Andrew Goddard writes: Twenty years ago, Archbishop Rowan began his presidential address to the July 2003 York General Synod by asking “Does the Church of England exist?”. He replied that “there are several different ‘Churches of England’” and we need “to find out what it is that makes these diverse ‘churches’ one” because “if we can’t answer this, we are in trouble”.
Questions around diversity and unity are once again coming to a head focussed around the implementation of the bishops’ proposals for Living in Love and Faith (LLF) supported at the February General Synod (which I discussed here). The update on that implementation process to July’s General Synod (GS 2303, to which citations below refer) has been accused of saying nothing with little or no obvious developments reported. In fact, on careful reading, it points towards the serious challenges now facing the church and the range of questions the bishops hope to make decisions on to bring to the extra session of Synod introduced for November.
Ecclesial cakeism?
The bishops identified three areas requiring further work after February—the draft proposed Prayers of Love and Faith (PLF), the new Pastoral Guidance to replace the 1991 Issues in Human Sexuality, and what they termed “Pastoral Reassurance”. That work has now been disbanded—I served on the Pastoral Guidance workstream but write here in a personal capacity—in part because it confirmed what many always suspected: it is impossible to treat these areas as totally separate workstreams. They are intricately interconnected, as the bishops report (para 18, italics added):
In responding to the questions from the Pastoral Guidance group the bishops were asked to give informal steers acknowledging that only once they were able to consider the progress of all three working groups more comprehensively could formal decisions be made.
As the Bishop of London has said in answer to a question about this, the work now needs “to focus on bringing the work of the three workstreams together for ongoing drafting” (Q96, p. 39). The nature and degree of any development in the prayers and the guidance needs to correlate and be coherent. For example, if the church is to permit clergy to bless couples after they enter a civil same-sex marriage then is insisting clergy cannot themselves enter a civil same-sex marriage justifiable? Similarly, the degree of “pastoral reassurance” needed will depend on the degree of development in prayers and guidance.
It is becoming clear that the bishops
- recognise that “the disagreement that exists across the Church of England and within the House and college of Bishops…is not just about the prayers of love and faith but about theology and ecclesiology” (para 2, cf para 27).
- seek “to walk together with a radical Christian vision of inclusion” (para 4 cf para 17)
- are keen to allow, as part of “a generous pastoral response which is loving and celebratory to those who are in life-long monogamous same-sex committed relationships” (para 20), greater plurality of approved practice than at present. This is apparent in the draft prayers. The Guidance may change the patterns of life open to ordained ministers.
- wish to ensure that “application of the Prayers and Pastoral Guidance should not create a disparate and unpredictable approach across the country” (para 19).
- desire “to inhabit a generous theological, ecclesial and pastoral space that holds the Church together in different interpretations” (para 2) of the answers to various divisive questions (see also para 19).
- believe that ‘answers’ to key questions “do not presuppose agreement, or a univocal statement” but require deciding “on the shape of the ‘space’ we agree to inhabit together, and how far that space may stretch to include different perspectives, and what boundaries there may be” (para 16).
- are committed to “upholding the Doctrine of Marriage” (para 20).
The question is whether all this is really theologically coherent or practically possible. Is achieving all these ends not attempting the impossible squaring of the circle? Isn’t it simply proposing an ecclesial form of what has been seen as the political legacy of former Prime Minister Boris Johnson: “cakeism” where “My policy on cake is pro having it and pro eating it”?
What follows examines each of the three areas explored since February in the light of these episcopal goals to discern what might lie ahead.
Prayers of Love and Faith (PLF)
There are three main areas to consider here: the wording of the prayers, the “routes by which the prayers may be authorised (or commended)” (para 12), and “in which situations the PLF will be recommended for use and what conditions may be imposed on them” (para 12).
First, the prayers remain “a suite of resources” which aim “to provide a joyful opportunity to celebrate what is good and holy in a relationship” (para 11c). They are “versatile, varied, and customisable to pastoral context” (para 11a). This may of course create problems on the ground when clergy are unwilling to use certain prayers that couples wish to use. There have been a small number of changes made to the draft prayers (pp. 7-30) in the light of comments from Synod members and bishops. These are generally in a slightly conservative direction and include
- a commitment that “The rubrics guiding the use of the prayers in context will make clear their distinction from the liturgies for Holy Matrimony” (para 11c)
- removal of reference in headings to prayers “for a couple” or “a relationship” and introduction of a bidding prayer referring to the qualities of relationship
- in relation to blessings, “Bless them” becomes “By your blessing”
- only one prayer offered for when rings are worn which is moved to a note and no longer includes “by your blessing”
- Scripture readings no longer include Song of Solomon
- Illustrative sample service does not include prayers for God’s blessing or reference to rings.
Second, there is no longer a commitment to introduce the prayers by means of episcopal commendation for use by local clergy under canon B5. This appears to be in large part because that route makes parish clergy liable to complaints and potential legal action by those who believe the prayers indicate a departure from doctrine. Instead, routes of authorisation are being considered. In a surprising development, the bishops are “particularly weighing up the option of approval by the Archbishops (under canon B4.2)” (para 13) which is very rare and unprecedented for a contentious matter.
Many—including a number of leaders of various networks in a letter, subsequently supported by 22 bishops—are arguing the only proper route, given the subject matter, is the usual process of Synodical scrutiny and approval under canon B2. This would require two-thirds support in each of Synod’s three Houses in order to determine the prayers had consensus and were not indicative of a departure from doctrine. This seemingly technical procedural matter raises important questions as to the sort of church we want to be—the update opens by talking about “inclusive participation” (para 1)—and whether any route other than B2 exceeds the powers of non-Synodical bodies on such a contentious matter and is unconstitutional. I have explored these questions in some detail here (with a summary here).
Third, it originally appeared the prayers might be offered for a wide range of non-marital committed relationships. This is now less prominent (although the still undefined and novel category of “covenant friendship” continues to be highlighted) with more focus on same-sex relationships and an emphasis on these being “demonstrably faithful, exclusive, and permanent” (para 12). How a relationship could prove it meets these three criteria remains unclear. Making a legal status act as the gateway is problematic because the service would then appear to be affirming that status and civil partnerships do not require vows. The most contentious matters here are whether they can be used for sexual relationships other than marriage and/or for those in a civil same-sex marriage.
It would appear the bishops originally thought that the prayers, as they are silent in relation to sexual intimacy or the legal status of the couple, had gained sufficient consensus but this now looks less secure. This is in part because while the prayers may be silent and hence ambiguous, to enable their use in such contexts would require a change in teaching relating to sex and marriage. This is something which cannot be so easily camouflaged, which many are unwilling to embrace, and for which there has not yet been sufficient legal and theological justification. The focus of attention has therefore moved from the prayers to the second area of work which was totally undeveloped back in February but where the bishops perhaps should have begun their discernment –
Pastoral Guidance
The Pastoral Guidance group “highlighted a number of questions where clear guidance and direction is needed from the bishops” (para 17). Two questions are particularly challenging and contentious:
- “what view the bishops would now take on sexual intimacy for couples who have entered into civil same-sex marriages” (this is a subset of the wider question of sexual intimacy in relationships other than holy matrimony)
- “whether clergy should be allowed to enter same-sex civil partnerships or civil marriage” (the former is currently allowed if they are celibate, the focus is therefore more on the latter and to answer it the bishops have to determine what they think somebody is doing when they enter a civil same-sex marriage and how that relates to the doctrine of marriage)
The current answers to these are clear:
- “The Church of England teaches that “sexual intercourse, as an expression of faithful intimacy, properly belongs within marriage exclusively” (Marriage: a teaching document of the House of Bishops, 1999). Sexual relationships outside heterosexual marriage are regarded as falling short of God’s purposes for human beings” (Pastoral Statement 2019, para 9).
- “it would not be appropriate conduct for someone in holy orders to enter into a same sex marriage, given the need for clergy to model the Church’s teaching in their lives” (Pastoral Statement 2015, para 27)
There are, however, signs of new alternative answers being developed.
In answer to the second question, the developing answer appears to be that same-sex civil marriages are simply a legal status, unrelated to holy matrimony. Entering them is therefore not any longer to be viewed as “departing from” (2015 Statement, para 21) church teaching about marriage. This claim, set out in GS Misc 1339, has already been subjected to significant legal critique (notably here) and I have explored it more fully here. If it is to be used as the legal and theological defence for blessing same-sex civil marriages, and perhaps allowing clergy to enter them, then there would appear to be no reason why prayers could not be approved—without, on this logic, any departure from church doctrine on holy matrimony—that are recognised by the state as a means of entering a same-sex civil marriage in a Church of England service (as I have argued more fully here).
This answer also creates problems for the new answer to the first question offered by Archbishop Justin who, like the Archbishop of York when the prayers were published, has recently altered traditional teaching. He did so in these terms: “sexual activity should be within permanent, stable and faithful relationships of marriage as that is understood in each society” (italics added). As Martin Davie has shown, this raises a large number of questions and problems given the variety of ways societies, historically and today, understand and define marriage. In addition, this way of changing the church’s answer to the first question gives a determinative place in a new sexual ethic to “marriage as that is understood in each society” rather than holy matrimony. Civil same-sex marriage is therefore not simply a legal status totally distinct from holy matrimony and church teaching, it becomes a central ethical criterion in the church’s revised sexual ethic.
A further crucial question is how changing the church’s answers to these questions can be consistent with the bishops’ commitment to “upholding the doctrine of marriage” (para 20). As recently as November last year, the Bishop of London, then co-Chair of the LLF Next Steps Group and now Co-Chair of the Steering Group for Implementation, reaffirmed to General Synod that “Canon B 30 does indeed continue to articulate the doctrine of the Church, including asserting that holy matrimony is the proper context for sexual intimacy”. The proposed sharp divide between civil marriage and holy matrimony to detach the former from the church’s doctrine of marriage is also a novel understanding few find convincing. It is noteworthy and encouraging that the bishops have now recognised “the call for additional theological input” and there will be a Faith and Order Commission (FAOC) working group “to consider theological questions arising from the implementation work” (para 5). It is, however, regrettable that this is so late in a fast-moving process and that requests for more theological work, and offers of FAOC involvement, were previously rejected.
The bishops also appear to want to claim that while upholding the church’s doctrine “it should be possible to disagree and inhabit a generous theological, ecclesial and pastoral space that holds the Church together in different interpretations” (para 19) of answers to these two key questions. Here is where the charge of “cakeism” is perhaps most plausible: how is this development possible if there is also a commitment to uphold the doctrine of marriage? It would appear that the doctrine has changed so as no longer to provide the two answers traditionally given but to permit new answers instead. If this is not the case what is now being said? Is it being claimed that the existing answers were never really part of, or logically entailed by, church doctrine (some are attempting to distinguish doctrine from teaching)? Or is it being argued that, although the doctrine is being upheld, “different interpretations of the answers to these questions” are now held to be consistent with it, including answers previously held to be contrary to the doctrine?
The problems of “cakeism” are not only in relation to “upholding doctrine”. They are increased further when it comes to practice and ecclesiology. This move to accept “different interpretations” is being combined with a rejection of “a disparate and unpredictable approach across the country” (para 19) and yet it being “essential that every bishop have their own freedom of conscience” (para 20). There are signs of a growing awareness of the difficulties in holding these commitments together within current CofE structures. This is related to the third workstream addressing the other major question the bishops failed to consider before presenting the prayers in February:
Pastoral Reassurance
In providing pastoral reassurance to enable, if possible, “walking together” and holding to “the principle of living well as a church, generously, with integrity and with respect even across difference” (para 23) the bishops have to address a number of complex scenarios and potentially divisive ecclesial options at mutiple levels of church life (paras 24-25). As Mike Higton has recently argued, it is important that we are honest and realistic about the challenges this presents given the nature of the differences and their impact on people.
It is significant the bishops are now considering what are termed “structural approaches” (which may, or may not, be similar to what some have called “visible differentiation”). They sketch out various tests in relation to these:
- “it is essential that bishops take seriously their collective responsibility to honour a mixed ecology of practices” (para 26)
- “it is also essential that every bishop have their own freedom of conscience” (para 26)
- Structural approaches must be “congruent with the Pastoral Principles” (para 27)
- They must “maximise working together” (para 27)
- They must “seek the Gospel imperative for the Church to be one” (para 27)
It would appear that in seeking to respect these different demands, along with the seven goals outlined earlier, the bishops are beginning to focus on “collective episcopacy and unity in practice” (para 26). The House of Bishops has “asked that further work be done on a proposed statement from the bishops” on this (para 26). It remains largely unclear what is meant by “collective episcopacy” but presumably it is related to the collegial aspect of episcopal ministry explored for example in “Bishops in Communion: Collegiality in the Service of the Koinonia of the Church” (2000). It likely means that serving bishops, as they more clearly articulate, and enact in their ministries, their divergent convictions and “different interpretations” will, rightly, seek to maintain the highest degree of communion possible between themselves and among those they serve. But how might this develop? Will they then provide ways for clergy whose convictions and interpretations (and hence patterns of teaching and ministry) differ from that of their current bishop to receive, it they wish, episcopal ministry from a different bishop who shares their convictions, interpretations and practice? This could take various forms (I set out some possible models here), all of which raise important ecclesiological questions and practical challenges.
If bishops continue sharing in the same “collective episcopacy” with bishops whose ministry is no longer acceptable to others, important questions arise. For example, in what circumstances, in what ways, and within what boundaries, is it right to speak of bishops having a “collective responsibility to honour a mixed ecology of practices” amongst themselves? Why not, for example, extend this to include diversity over whether marriage can include same-sex couples? This is especially so when a bishop conscientiously believes that some of the practices of fellow bishops are contrary to Scripture and have, until now, been collectively viewed by the bishops as not having a recognised place in the Church of England because they represent a departure from the church’s doctrine which all bishops have vowed to uphold and defend.
Although similar questions arose over women priests and bishops, there remains debate over whether the structural solutions offered there are satisfactory and many would argue that matters relating to definitions of marriage and sexual immorality are of a higher order. As a result, it may be that the Church of England needs to take time to consider these matters, which seem to have been neglected in recent discernment processes, more carefully. This could build on earlier work in LLF on our disagreements and FAOC’s 2016 work on Communion and Disagreement. It might also mean learning from other churches (such as the Communion Across Difference Task Force in The Episcopal Church), and taking time to benefit from the new “Good Differentiation” work recently started by the Anglican Communion through IASCUFO. If such care is not taken there is the real risk that—despite all the talk of unity and “walking together”—developments will be too hurriedly introduced which impair communion more seriously than necessary and drive people further apart.
Conclusion
If what Rowan Williams described as “several different ‘Churches of England’” become more prominent, even authorised, because of our different answers in relation to LLF, the question becomes more pressing as to what makes the Church of England in some sense still visibly and coherently one within the wider one, holy, catholic and apostolic church rather than the source of yet more fractures. The historic answer has included, in part, a shared doctrine (Canon A5) which all bishops are to uphold (Canon C18.1) and from which our prayers are not to indicate any departure (Canons B1-5), hence particular safeguards in the synodical process. This doctrinal aspect of our unity is why (in the words, of Archhbishop John Habgood during debates over remarriage in church after divorce) when any matter is understood to be doctrinal or have doctrinal dimensions, the bishops, “need to move very carefully….The method by which the Church decides such issues may have considerable repercussions for the future and will say a lot about our claim to be a theologically responsible body”.
A major current problem is that many lack confidence in the current “method by which the church decides” on these issues. This is because they do not see the Archbishops and bishops collectively moving very carefully, acting as a theologically responsible body, or working with and through due synodical processes. Although lip service is being paid to upholding the church’s doctrine, this appears to be a minor ingredient within the current “cakeist” recipe. The importance of doctrine and demonstrable synodical consensus concerning doctrine for the shape and possibility of our “walking together” need to be taken more seriously. If they are not, there are real risks that the current approach to addressing our differences—being pro-having cake and pro-eating cake—will undermine the doctrinal foundation that, in the midst of our differences, is vital for keeping “these diverse ‘churches’ one”.
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.
Mmm…thanks for a thoughtful and helpful analysis of the incoherence of the bishops’ approach, Andrew. The college of bishops appears to be acting as a steamroller against dissent within and without its circle, alas.
Ian
Please disclose your AC vote in regard to the disbanding of the ISB
The Archbishops have done so. There is no justification for other members of the AC insisting their vote is confidential.
I have elsewhere and happy to do so here, even though this has absolutely no bearing on this post.
I have been pressing for 8 months for the interim arrangement to be disbanded, as it was very evident that it was never going to deliver the independent safeguarding which we need.
Thank you the clarification. I obviously appreciate it is off topic.
It is a source of deep dismay at this weekend’s GS that the ISB has been disbanded.
I think you and your AC colleagues have made a terrible mistake.
It may be your prerogative to make the decision. It is our prerogative to judge it.
To be fair to Joe Public, you and Justin seem to be in disagreement over whether there should be Independent Oversight of the Church’s continuing bodies (with the Church bodies – NSSG, NST, NSWG, NSP, along with DSOs and PSOs still handling the complaints process)… or whether the independence should go further and deeper into the system (and how?) That was quite an odd disagreement the two of you had in Synod yesterday.
Also surprised that Justin said the 2 Archbishops ‘wanted to wait a bit’ instead of the very abrupt (some would say reckless) nuking of the ISB. That suggests there was not unanimity about the timing, let alone the action. One member of the AC has already said that the imposition of the New Chair (in contravention of the ISBs Terms of reference, and agreed due process for appointments) “was the wrong decision”.
Anyway, as you say – no bearing on Andrew’s post (which I have addressed separately below) but as you yourself agreed to go off piste, I thought I’d seek any clarity you’d care to offer. To be fair on you, you are a forthright person.
I suggest your claim in the other thread that the sacked ISB members ” were determined to undermine the AC at every turn” is contentious. Was the abrupt sacking without notice to survivors ‘reckless’ and harmful and destructive of trust? Was the motive for the speed (apparently contrary to ABC and ABY’s wishes) to avoid scrutiny by Synod or Independent Mediator before you acted? Was the circumvention of due process in appointing the New Chair ‘the wrong decision’ as one member of AC has conceded? Or as it was also put: “We messed up.” And why were you wanting to close the ISB a year before the December 2023 deadline for that work stream?
Anyway, if you’d rather avoid what I think are fair questions that people in the Church (not just social media types) are asking… I refer you to my ‘on topic’ comment about Andrew’s article instead.
The Churcb Times is reporting the AC made a unanimous decision to disband the ISB
I would suspect that’s correct – but unless the ASC misinformed Synod, they didn’t agree on the (reckless?) timing. In any case, as one AC member has stated, ‘we are all accountable’ and that’s obviously true because, unanimous or not, (and from what Ian’s said he was a cheerleader for the action) everybody is responsible for a collective action, unless they choose to resign over it. Nobody has.
Sorry, not ASC – ABC (Archbishop of Canterbury). He says that he and the Archbishop of York ‘wanted to wait a bit’ which would probably have been the decent thing to do, to give time to plan handover, and explain to the 60+ survivors engaged with the ISB in advance what they were going to do.
He says that he and the Archbishop of York ‘wanted to wait a bit’ which would probably have been the decent thing to do, to give time to plan handover
But that’s nonsensical. You can’t plan a handover until you’ve made the decision; so if you ‘wait a bit’ before making the decision then you can’t use the time before you make the decision to plan the handover.
and explain to the 60+ survivors engaged with the ISB in advance what they were going to do
And again, you can’t ‘explain what you are going to do’ until you have decided what you are going to do. So if you ‘wait a bit’ before making the decision then you can’t use the time to explain to people what you are going to do because you don’t yet know what you are going to do!
Has this person who suggested ‘waiting a bit’ said what they would be waiting for? Because if they weren’t waiting for anything but just putting off making a decision, how is that a good thing?
There is a possible explanation. When the British Cabinet takes a decision there is often a heated discussion beforehand in which some cabinet ministers may try to get the policy reversed. But once a decision has been made, collective responsibility applies. So it is entirely possible that the Archbishops argued against the immediate end to the ISB but when it was clear what the majority on the Archbishops Council thought, everyone voted to disband the ISB and sack the victim advocates. I suspect the General Secretary was behind this.
‘So they go on in strange paradox, decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all-powerful to be impotent.’
Winston Churchill, 12th November 1936
like it.
Refs. S
July 8, 2023 at 11:36 am
Wonderful Quote. Truly the article portrays a veritable minefield where “fools may rush in where angels fear to tread. ”
To me it seems that Bishop and Synod want us all to be “open minded”[ as in Open Marriage ] Which thought raises a question in my mind.The Bishops ought to consider blessings for people who intend to live in an open marriage: Should be right up their alley.
The CofE already marries couples who want an open marriage. They just won’t marry gay couples, whether open or not.
The CofE already marries couples who want an open marriage.
No it doesn’t (unless they lie during the vows).
S
There’s nothing in the vows to require that the couple don’t have an open marriage and I am not sure, but I don’t think legally a CofE priest can even refuse to marry a couple because they have agreed to have an open relationship.
There’s nothing in the vows to require that the couple don’t have an open marriage
Sorry, I meant the declarations. They would have to lie to the declarations if the intended to have an open marriage.
I am not sure, but I don’t think legally a CofE priest can even refuse to marry a couple because they have agreed to have an open relationship.
Given that the declarations are part of the legal set text of the wedding ceremony I would say that yes, the minister would have a legal duty not to go through with the wedding if they found out (for sure, ie not just a suspicion) that one or both of the couple intended to lie, just as they would if they discovered that one of the couple was already married to someone else or if they suspected the wedding was fraudulent and only for immigration purposes.
S
There’s nothing in the declarations about not having an open marriage
There’s nothing in the declarations about not having an open marriage
Yes there is.
‘ Wilt thou […] forsaking all other, keep thee only unto her, […]?’
The promise they make includes “forsaking all others”, which seems to preclude an open marriage.
Forsaking all others doesn’t explicitly say they won’t sleep with anyone else and nobody follows it’s surface meaning. I prioritize my husband, but I have not abandoned my sister or my friends.
Forsaking all others doesn’t explicitly say they won’t sleep with anyone else
That’s clearly what was intended to mean when the declarations were written.
And ‘keep thee only unto her’ is pretty explicit.
If you have an open marriage you’re not keeping yourself only into your spouse; you’re sharing yourself with others.
S
This is the trouble with all this squishy language, unless you write something clearly and explicitly then it can mean whatever you want it to mean.
This is the trouble with all this squishy language, unless you write something clearly and explicitly then it can mean whatever you want it to mean.
Very true. Which is why it is good that the declarations are clearly and explicitly written, and so it is clear what they were intended to mean.
But that’s unsurprising, given they were intended to be legally binding so clarity was important.
And it is clear that they exclude the possibility of an open marriage, so anyone who says them intending to have an open marriage is lying (just as much as if they were already married to someone else and didn’t mention it), and lying in such legal context (as well as potentially being perjury) renders the marriage null and void (and would in fact be grounds for an annulment)
S
I hesitate to speak to others, but I think a lot of open couples would say they were being faithful to one another and prioritizing each other.
The problem with the declarations is thar even your interpretation, which is very reasonable, is not the plain meaning. I don’t know any married couples who have literally forsaken all others!
I hesitate to speak to others, but I think a lot of open couples would say they were being faithful to one another and prioritizing each other.
But if they say that they are lying, aren’t they?
The problem with the declarations is thar even your interpretation, which is very reasonable, is not the plain meaning. I don’t know any married couples who have literally forsaken all others!
All faithful married couples have literally forsaken all others. To forsake means to give up. A faithful married couple has given up sex with all others.
They’re not lying about being faithful if they believe they are being faithful and say so, no
They’re not lying about being faithful if they believe they are being faithful and say so, no
They are lying about being faithful if they are having sex with other people, no matter what they believe.
I would define lying as saying something that you know not to be true. You seem to be defining it as someone else saying something that you personally believe not to be true. That would turn everyone on the planet except for yourself into liars because you have a unique interpretation of reality.
I would define lying as saying something that you know not to be true.
So would I. Unless you’re suggesting they are somehow unaware they are having sex with other people, then when they says they are being faithful they know it to be untrue. So they are lying.
I love the picture of the multi-coloured cake !
I completely get your explanations of the theological/doctrinal difficulties, but I do so want to be able to offer something truly positive to same-sex couples, and not just a weak substitute. To be unable to offer something seems intrinsically condemnatory in human terms, which implies us making a judgement when it is God’s prerogative to make judgement (I guess that sums up the problem on one level). I do understand the book of Job, but I still wish that, on certain occasions, we could request a direct answer from God !
To Jonathan Douglas :
“Do not give what is holy to dogs, neither cast your pearls before swine…” (Matthew 7:6),
requires a judgement as to who are the “dogs”, and who are the “swine” (see also 1 Cor. 5:9-13).
We can. For 3000 years all persons of faith took the written Laws of Moses as reflecting God’s opinion (in many places the text even says “do this; don’t do that; for I am Jehovah”, words which nobody of faith would write unless they were certain they had heard from God). Leviticus 18:22 described male-male sexual relations as toevah.
Anton,
Three problems with this
Firstly you have to consider who Leviticus 18.22 was written to (arguably straight men) and what they understood it to mean. They certainly did not have a concept of a gay person. A modern reader may immediately think it is connected to gay people, but an pre Iron age reader would not.
Secondly you have to consider the other laws in Leviticus – if the prohibition of sex with men applies universally then why doesn’t the prohibition on shaving? It’s a lot easier not to shave than it is to make yourself attracted to the opposite sex!
Thirdly you have to consider how these laws are applied in church – is the church holding everyone to all the laws of Leviticus or is it only the gays?
But I am not talking about the applicability of Levitical law among believers in Jesus Christ. I am talking about the fact that Leviticus describes male-male sexual relations as toevah and that believers have for 3000 years taken this to be God’s opinion, which does not change concerning moral matters.
Anton
You’re just ignoring my points and claiming everyone has always agreed with you. If this were true there would not be a split in the church.
The Bible is not clear on gay people, in part because that wasn’t a known category of person in the cultures in which it was written and, unless you count Jonathan and David, contains no instances of same sex couples
The Bible is not clear on gay people
But it is clear on same-sex sexual activity.
To Peter Jermey: Leviticus describes sexual ACTS between men as toevah. That has nothing to do with sexual preference, does it?
Anton actually it describes lying with a man as with a woman as toevah.
Does that mean it’s toevah when a woman lies with a man as with a woman?
I dont know what sexual preference is(??), but certainly banning male male same sex sex has different implications for straight, bisexual and gay men. For straight men it’s a prohibition on certain types of rape and partying. For gay men it’s a restriction on romantic relationships.
I think you know the answer to your own question.
I have no idea of your own sexual preferences, but sophistry won’t hold anybody in good stead on the day of judgement.
Anton
I just think you are making a huge number of assumptions about this passage and you can’t even see that’s what you are doing!
Peter: No more assumptions than believers make abut the New Testament or Jesus himself made about the Old.
I just think you are making a huge number of assumptions about this passage
I mean the main assumption being made seems to be that it means what it most obviously appears to mean.
What other assumptions do you think are being made?
Anton
Do you accept that Jesus understanding of the old Testament was radically different than the religious leaders of his faith?
Jesus didnt say that judgement was God’s prerogative. Rather you shouldnt be a hypocrite about it. Youre essentially saying if people in a church behave inappropriately or badly, there’s nothing others in the church can do about it, which is obviously nonsense.
Tom Wright’s words from 20 years ago were (I paraphrase very loosely) that while the third world is wondering about, and prioritising, where its next meal is coming from, the first world is primarily thinking about how to have better sex. There is some accuracy in this, but the last thing one expected is that any church should just go along with these skewed priorities.
To Christopher Shell :
Are you presenting, sir, something analogous to a “false dilemma” – or what ?
Just re-pinpointing how inequitable and selfish priorities have become. Time allocated in Synod, and later time adjustments, speak volumes. And UK are less and less able to think into the shoes of Africans, who know a great deal more of real life.
Africa is a huge continent, with rich and poor and all those in the middle. Would anyone have believed 20 years ago that millions of people in the UK would need to resort to food banks to be able to survive?
It is a fair point, yet those who so resort have cars, mobile phones and TV aplenty, and the safety blanket of the state.
Secondly, it is a sensible economic choices for perfectly well off people to use such banks, where food will otherwise go to waste, and thus have more money for other things.
Thirdly, there are no checks on earnings for those who frequent the banks, and could not easily be any.
Thanks for your comments, Christopher.
Do all Africans think the same? The Anglican Church of Southern Africa seems to take a different view to their Ugandan and Nigerian brothers and sisters.
But then if the third world grew relatively well off presumably their food would no longer be a priority and they would be no different from the rest of the world. But I dont think you accurately reflect the first world’s priorities. Most people just want to live in peace, and with a sufficient income.
Does anyone remember that horrific moment in the summer of 2020 when it became apparent that the government had no plan for getting us out of the terrible stasis in which they had trapped us, and that their only strategy was to keep the stasis going, however painful, in the hope that some external factor might come riding to the rescue like the 7th cavalry regiment and save them from ever having to make a decision?
Someone, I remember, dubbed it ‘the Micawber strategy’: play for time and hope that ‘something will turn up’.
The government got its final-reel miracle rescue, of course. Will the bishops?
In reading your words, “S”,
” in the hope that some external factor might come riding to the rescue like the 7th…”,
I honestly anticipated you saying the word, “Angel” ! ( Rev. 11:15; cf. 2 Tim. 3:1-5).
A thought from Bishop Athanasius Schneider:
The crisis in the Church today is due to a neglect of the truth and specifically a reversal of the order of truth and love. Today, a new principle of pastoral life is being propagated in the Church which says: love and mercy are the highest criteria and truth has to be subordinated to them. According to this new theory, if there is a conflict between love and truth, truth must be sacrificed. This is a reversal and a perversion in the literal sense of the word.
The right order of truth and love — as it is reflected in the life of the Holy Trinity, where Love proceeds from Truth — is the basic law of the Church and Christianity and all pastoral efforts.
https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/religion-and-philosophy/catholic-faith/doctrinal-confusion.html
Geoff, thanks, Happy Jack, for his comment and link.
It throws light on the CoE assumed magisterium of the Bishops of Befuddlement.
Unfortunately the confusion has also infiltrated all Christian churches and is spreading, so there’s no triumphalism from Happy Jack.
As one author writing about the Catholic Church has put it:
[I]t is important to remember that all this confusion and division is happening under the providential hand of God. He is permitting the confusion, the ambiguity, the division, and he has a plan to bring good out of it. It is clear that the Church is in need of a deep purification. God is permitting the darkness to be exposed so that the deep wounds of sin and infidelity may be healed, that profound repentance may take place, and the light of Christ shine forth ever more brightly.”
In 2019 Pope Benedict reminded us:
Jesus Himself compared the Church to a fishing net in which good and bad fish are ultimately separated by God Himself. There is also the parable of the Church as a field on which the good grain that God Himself has sown grows, but also the weeds that “an enemy” (has) secretly sown onto it. Indeed, the weeds in God’s field, the Church, are excessively visible, and the evil fish in the net also show their strength. Nevertheless, the field is still God’s field and the net is God’s fishing net. And at all times, there are not only the weeds and the evil fish, but also the crops of God and the good fish. To proclaim both with emphasis is not a false form of apologetics, but a necessary service to the Truth.
HJ believes things will get worse. We have to hold onto Christian hope. God is clearing away the rubble of Christendom so that the Church can blossom once again like a mustard seed.
Jack, the church should always blossom and it is the world that is dying. Where the church fails to blossom it is becaue of departure from the scriptures. Where it keeps to them it has God’s guarantee of success based on biblical criteria.
Hi Anton, good to hear from you.
The problem is there is an absence of agreement about what is and what is not “departure from the scriptures”.
Christians can’t ground our hope in the structures of this world as it is passing away. When Western nations erode – whenever that may be —they will have followed the path of all earthly kingdoms. We know the Church will never fall but that is not to say she will not face severe challenges as she has since Pentecost.
Pope Benedict stood out as a thinker and counter to cultural postmodern atrophy in the West.
And he spoke of Jesus, as a believer, far more than any recent CoE ABoC, it seems to me.
He is a loss to RC which seems not to have his like any longer in its drift away from his clarity.
While we could have shared communion, we could have joined under the Apostles Creed.
And this is while the current ABoY has identified and voiced a problem with Our Father, prayer our Lord Jesus taught us.
But this is nothing new. One of the Methodist communion services, in England, more than 20 years ago, addressed god as Mother.
I think that says much about what they think scripture is and just who Jesus is.
And HC,
I am encouraged by reference to and acknowledgement God’s Providence, that what is taking place is under the providential hand of God. (John Piper will be pleased!)
That is a Christian theological, scriptural, understanding and God’s Sovereign conntext) that I’ve not seen expressed on this site over the five or more years I’ve visited.
Is it alien to the CoE? It certainly seems so.
Thank you.
I may hold a different theology, but I do agree with you on this: Pope Benedict was hugely intelligent, and not just in a narrow IQ sense. His writing was often wonderful in its clarity of reasoning and its development.
The Church today doesn’t seem to be comfortable with serious theologians as Bishops. At the time of Benedict XVI in Rome, we had Rowan Williams in Canterbury and N T Wright in Durham. I don’t remember everyone being very happy about it.
things will get worse
Seventy years? How far through do you think we are?
In a 1969 German radio broadcast, Father Joseph Ratzinger offered his considered thoughts on the future of the Catholic Church. His insights apply to all Christian communities today.
“The future of the Church can and will issue from those whose roots are deep and who live from the pure fullness of their faith. It will not issue from those who accommodate themselves merely to the passing moment or from those who merely criticize others and assume that they themselves are infallible measuring rods; nor will it issue from those who take the easier road, who sidestep the passion of faith, declaring false and obsolete, tyrannous and legalistic, all that makes demands upon men, that hurts them and compels them to sacrifice themselves. To put this more positively:
“The future of the Church, once again as always, will be reshaped by saints, by men, that is, whose minds probe deeper than the slogans of the day, who see more than others see, because their lives embrace a wider reality. Unselfishness, which makes men free, is attained only through the patience of small daily acts of self-denial. By this daily passion, which alone reveals to a man in how many ways he is enslaved by his own ego, by this daily passion and by it alone, a man’s eyes are slowly opened. He sees only to the extent that he has lived and suffered. If today we are scarcely able any longer to become aware of God, that is because we find it so easy to evade ourselves, to flee from the depths of our being by means of the narcotic of some pleasure or other. Thus our own interior depths remain closed to us. If it is true that a man can see only with his heart, then how blind we are!
“How does all this affect the problem we are examining? It means that the big talk of those who prophesy a Church without God and without faith is all empty chatter. We have no need of a Church that celebrates the cult of action in political prayers. It is utterly superfluous. Therefore, it will destroy itself. What will remain is the Church of Jesus Christ, the Church that believes in the God who has become man and promises us life beyond death. The kind of priest who is no more than a social worker can be replaced by the psychotherapist and other specialists; but the priest who is no specialist, who does not stand on the [sidelines], watching the game, giving official advice, but in the name of God places himself at the disposal of man, who is beside them in their sorrows, in their joys, in their hope and in their fear, such a priest will certainly be needed in the future.
“Let us go a step farther. From the crisis of today the Church of tomorrow will emerge — a Church that has lost much. She will become small and will have to start afresh more or less from the beginning. She will no longer be able to inhabit many of the edifices she built in prosperity. As the number of her adherents diminishes, so it will lose many of her social privileges. In contrast to an earlier age, it will be seen much more as a voluntary society, entered only by free decision. As a small society, it will make much bigger demands on the initiative of her individual members. Undoubtedly it will discover new forms of ministry and will ordain to the priesthood approved Christians who pursue some profession. In many smaller congregations or in self-contained social groups, pastoral care will normally be provided in this fashion. Along-side this, the full-time ministry of the priesthood will be indispensable as formerly. But in all of the changes at which one might guess, the Church will find her essence afresh and with full conviction in that which was always at her center: faith in the triune God, in Jesus Christ, the Son of God made man, in the presence of the Spirit until the end of the world. In faith and prayer she will again recognize the sacraments as the worship of God and not as a subject for liturgical scholarship.
“The Church will be a more spiritual Church, not presuming upon a political mandate, flirting as little with the Left as with the Right. It will be hard going for the Church, for the process of crystallization and clarification will cost her much valuable energy. It will make her poor and cause her to become the Church of the meek. The process will be all the more arduous, for sectarian narrow-mindedness as well as pompous self-will will have to be shed. One may predict that all of this will take time. The process will be long and wearisome as was the road from the false progressivism on the eve of the French Revolution — when a bishop might be thought smart if he made fun of dogmas and even insinuated that the existence of God was by no means certain — to the renewal of the nineteenth century. But when the trial of this sifting is past, a great power will flow from a more spiritualized and simplified Church. Men in a totally planned world will find themselves unspeakably lonely. If they have completely lost sight of God, they will feel the whole horror of their poverty. Then they will discover the little flock of believers as something wholly new. They will discover it as a hope that is meant for them, an answer for which they have always been searching in secret.
“And so it seems certain to me that the Church is facing very hard times. The real crisis has scarcely begun. We will have to count on terrific upheavals. But I am equally certain about what will remain at the end: not the Church of the political cult, which is dead already, but the Church of faith. It may well no longer be the dominant social power to the extent that she was until recently; but it will enjoy a fresh blossoming and be seen as man’s home, where he will find life and hope beyond death.”
To “S” –
Jesus concerning His return :
“However, when the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on the earth? “.
(Luke 18:8b)
when the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on the earth?
Evans or Hill?
HJ says :
” God is clearing away the rubble of Christendom…”;
, or as Jesus says concerning His return :
” However, when the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on earth?” (Luke 18:8)
Jesus promised that the “gates of hell” will not prevail against His Church. There will always be Christian faith on earth. The Church will never fail to prevail in her mission as an instrument for the salvation of souls. She will prevail against whatever trials and temptations the powers of hell bring. The people of God, the true members of His Church, known by Divine foreknowledge, cannot be kept out of heaven if they persist in faith until the end.
Jesus is telling us in Luke 18: 1-8 that we cannot decide if God has answered our prayers until “the Son of Man comes,” – i.e., the Second Coming of Christ. It will only be at the consummation of history that we will recognise definitively that God has kept every promise He has ever made to us to be the just, loving Father that Jesus revealed Him to be. When He returns, Jesus will be looking for the kind of personal faith that trusts in God’s goodness and faithfulness in hearing us and answering our prayers.
St. Paul speaks of a great deception that will befall those who will perish when the “lawless one” (Antichrist) comes. The faith of many believers will be shaken in the final trial before the Second Coming. The key to protecting ourselves from such deception, which is present in the world today (1 John 4:3), is found in 2 Thessalonians 2:15: “Stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.”
Having a firm grasp of scripture and the definitive teachings of the Church enables us to discern what is true and what is false. As St. John writes (1 John 4:6), “Whoever knows God listens to us, and he who is not of God does not listen to us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.”
Thank you for your interesting comments, Happy Jack.
Have a good day, sir.
HJ
What a splendid quotation from 1969, from Ratzinger.
It surely stands the test of time and by way of contrast shows how barren, arid, dead- end the current thinking in the CoE is.
Ratzinger’s assessment gets it pretty well right methinks.
specifically a reversal of the order of truth and love
‘ St. John’s saying that God is love has long been balanced in my mind against the remark of a modern author (M. Denis de Rougement) that “love ceases to be a demon only when he ceases to be a god”; which of course can be re-stated in the form “begins to be a demon the moment he begins to be a god.” This balance seems to me an indispensable safeguard. If we ignore it the truth that God is love may slyly come to mean for us the converse, that love is God. I suppose that everyone who has thought about the matter will see what M. de Rougemont meant. Every human love, at its height, has a tendency to claim for itself a divine authority. Its voice tends to sound as if it were the will of God Himself. It tells us not to count the cost, it demands of us a total commitment, it attempts to over-ride all other claims and insinuates that any action which is sincerely done “for love’s sake” is thereby lawful and even meritorious.’
C .S. Lewis, The Four Loves
Thanks S,
How stark is the intelligence and intellectual dislocation, dissonance and distance between the cream and the current crop in Anglicanism.
It brings a longing for the “cool breeze of the centuries” and maybe revisiting some of Lewis’s books.
Febrile smokescreens and self-combustion can drift away and be doused.
So the church keeps moving towards making marriage a category rather than a definition. Hmm.
Gill –
As some of the “Right Reverend Bigwigs” may think :
“When we use words, they mean just what we choose them to mean – neither more, nor less.”
(cf. 2 Timothy 3:5 ?).
If holy matrimony is to be understood in the Biblical sense, then it would also exclude divorced couples where the spouse of the divorced partner had not committed adultery as much as it would exclude homosexual couples. So surely canon B2 would have been required to approve via Synod marriage of divorcees in Church of England couples? To demand therefore use of canon B2 for mere Synod approval of blessings for homosexual couples, not even allowing marriage of homosexual couples in the Church of England, seems rather hypocritical. After all we know full well divorced couples where there was no spousal adultery are getting married in Church of England churches, including one George Osborne who is getting married in a Somerset church this afternoon to his former researcher after divorcing his wife. Let us not forget too Synod has also affirmed holy matrimony in the eyes of the church remains between a man and a woman only, even if homosexual couples married in English civil law are allowed to receive a church blessing
T1;
Any thoughts on 2 Timothy 3:1-5, with particular emphasis on verse 5 ?
Well I don’t have huge problems with George Osborne remarrying in church but you could certainly argue that that verse rather more applies to him than a homosexual couple in a lifelong union of commitment to each other who do community work in their local area etc. Yet if we allow George a second chance at marriage and that have that marriage performed in the sight of the lord for his new love in a Church of England church, how can we now allow even a blessing for homosexual couples in lifelong unions in church?
Sorry, ‘how can we not allow even a blessing for homosexual couples in lifelong unions in church?’
how can we not allow even a blessing for homosexual couples in lifelong unions in church?
Because the question is ‘what is the definition of marriage?’ not, as you seem to think, ‘who should be allowed to have a church wedding?’
Though I do hope that this all shows the Church of England what a mess it has got itself into over the question of remarriage divorce. Mr Osborne should clearly, according to the Church of England rules, have been refused a wedding in church because his current relationship began as an adulterous affair that was a large part of the the cause of the break-up of his first marriage. The guidance to clergy is clear that this would be ‘tantamount to consecrating an old infidelity’ and therefore disqualify the couple from a church wedding. Given the rules weren’t followed someone should clearly be disciplined for this (but obviously they won’t be, lack of discipline being the whole root of the Church of England’s current woes).
You mean the church is hypocritical and makes inappropriate allowances for those in the majority? Well yes.
While homosexuals in the minority in lifelong unions still have some opposing even blessings for their love and commitment to each other, they aren’t even being offered a full marriage in a Church of England church like divorcees can now get!
Hi T1,
I have asked you this before, but you did not answer. Where does the Bibles say this:
“If holy matrimony is to be understood in the Biblical sense, then it would also exclude divorced couples where the spouse of the divorced partner had not committed adultery as much as it would exclude homosexual couples.”
Jesus makes quite clear marriage is not open to divorced couples unless their former spouse committed adultery. Matthew 19 ‘Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”’
Jesus nowhere says anything against homosexual unions however and Synod has only proposed blessing homosexual unions while retaining marriage between a man and a woman in holy matrimony
So you see he does not say what you think he says. He speaks only to husbands and the grounds are sexual immorality – not a narrow specific “adultery”. On such a sensitive subject it is good to get this right, perhaps?
Sexual immorality is adultery as you full know to all intents and purposes. Any male divorcing his wife without her committing adultery or any other ‘sexual immorality’ therefore is breaking the teaching of Christ
T1,
As I keep on saying, if churches treated gay people as well as they treat heterosexuals on their second, third, fourth marriages then there would be a whole lot less scandal and drama in church politics.
1. A well written, comprehensive, coherent and cogent update, thanks.
2. Am I right in concluding that in all of this farrago, that only sexual holiness is a between male and female, in matrimony, that is Holy matrimony?
3. Ergo, any other sexual activity is unholy, sinful. No change in orthodoxy nor orthopraxy, then?
4. The whole lengthy, continuing, post post-modern, inconsistent, incoherent, self-contradictory debacle brings this to mind, even as it could be usefully updated with some contemporary allusions, cakeisms:
“So the final conclusion would surely be that whereas other civilizations have been brought down by attacks of barbarians from without, ours had the unique distinction of training its own destroyers at its own educational institutions, and then providing them with facilities for propagating their destructive ideology far and wide, all at the public expense. Thus did Western Man decide to abolish himself, creating his own boredom out of his own affluence, his own vulnerability out of his own strength, his own impotence out of his own erotomania, himself blowing the trumpet that brought the walls of his own city tumbling down, and having convinced himself that he was too numerous, labored with pill and scalpel and syringe to make himself fewer. Until at last, having educated himself into imbecility, and polluted and drugged himself into stupefaction, he keeled over–a weary, battered old brontosaurus–and became extinct.”
― Malcolm Muggeridge, Vintage Muggeridge: Religion and Society
The whole point of these prayers is to be vague about gay relationships.
Western civilization has done very well for three decades without Malcolm Muggeridge.
In brief, I think this article is a rearguard action.
General Synod approved the Prayers in principle. Since that represents the ‘mind’ of the Church of England (in other words it was a majority vote) then any opposition that seeks to *block* the mind of the Church of England is an attempt to impose a minority roadblock on what the mind and intent of the Church has approved.
That’s the problem with trying to get B2 introduced. Since it requires two-third majority, it is possible for a minority in Synod to hold the majority hostage. That may of course be the ‘rules of B2’s process’ (if it’s used – which is unlikely) but it would create a crisis as a minority in Synod might be seen to be holding the majority hostage.
At that point – with so-called ‘progressives’ getting nothing from the whole LLF process – it’s going to play into the hands of those who seek radical action, either through the Archbishops or via Parliament (who as a first stage could unlock the civil legal barrier to marriage in the C of E). Even more radical intervention might follow, and no, I don’t think it would result in disestablishment (because the core issue in the whole affair is going to be what the majority of representatives in Synod actually want and believe is right).
Andrew might be wise to be careful what he asks for, because if B2 stripped progressives even of Prayers, it could lead to a radical outcome which saw both the prayers and gay marriage being brought in, whether by Parliament, the Archbishops, or constitutional alterations to process.
The B2 route simply won’t work because it’s literally a block on democratic majority (aka the mind of the Church of England) being respected.
I’m pretty sure everyone knows there will be no 2/3rds majority for doctrinal change, in other words same old same old, with the domination of one group’s conscience by the other. That’s no longer tenable. The Prayers are a ‘play’ for time, but be warned that if the whole Prayers compromise is prevented, then that will precipitate a more immediate confrontation of the issues around the Church of England’s plural consciences.
The Bishops don’t want that precipitation, so they will likely opt by majority to avoid the B2 route and seek to either ‘commend’ by 50%, or ‘authorise’ via the Archbishops.
Blocking the Prayers of Love and Faith is not the will of the Church as represented in Synod.
Those who want to block the Prayers (judging by the February vote) are a minority. A Church can’t be held hostage that way forever.
General Synod approved the Prayers in principle.
Only on condition that they are nether contradictory to not indicative of a departure from the doctrine of the Church of England. It’s entirely possible that if that clause had not been inserted, the motion would have failed to reach a majority. The bishops clearly thought so, or they wouldn’t have accepted the amendment.
So you can’t use that vote as any kind of mandate for a change in doctrine.
I’m pretty sure everyone knows there will be no 2/3rds majority for doctrinal change, in other words same old same old, with the domination of one group’s conscience by the other. That’s no longer tenable.
That’s a bit rich given that you have explicitly said that you want to dominate the consciences of anyone who disagrees with you, and force everyone within the Church of England to either accept that ‘married’ same-sex couples are validly married, or be forced out of the Church of England.
I don’t think George Osborne’s marriage is licit.
But no one is forcing me out of the CoE for that belief.
And Philip North is a Diocesan.
I don’t think George Osborne’s marriage is licit.
But no one is forcing me out of the CoE for that belief.
Fair enough, and I agree, but Susannah has stated that anyone who disagrees with the belief that all marriages recognised by the state are valid should be forced out of the Church of England.
My view is the opposite of that.
I believe in the right of individuals to be either in favour or against gay marriage on grounds of conscience.
If a priest/minister wants to celebrate the marriage of a gay couple, they can. If they don’t, they needn’t.
And in my view, both should be welcome in the Church of England.
I believe in the right of individuals to be either in favour or against gay marriage on grounds of conscience.
That’s not what you said when I asked what would happen if an individual — not a minister — was running a youth group and someone in a same-sex marriage wanted to be a leader.
Obviously if the person wanting to be a leader were an unmarried person living in a sexual relationship with her boyfriend, then the group organiser would tell her she couldn’t be a youth group leader as her sinful lifestyle was incompatible with such a position.
So, if the organiser does not recognise same-sex marriages as valid, they should treat the person in the same-sex marriage the same as the unmarried person and tell them they cannot be a youth group leader.
But you said that the organiser had to recognise all marriages recognised by the state as valid — and thus act against their conscience. You suggested that if someone wasn’t willing to recognise all marriages recognised by the state as valid then they should leave the Church of England.
Have you changed you mind, or did I misinterpret your position?
Last comment because I don’t want to play ping-pong with you.
You wrote that I said people “should be forced out of the Church of England.”
I’m pretty certain those aren’t my words, but your interpretation of my words. But to be clear: I don’t want anyone ‘forced’ out of the Church of England. My wishes are the opposite.
With regard to appointing the leader of a youth group in a ‘conservative/traditional’ church… I’m willing to back-peddle a bit on that, simply because it makes no sense for a gay person in any kind of marriage to lead a youth group in a Church that opposes gay sex.
That said, young gay people should not be excluded from any church youth group – a different issue, but I think important to state.
The leadership of any parish church activity, in the end, is likely to be determined by the PCC (or should be). That may raise challenges, but that seems to make common-sense to me.
On the other hand, all gay people have the right to attend any parish church (with a very few legal exceptions). If the Church decides to allow gay marriages. then the priest/minister should have right of conscience to choose not to conduct the marriage service… but the gay couple should have right (if they live in that parish) to be married in that church, with the service conducted by a different (and affirming) priest/minister.
That’s it. All I’m saying in response. I don’t want to initiate another 100+ post flood of posts. Fact: I don’t want anyone forced out of the Church of England, but if people want to leave to protect their consciences, then that may sometimes be an option. Their choice.
I’m willing to back-peddle a bit on that
I’m glad to hear that…
simply because it makes no sense for a gay person in any kind of marriage to lead a youth group in a Church that opposes gay sex.
Although that’s a bit of an odd reason. Surely most churches in the Church of England would have a mixture of people who do think same-sex marriages are valid and people who don’t.
Can you confirm that you would defend the right of those who think same-sex marriages are not valid to act according to their consciences in all churches, including ones which they share with people who disagree?
If the Church decides to allow gay marriages. then the priest/minister should have right of conscience to choose not to conduct the marriage service… but the gay couple should have right (if they live in that parish) to be married in that church, with the service conducted by a different (and affirming) priest/minister.
Okay but equally would you accept that anyone who disagrees (whether a minister or just a member) has the right to treat the couple exactly as they would an unmarried opposite-sex couple in a sexual relationship, and not be punished for doing so?
Which if you would that’s great but I don’t see how it could work in practice given the inevitable conflicts that would arise.
Fact: I don’t want anyone forced out of the Church of England, but if people want to leave to protect their consciences, then that may sometimes be an option. Their choice.
Isn’t that exactly what the conservative side (the ones you accuse of wanting ‘one group to dominate another group’s consciences’) would say? That they don’t want to force anyone out but that is anyone who believes in same-sex marriage wants to leave for the Methodists or the URC or the Church in Wales to protect their conscience, then that’s an option?
So don’t you, also, want one group to dominate the consciences of another group? You just disagree on which group should do the dominating and which should be dominated.
What does ‘no longer tenable’ mean? It means nothing. It was either always tenable or never was.
The word ‘tenable’ sounds very grand as though it were a philosophical issue. It is a mathematical and psephological issue.
Not forgetting that ssm is a minority! Who or what is maximizing the minority? Philosophy and/or feelings?
In brief, I think this article is a rearguard action.
Okay but…
At that point – with so-called ‘progressives’ getting nothing from the whole LLF process – it’s going to play into the hands of those who seek radical action, either through the Archbishops or via Parliament (who as a first stage could unlock the civil legal barrier to marriage in the C of E). Even more radical intervention might follow, and no, I don’t think it would result in disestablishment (because the core issue in the whole affair is going to be what the majority of representatives in Synod actually want and believe is right).
… if it’s just a rearguard action, why has it got you resorting to blatant threats?
If you really think invoking canon B2 would be such a monumental error for the conservative side, why aren’t you following Napoleon’s dictum: ‘never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake’?
I’m imagining Susannah Clark on television now… ‘We are on the verge of a great victory! They better not try to invade because it will only lead to their own destruction! There are no American tanks in Baghdad!’
Since this represents a major departure from the doctrine of the Church of England, approving relationships which God Himself calls sinful, a unanimous majority would not be sufficient to make them acceptable.
It seems that we are back to the period of the Israelite Judges as described in Judges 17:6 and Judges 21:25 with everyone doing what is right in their own eyes rather than caring about what God teaches. This seems to be a very dangerous place to be for anything that claims to be a body of believers. If they cannot even agree about this matter, about which there is a lot off clear teaching in the Scriptures, how can they possibly claim to be “walking together”.
The truth of course is that the Church of England is walking away from around 85% of the world’s Anglicans and will soon be as irrelevant as The Episcopal Church in the US, the Church in Wales or the Scottish Episcopal Church.
You seem to think that democracy trumps everything. Maybe because I am Jewish, I am reminded of when Moses did not build a Golden Calf to worship. The majority is not always right. (The majority wasn’t right either when Joshua & Caleb gave their report on the Promised Land.)
The comments on this thread are invariably off in all directions so I make no apology for addressing the crisis that faces the Church of England this weekend – and it’s not LLF.
Ian Paul has admonished me previously for hyperbole, so I will do my best to accommodate the delicate sensibilities of the members of the AC.
The AC has been economical with the truth. They did not set up an Independent Safeguarding Board. They set up a group of people to meet in a room and talk about what might happen.
It was a task force, or working group or project board. Who cares what they called themselves.
They were not an Independent Safeguarding Board.
The two issues are linked because they are both about sexual morality, honesty and the church’s reputation.
It’s also noteworthy that the best known abusers were also some of the best known anti gay voices. Has the CofE failed to address homosexuality because it was seduced by people who had a vested interest in keeping such topics off limits for discussion, secretive and embarrassing?
I would be quite content if the bishops of the Church of England were merely useless. But they are worse, far worse than that.
Taking the money of the faithful to peddle heresy. How can they escape damnation?
Pray for their souls …
Chrysostom worried about the souls of the clergy. In his commentary on Acts of the Apostles he writes, “The soul of a bishop is for all the world like a vessel in a storm: lashed from every side, by friends, by foes, by one’s own people, by strangers . . . I do not think there are many among bishops that will be saved, but many more that perish.”
James 3:1 teaches, “Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, for you know that we who teach shall be judged with greater strictness.” In his letter to Timothy, St. Paul expressed fear for the ordained because they, “may be puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil” or “may fall into reproach and the snare of the devil” (1 Tim. 3:6-7).
John Wycliffe once said
“An unlearned man with God’s grace does more for the Church than many graduates.
Scholastic studies rather breed than destroy heresies.” do as Christ said ‘pay close heed to their words, but do not always follow practices. For they say one thing, but they do another.’
All protestants had ‘issues’ with the Scholastic schools. That said, the leading proponents of the Reformation all regarded themselves as theological and biblical scholars, notwithstanding their claims of scripture alone. Ironic? Luther, for example, was a nominalist; probably the greatest philosophical error to enter Western and Christian thinking.
This is typical Catholic thinking: Luther was a nominalist, nominalism is wrong and scholasticism is right, therefore Luther is wron,g just like those who sail with him.
All of these things can be contended. But how remiss of Jesus Christ not to discourse on the problem of universals!
I think underlying all these problems is a theological problem that the CofE has created for itself and never made any real attempt to solve
I think it’s fair to say that the CofE acknowledges six things
1. That people exist who, through no fault of their own, experience attraction to the same sex
2. That it’s no longer tenable to suggest that such people should pretend they are attracted to the opposite sex or pretend they are naturally asexual/reclusive
3. That it’s not good for humans to be alone
4. That only straight couples may marry and have sex
5. That trying to decieve people is a sin
6. That being open and honest about sexuality in the church will frighten away both conservatives and liberals
The theological problem is in finding a workable plan for gay people to not be alone, but not be in a marriage either, which is robust enough that bishops can tell the truth about it. Instead of even attempting to think about that we have these, in my view silly, blessings which don’t solve the problem and which nobody really wants.
Most LGBT people want full equality in the church. Most conservatives want no recognition of gay relationships. Most LGBT people and most conservatives want clarity about what the cofe thinks of LGBT people.
Pretty good analysis in my opinion. That’s why I disagreed with the Bishops’ initiative in February to placate the pro-gay lobby by developing prayers that purported not to be about sex and marriage, but obviously *were* about sex and marriage. I viewed that as duplicitous.
What’s needed is to face the actual core issue: whether gay and lesbian couples can have sex and marry, or not.
The Church of England is divided deeply on that issue. The two-thirds rule on doctrinal change effectively blocks any change in the official teaching. It’s a rule book ‘construction’. But if it blocks change that 51% of the church actually want, then the divide won’t be resolved.
The only way that is going to work is to face the de facto reality that plural consciences exist and to ‘allow’ people to live in the Church according to their consciences. We need to protect one another’s ‘right of conscience’ not negate it… or else we need to divide.
Walking a tightrope of prayers that purport to be vaguely about general wellbeing in friendships, when everyone really knows that the truth is that these are for people mostly having gay and lesbian sex, some already married… isn’t really anything more than a balancing act… a delaying tactic… a further kicking of the can down the road… a perpetuation of disagreement and attrition…
Scotland took the route of plural consciences (and protection of consciences)… England should too. Because otherwise this real divide just goes on and on. And I fear it will. The Prayers are not sufficient for either those who affirm gay sex, or those who condemn it. The compromise involves charade. Just my view.
What’s needed is to face the actual core issue:
Yes!
whether gay and lesbian couples can have sex and marry, or not.
No. The actual core issue that needs to be faced is whether the Bible is the Word of God or not. That has to be established first, because everything else depends on the answer to that question.
Absolutely, “S”.
Are we lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God ? (cf. 2 Tim. 3:4);
and friends of the ‘world’, rather than friends of God ? (cf. James 4:4).
S
But as I have explained to you before lots of people do not agree that the bible presents a clear message that gay people must not marry or have sex.
But as I have explained to you before lots of people do not agree that the bible presents a clear message that gay people must not marry or have sex.
And once the Church of England has a position on the Bible, then it can have that discussion.
The problem is that now there are a lot of people in the Church of England who say that it doesn’t matter whether the Bible presents a clear message, because the Bible was written by human beings and could be wrong.
That’s why the core issue is to get rid of those people so that everyone involved in the discussion agrees that the Bible is the Word of God and has final authority.
Only then is it worth discussing what the Bible actually says and how clear its message is.
“The only way that is going to work is to face the de facto reality that plural consciences exist and to ‘allow’ people to live in the Church according to their consciences.”
Is there a “plurality” of the objective moral law? Yes, we must follow our conscience but this isn’t a loophole for doing anything we want.
Conscience is a judgment of reason using the objective principles of the moral law to judge the morality of acts in specific circumstances. Conscience is not itself the source of the moral law.
Everyone has a duty to form their conscience by educating and training it. We do this by learning and taking to heart the objective moral law as found in Scripture and 2000 years of Christian teaching. This forms conscience in objective moral truth as taught by Christ and His Church. A well-formed conscience will never contradict the objective moral law.
Pope John Paul II, in his great encyclical Veritatis Splendor, tells us that conscience is an “interior dialog of man with himself” about right and wrong. It “is also a dialog of man with God”: it is “the witness of God himself” calling him to obey the moral law, and is a person’s “witness of his own faithfulness or unfaithfulness.” This is the basis of the great dignity of the conscience: it derives from its witness to objective moral truth.
HJ would urge all Christians to read this inspired letter from Pope John Paul II:
https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_06081993_veritatis-splendor.html
The two-thirds rule on doctrinal change effectively blocks any change in the official teaching. It’s a rule book ‘construction’. But if it blocks change that 51% of the church actually want, then the divide won’t be resolved.
It doesn’t block change, it just means there’s a higher barrier to get over before change can happen. The United States has a similar rule regarding changes to its constitution: a constitutional amendment must be called for by a two-thirds majority in both Houses of its congress, or by a convention that can only be convened by the request of two-thirds of the states.
The point is that when it comes to big changes there should be a big barrier to change; and the onus is on those proposing change to show that the change is necessary. Changes should not be able to be made on a whim, but only if they are clearly necessary.
If the change really is necessary, and the need for it is obvious, then those in favour shouldn’t have any trouble convincing enough people to vote for it that they can achieve a two-thirds majority.
If they can’t convince enough people to make up a two-thirds majority, then the status quo should prevail.
If it helps, think of it like the difference between the standards of proof in a civil and a criminal case. In a civil case, the facts are decided on ‘the balance of probabilities’ — what is more likely than not to be true. This is a bit like requiring a bare majority. If the judge thinks that it’s 51% likely that A is telling the truth and B is lying, then the fact is found for A.
But in a criminal case, the prosecution’s facts must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and and benefit of the doubt goes to the defence. The bias is in favour of an acquittal, the standard of evidence required is far higher, and the burden of proof is entirely on the prosecution.
Requiring a two-thirds majority is somewhere in between. The bias is still in favour of the status quo, and the burden of proof is on those advocating change, and this is right and proper, but the standard of evidence required is not quite so high as ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ but still high enough to ensure that changes aren’t made frivolously or without very very good reason.
The compromise is fine. The Church of England is supposed to be a broad church ranging from liberal Catholics to conservative evangelicals (and even a few anti women priests and bishops Anglo Catholics who still get their own flying male bishops to stop them going to Rome).
If the Church of England went for full homosexual marriage in its churches like the US or Scottish Anglican churches then most of the evangelicals would leave. Those ultra liberals for whom blessings of homosexual couples are not enough can always become URC or Methodists as S suggests or Unitarians or Quakers, all of whom perform homosexual marriage services in England.
If the Church of England did not allow even blessings for homosexual couples then many of the liberal Catholics would leave. Those ultra conservative evangelicals for whom even blessings are too much can always become Baptists or Pentecostals or charismatic independents, none of whose churches allow even blessings of homosexual couples married in English civil law as the established church proposes, let alone marries them
Yep I agree entirely.
You’re mixing and conflating so many issues in that comment.
No Christian would disagree with points 1) though to 3).
Heterosexual “conversion” is not a condition of Christian fellowship, nor are homosexual people incapable of being responsible for their own decisions and actions. They have as much human dignity as children of God as anyone else. Homosexuality is a tendency toward immoral sexual acts, not a sin in and of itself. It is no more sinful than an inclination to heterosexual fornication or adultery. The vast majority of homosexuals cannot be said to choose to have the desires they have, and for many living with them is a trial, as it for any unmarried person.
Point 4) – “only straight couples may marry and have sex” – has been taught by the Church for over 2000 years (and for 2000 years before that in Judaism). It is firmly rooted in scripture and in the doctrines passed down by the Church despite the intellectual twists and turns by which some attempt to ‘reinterpret’ the sacred texts. Genital activity outside of marriage is sinful and damaging to our relationship with God.
God destined a dual purpose in sex – unity between man and woman as well an avenue for the procreation of children. When one completely and intentionally removes either one of these conditions, the use of sex degenerates into misuse.
Point 5) – “trying to deceive people is a sin” – absolutely. It’s from the Father of lies and the best lies have an element of truth. Telling it straight means honestly stating that homosexual persons are called to chastity through self-mastery and the support of disinterested friendship. By prayer and by grace, we can all gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection. Our primary identity first and forever is with that of Christ – not being “gay” or “straight”.
And don’t confuse chastity with celibacy. Homosexual people are not the only ones God has called to lifelong chastity as lay people. After all, if a heterosexual man or woman can live chastely, why is a chaste life impossible for a homosexual man or woman? It is true that this is not a reality all willingly embrace, it is nonetheless true that the same call of obedient dignity that precludes homosexual genital activity also precludes heterosexual genital activity outside of marriage. Chastity is a standard for Christian men and women, no matter their orientation. There is such a thing as chaste love!
Point 6) – “being open and honest about sexuality in the church will frighten away both conservatives and liberals” – certainly, truth spoken in love is needed.
Happy Jack
1. To be absolutely clear this point was about being attracted to the same sex. Lots of gay people do not have sex. Point 1 is still deeply controversial within Christianity. Some people still assert that we are all essentially heterosexual and that being gay is merely a deviant behavior or vice or addiction. The CofE leadership does seem to accept that people who are by nature gay do exist.
5. I cannot agree that the CofEs prohibition on same sex marriage and sexual relationships is anything like a straight person choosing to remain single and abstaining. It’s like saying there’s no difference it’s as offensive frankly as saying there’s no difference between a person in the UK going on a diet and a person in Yemen starving to death through famine. Most Humans simple are not built to be starved of relationships
To be absolutely clear this point was about being attracted to the same sex. Lots of gay people do not have sex. Point 1 is still deeply controversial within Christianity. Some people still assert that we are all essentially heterosexual and that being gay is merely a deviant behavior or vice or addiction.
Just to be clear these are not contradictory positions. It is possible to believe both that some people are attracted to members of the same sex and that all people are essentially heterosexual, and that the same-sex attraction experienced by some is, though no fault of theirs, still fundamentally a result of the corruption introduced into the universe by the Fall.
That is, in a perfect unfallen universe those people would not be attracted to members of the same sex. But because the universe is fallen, they are attracted to members of their own sex. This is not their fault; but neither is it how they were meant to be. It is best understood as an injury done to them, not something they are responsible for but still something that cripples them form being who they are supposed to be. Like, for example, congential diseases such as spina bifida or cycstic fibrosis.
Most Humans simple are not built to be starved of relationships
So? Lots of people are ‘starved of relationships’ through no fault of their own. What about ugly people?
S
To be clear the point I was making, my point 1, is that the CofE does seem to accept that not all people are essentially heterosexual and I think it’s actually difficult to read Lambeth 1.10 any other way in good faith.
That together with the other 5 points leads them to a theological conundrum that they don’t want to even talk about.
Ugly people are not starved of relationship! I’m not especially attractive and I’m married. I’m sure Stephen Fry and Elton John would say the same.
That together with the other 5 points leads them to a theological conundrum that they don’t want to even talk about.
Oh there’s no doubt the Church of England has got itself into a right theological bind.
But my point is that I don’t think that ‘Point 1 is still deeply controversial within Christianity’.
Your evidence for that claim (ie, that point1 is deeply controversial) is that ‘Some people still assert that we are all essentially heterosexual and that being gay is merely a deviant behavior[sic] or vice or addiction’ and I was pointing out that asserting this is in no way incompatible with point 1.
Ugly people are not starved of relationship! I’m not especially attractive and I’m married. I’m sure Stephen Fry and Elton John would say the same.
Sorry should’ve been more precise. I meant ugly people who aren’t stinking rich.
S
It may not be incompatible with your reading of point 1, but your reading of point 1 is not what I mean.
By point 1 I mean that the CofE seems to have accepted that some people are naturally gay, not a mistake or a disease of the mind or what have you.
By point 1 I mean that the CofE seems to have accepted that some people are naturally gay, not a mistake or a disease of the mind or what have you.
So you’re saying that by point 1 you mean God intended for some people to be exclusively attracted to members of the same sex?
You’re right, that is controversial. I certainly don’t think the Church of England has that as its settled position.
S
I think my writing skills are not really up to writing a statement that you can clearly understand, sorry.
S
I’m not stinking rich. When I got married my husband was wealthier than me. Ugly people still get married.
To Peter and Susanna, et al;
What about people who, apparently through no fault of their own, experience strong predispositions towards coprolalia, or kleptomania, or nymphomania, or mythomania, or psychopathy, or sex-addiction ?
What do you think the Church should do about, or for, these people? Change ‘Christian Ethics’ ?
Why are you addressing me ?
I have no idea what you are talking about or what possible connection there is to my comment about the ISB
Why are you addressing me ?
Suspect the reference was to Peter JERMEY
“S” is right, Peter – I meant Peter Jeremy.
Sorry for the imprecision.
Pellegrino
I hesitate to speak about other conditions about which I have no education or experience – and I don’t even remember what all of these are – but these are all negative behaviors, not personal characteristics. Attraction to the same sex is not a behavior and, in my view, it’s also not negative. The neutral position is to not do these things. In orientation there is no neutral.
Kleptomania is negative because it harms other people to have their possessions stolen.
What is the negative impact of being gay as opposed to straight?
Attraction to the same sex is not a behavior and, in my view, it’s also not negative. The neutral position is to not do these things. In orientation there is no neutral.
But your argument, as I understand it, and it seems Pellegrino has reached the same understanding, is that you are saying that because someone has a strong attraction to members of the same sex that it is not wrong for them to behave in a way which gives expression to that attraction.
Pellegrino is not saying that the attraction itself is wrong, but simply saying that the argument ‘if you have a strong attraction to a particular behaviour, then it’s okay to engage in that behaviour’ is false, by presenting examples of behaviours which people might have strong attractions to them but that doesn’t make the behaviour of acting on those attractions moral.
No one thinks that being attracted to members of the same sex is per se sinful.
Kleptomania is negative because it harms other people to have their possessions stolen.
But stealing is not wrong because it harms other people. Stealing is wrong because it is a sin. It also happens to harm other people but the fundamental thing that makes it wrong is that it is sinful. Christians may be deontologists or virtue ethicists but they are definitely not consequentialists.
S
No that’s not my argument
My argument is that the CofE needs to come up with a consistent and comprehensive theology of LGBT, which doesn’t foster sexual abuse.
You say, nobody thinks attraction to the same sex is in itself a sin, but actually a lot of Christians *do* think so. Indeed the original new (Anglican backed!) anti gay law in Uganda made it a crime to be gay, even if you had never had sex. The Christians who protested my towns pride event were claiming all LGBT people were sinful. I can give you more examples if you like!
My argument is that the CofE needs to come up with a consistent and comprehensive theology of LGBT, which doesn’t foster sexual abuse.
Well we all agree with that.
You say, nobody thinks attraction to the same sex is in itself a sin, but actually a lot of Christians *do* think so. Indeed the original new (Anglican backed!) anti gay law in Uganda made it a crime to be gay, even if you had never had sex.
Do you have evidence for that? I can’t find the text of the law but reports eg https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/05/30/ugandas-president-signs-repressive-anti-lgbt-law say:
‘Uganda’s President Yoweri Museveni has signed a bill criminalizing same sex conduct, including potentially the death penalty for those convicted of “aggravated homosexuality,” into law.’
Note: ‘conduct’ not inclination
The Christians who protested my towns pride event were claiming all LGBT people were sinful.
Were they claiming that because they thought that the inclination was sinful, or because they thought that all people with the inclination exhibited same-sex behaviour? If the latter then they may have been factually wrong, but that doesn’t amount to a belief that the inclination itself is sinful.
I can give you more examples if you like!
Do please. With verbatim quotations and references so we can see the context, please, not paraphrases.
S
You may say “we all agree with that”, but if that were true then why has the CofE spent a decade avoiding having that discussion or doing that theological work?
from Reuters:
https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/uganda-passes-bill-banning-identifying-lgbtq-2023-03-21/
The Christian protesters at our town’s pride were yelling “pedophile!” at anyone who walked passed and trying to intimidate people with mumbo jumbo chants. I very much doubt that such thugs were willing to show compassion on gay people who dont have sex.
I also present this statement from the ACNA because they are Anglican and many in the CofE have sympathies towards them
https://anglicanchurch.net/sexuality-and-identity-a-pastoral-statement-from-the-college-of-bishops/
They dont see admitting to being attracted to the same sex or being gay as a sin, but they certainly see it as a negative thing and are very clearly opposed to publicly admitting to be gay because of the assumptions that other people make about gay people(!!!)
https://cbmw.org/nashville-statement/
This statement was released a few years back to divide the “orthodox” from the chaff and it clearly states that identifying as being gay is against God. This statement was signed by various CofE leaders including William Taylor, the rector of St Helens Bishopgate
To Peter Jeremy :
Thank you for your comments, Peter.
My local vicar experiences same-attraction, but he doesn’t act upon his sexual orientation because he believes (as do quite a few pro-gay scholars) that the Bible consistently condemns all homosexual behaviour, without qualification. Through God’s help, my local vicar is happily and joyfully celibate – as too, no doubt, are many millions of single Christians throughout the world, regardless of sexual orientations of whatever kinds.
Because of the actions of our primordial ancestors, all people are born with a predisposition towards sinful behaviour. I agree with “S”, that human moral error has a fundamental Dentological defintion – because it is God who defines the meaning of ‘Sin’. But furthermore, I would say that not only does the Bible condemn same-gender sexual practices, but medical science effectively does as well – via its documentation of the inherent, deleterious, physical effects associated with customary homosexual practices. In particular, the human body is simply not designed to accommodate typical male homosexual practices, which is why there are a whole host of intrinsic, serious, physical dangers involved. Indeed, the apostle Paul may be alluding to these in Romans 1:27.
Pellegrino
Do you think your vicar is sinful for being gay? Or are there good gays and bad gays?
To Peter Jeremy :
Your question is like saying :
” Is Linda, the local Church Deaconess sinful, just because she is congenitally inclined towards nymphomania ? Or are there good nymphomaniacs and bad nymphomaniacs ? ”
My answer would be :
“Linda is congenitally a sinner, just like everybody else – but thank God – she has been saved by Christ, and is being saved by Christ, because she is lovingly obedient to God, and is thus empowered by His holy Spirit.”
(cf. Eph. 2:1-3; 2 Tim. 1:9; 1 Cor. 1:18; Romans 1:5; Romans 8: 5-14)
Pellegrino
I think a significant part of the issue for the CofE is in managing to treat abstinent LGBT people well and a huge part of that is treating them as terrible sinners, but then glibly suggesting everyone is a sinner. If the CofE was treating gay sinners in the same way as straight sinners we would not be having this conversation.
Of course there are examples where people, especially priests, are ostensibly abstinent, single and thriving. But these are generally people who are receiving far more pastoral and social support than is available to ordinary people. The weight of evidence is that for most gay people the requirement of remaining single does significant harm and the combination of that with negative attitudes towards gay people not only fosters feelings of isolation and very harmful behaviors, but also leaves adults and children very vulnerable to spiritual and sexual abuse.
The CofE needs to either accept that gay people can form relationships, as straight people, or come up with a solution to stop the harm being done to LGBT people by church teaching.
I don’t think you can talk of sin as merely an arbitrary list of proscribed things that we don’t need to give any thought to. Christ tells us to consider the purpose the Law more deeply than that. Perhaps the classic example is Luke 14, where He asks whether it is lawful to heal on the Sabbath, or not? And points out that no one would say a child or ox who fell in a well on the Sabbath should be left there.
The Great Commandment is instructive: Jesus says in Mark 12 that there is no commandment greater than to love God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength, and to love your neighbour as yourself. St Paul in Romans 13 expands on this to say that this sums up the commandments, and that love is the fulfilling of the law because love does no wrong to a neighbour.
HJ My point being that the Bishops and Synod having stated theologically the nature of marriage and enshrined it in their praxis, are then, appeare to want to, act contrary to their words is what I think the Lord Jesus was referring to.
I am not sure how that applied to Luther.Was he an hypocrite?
In Psalms 138:2 the Psalmist tells us
I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.
God’s word does not change as man’s often does; nor does He act contrary to His Word.
We are often accused of being Bible Worshipers,well. if God has exalted His Word ABOVE His Name then why should it not be venerated?
Psalm 119 is a virtual commentry on the nature and supremacy of God’s word in contrast.
Happy Jack agrees with your general position. However, he was making the point that the root of societies rejection of so many Christian truths and the Church of England’s too, lies in the abandonment of the use of reason to understand God (as sought, admittedly sometimes poorly, by the Scholastic schools) through the poison of nominalism. A case of the ‘baby being thrown out with the bathwater’.
Nominalism is a philosophical theory that universal abstract ideas such as truth and goodness do not exist because they are not founded upon objective reality. It holds that the words we use for such concepts are merely convenient labels, and that reality cannot be perceived by every human mind through the use of such labels; there are no “universals.”
If there are no universals, then we cannot really know God, nor can we know about the nature of grace or sin in our lives. We cannot know where we stand with God, as God himself acts arbitrarily; His acts lack an objective nature and do not correspond to human reason. We therefore cannot reliably use reason or logic to discern good from evil, justice from injustice and therefore we cannot freely and reliably choose what is good.
Martin Luther and John Calvin were both heavily influenced by nominalism. To different degrees, they limited the utility of reason in discerning truths of faith and relied instead upon subjective experience and private interpretation.
Their progeny is competing biblical interpretations amongst Christian churches. In addition, the rejection of universals is the case of the great error of our time: moral relativism; and its sister: moral consequentialism.
https://www.calledtocommunion.com/2014/01/post-tenebras-lux/
Jack, rejection of Christian truth is a matter of the heart not the head. Only a minority followed Jesus in ancient Israel and it had nothing to do with Plato or Aristotle. I’m not aware of passionate debates among rabbis about the problem of universals in Talmud.
The Jews understood they were the People of God subject to His laws given to Moses and that they were subject to the authority of those sitting in the “Seat of Moses”. The Jews in ancient Israel had the foundations laid for belief in the existence of God and His revelation through scripture and ultimately through Christ. They had been prepared by centuries to expect the Messiah.
Ever heard of the “preambles of faith” – things that are logically prior to Divine revelation? They include God’s existence, the Divine attributes of God, the immortality of the human soul, and the natural moral law. The tool used to account for these things is philosophy: knowing the ultimate causes of things through natural reason. For some unbelievers, the preambles of faith can be their first introduction to God, speaking to them in ways they can understand without faith, to be more open to the revealed claims of Christianity.
People who don’t think or talk about God, the soul, or right and wrong (unlike ancient Jews) are by definition closed off to faith. Get them talking and thinking about these things and they will be more open to hearing what Christianity says about them. They may also begin to see that there’s a logical consistency between what reason says is true and the core beliefs of our biblical faith.
Ever heard of the “heresy of fideism”: i.e., the belief that we can only have certain knowledge of God only through Divine revelation?
William of Ockham was a nominalist and fideist, holding that belief in God is only a matter of faith and not from knowledge, this led him to deny all the alleged proofs of God. Martin Luther followed suit. Regarding the mysteries of Christian faith, he wrote, “All the articles of our Christian faith, which God has revealed to us in His Word, are in presence of reason sheerly impossible, absurd, and false.” And “Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has.”
Philosophical nominalism is an insurmountable barrier to all this.
Please provide the reference for those quotes of Luther and the words around them, ie their context. They might be nothing more than an expansion of Tertullian’s famous “I believe it BECAUSE it is impossible” which related to things like the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection.
So you think you can baffle me people here with a little philosophy? Here is a question for you. Is logic prior to God?
And how terribly remiss of Jesus Christ not to discourse on the question of universals! The assumptions, logical jumps and errors in what you’ve already said about it on this thread are considerable. The idea that Luther “did not believe in good or evil because he was a nominalist” (my inverted commas summarising your claim) is nonsense. Someone you trusted once told you that calling someone a nominalist is a knockout blow, and you now use this questionable claim to attack a man in church history whom you dislike (and whose views are not that simple).
Ever heard of the “preambles of faith” – things that are logically prior to Divine revelation? They include God’s existence, the Divine attributes of God, the immortality of the human soul, and the natural moral law. The tool used to account for these things is philosophy: knowing the ultimate causes of things through natural reason. For some unbelievers, the preambles of faith can be their first introduction to God, speaking to them in ways they can understand without faith, to be more open to the revealed claims of Christianity.
This boils down to: you have to give Aboriginal peoples a course in philosophy before they are fit to hear the gospel and respond to it. This is nonsense, as the experience of many a 19th century missionary in subSaharan Africa will verify. The Bible is a *narrative* to live by, a narrative that is true, and preliterate peoples grasp it readily. You will need a decent translation but you do not need Aristotle or Plato. The “church fathers” simply wrote apologetics for philosophers, rather than for Aboriginals. To return to Tertullian, “What has Athens to do with Jerusalem, the [pagan] Temple to do with the church?”
Happy Jack –
Is a person who fanatically holds religious beliefs that are insufficiently supported by Scripture, a practising ‘fideist’ ?
Pellegrino: Jack is a diehard Catholic – a comment he would gladly accept.
Alan
The name and the word ?
Is that not Jesus?
Scripture bears witness
They (moses’ 5 books, the Psalms and the prophets) speak of Him.
Hi T1,
It seems on the blog I cannot reply to your point. And it might seem a small point, but it is symptomatic of the problem that the Anglican church has got itself into. Although the evangelical wing keeps appealing to Scripture, it seems unable to grasp and clarify its own teaching based on the text of Scripture – which is at variance to its own tradition. This has enabled the LGBTQ community to weaponise the church’s teaching.
Like yourself, evangelical Anglicans seem unable to correctly define the terminology Scripture uses. You say “Sexual immorality is adultery” – this is manifestly not correct. I think you mean adultery is sexual immorality. Sexual immorality is a translation of porneia and includes incest, homosexual acts – and adultery. The Bible has a very specific definition of adultery, which is when a married woman has sexual intercourse with a man who is not her husband. Jesus did not confine the grounds for divorce to adultery. And what is more, he made it perfectly clear he was only addressing husbands – answering the question he was asked. No matter how many times you quote Matthew 19 back to me – it clearly does not say what you say it says. But I do not blame you for this – the confusion goes to the highest level in the academy and the church.
And what is more, he made it perfectly clear he was only addressing husbands – answering the question he was asked
Well no he didn’t; Mark 10:12 addresses wives as well.
Hi S,
I was referring, as I think I said, to Matthew 19 and the answer he gave. By the very fact he refers separately to wives in Mark 10:12, makes it even more clear he was previously referring to husbands.
Jesus was not asked about wives because their grounds for divorce were not in dispute. The competing groups of Jewish rabbis of the day accepted that their grounds for divorce were much broader. In Mark 10:12 Jesus is applying the general principle – marriage is intended to be for life, but divorce is allowed – to wives in the same way he did to husbands. And his comment in Mark 10 does not make sense unless wives could indeed divorce their husbands.
By the very fact he refers separately to wives in Mark 10:12, makes it even more clear he was previously referring to husbands.
Okay, but doesn’t the fact that the answer he gives for wives is the same as for husbands show that everything he said previously about husbands also applies to wives?
marriage is intended to be for life, but divorce is allowed
I dunno that ‘allowed’ is quite the right word. Jesus is clear that it’s something that shouldn’t happen; but because we are corrupt sinful being living in a fallen world it will; and so if it does here’s the rules for it. But really it just shouldn’t ever happen.
That seems to place it into the same category as, say, slavery.
“Okay, but doesn’t the fact that the answer he gives for wives is the same as for husbands show that everything he said previously about husbands also applies to wives?”
That is not correct, is it? He gave a specific grounds for divorce for the husbands – but he gave no grounds for divorce for the wives.
The grounds for divorce for wives had stood for more than a 1000 years. To change the status quo would be a revolution in biblical ethics – and specific Pentateuchal teaching – unprecedented in the literature – that his audience would have to presume – that is, based on something he did not say. What is more, it would leave wives in the gospel era in a worse position than they were previously.
Even if on your own argument you add wider sexual immorality to adultery that just restricts the grounds for a man to divorce his wife solely to those still. Otherwise a divorce would be against Christ’s teachings. If as you say he was only addressing husbands then on your logical literalism you are suggesting lesbianism is apparently a grounds for a male husband to divorce his wife. Does not prevent a male homosexual couple from having their unions blessed or a lesbian couple for that matter, even if they are not allowed a full marriage in a Christian church as a man who divorced his wife where she was not involved in sexual immorality could only have a blessing in church not a full remarriage
Perhaps the simplest solution for individual churches, if not for the Anglican communion as a whole , is not to perform or bless any marriage.
Marriage only came into the church in the Middle Ages. And the biblical evidence is overwhelming that it was considered to be a social contract between the couple, involving the two families, and perhaps a public celebration – with no priest, temple, or church involvement.
The concept of ‘holy matrimony’ is a throwback to Roman Catholic sacramentalism, which, if I am not mistaken, at least theoretically, the Anglican church has denied ?
Perhaps the simplest solution for individual churches, if not for the Anglican communion as a whole , is not to perform or bless any marriage.
Certainly that isn’t a mad idea, but I don’t think it solves the problem; because the Church (and therefore individual denominations) would still have to rule on what things that the state calls marriages are in fact not sinful. Because Jesus certainly envisages that there are marriages which would be recognised by the state, but which would be in fact adulterous relationships.
So while the Church could easily not perform or bless marriages, it would still have to recognise some, but not all, state-registered marriages as being valid contexts for sexual activity. And defining which ones to recognise just gets you into the same problem again.
Personally I am with that noted Anglican C.S.Lewis: ‘My own view is that the Churches should frankly recognize that the majority of the British people are not Christians and, therefore, cannot be expected to live Christian lives. There ought to be two distinct kinds of marriage: one governed by the State with rules enforced on all citizens, the other governed by the Church with rules enforced by her on her own members. This distinction ought to be quite sharp, so that a man knows which couples are married in a Christian sense and which are not.’
In the Middle Ages the established national church in England WAS the Roman Catholic church of course. The Anglican church was not even created to be replace it as the established church in the 16th century
But the CofE would still need a position on gay people and gay couples, which is really the problem here
But the CofE would still need a position on gay people and gay couples, which is really the problem here
No, the real problem is that the Church of England needs a position on the Bible.
S
There’s certainly lots of issues of biblical interpretation, but as has been said endlessly on these pages, it is really difficult to get the bible to clearly say anything about gay people.
There’s certainly lots of issues of biblical interpretation, but as has been said endlessly on these pages, it is really difficult to get the bible to clearly say anything about gay people.
And once the Church of England has a position on the Bible you can make that case. But it’s premature to make it when there are still people in the Church of England saying that it doesn’t matter what the Bible says, clear or not, because the Bible could be wrong.
Only once the Church of England is clear that the Bible gets the final word on the matter is it worth discussing what that final word actually is.
Anything else is putting the cart before the horse — deciding what conclusion you want to reach and then working backwards to try to prove it.
S
No its not premature.
I didn’t wait for the CofEs permission to read the Bible
I didn’t wait for the CofEs permission to read the Bible
I meant premature in terms of solving the issue of the Church of England coming up with a coherent theology.
If you were to sue me, the first thing that would have to be decided would be whether the case would be heard in the American or the British courts.
It would be premature if you to start arguing based on what US law says, before it had been settled which law actually applies.
Same thing here: first the Church of England has to decide whether the law of the Bible applies, before people start arguing about the Bible says.
S
Well it better hurry up, while we wait for the foot dragging, more children and young adults are being abused by priests, more children and adults are being treated like dirt, more people are leaving the church and losing their faith
Well it better hurry up
No one would argue with that. It’s been nearly a century since the Church of England started to drift from its doctrine of the Bible, sorting it out is well overdue!
S
Again you’re saying no one would disagree with that, but the bishops and the majority of synod have spent the last decade trying to avoid having these discussions.
Again you’re saying no one would disagree with that, but the bishops and the majority of synod have spent the last decade trying to avoid having these discussions.
Okay, yes, I should have been more specific. No one other than the people deliberately trying to avoid making a decision would disagree with that.
S
I think there’s an awful lot of people in the church who have a vested interest in not being honest and open about relationships, sex and marriage. I think eventually parliament will act, possibly making tougher laws around concealing sexual abuse.
I think there’s an awful lot of people in the church who have a vested interest in not being honest and open about relationships, sex and marriage.
You’re right that there are a lot of people whose positions depend on the lie that unity is possible, yes.
I think eventually parliament will act, possibly making tougher laws around concealing sexual abuse.
The Home Secretary has already said the government will be introducing a bill to create a mandatory reporting law, so that’s already happening.
S
I wasn’t talking about unity. I was talking about the people behaving in a criminal way, immoral way or manner that is contrary to church teaching and the people covering up for them and also the people who think that the church’s reputation is dependent on continuing to ignore these problems.
I wasn’t talking about unity.
Then I’m lost because I thought you were talking about the people who have spent the last decade trying to avoid having the much-needed discussions about the Church of England’s position on sex and relationships out of fear that coming to any conclusion would lead to a mass walkout by one side or the other.
“There ought to be two distinct kinds of marriage: one governed by the State with rules enforced on all citizens, the other governed by the Church with rules enforced by her on her own members.”
I am a fan of C. S. Lewis – but there is no indication anywhere in scripture that marriages should be registered by the state or controlled by the church – and in England the state has only registered marriages since c. 1850. And of course, Lewis himself ‘bent’ the church rules by marrying a divorcee.
In this area, perhaps more than any other, it is difficult to divorce our culture and church traditions from the Bible’s teaching. And I think evangelicals need to be clear about these things before they tell others what they should believe and do?
there is no indication anywhere in scripture that marriages should be registered by the state or controlled by the church
But marriages are going to be registered by the state, if only because they have tax implications, so Christians do have to work out how they are going to respond to that (which may be by ignoring the state marriage registration system altogether, of course, and probably would be if, say, the state marriage system allowed marriages of three or more people).
As for ‘controlled by the church’, as above, the Church does need some way of being able to tell which sexual relationships are sinful and which aren’t. You can’t just leave it up to the couples to decide for themselves — that would be pure sexual antinomianism.
Lewis married his wife only in a registry office, not a church. So he was not hypocritical. She was also the love of his life and the only woman he ever married but sadly died of cancer. The excellent Shadowlands with Anthony Hopkins shows it well
Shadowlands has strengths but was castigated by those who knew Lewis.
Shadowlands has strengths but was castigated by those who knew Lewis
It’s an excellent film qua film but I gather it does play loose with the facts; appreciate it as art but you shouldn’t use it as a source of biographical information.
But in real life the Revered Peter Bide performed a marriage ceremony for Lewis in hospital. So what sort of marriage is that? We can see the confusion here?
Marriage is a creation ordinance – does the state or the church need to be involved in it at all? I think it is a question worth asking. We have been attending our Anglican church for nearly 4 years now, and our Rector has not asked to see our sleeping arrangements or examine our marriage certificate.
Rethinking this might not solve all the problems, but it is a good starting point? The tension between the church’s teaching/Christian culture – and the teaching of scripture contributes to the lack of clarity on the subject – so often on these blogs people have completely different to epistemologies meaning people are talking across each other.
Marriage is a creation ordinance – does the state or the church need to be involved in it at all?
The Church needs to be able to give people reliable information on how they can avoid sinning.
The State has a right to know who is married to whom, because (even if adultery is legal) it is charged with enforcing laws about inheritance.
1 What constitutes a marriage in Christianity? Biblically it is far more deeper than a social contract, it is covenental. And before God (whether in a church or hotel). And neither is it a protestant sacrament.
2 What constitutes a valid marriage outside of Christianity? By the State? (Does the State recognise foreign marriages?) At law? By other religions?
3 What are the purpose of registration of births, deaths and marriages? It would be necessary to to look back, at the social and political and religious drivers for legislation including Hansard.
4. While I’d not articulated it as Colin H has I was coming to be of the mind that the Church could withdraw from marriage services.
5 But that could could open the door to the church exodus on questions of sexual ethics – a move that would be more than welcome by Queer Theory strategists and by social and theological liberals. A recent publication lead by the Bishop of Durham , I understand, would be a strong pointer to direction of travel of the CoE. There is a large disconnect between bringing Christianity and support to all human living arrangements and endorsing and giving the stamp of approval to them all, mal and dis functional as they are outside the bounds of a Biblical, Christian family life and upbringing
But that could could open the door to the church exodus on questions of sexual ethics – a move that would be more than welcome by Queer Theory strategists and by social and theological liberals.
Indeed. There is no necessary need for the Church to do marriage services; but there is a need for the Church to be clear about what sexual activity is sinful. Doing marriage services allows it to do that. Withdrawing from doing marriage services would be fine provided some other way was found to fulfil the Church’s obligation to be clear to people what is sin and how they can avoid sinning.
But if withdrawing from doing marriage services were to be used as a way for the Church ceding the ground of sex to the Enemy and effectively saying ‘it’s up to the conscience of each couple and whatever they think is loving and holy, is’ then that would not be acceptable.
And therefore I don’t see the Church withdrawing from doing marriage services as solving the actual conflict, which isn’t about marriage so much as sexual antinomialism, and which would therefore just shift to being about what sexual relationships the Church regarded as sinful.
“Indeed. There is no necessary need for the Church to do marriage services; but there is a need for the Church to be clear about what sexual activity is sinful. Doing marriage services allows it to do that. Withdrawing from doing marriage services would be fine provided some other way was found to fulfil the Church’s obligation to be clear to people what is sin and how they can avoid sinning.”
These are good points. However, we do not perform a ceremony when somebody gets a new job – but this does not mean work ethics cannot be addressed. Getting out of performing marriages potentially removes a flash point and separates out the two issues.
“We have been attending our Anglican church for nearly 4 years now, and our Rector has not asked to see our sleeping arrangements or examine our marriage certificate.”
Why would the Rector even think about doing that? The Pastoral guidance to clergy is very clear that they are not to ask intrusive questions about the personal lives of church members. You make this point very well when you say that “we do not perform a ceremony when somebody gets a new job – but this does not mean work ethics cannot be addressed.” And that is true of every area of life.
Gossip can be far more dangerous to others than what a couple do in the privacy of their own home.
The Pastoral guidance to clergy is very clear that they are not to ask intrusive questions about the personal lives of church members.
But what if — without being asked — the couple themselves volunteer that they are unmarried and living in a sexual relationship? Surely then the pastoral guidance is that the clergy must point out to them that this is not an acceptable state of affairs and must be changed forthwith?
(Obviously if a couple simply lie and say they are married when they aren’t there’s nothing the clergy member can do — clergy aren’t detectives — but the couple have added lying to their sexual sin and will answer for that at the day of judgement)
However, we do not perform a ceremony when somebody gets a new job – but this does not mean work ethics cannot be addressed.
But the Church doesn’t believe that you can only validly work for one employer, so there’s no need, if someone starts moonlighting, for the Church to be able to say which one is someone’s ‘official’ employer and which one is the sinful extra employment.
As I say a ceremony isn’t necessary for this but clear rules are and so the conflict would just move to the rules; unless of course the rules were simply ignored and no discipline placed on those who teach against the, and that’s worse because…
Getting out of performing marriages potentially removes a flash point and separates out the two issues.
… isn’t one of the things that this whole mess has taught us that ‘removing flash points’ just enables parallel, mutually incompatible doctrines to thrive in the denomination?
Better to bring disagreements into the open and deal with them honestly in sunshine than hide them under a deceitful pretence of unity, where they will only fester in the dank gaps of the constructive ambiguity.
Flash points are good.
But performing marriages in church creates a flashpoint that has no Scriptural basis. In contrast the church is mandated to teach sexual and work ethics for believers – 1 Corinthians 5:12-13.
“But the Church doesn’t believe that you can only validly work for one employer.”
But it might have a view about being porn star? Or running a loan company that resulted in distress for many? I know Christians get terribly wound up about marriage, putting it in a separate ethical box because that’s part of our culture in the West. Just to be clear – I am not saying it is unimportant.
But it might have a view about being porn star?
If it doesn’t it ought to. But I’m not sure I see the relevance.
Okay let me put it this way: how do you see the Church giving up on marriage ceremonies but still teaching sexual ethics working in practice?
Say a(n opposite-sex) couple turns up to the service, gets involved in the various rotas, etc etc. Then six months later they bring another woman along and introduce her as their live-in girlfriend.
When the Church does marriage ceremonies then it is quite easy to say no, that’s not okay, you vowed before God to be faithful only to each other; this is wrong and you must stop it.
But if the Church doesn’t do marriage ceremonies, how does that work in practice?
S
How can the CofE teach on sexual ethics when it is so heavily involved in covering up sexual abuse? In one recent case senio leaders allegedly knew the abuse was happening for several decades, but did nothing because the perpetrator was successful in bringing young people into the church.
You may as well be looking to Putin for ethical teaching on diplomacy.
The church leadership needs to repent of sexual immorality and dishonesty before there can even be a question of whether they are capable of offering moral guidance on sex.
The church leadership needs to repent of sexual immorality and dishonesty before there can even be a question of whether they are capable of offering moral guidance on sex.
That’s why we shouldn’t get our moral guidance on sex from church leaders. We should get it from the Bible.
The bible agrees with me so I am AOK with that.
Hi Geoff,
“What constitutes a marriage in Christianity? Biblically it is far deeper than a social contract, it is covenantal. And before God (whether in a church or hotel).”
I do not want to get side-tracked, but it is difficult to find this taught in Scripture—which highlights my point above. The most comprehensive treatment I know of the subject is by Gordon Hugenberger —he set out in his PhD study to establish your argument —and demonstrated that such cannot be clearly evidenced from Scripture.
And I think for good reason – because would it not make the marriage of atheists invalid?
Hugenberger, Gordon P. Marriage as a Covenant: Biblical Law and Ethics as Developed from Malachi. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1994.
Hello Colin,
I distinguished Christian marriage (as in marriage between two believers) as being a theologically mirror of our covenanting God; consequently it is covenantal/legal which is deeper and metaphysically-
one- flesh- union- consummation, more profound (and a PhD is not needed to see, or not see, that) which is Biblical, from marriage according to state civil law which may or may not be categorised as social and/or contractual (or even as religious in a theocratic state).
Geoff,
““Consequently it is covenantal/legal which is deeper and metaphysically-
one- flesh- union- consummation, more profound [than] marriage according to state civil law which may or may not be categorised as social and/or contractual.”
I respect this sincerely held Confessional position—but it is difficult to establish from the text of scripture with or without a PhD.
I see that as your own your PhD held opinion as patronising tosh, Colin, and you set out no concise reason for your thesis.
Similarly I certainly do not accept your PhD thesis that God *divorced* Israel. I do not see that a being supported by the whole sweep of bilical theology, even if restricted to covenantal theology.
And there is NT scriptural warrant not the least, through Jesus’ wedding attendance, for the church carrying out wedding services as part of continuity rather than discontinuity with the OT.
Similarly I certainly do not accept your PhD thesis that God *divorced* Israel
Oh is that the ‘God divorced Israel’ guy? Aaaah.
Geoff
I obviously can’t speak for every gay Christian, but I genuinely think you’d struggle to find any who want the church just to ignore topics of sexuality. Indeed, for my generation, part of the problem was that local churches largely outsourced sexual ethics to American neo-puritans, which has caused endless problems.
I’d say most gay Christians want the church to be more moral, consistent and honest when it comes to issues of sex and sexuality
S
We seem to have lost the thread , but you say:
“When the Church does marriage ceremonies then it is quite easy to say no, that’s not okay, you vowed before God to be faithful only to each other; this is wrong and you must stop it.”
What has been vowed by a couple before God in a marriage relationship (such a concept seems to have no basis in Scripture) —is, I suggest, not the issue for the church’s teaching. It is what the Bible teaches that makes something right or wrong?
This is the point I originally made – there is a misunderstanding about our own Scripture that muddies the water, probably beyond redemption. Thus LLF was built on an unstable platform—a strange combination of tradition, culture, and a misunderstood biblical teaching.
It refers to polygamy when it means polygyny (182) —it is interesting that it is keen to get the LGBT definitions correct but cannot get the definitions from their own Scriptures correct.
That 1 Timothy 3:12 teaches deacons should be married only once—that is a highly unlikely interpretation.
It sees that the issue in Matthew 19 was the Shammaite teaching on adultery (248) —it was not.
That Jesus changes the teaching of Moses and introduces a mutuality (249) —this would be a remarkable thing if he did—and there is no basis for it in the text.
That men remarrying after an invalid divorce are committing adultery (249) —but NIV (et al) has distanced themselves (correctly I think) from this understanding of the text (the ‘adultery’ was in the invalid divorce).
That God is active in the joining together of two people in marriage (252) —nowhere does the Bible teach this. Again, what about the atheists?
etc, etc,
The understanding that God puts each marriage together has been encouraged by what appears to be an idiosyncratic translation of Matthew 19:6 in the NIV:
“Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” (Matthew 19:6, NIV)
ESV has:
“What therefore God has joined together [the creation ordinance of marriage], let not man separate [i.e., mankind is not to invent its own rules].” (Matthew 19:6, ESV)
What has been vowed by a couple before God in a marriage relationship (such a concept seems to have no basis in Scripture) —is, I suggest, not the issue for the church’s teaching. It is what the Bible teaches that makes something right or wrong?
Is that a question? There’s a question mark but it’s not phrased as a question. Do you mean ‘is it what the Bible teaches…’?
Nevertheless, I’m afraid from reading your reply I’m still no closer to understanding how you envisage this (ie, the Church making its teaching clear without some way of establishing which marriages are recognised and which aren’t) playing out in practice. Could you give such an example?
S
These are good questions. I suggest that the church is free to make its teaching on marriage clear from Scripture —but it avoids having to pass judgement on each couple that comes before them to be married.
It is often pastorally wise to let the preaching address the conscience without personally confronting people in the public domain —which is the situation the church has got itself into with its non-biblical practice of performing wedding ceremonies.
I suggest that the church is free to make its teaching on marriage clear from Scripture —but it avoids having to pass judgement on each couple that comes before them to be married.
But does that mean the teaching just becomes an unenforced dead letter, which nobody actually pays any attention to?
People will say, ‘Yes, I know the guy in the pulpit says we shouldn’t add a third person to our marriage… but look, David and Sarah brought Alex into their relationship and nobody has a problem with it, so clearly that’s just something people say without really meaning it.’
It is often pastorally wise to let the preaching address the conscience without personally confronting people in the public domain —which is the situation the church has got itself into with its non-biblical practice of performing wedding ceremonies.
See I see the problem as the exact opposite. The problem the Church of England specifically has got itself into isn’t that they have been too quick to confront people personally in the public domain, but rather than they never confront anyone in the public domain — Andrew Godsall seems to think that clergy are specifically given guidance against doing so — and also they never confront clergy who teach things that are contrary to the doctrines.
And this means that several different, mutually incompatible parallel understandings have been allowed to grow up in the same denomination, a situation that has basically been allowed by the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ omertà that the Church of England operates on all sorts of issues, where it’s considered impolite, even offensive, to ask someone what they really believe.
If people aren’t publicly confronted then they assume that whatever they are doing / teaching is okay. And if other people see people behaving in a particular way or teaching a particular thing and not being confronted they they assume that that behaviour or teaching must be okay, and so it spreads. Basically you have everyone deciding that what they think is right for them is right and never being corrected; you’ve established de facto antinominalism.
And this continues until some point is reached which can’t be fudged, and suddenly the whole thing erupts.
And this could all have been avoided if, at an earlier stage, the denomination had been clearer and confronted those who were behaving in a way / teaching things that were incompatible with the doctrines.
The one thing that mustn’t now happen, of course, is for some way to be found to fudge things once more and sweep it all under the carpet again. Because that won’t solve the problem; the same conflicts will still be there and will reoccur later, when things are even more embedded and so the conflicts will be even more bitter.
I think this is a separate matter about church discipline. The guidance in Scripture on this I suggest is reasonably clear and it doesn’t start in the public domain.
And of course in the Anglican system marriages are often conducted for members of the public, who are in no meaningful sense members of that particular congregation. I would not see the pastoral oversight of the church as having any disciplinary authority over such. The end result is we antagonise the public in an unhelpful way.
PS I am now trying to avoid question marks! They were the means of posing rhetorical questions to suggest that we should think about it. I have spent so much of my life being dogmatic about issues – but age and study have caused me to be more cautious.
I think this is a separate matter about church discipline.
And I disagree. I think this is also (perhaps primarily) a matter of doctrinal consistency — of acting like we actually believe the doctrines, and not like they are just euphonious ceremonies with no actual binding content.
And of course in the Anglican system marriages are often conducted for members of the public, who are in no meaningful sense members of that particular congregation.
Yes that is a serious problem.
PS I am now trying to avoid question marks! They were the means of posing rhetorical questions to suggest that we should think about it. I have spent so much of my life being dogmatic about issues – but age and study have caused me to be more cautious.
Nothing wrong with question marks or rhetorical questions. It’s just confusing to write:
It is X?
— just adding a question mark doesn’t make a statement into a rhetorical question. It has to actually be a grammatical question.
“And of course in the Anglican system marriages are often conducted for members of the public, who are in no meaningful sense members of that particular congregation.
Yes that is a serious problem.”
Why is it a problem?
I mean, marriage is good. People coming to church is good. I see opportunity, not problem.
And besides, people who live in a parish are the Established Church’s flock, however peripheral they may seem. They matter to God. Welcome them in.
Why is it a problem?
For exactly the reason pointed out. It means people are going through with a service they have no understanding of. That’s bad for the couple, as they are doing something they don’t appreciate the significance of, and it’s bad for the denomination, because it means it gets seen as just a provider of pretty-but-meaningless ceremonies.
Welcome them in.
Of course they should be welcomed, provided they understand what it means to be there. Jesus wasn’t welcoming: he made it clear what was expected of His followers and actively sent people away who weren’t prepared or committed enough. The Church could stand to learn from Him.
‘And of course in the Anglican system marriages are often conducted for members of the public, who are in no meaningful sense members of that particular congregation.’ And as long as the Church of England remains the established church everybody living in the Parish will be entitled to a marriage or at least a blessing in their local church as well as to be buried there and rightfully so
And that is not some regretful technicality. Synod very enthusiastically cut the fees for performing a marriage service, explicitly so we could try and get more people married in churches who are not current members of the congregation.
Folks like me may have thought funeral fees were the more pressing priority if there is revenue we can think we can do without, and may be puzzled at how this rush to loudly celebrate marriage fits with stated desire to value singleness and mournful regret that the Church has been guilty of acting as it marriage is the pinnacle to aspire to, but there we are.
Ian Paul is to be respected and admired for the direct challenge he put to the bishops in regard to the quagmire that is LLF on Saturday afternoon – now available on YouTube
Why does Ian so often seem like a lone voice for orthodoxy on Synod. ? Where are the rest ??
now available on YouTube
Any chance of a reference for those who don’t have time to watch through eight hours of video?
It’s three hours and it’s well worth watching.
As was the whole of Synod this session.
Mostly for the car crashes.
It’s three hours and it’s well worth watching.
I actually watched from the indicated point onwards.
Including the gobsmackingly, appallingly awful speech by the person who seemed convinced that no one in the Church of England had actually brought up moral, chaste children. Which I think says a lot more about the speaker than the audience.
Thanks. That is a good question. But part of the answer is that I have no ‘career’ aspirations, so I really don’t worry about what people think of me. I have also had professional training and experience asking questions as a personnel manager—and asking the right question in the right way takes years to learn!
The Bishops did not even begin to answer your questions.
I thought your point about the use of the term liturgy by Philip got to the heart of the matter.
They know perfectly well they are changing the doctrine of the church.
They are taking us for fools.
I wish you strength and courage as you continue to hold them to account.
Are you joking?
There were quite a few speakers at Synod from Ian’s side of the aisle – Charlie Skrine, Ros Clarke, Sandra Turner, Stephen Hofmeyr, John Bavington, and Richard Denno (by my count).
And there’s no shortage of folk who spoke in February like Ed Shaw, Luke Appleton, Sam Margrave, etc. etc.
Indeed. Fascinating statistic: in February’s debate, more gay people who accept the Church’s doctrine of marriage spoke than gay people who wanted to see change.
Ian
I suspect part of this is that these blessings or whatever they are matter more to conservatives than gay liberals.
To conservatives they are crossing a line.
To gay liberals they are somewhere between nothing at all and a step in the direction they want to see.
S,
Do a YouTube search for:
synod July 2023 living in love and faith update
Ian is at 1 hour 8 mins. The Microphone is initially off, but it comes on in time for his main point
Ian is at 1 hour 8 mins.
Thank you, much appreciated.
I liked the woman who asked about congregants Edith might unexpectedly find themselves asked to say ‘amen’ to something they don’t believe. A nice reminder that it’s not just about ministers!
Why do they all announce themselves as subway trains?
Different station platforms: different destinations.
The whole thing is minuted, so you really do need to know who’s speaking. Whilst some characters speak regularly (eg Ian or Jayne Ozanne) and will be well known, most aren’t. If you just rely on then saying their name as the mic comes on you don’t really stand a chance as a minute taker. But add a number and diocese and you can be sure of identifying the member of Synod accurately.
To be fair, Charlie Skrine makes an orthodox intervention at 1 hour 29 mins though he lacks Ian Paul’s directness of speech
A third strong question (same Saturday pm session) at 2 hours 27 mins. His name was muffled by his statement was clear
Overall, I would say there were five orthodox challenges to the bishops during the session.
The only one to hold the bishops “feet to the fire” in the way they so thoroughly deserve was Ian Paul. Having said that, the other challenges were useful enough.
They were all dismissed by the Bishops. No serious attempt was made to treat the questions raised as worthy of real consideration.
They were all dismissed by the Bishops. No serious attempt was made to treat the questions raised as worthy of real consideration.
To be fair, as far as I have listened, the members of the panel of bishops have responded (or rather avoided responding) to the questions from the progressive side with exactly the same empty platitudes.
The whole thing is an exercise in speaking as much as possible without actual saying anything. Doubleplusgood duckspeaking, My Lord.
S, that is a fair point.
I would say the “direction of travel” is so clearly in the progressive direction that the symmetry is not exact.
Don’t swallow their dishonest language (‘progressive’) – that is what they want you to do. It is a bait.
Christopher.
I agree entirely with your general point that “progressive” is a false flag.
For myself, I dislike the label conservative.
Christopher
I think “orthodox” and “conservative” are used dishonestly. Maybe we should use side A and side B?
Ha! Although Side A and Side B don’t necessarily cover all shades of opinion on this blog. Side B has usually meant people who are quite comfortable saying, “gay Christian” and think there is a command to celibacy. It has not meant people who think sexuality is irrelevant, or changeable, or disordered, or encourage opposite-sex marriages despite same-sex attractions, or are content with the use of criminal penalties etc.
With all that is happening in the Church of England, maybe it is time for disestablishment and each local church to decide which ‘group’ they wish to be part of for oversight. The Anglican church is bureaucratic and does not know what to believe, so leadership which do not believe and seek to practise the whole Bible centred on Jesus as both divine and human.