination is a moral disorder. These desires are temptations – the result of a human nature wounded by original sin.
Some people are sexually attracted to children, but these temptations cannot be morally acted upon. Similarly, zoophiles should not have sexual relations with animals; kleptomaniacs should not steal,; and serial killers should not murder.
We all have disordered desires of some kind, but just because a desire is part of one’s makeup does not mean that it is morally acceptable to act out on it.
Codswallop
Child abuse, murder etc. do profound harm. They are not acts of love for your neighbour. And you are talking about actions that are one-sided – the thief wants to steal something, and may get lots of pleasure from the theft, but there’s someone being ignored: the original owner.
The examples are wholly irrelevant to the question of gay relationships.
Child abuse, murder etc. do profound harm. They are not acts of love for your neighbour. And you are talking about actions that are one-sided – the thief wants to steal something, and may get lots of pleasure from the theft, but there’s someone being ignored: the original owner.
The idea that the only immoral acts are those which do harm is consequentialism. Christian ethics are not consequentialist.
All immoral acts have consequences.
Well, you might need to take it up with St Paul:
“Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbour as yourself.” Love does no wrong to a neighbour; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law”
Romans 13:8-10
Well, you might need to take it up with St Paul
St Paul is talking about the Law; Jesus is clear that Christian ethics is broader than the Law and includes things which do no harm to others: Matthew 5:22
@ Penelope Cowell Doe
>>It doesn’t approve of IVF either but a scriptural case can be made for it.
Go ahead, make the case. Happy Jack would love to learn what this might be!
What marriage do you think God recognises?
This post is in response to various comments on this thread concerning the metaphors and analogies in Scripture of the Church as “Bride” and Christ as “Groom”.
There are good theological reasons why God is revealed as a Father and why Christ is revealed as Groom – by metaphor and analogy.
The line of theological thought runs thus:
Both mother and father are active agents of conception. But the father, being male, initiates procreation; i.e., he enters and impregnates the woman while the woman is entered and impregnated. (Note: this is b>not about physical sex, who has what bodily organs, or about who initiates sex through foreplay – its metaphor and analogy.)
There is an initiatory activity by the man; and a receptive activity by the woman. The father and mother are both parents of their offspring and both are necessary for procreation. However, the father has a certain priority as the “source” or “principle” of procreation. This “priority as source” is complemented by the mother’s priority as first nurturer, due to her procreating within herself and carrying the child within herself for nine months.
The metaphors and analogies then point to God’s transcendence in creation; and to Christ giving life to members of His Church – His “Body” – who are nourished within Her. The latter points to the immanence of God in creation and within the Church. God’s parental tenderness is expressed by the image of bride and motherhood which emphasises the intimacy between Creator and creature; between Christ and us.
Thanks HJ.
It is always the language of male and female (groom and bride) the of complementary opposites.
Scripture never admits of present day redefinition and misappropriation of those terms and categories of husband and wife.
There is also a biblical full redemptive movement towards consumation of the marriage between the Bride ( church) and Groom, (Jesus).
Certainly as a male I see no contradiction nor dissonance with being regarded by God as part of his bride.
It has nothing at all to do with self absorbed trans or lgb etc issues, ssm, (a myopic lens through which to look at scripture) to except to deny and close the door on same sex sex joinder, union.
@ Geoff
Happy Jack was shocked by this scandalous comment by Penelope Cowell Doe
(July 20, 2023 at 2:34 pm)
“No. You are confusing metaphorical language with literal description.
Which produces rather absurd hermeneutics and dubious theology.”
In fact, it is her theology that has these qualities.
“The thing about the Christ and His Church metaphor is that it’s always gloriously slippery and gender bending (some might even say queer).
Read Bernard of Clairvaux.”
Not if one reads and receives it with a pure heart and avoids projecting one’s own proclivities into it to justify ourselves. It’s scandalous how “gay theologians” are claiming and misrepresenting saints of the Church as homosexual! When medieval mystics, be they male or female, write of loving Christ, union with and marrying Him, they are not describing sexual feelings.
St Bernard supported church teachings on chastity and celibacy. Medieval mystics directed their desire toward God and had intimate, non-sexual friendship with others – they cultivated love of God and love of neighbour. St Bernard did not understand man-to-man love as “sexual”. And he most certainly did not offer us a “queer” theology!
His Sermons on the Song of Songs and On Loving God are exceptional treaties on spiritual growth and HJ commends them to all.
He describes a process where we move from: 1) a fear of God – slaves who obey the master out of fear of punishment; to: 2) hopeful obedience to God out of expectation of a reward – a hired servant: to 3) the disciplined obedience – a student to a teacher; to: 4) the respectful obedience of a son who knows he is an heir; and finally to: 5) the full loving devotion of a bride to her bridegroom.
An excerpt from St. Bernard’s Sermons on the Song of Songs:
“Love is sufficient of itself; it gives pleasure by itself and because of itself. It is its own merit, its own reward. Love looks for no cause outside itself, no effect beyond itself. Its profit lies in its practice. I love because I love; I love that I may love. Love is a great thing so long as it continually returns to its fountainhead, flows back to its source, always drawing from there the water which constantly replenishes it. Of all the movements, sensations and feelings of the soul, love is the only one in which the creature can respond to the Creator and make some sort of similar return however unequal though it be. For when God loves, all he desires is to be loved in return; the sole purpose of his love is to be loved, in the knowledge that those who love him are made happy by their love of him.
The Bridegroom’s love, or rather the love which is the Bridegroom, asks in return nothing but faithful love. Let the beloved, then, love in return.”
Hardly “queer” theology.
Recognising a metaphor as queer (which both you and Geoff do in your comments) does not mean that the author or interpreter is an ‘homosexual’.
The Church Fathers and Mediaeval theologians are far more comfortable with slippery and sexual metaphors than modern people it seems.
But thank you for the excerpts from St Bernard. Rather marvellous.
HJ,
PCD reads it through her Queer Theory teacher and strategist biblical hermeneutic. She has taught it and now has a PhD in that theme.
She has aslo been a bible teacher, seemingly with with an ad mixture of Higher Biblical criticism ( modernism) and subjective post modern hermeneutics.
To suggest that I acknowledge queer understanding of bride and groom metaphor is to deliberately misread and an misrepresent what I wrote which was to address and deny what had earlier been raised and in support of lgbt etc reading when it is nothing of the sort.
It is all part of her well worn and tired methodology so far as I an see.
To Penelope Cowell Doe
<<The Church Fathers and Mediaeval theologians are far more comfortable with slippery and sexual metaphors than modern people it seems.<<
There's nothing "slippery" or "gender bending" at all about the sexual metaphors of the Church Fathers or Medieval mystics; nor do they support a "queer" theology. They understood and directed true desire/love toward God and others and used the metaphors provided by God in Scripture.
They understood the difference between philia, storge, agape and eros. It is modern ears that hear lovethese as carnal and sexual.
St Bernard is a wonderful, inspired writer. His true legacy is his profound human spiritual psychology of self-esteem and self-awareness grounded in the mercy and love of God.
Here’s another passage from his Sermons on the Song of Songs:
“Yet there is one who truthfully and unhesitatingly can glory in this praise. She is the Church, whose fulness is a never-ceasing fount of intoxicating joy, perpetually fragrant. For what she lacks in one member, she possesses in another according to the measure of Christ’s gift (Eph 4:7) and the plan of the Spirit who distributes to each one just as he chooses (1 Cor 12:11)… although none of us will dare arrogate for his own soul the title of bride of the Lord, nevertheless we are members of the Church which rightly boasts of this title and of the reality which it signifies, and hence may justifiably assume a share in her honour. For what all of us simultaneously possess in a full and perfect manner, that each one of us undoubtedly possesses by participation.
Thank you, Lord Jesus, for your kindness in uniting us to the Church you so dearly love, not merely that we may be endowed with the gift of faith, but that like brides we may be one with you in an embrace that is sweet, chaste, and eternal, beholding with unveiled faces that glory which is yours in union with the Father and the Holy Spirit for ever and ever. Amen.”
Geoff
I have no idea what queer theory strategist means, but it’s obviously something very bad!
I have, indeed, taught biblical studies, but never taught queer or post-modern hermeneutics.
Where you are right is that my PhD interrogates queer theory as a ‘resolution’ for wearying arguments on sexuality. Like this.
Complete twaddle. The male initiates procreation? Errr no. Procreation starts with the female ovulating.
And irrelevant to the issue at hand. Quite what a belief that male ejaculation is the start of human reproduction is supposed to say about same-sex relationships and how gay people are to live their lives is beyond me.
@ AJ Bell
>>Quite what a belief that male ejaculation is the start of human reproduction is supposed to say about same-sex relationships and how gay people are to live their lives is beyond me.<<
Quite so.
Happy Jack prefaced his post by saying it was in response to various comments on concerning the metaphors and analogies in Scripture of the Church as “Bride” and Christ as “Groom”.
You seem incapable of understanding metaphor and analogy (of Father and Groom) concerning God's transcendence and immanence, in creation and in His Church, and its link with human procreation and marriage between men and women.
AJB,
It seems that you are a less than careful reader of all these comments with a biblcal theological theme, with you not exhibiting a not a lot of full canon biblical comprehension, or there is a deliberate, disingenuous, feigning of incomprehension as a flat out unexlained, rejection and denial.
You have asked the question and reject all biblical theological explanations out of hand as rubbish, twaddle, without even attempting to engaged with the cumulative weight of the responses to your question.
There is no biblical theological warrant, approval, express or implied for ssm.
But clearly that has not been an impediment to the CoE Bishops culturally driven revisionist bandwagon which will rumble on and on until you get what you want and offices are filled with biblical deniers and subjective revisionists.
There are answers to your last questions which you would not countenance, as your sole objective is to get ssm in the CoE.
…the 1987 Synod motion… The vote there in favour of the current teaching of the church concerning sex being for marriage between a man and a woman (which the motion described as “biblical and traditional”) was… 403 to 8.
Just half a lifetime ago. How quickly things deteriorate if we do not keep our guard up.
It is indeed quick when you look back but the deterioration moves by trifling increments which are soon assimilated. Periodically a red line is crossed and feathers are ruffled; but then you discover the art of nudging red lines a bit further forward…
@ Don B
Somewhat like the *Borg ….
“You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile … Your life as it has been is over. From this time forward, you will service us … We will add your … distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service us.”
*[The Borg are linked in a hive mind called “the Collective”. They assimilate others to the Collective through the process of “assimilation” – forcibly transforming individual beings into “drones”.]
Sounds like the HMRC.
@ Chris B
They’re everywhere …. so are shape shifting lizards.
It amazes me that this surprises people.
If our memories are that short, then the quality of our thought cannot be high.
Anton
1987 was during the height of government demonization and censorship of gay people.
You could equally argue that things had deteriorated from when 25 years earlier, the CofE had supported the partial decriminalization of homosexuality in England.
>>You could equally argue that things had deteriorated from when 25 years earlier, the CofE had supported the partial decriminalization of homosexuality in England.<<
How quickly we rewrite history.
Fron Wiki:
If only …..
Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988, stated that a local authority “shall not intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality” or “promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship”.
It was triggered rising negative sentiments towards homosexuality … 75% of the population said that homosexual activity was “always or mostly wrong”, with just 11% believing it to be “not wrong at all”. Added to this, homosexualist groups were promoting books such as Young, Gay and Proud to be read in schools, and Police: Out of School, The Playbook for Kids about Sex, and The Milkman’s on his Way. In the words of Jill Knight MP. were being taught to “little children as young as five and six” and contained “brightly coloured pictures of little stick men showed all about homosexuality and how it was done”, and “explicitly described homosexual intercourse and, indeed, glorified it, encouraging youngsters to believe that it was better than any other sexual way of life”.
Clause 28 wasn’t about hate. It did not prohibit homosexuality. It prohibited the teaching of it to young children and ensured that local government expenditure was directed at promoting homosexuality.
“was not directed at promoting homosexuality”
In 1957 the Wolfenden Report urged that private sex acts between two consenting adult men be lawful. In 1967 this change was made in England, and in Scotland in 1980.
John Wolfenden, whose son was homosexual, wrote after the Moral Welfare Council of the Church of England, albeit against homosexuality, had argued that sexual morality was a matter for the church, not the law.
So before 1987, Christians would NOT have thought intimacy was for lifelong marriage??
Honestly… most good, decent Christians in the pews of our churches haven’t even heard of ‘B2’ or ‘B4’ or ‘B5’ (though they may have heard of ‘BS’)… the thing is… most people are just getting on with their Christian lives, and they aren’t immersed in this vast verbiage… they’re… visiting the sick, cleaning the church, visiting a lonely neighbour, comforting someone recently bereaved, taking someone to the hospital… just getting on with being good Christians in their community. The last thing they want is more diatribes about sex or (perish the thought) a re-run of LLF.
For most people, parish life is not about sex. If someone is straight – fine. If someone is gay – fine. What they do about that really isn’t life-shattering to most people. It’s time to live and let live.
Meanwhile, as a Star Wars fan, I must haste away to Peterborough Cathedral:
https://fb.watch/lVaD8S8O_X/
That at least can capture the imagination of people, and it’s much more interesting to them and their kids than… ‘B2’.
May the Force be with you.
And also with you.
: )
For most people, parish life is not about sex.
So as you’ve realised that this isn’t a big deal to most people, I assume you’ll no longer be taking up time and attention trying to change the Church of England’s doctrine of marriage then, and instead let people get on with their lives perfectly happily the way they were before this all was made into an issue? Great.
To Susannah
The people in the pews should be able to rely on their Bishops and clergy to uphold Scripture, but unfortunately they cannot! Most would be extremely shocked to be told that it’s OK for two men or two women to marry in a church service. They realise that the Government have given licence to a civil service of “marriage”, but they also know that Christian marriage is between one man and one woman.
Most of them would be surprised that gay couples can’t marry in church and would wonder why.
Most of them
Interesting that both sides claim the silent support of the majority in the pews. Only one can be right; I wonder which it is.
Most don’t care – they have more important things in life, and they just shrug.
They just wish the Church would find a solution, and then get on more with the needs of daily parish life. Which doesn’t involve what goes on in people’s private bedrooms.
Well, one side has such little confidence in it’s own views that it constantly obfuscates about what gay people should actually do.
Well, one side has such little confidence in it’s own views that it constantly obfuscates about what gay people should actually do.
No it doesn’t. They should do the same as all unmarried people.
And what is that S, in your view?
Can they date? Have a boyfriend? Hold their boyfriend’s hand? Kiss? Is that alright? Can they live together if they don’t sleep together? Is going holiday together allowed? Is a non-sexual covenanted friendship ok? Or are you someone who thinks sexual intercourse is only possible between a man and a woman so any same-sex acts aren’t sex anyway?
And what is that
Refrain from sexual activity.
Sigh. The obfuscation just never stops. What are you afraid of?
What counts as sexual activity? Where are you drawing the line?
Assuming that dating, kissing, living together etc. do not count as sexual activity in your book, you’re now considerably more liberal on this topic than the Church Society or Living Out or Ed Shaw, Sam Allberry, Vaughan Roberts etc..
What counts as sexual activity? Where are you drawing the line?
The aim is not to try to get as close as possible to the line without going over it.
You don’t actually have an answer do you?
You don’t actually have an answer do you?
An answer to the question ‘where is the line?’ No, I don’t have an answer to that, because it’s the wrong question to be asking.
So if the right question isn’t, in your view, some form of “what should gay people do?”, what is the right question according to you?
So if the right question isn’t, in your view, some form of “what should gay people do?”, what is the right question according to you?
No, that is the right question, and I’ve answered it: same as all unmarried people. Which means to refrain from all sexual activity, and not try to find loopholes by asking ‘exactly where is the line?’
We’re not talking about loopholes. We’re trying to get at what you actually mean, despite your efforts to avoid the topic.
Unmarried people date, have boyfriends, kiss etc.. Unmarried people can live together. Elsewhere in the comments section there’s been a conversation about what actually counts as sexual intercourse, so just saying “no sexual activity” without defining it is a bit unclear.
We’re trying to get at what you actually mean, despite your efforts to avoid the topic.
I haven’t avoided anything.
Unmarried people date, have boyfriends, kiss etc..
But they don’t, if they’re Christians, ended in sexual activity.
Unmarried people can live together.
Unmarried Christians can’t.
Elsewhere in the comments section there’s been a conversation about what actually counts as sexual intercourse, so just saying “no sexual activity” without defining it is a bit unclear.
Okay well here’s a good clear rule: if it might be sexual activity, if it is in any kind of grey area, then don’t do it unless you’re married.
Better safe than sorry.
Is self-pleasure sexual activity? Is self-pleasure sin? Should self-pleasure only be allowed inside marriage?
And more to the point, how many heterosexual Christians do you think self-pleasure?
Because I’m guessing the answer is: most.
But hey, frame gay people as the sinners.
But hey, frame gay people as the sinners.
Everyone is a sinner.
You’re avoiding my obvious question.
If sexually active gay people should be excluded from ministry, youth leadership, ordination, maybe even Holy Communion…
Then shouldn’t all heterosexual men and women ALSO be excluded from these things if they self-pleasure (aka masturbate).
Gay sex is sexual activity. Self-pleasure is sexual activity.
You can’t tell me that a high proportion of heterosexual men and women don’t self-pleasure, whether inside or outside marriage (not to mention just looking at pictures of men or women with lustful thoughts, which Jesus defined as adultery).
So since as you say everyone ‘sins’ (if these things are sin)… shouldn’t they all be excluded for their sexual activity, and not only ‘the gays’?
Please try harder to address the challenge, rather than it dodging it.
So since as you say everyone ‘sins’ (if these things are sin)… shouldn’t they all be excluded for their sexual activity, and not only ‘the gays’?
Oh I see. Reasonable question.
First let me point out that it’s obviously not just ‘the gays’ who should be excluded from leadership positions — heterosexual couples living in sin are clearly unsuitable leaders too, which is why they would not be allowed to be leaders, and why they shouldn’t take communion.
So the issue isn’t about ‘the gays’, it’s a wider issue of: do some sins disqualify you and some not? Am I guilty of making a ‘hierarchy of sins’?
It is, as I say, a reasonable question and the answer is no because the issue isn’t being a sinner — we are all sinners — but living in unrepentant sin.
If anyone who ever sinned were excluded from leadership, there would be no one to lead.
And as for communion, it is for sinners — but only if they repent.
So if a Christian minister self-pleasures, repents, then self-pleasures three weeks later (ad infinitum)… they are okay in between to be a minister?
After how many times in adult life does ‘repentance’ become insufficient, because it’s an ongoing habit, and self-pleasure become a disqualifier?
After all, this is sexual activity outside of its procreative purposes, and in many cases lust (which is a kind of adultery according to Jesus).
I’m still seeing double standards and a ‘hierarchy of sin’.
Are gay people being singled out and picked on by hypocritical heterosexual Christians who are themselves engaging in non-procreative sexual activity and probably some kind of lust?
So if a Christian minister self-pleasures, repents, then self-pleasures three weeks later (ad infinitum)… they are okay in between to be a minister?
Depends on whether the repentance is sincere.
It’s really no different to any other besetting sin, like gossiping, losing your temper, lying, envy, sloth, pride, gambling, etc etc etc.
And yet gay sex is treated so differently.
You don’t get 300 or 400 comment threads on gambling or lying or masturbation.
You don’t get CEEC and others threatening to secede over those.
Gay sex is singled out, even though masturbation (and other supposed sins) are also going on in the lives of many heterosexual people in the Church.
Do you consider that a minister who self-pleasures multiple times a year (engaging in non-procreative sexual activity) is hypocritical if they say gay people having non-procreative sex should not be ordained, but they don’t resign themselves?
And that’s before we discuss whether either activity is sinful anyway. I suspect many heterosexual Christians let themselves off the hook for self-pleasure, and yet absolutely condemn the gay sexual activity (which is also non-procreative).
“Their sexual activity is sin, mine is just a little problem when I feel frustrated, pent up, or in a ‘horny’ frame of mind…”
White-washed sepulchres?
Why is one allowed in the Church, but not the other? Why is one just a person’s private business which the Church should stay out of, while the other is everybody’s business apparently?
Should a minister who repeatedly self-pleasures in private, year after year, have more right to be a minister than a person who intimately loves their gay partner?
I don’t think you’ve answered my question about whether habitual (once/twice a month?) and continuing self-pleasure over the years should lead to a minister resigning or being asked to step down?
After all, according to the ‘conservative’ theology, it’s not what sex is for… and yet that gets directed at gay people and not at heterosexual Christians, many of whom ‘wank’.
You don’t get 300 or 400 comment threads on gambling or lying or masturbation.
That’s because there aren’t people trying to argue those things aren’t sinful. I can assure you that if there were, then there would be 300-comment threads holding the line on orthodoxy on those issues too.
*sighs sweetly*
I’ll try again.
Do you consider that a minister who self-pleasures multiple times a year (engaging in non-procreative sexual activity) is hypocritical if they say gay people having non-procreative sex should not be ordained, but they don’t resign themselves?
Why is one allowed to minister in the Church, but not the other? Why is one just a person’s private business which the Church should stay out of, while the other is everybody’s business apparently?
Should a minister who repeatedly self-pleasures in private, year after year, have more right to be a minister than a person who intimately loves their gay partner?
Do you consider that a minister who self-pleasures multiple times a year (engaging in non-procreative sexual activity) is hypocritical if they say gay people having non-procreative sex should not be ordained, but they don’t resign themselves?
It depends on whether they sincerely repent and whether the people having sex outside marriage are repentant.
Should a minister who repeatedly self-pleasures in private, year after year, have more right to be a minister than a person who intimately loves their gay partner?
Again it’s nothing to do with being ‘gay’: a ‘straight’ person living in unrepentant sin with their opposite-sex partner would also be unsuitable to be a minister.
Susannah
I don’t know whether this will land in the right place, but apropos your conversation with S, straight couples’ sex lives aren’t policed. They can be married in Church and have any kind of sex they like. S may not approve, but they have the luxury of choice and freedom. Gay Christian couples don’t.
Susannah S has said in comments here before that a heterosexual couple who are dating should not even hold hands or kiss at all unless they are sincerely intending to marry. It strikes me as a very extreme position and not one that would gain a lot of support even in very conservative churches.
a heterosexual couple who are dating should not even hold hands or kiss at all unless they are sincerely intending to marry
The whole point of ‘dating’ is to spend time together to discover whether the two of you are compatible to marry. If you aren’t intending to marry someone, why would you date them at all?
“why would you date them at all?”
Because it isn’t always good for people to be alone. (Genesis 2:18)
People can be too young to marry at 18, or 20, or 22 but clearly don’t always want to be alone. Traditional dating has always involved holding hands and kissing. Unless you are a member of the Amish or Shaker communities – which perhaps S is.
S: ” If you aren’t intending to marry someone, why would you date them at all?”
Because you like their company.
Sheesh!
Because you like their company.
What a bizarre answer. If you like someone’s company you spend time with them — you don’t date them!
People can be too young to marry at 18, or 20, or 22 but clearly don’t always want to be alone.
False dichotomy. You don’t have to date someone to not be alone. You can spend time with someone without dating them, you know!
Spending time with someone is dating them 🙂
It’s really bizarre to suggest that it isn’t.
Oh, I’ve dated lots of people to enjoy their company, and get to know them, but in most cases I had no initial thoughts/intentions of marrying them. I just liked them or found them interesting.
And I think that’s the way we should treat people on dates… not as marriage material (ugh!)… but just as good company.
Of course, other thoughts might develop further down the line, but the first instincts were good company, not ‘catching a bride’.
I think we’re viewing the term ‘date’ differently. You are seeing ‘date’ as an intention of sex. I am seeing ‘date’ as interest in a person as a person. I think my approach is less sexualised.
I think in God’s order, companionship is the primary good reason for two people sharing their lives together.
Spending time with someone is dating them
Of course it isn’t. I’ve had lots of friends through my life that I’ve spent time with; I obviously didn’t date them all!
Oh, I’ve dated lots of people to enjoy their company, and get to know them, but in most cases I had no initial thoughts/intentions of marrying them. I just liked them or found them interesting.
That’s not dating. That’s called being friends with someone.
Some people really need to read The Four Loves and get themselves straight on the difference between eros and philia!
And some people need to understand that people like to date and there is absolutely no good reason for them not to. There is nothing in the bible that says we should not be dating. There is nothing in Christian tradition that says we should not be dating.
And some people need to understand that people like to date and there is absolutely no good reason for them not to.
Of course there’s a good reason not to. The reason is that the only allowable place for sexual activity is within marriage, so you shouldn’t be engaging in pre-sexual activity (like kissing, at least the erotic kind rather than the French peck-peck kind) with someone unless it’s in the context of intended marriage.
That doesn’t mean you can’t be friends with people, spend time with them, enjoy their companionship, and all those other good things that come with friendship. But you don’t do erotic kissing with friends. That sort of thing is properly reserved for marriage, and dating with a view to marriage.
After all one can have many friends thoughout one’s life. The more the better! But the correct number of sexual partners in a lifetime is either zero or one.
There is nothing in the bible that says we should not be dating. There is nothing in Christian tradition that says we should not be dating. Dating is the norm *unless* they are members of a strict sect like the Amish or the Shakers. Maybe you are a member of one of those sects. In which case I totally respect your decision. Outside of such sects, people will date – which does not automatically mean that they are having sex.
Actually most are extremely shocked to be told that gay kids are told that they should consider themselves to be under a vow of lifelong celibacy like a monk or a nun (but to keep quiet about it).
But that’s nothing compared to the shock when they’re told some people advise gay Christians to enter into heterosexual marriages and try to make it work.
Most people will recognise the perversion and unnaturalness of telling someone they should live in celibacy all their lives. What obvious repression that will cause (with the exception of the small number of monks and nuns who get a specific calling to devote their lives in chastity that way).
But most people, and indeed most heterosexual people, are not called to be monks and nuns.
Now a puritanical Christian zealot can tell people all they like that gay sex is a sin against God. But most people will conclude that the sickness is in the zealot, not the gay or lesbian person.
It’s also in the Church, and for the many friends, parents, family, neighbours, work colleagues of normal gay and lesbian people, living perfectly normal lives, doing perfectly normal (and useful) work… they rightly feel disgust at these sad little voices telling their friends, their family members, their children, that they should just live without sex for the rest of their lives.
That’s the real perversion. That’s the actual sickness. That’s what’s unnatural.
And it’s this kind of zealotry which turns 90%+ of young people from wanting to be associated with the Church of England. It just causes disgust, and brings shame on the Gospel. I’m sorry, but that’s how our secular society views this issue, and it is a fantastic arrogance to write them off as ‘benighted’ when the arc of science, psychology, and sociology all lend them support.
We are called to be ‘fools for Christ’… but not idiots.
Gay and lesbian people are just citizens, decent people, loved members of community. Suggesting they should live like monks and nuns is appalling disrespect.
they rightly feel disgust at these sad little voices telling their friends, their family members, their children, that they should just live without sex for the rest of their lives.
What’s really disgusting is not those little voices, but the loud voices that blast out from every television set, cinema screen and radio speaker in our society telling people that they can’t have a complete life unless they have sex.
I can’t shake the suspicion that some of this comes from people who (very quietly) believe in double predestination, and therefore don’t feel any particular need to consider how gay people might fit into the Church because they just don’t think they’re supposed to. There might be a couple of lifelong celibates who happen to be gay (think Vaughan Roberts) but if you think that’s difficult or unacceptable, well it doesn’t matter because you weren’t supposed to be saved anyway.
And if anyone thinks that sort of thinking has much resonance in the pews or a strong basis a Scripture, I’ve got a bridge to sell them.
AJ, that is a really odd comment, and strongly suggests that you still haven’t really understood those you disagree with.
Sorry if I’ve upset you Ian. But I’m trying to make sense of what I hear and read here. What got me thinking was a comment (can’t remember who from) that the “liberal” side seemed to have a lot of universalists, and this might be revealing why they seemed (in the comment maker’s view) to be less concerned about having a hard line on sin, and therefore same-sex marriage.
As I look back over the discussions a few things seem really striking to me:
Hardly anyone on the “conservative” side seems to think a reason this might be important is because we have gay people in our Churches, in our youth, in our families, and we need some proper teaching for them. They have lives to lead, and they (like everyone else) need to flourish in them.
So, absent this reason, we don’t hear much about what the teaching for gay people themselves ought to be. All the sound and fury is concentrated on exclaiming “marriage is between a man and a woman”. But the gay person is entitled to ask – so what am I supposed to do? And what they get is silence or mumbling. When you can drag an answer out of people, there isn’t a clear “conservative” position. Some say we’re all commanded to a martyrdom of celibacy. Some say we should look to enter heterosexual marriages. Some say we could just change our sexual orientation (or it just isn’t real). Some say we can do whatever unmarried Christians can do, but are reluctant to elaborate on exactly what that means (is it an endorsement of covenanted friendships? is it sexless marriages? something else?). Despite some of these ideas being picked up in the Bishops’ Report in February, the “conservative” side has ignored them. The unmistakable impression you get from outside is that none of this is real and serious. It’s just a debating game, where a line to take is needed, but it’s not a considered teaching for gay people to actually live by.
And this is all before we start to consider the reality of what some of these loosely formed ideas of teaching could entail. Are we going to be telling married gay couples to divorce? Possibly – Living Out have apparently done that at least once. Are we telling gay youth to prepare for lifelong celibacy? No one seems is willing to talk about that sort of conversation. Why might this be? Why is so much of what we’re talking about abstracted and intellectualised as a debating game? Why aren’t we treating it as a question about how actual people in the actual Church are living their lives with a real application of theology and Scripture? Perhaps because for more than a few participants they’re not interested in having these actual people in the actual Church, and are not that bothered by that.
AJ Bell thank you for your comment here. I agree that a great deal of the approach from ‘conservatives’ is based on a peculiar theology of salvation. Sometimes you will find the proscription of same sex relationships dressed up as a desire to save people from going to hell. That was always the approach from, for example, Peter Ould. For others here they claim that it is entirely to do with how different groups approach the bible. One of the very useful sections in the LLF material explored different approaches to the bible and noted which were and weren’t within Anglican tradition. Most of the comments here gloss over that section, suggesting that they would prefer not to acknowledge the breadth of hermeneutics. Some claim that the LLF material is simply wrong. Note that Andrew Goddard was a consultant on the Co-Ordinating Group of the Church of England’s LLF programme so presumably does accept the breadth of interpretation.
Note that Andrew Goddard was a consultant on the Co-Ordinating Group of the Church of England’s LLF programme so presumably does accept the breadth of interpretation.
Everyone accepts that ‘Anglican tradition’ has been allowed, due to lack of effective discipline, to become so broad that it includes various heresies. That’s basically the root of the current problems and something that needs to be fixed, though it may be too late to do so.
Typical.
Ian makes a *rational* point that debate points don’t seem to be understood; AJ Bell completely incorrectly renders this *emotionally* as ‘sorry I’ve upset you’.
Emotional-dominant and rational-dominant are 2 stages of development. The latter is more mature than the former. Those in the former seem not to realise anyone is in the latter.
“Everyone accepts that ‘Anglican tradition’ has been allowed, due to lack of effective discipline, to become so broad that it includes various heresies.”
I don’t actually know anyone who accepts such a thing apart from those who are not actually part of the CofE or Anglican traditions. And even then they find it very difficult to explain what they actually mean and what ‘various heresies’ are.
The LLF material was drawn up by a very wide group representing the whole range of tradition within the CofE – including conservative evangelicals.
“Emotional-dominant and rational-dominant are 2 stages of development. The latter is more mature than the former. Those in the former seem not to realise anyone is in the latter.”
Generalised meaningless waffle. Emotional intelligence is key to mature development.
Andrew Godsall: “The LLF material was drawn up by a very wide group representing the whole range of tradition within the CofE – including conservative evangelicals.”
‘Conservative evangelicals’ are only one tradition within the Church of England. There are many others.
So we live with each other in our parishes, and seek grace to co-exist.
‘gay kids’ – you really are determined to bring sexual content into children’s space, aren’t you? Many find that shocking.
You are less determined to understand the science that people are not born ‘gay’; orientation is fluid and nonexistent in babies, and circumstances, family, culture and environment are the most determinative things.
Yeah, gay kids. Like straight kids being asked who their boy/girlfriend is when they are four. If you want to stop sexualising children look at the clothes and toys which are marketed at them.
You remain blinkered about the asymmetry of all this.
And incurious about why the words ‘straight’ and ‘gay are both of such recent origin. After all, humans have been around for a while.
Curious people compare and contrast different ways of looking at the world; you just swallow the most immediate one as though it were the only one you know about.
You seem to think that making words ‘straight’ and ‘gay’ makes them equivalent. You have just ignored the fact that one is proven to be what biology wants and the other produces no evidence for that. A baby (millions of babies) = zero? Equivalent? You for the second time did not answer the point.
I regard a 17 year old as a kid. Don’t you?
If they are a kid, which means a child, then what are you doing bringing sexual content into their space?
Last time I checked, this website is not a children’s ‘space’. So when you say to AJ “you really are determined to bring sexual content into children’s space, aren’t you?”… that’s frankly just a rhetorical slur.
Among adults here, it is surely both reasonable and responsible for people (all of whom care about kids) to discuss whether ‘lifelong celibacy’ should be taught to kids as the right action if they happen to have same-sex attraction?
That’s a debate among adults, not an invasion of children’s ‘space’. It’s a debate that matters.
it is surely both reasonable and responsible for people (all of whom care about kids) to discuss whether ‘lifelong celibacy’ should be taught to kids as the right action if they happen to have same-sex attraction?
Kids, by definition, don’t have t the conceptual framework to understand what ‘same-sex attraction’ is, so how can they be taught anything about what the right action in response to it is?
You still haven’t told me what a baby is a baseline for?
S
Kids understand other-sex attraction. So I suggest that they understand same-sex attraction.
Kids understand other-sex attraction.
From what age do you think children understand other-sex attraction?
I think genetics and probably other physical factors may also be important, but I agree with your main point.
Susannah, who mentioned anything about this website? If you are treating adolescent children who are obviously under development and in flux and growing up as somehow being in some mythical *settled* state e.g. ‘gay kid’, ‘trans kid’ – when you know perfectly well that adolescence can be an unstable chaos which settles down later – then that is bringing sexual content into children’s space (as well as telling lies).
I am not talking about how you are treating them in theory (on this site) but about how you are treating them in practice.
Honestly Christopher, I have no idea what you’re talking about. What website?
“I am not talking about how you are treating them in theory (on this site) but about how you are treating them in practice.”
Children should be allowed time, space, and respect to explore who they are, to explore their orientation, to explore their gender if they wish. They should not have heteronormative parameters imposed on them. Just give them time and space to explore, to find out, to understand themselves.
It’s basic respect.
And just so you know, I have never tried to influence a young person to be gay or to be trans. (Likewise I would never try to influence a young person to vote Labour or vote Conservative.)
The fact that a trans person, loved and respected in their school, may bear witness to young people and send out some kind of message, may I guess be a kind of influence, but unless you’re saying trans people should not work in schools…
Kids understand other-sex attraction.
From what age do you think children understand other-sex attraction?
Having taught for 25 years in classes with pupils between the ages of 7 and 18 (at different stages in my teaching career) I can’t speak for under 7, but I think attractions start when some students in a class commence puberty. Say unusually less than 9. I’ve had a 9 year-old come to me ‘in love’ with someone they’re crushing on. I was myself definitely crushing at the age of 7 myself, but who is to say what element of sexuality operates at that age. By 10, classes are growing acutely aware of sexual differences, usually led by the girls. By 11, there can definitely be attachments and crushes (both different sex, and same sex). By 12 or 13, it’s chocks away. It goes without saying that children sometimes crush on their teachers as well – hence the absolute rule never to close a classroom door if you’re alone with a kid.
When it comes to teenagers from 13 upwards, in later life after retraining as a registered nurse, I worked in a school as the nurse for 1200 teenagers… and they came to me with lots of their problems… their crushes… their plans to have first sex… their concerns for a gay friend… a gay teen couple together… and of course, teens with gender issues as well. Trust me, in secondary school, it is all kicking off. I regard all of those under 18 as kids. But maybe that’s my age!
Having taught for 25 years in classes with pupils between the ages of 7 and 18 (at different stages in my teaching career) I can’t speak for under 7, but I think attractions start when some students in a class commence puberty. Say unusually less than 9.
So you would agree that under-9s can’t be ‘gay’ (or, indeed, ‘straight’).
She just wrote that she had a crush at 7.
She just wrote that she had a crush at 7.
So you would agree that under-7s can’t be ‘gay’ (or indeed ‘straight’)?
I don’t know S because I haven’t asked everyone in the world. Have you?
I haven’t asked everyone in the world
Do you think 6-year-olds can be ‘gay’ or ‘straight’?
“I regard all of those under 18 as kids. But maybe that’s my age!”
I regard anyone under 20 as a kid, and I’m only 39.
I believe ‘gayness’ begins before a person is conscious of it. While I allow the possibility of ‘predisposition’ interacting with nurture, I also suspect that in many gay people, there is something integral in them, which over time emerges, blossoms, flourishes.
I’m not sure it’s practical to stand over a sample group of kids with a stopwatch to see when they are conscious of attractions.
For goodness sake, I didn’t even know what sex was until I was 17. I thought it happened when people were asleep, and I thought the man had a red ‘seed’ which was in his penis, and when he was asleep, I supposed the penis extended like a hoover part and found its way somehow into the sleeping woman’s vagina. In fact, the ‘red seed’ I’d seen was period residue in the toilet bowl from my mother’s menstruation, but I did not know that, and I had assumed that was a man’s seed.
And yet… I crushed at the age of 7, and again at the age of 13, and again at the age of 16. But for me it was all romance. I had very late puberty at 17 and no idea whatsoever about anything to do with sex. The product of a 1950s childhood and parents who would have sooner died than talk to me about sex. It will come as little surprise that I think it’s essential that children are taught sex education.
Susannah
Sex education which features natural development of the body into masculine and female is appropriate at puberty, to explain changes which happen around that time.
What is not appropriate is the writings of Kinsey, who wrote that children are born sexual beings and documented paedophile attentions in babies and toddlers. These writings are influencing the UN sex education around the world and endanger young children as we know the damage done to children who are abused at an early age.
I bought my grandson a book about his body changing around the age of 14 sothat he would be prepared for these changes, as I was left in the dark by my parents and found things out from other teenagers.
Also being “sex positive’ is being taught in school classes as reported by parents, There are also negatives like diseases with multiple partners, but this is not mentioned.
As Christians we believe that sex is a special relationship between a man and a woman who love one another and make a commitment to keep that special between the two if them for life. It is not a recreational activity as is being spread through society in ever more degrading ways.
Well one thing I do agree with you about, Tricia, is that we need to protect children, because they are so precious. Like you I have grandchildren. I applaud you giving your grandson that book, because ignorance is dangerous. It sounds that you, like me, were given insufficient knowledge about sexuality when we were young. I agree that there should be lessons on sexual diseases. The practical reality is that teenagers are having sex. As a (trans) school nurse, teens often came to me because they thought I was open-minded. They would come to me, and tell me they were planning to have first sex with a boyfriend. I listened, and tried to give objective advice that – IF they went ahead with that, protection was essential and respect was essential. In one case, a girl then came back to me the next week in tears, because yes she had gone ahead with sex, but they hadn’t used protection. These things are going on all the time. So teaching on sexuality, on protection, on respect, are frankly just a practical necessity if the young person is to be protected.
Probably like you, I worry about the world my grandchildren will grow up in. And I pray.
Well one thing I do agree with you about, Tricia, is that we need to protect children
So what is the earliest age that you consider it might be okay to introduce children to sexual concepts like ‘straight’ and ‘gay’?
Would you consider it okay to talk to, say, a five-year-old about what it means to be ‘straight’?
S: “So what is the earliest age that you consider it might be okay to introduce children to sexual concepts like ‘straight’ and ‘gay’?”
In a light-touch way, I’d guess 6, but I am not an expert or a child psychologist.
Children at school have gay uncles, lesbian mothers, friends of the family who are gay. They are just part of the world children live in.
If you erase that reality, or don’t acknowledge it, then I think in some cases you may be avoiding or erasing regular and important aspects of their lives.
Just teach them, yes, some people are gay. Some men fall in love like your mum and dad fell in love. No need to go into sexual details at that age. Just acknowledge gay and lesbian people exist, have lives, say ‘you may know a gay person’… that kind of thing.
It’s just real life, and acknowledging that.
In a light-touch way, I’d guess 6
So just to get this clear, you’re saying you think it’s okay for an adult to talk about sexual concepts (in a ‘light-touch way’) with six-year-olds?
Not *any* adult. A teacher following educational guidance. And not specifics of sex. Just the fact that there are mummies and daddies. There are daddies and daddies. There are mummies and mummies. And that an uncle may be married to a husband.
Just telling children the truth about diverse home situations (which in some cases may directly include a child’s own).
I suggest more detailed sex education can wait until children are approaching puberty. I’d say Year 4 is a good time to start.
I don’t think we need to make this into a controversy. It’s just practicality.
Not *any* adult. A teacher following educational guidance.
So just to get this clear. You’re saying it’s okay fir a teacher to introduce sexual concepts (in a ‘light-touch’ way) to six-year-olds?
Would you agree that if parents do not wish their six-year-olds to be introduced to sexual concepts, even in a ‘light-touch’ way, that the school should respect their wishes and allow them to have their children removed from any classes there these are discussed (and should notify parents is advance of any such classes to ensure they have the opportunity to so request)?
I’ve already answered your question about what I think should or should not be taught. I refer you back to it.
On the right of parental withdrawal, I believe that state-sponsored/financed schools have a duty and obligation to teach truth. We owe that to all society’s children.
Let’s take a different example: say a child has parents who are creationists, believe the world is only 6000 years old, and don’t believe in evolution. Should they have the right to withdraw their children from science lessons that repudiate that?
No I don’t believe they should. If they are so at odds with that, they may need to home-school their kid instead. The school, though, should teach the factual truth.
When it comes to the existence of gay and lesbian people, and gay and lesbian family structures… which, as a matter of simple fact, exist… again I think the school has a duty to teach such a factual truth. So no, I don’t believe parents should have the right to withdraw them from that, nor from very basic sex education at the age of 9 or 10. It is simply the teaching of factual truth, so as to erase ignorance.
Now when it comes to school assemblies of a religious nature, then I believe parents should have the option of withdrawal… because at that point the school is dealing not with fact but with religious faiths. All that said, I personally believe, in a diverse and multi-cultural society, that it is good for young people to learn some basics about a variety and range of faiths… without proselytisation.
Basically, I don’t think people “own” their children. I believe the community as a whole has protective duties towards all children. The parameters, of course, need to be decided by society as a whole.
I’ve already answered your question about what I think should or should not be taught. I refer you back to it.
So I’m going to assume that’s a ‘yes’.
Let’s take a different example: say a child has parents who are creationists, believe the world is only 6000 years old, and don’t believe in evolution. Should they have the right to withdraw their children from science lessons that repudiate that?
Not a good analogy. The question isn’t about parents who don’t want their children to be taught about sex at all, just those who think that six is too early.
Now when it comes to school assemblies of a religious nature, then I believe parents should have the option of withdrawal… because at that point the school is dealing not with fact but with religious faiths.
Religions are about facts. Islam says it is a fact that the Quran was dictated to Mohammed by an Angel. Buddhism says it is a fact that our souls will be reincarnated after we die. Christianity says it is a fact that Jesus rose from the dead.
Basically, I don’t think people “own” their children.
Of course not. But it is the duty of parents to protect their children, including protecting them from premature sexualisation. These parents are simply trying to protect their children, and you don’t think they should be allowed to do that.
Gay and lesbian people do not ‘as a matter of fact exist’.
That is why they spring up all the more depending on exposure of the associated ideas.
People who have become that way exist. People become different ways through formative experiences/choices, traumas, family imbalances and so on. It is scarcely likely that they are that way in essence or as a baby! Even if that made sense.
As for family structures, that is entirely relative to what different countries allow by law, and in most societies they have not allowed that. So here too you are inaccurate.
You cannot point to laws as evidence. That is obvious. Anything at all can become lawful, by definition.
Gay and lesbian people do not ‘as a matter of fact exist’.
Well… it depends what you mean by ‘gay and lesbian people’. There’s equivocation goes on here.
If that phrase means ‘People who are currently exclusively sexually attracted to people of their own sex exist’ then that is true. I don’t this Even you wouldn’t deny that, I don’t think.
What’s more controversial is when it is used to mean ‘people exist who are intrinsically destined to be exclusively sexually attracted to members of their own sex’; that is, the ‘born this way’ position. The idea here is that the ‘orientation’ is fixed at or before birth, latent until puberty but then activated, not as a result of any external force or experience but just because that is ‘the way they are’.
Now this is controversial because while I don’t think anyone would dispute that there are congenital predispositions the idea that external influences have zero effect is hard to credit.
Then there’s the most controversial at all, ‘people exist who are intrinsically destined to be exclusively sexually attracted to members of their own sex and this is part of their essential nature as intended by God ’. This of course is massively tendentious.
The problem is that people equivocate; they say ‘gay and lesbian people exist’ and then proceed to make claims that only follow from that if they have proved the third sense. Then when challenged they say ‘but obviously gay and lesbian people exist’ and clarify they mean the first sense.
Someone coined the term ‘motte and bailey’ for this strategy: https://medium.com/bigger-picture/what-is-a-motte-bailey-aad572eacc37
That’s why when you respond to anyone using this form of words the first thing you have to so is mark down precisely what it is is being claimed.