The Prayers of Love and Faith and the call to a holy life


Andrew Goddard writes: With the College and House of Bishops meeting next week and the July General Synod just over a month away it seems a good time to try to stop and take stock afresh on the turmoil of the last four months or so (my earlier attempts to do so are here and here). With greater, albeit still limited, distance, what can we say about what has happened since the House of Bishops announced their proposals—particularly the draft Prayers of Love and Faith – for the Church of England and the General Synod debated and approved, with one amendment, a motion supportive of them?

What follows falls into three parts. The first summarises what the bishops have done—their sense of a consensus on a number of important questions but their failure adequately to address others and the significance of one of their apparent significant agreements: the division between holy matrimony and civil marriage. 

Part two explores this last point in more detail. Solid principled reasons to reject this proposal have already been put forward and are noted but this section approaches it from a different perspective. It asks what the implications are of the new relationship being proposed between marriage and civil marriage in relation to the key questions of liturgical development and the pattern of life expected of the ordained. These, I will argue, demonstrate the serious problems that arise if this division is accepted in terms of the stability, coherence and plausibility of the current argument undergirding the Prayers of Love and Faith and so suggest that to build anything on it is to build on sand. 

Part three then argues that, rather than seeking to find some agreed response to changing social and legal patterns of same-sex relationship and how we should relate them to marriage, the bishops should instead build on a more solid foundation. They should offer a theological account and moral vision of holy living, including for gay and lesbian relationships. Only if they can find consensus here can they avoid generating more instability and incoherence in all the other areas. Only on this basis can they consider properly how the church should embody this pattern of life and relate it, including liturgically, to social and legal patterns of relationships. 

In conclusion I will argue that this should have been addressed first before developing prayers and that if the bishops and Synod cannot find sufficient consensus here then they need to acknowledge that reality and consider its implications for any proposals they wish to make and for the structure of our shared life in the Church of England.

I  Reviewing the bishops’ proposals

At General Synod the Bishop of London described the bishops’ proposals (GS 2289) in the following terms:

In proposing our way forward as bishops, what we have done is chart a path that navigates the realities of the disagreements among us in a way that enables us to walk together—acknowledging its discomfort and ensuring that individual conscience is protected. One way of describing this way forward is to see ourselves standing in different places—and finding a point that each of us, by stretching out our arm, can touch and reach the fingertips of the other. It will be uncomfortable for everyone, but it is about creating a space for the Holy Spirit to move among us and to continue to guide us and shape us into the likeness of Christ.

It would appear that the bishops in January believed they had achieved a clear and strong consensus among themselves and they thought they had a coherent argument for their proposals on the basis of which they could proceed to revise the prayers and develop pastoral guidance and respond to the concerns of those unhappy with the developments. As the important reflection from Christopher Cocksworth noted, and he had explained in more detail in his earlier letter, “Some form of diversified consensus on key intentions of the provision seemed to have emerged”. The following were key features of this consensus:

  1. The church has failed in its response to LGBT+ people and needs to recognise this and apologise and take action which embodies this recognition and repentance;
  2. There are goods in same-sex relationships that the church needs to recognise;
  3. This recognition can take a liturgical form;
  4. As there are a range of patterns of relationship and understandings of them there should be a suite of prayers rather than a single “one size fits all” liturgy;
  5. The prayers should remain silent on sexual activity;
  6. The doctrine that marriage is between a man and a woman remains unchanged at present;
  7. The prayers can nevertheless be used for those in same-sex civil marriages as this is to be viewed as a legal status quite distinct from holy matrimony;
  8. The prayers must not be, and are not, contrary to the doctrine of the church or indicative of a departure from its doctrine (this is required by canon law and reaffirmed in the Cornes amendment passed by Synod);
  9. There needs to be respect for people’s consciences so any new prayers must be optional;
  10. We must seek to “walk together” and are actually able to do so despite our differences and disagreements.

Unfortunately, the leaking of the decision and then public comments by various key leaders, particularly the Archbishop of York, meant the nuances of this were quickly lost. The proposals were presented and understood by many as simply an affirmation of sexual same-sex relationships, including same-sex marriages, which the church would now bless. As a result although they were approved by General Synod (a fuller analysis is here) the consensus among laity and clergy was much less than among the bishops (86% bishops voting for but only 56% of clergy and 52% of laity). 

Furthermore, the decisions have led to significant damage in the wider Communion (as seen in statements from the Global South Fellowship of Anglican Churches and GAFCON) and many in the Church of England are also unhappy to varying degrees, with some declaring they are “compelled to resist” the changes. There has also been a growing recognition of the challenges (not least in making clergy open to legal action for either using or not using the commended prayers) and problems the proposed route of introducing the prayers has created. 

The evidence of a growing lack of confidence in the bishops and their proposed way forward is seen in the creation of an implementation group focussed on “reassurance” and the leaked photo of post-it notes at the last College of bishops which highlighted that the bishops themselves were painfully aware of some of the risks and threats the church was facing.

Any decision at the end of the LLF process was going to face challenges but the responses to the bishops’ proposals suggest that there are four particular failures in their approach which have made matters worse. 

Firstly, in contrast to the detailed work of LLF, and failing to draw on that work, the bishops gave minimal explanation or theological justification for their proposals. Secondly, they proposed a liturgical response to different life situations without—as the ten points above demonstrate—offering any account of what pattern of same-sex relationship might be considered fitting within Christian discipleship. When asked about this the Bishop of London said in an answer (to Q163) in February, that we need to wait for the Pastoral Guidance as that “will include setting out unequivocally the necessary qualities for a relationship to be considered chaste, faithful and holy”. Thirdly, although committing to uphold the doctrine of marriage and thus rejecting a change to extend this to include same-sex marriage, the bishops were not clear as to what else—particularly in relation to sexual behaviour—should be considered as part of the doctrine of marriage. Nor were they clear whether they were proposing to change current teaching on sexual ethics. It was, for example, unclear whether what the Bishop of London had stated only in November last year in answer to a Synod question still applied: 

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. 

All three of these failings arose because it seems there was not sufficient time to achieve any consensus on them. The problem is that without any clarity and consensus in these areas, the proposals are inherently unstable and arguably incoherent. 

A further cause of instability and incoherence is a fourth feature of the proposals (number 7 above): to justify offering the prayers, including prayers of blessing, to couples in same-sex marriages the bishops, with the support of the Legal Office, offered a novel and contentious argument distinguishing holy matrimony from civil same-sex marriages. The relationship between civil marriage and holy matrimony after the introduction of same-sex marriage was not a question covered within LLF although it produced an invaluable “Brief History of Marriage Law” by Professor Julian Rivers. The answer now being offered represents a complete reversal of all previous legal and theological statements including in the Church of England’s successful case defending the refusal of Bishop Inwood, Acting Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham, to give a licence to Jeremy Pemberton who was in a civil same-sex marriage. There, as set out in the original employment tribunal judgment of October 2015, the employment appeal tribunal judgment of December 2016 and the Court of Appeal Decision in March 2018, a key argument advanced was that the bishops’ actions were necessary because to be in a same-sex civil marriage was incompatible with the doctrine of the Church of England in relation to marriage.

II  “Another fine mess….”

A number of weighty arguments have already been advanced to challenge the legal advice, incorporated by the bishops in their GS 2289 proposal to General Synod. This, in order to justify the legality of their Prayers of Love and Faith, draws a sharp distinction between holy matrimony and civil marriage (at least same-sex civil marriage) as I discuss more fully here. Most recently and fully there has been a further commentary on the legal advice where sections 1.2 and section 2 (especially 2.1 and 2.5) address this question of the relationship between holy matrimony and civil marriage. Central to these arguments is the case that what we are facing is not, as the bishops now claim, two separate and unconnected legal institutions but competing and incompatible definitions of the same institution ie marriage or, to use more traditional language, matrimony (which the church describes as “holy matrimony” because it believes it is an institution created by God not simply by human law). In the words of the commentary noted above:

From a legal perspective, there is one institution (marriage) with broader and narrower views as to who is entitled to enter that single legal state. This is the view of Parliament, the Government and the Supreme Court, and there is no reason for ecclesiastical law, which is part of English law, to take a different view (2.1 conclusion, p. 7). 

Or, in the words of the Employment Appeal Tribunal judgment summarising the bishop’s case:

As for the argument that the Church has no belief on civil marriage, there was a distinction between the institution of marriage (on which the Church clearly had a belief) and the particular form of the ceremony that accompanies it. The 2013 Act does not provide that there are two forms of marriage—Church and civil—simply that there may be same-sex marriage (para 64).

What if, however, for the sake of argument, as a thought experiment, the bishops’ legal interpretation, a lynchpin in their case for the legality of the prayers, was accepted? What follows from this premise in relation to the questions of same-sex marriage in church and same-sex married clergy?

Why not same-sex marriage in church?

The initial leak concerning the proposals was that the bishops had rejected same-sex marriage in church. In an important sense that is clearly the case. However, if the logic of the crucial and necessary step in the legal advice being followed by the bishops is followed through, a strong case can be made that, in fact, it opens up the possibility of same-sex marriage in church in a significant sense.

A central claim in the Legal Office’s new argument here is (GS Misc 1389 para 7) that

The civil marriage of a same-sex couple confers a civil status on the couple: they are married so far as the general law is concerned but that status is not—and by definition does not purport to be—Holy Matrimony. On that basis, they do not need be treated as doing more than obtaining a civil status, and in particular they do not need to be considered simply by obtaining that civil status as rejecting or challenging the definition of Holy Matrimony in Canon B30.

It is then argued (para 8) that

The proposed prayers and other forms of service which may be used for a same-sex couple who have entered a civil marriage, do not indicate or imply that the couple are considered to be in a state of Holy Matrimony; they recognise that the couple’s relationship has been marked by their entering into a particular civil status (albeit regarded by the State as “marriage”). Provided that the prayers meet the requirements described in the preceding paragraphs, the fact that they are for use—among other occasions—for a couple who have entered into a civil marriage is not indicative of a departure from the doctrine of Holy Matrimony as set out in Canon B 30, just as that would not be the case for prayers for use with a couple who have entered into a civil partnership or a covenanted friendship.

As noted, there are weighty arguments against this position but if instead it is accepted then it would appear that there is no incoherence in introducing same-sex marriages in church as long as the couple are not treated as entering holy matrimony. In the words of para 3 of the legal advice:

It would not be lawful for a minister to use a form of service which either explicitly or implicitly treated or recognised the civil marriage of two persons of the same sex as corresponding to Holy Matrimony. But it would in principle be lawful for a minister to use a form of service for two persons of the same sex who wished to mark a stage in their relationship provided that it did not explicitly or implicitly treat or recognise the civil marriage of two persons of the same sex as corresponding to Holy Matrimony.

If the words “mark a stage in their relationship” are replaced with the words “to thereby enter a civil marriage” then the problem of squaring this circle of allowing same-sex marriages in church while not changing the doctrine of marriage has, it seems, been solved. 

At present the state recognises a form of Church of England service (“Solemnization of Matrimony”) as sufficient to enable an opposite-sex couple to enter marriage in the eyes of the state. If we accept this line of argument in the legal advice, then it should now be possible for the state to be able to recognise a form of Church of England service as sufficient to enable a same-sex couple to enter the “particular civil status” which the state regards as marriage. It should also be possible for the Church of England to do this within its current doctrine as long as the service “did not explicitly or implicitly treat or recognise the civil marriage of two persons of the same sex as corresponding to Holy Matrimony”. 

If entering a same-sex civil marriage is to be treated as only “obtaining a civil status” and this action is not “rejecting or challenging the definition of Holy Matrimony in Canon B30” then why does the Church of England refuse to enable such a ceremony to take place in church? It must, surely, be able to happen in a way which, on these legal arguments concerning the relationship between holy matrimony and same-sex civil marriage, is “neither contrary to, nor indicative of any departure from, the doctrine of the Church of England in any essential matter”. Why does it refuse to allow its buildings to be legally registered for a ceremony which gay and lesbian couples would like to hold in them so they can obtain, in the context of a service of Christian worship, a civil status that is not “rejecting or challenging the definition of Holy Matrimony in Canon B30”? If the church refuses to do so, then on this logic it would appear to be apologising to gay and lesbian people while continuing to deny them a service of Christian worship which it has no doctrinal reason to deny them, even as it offers them other new forms of Christian service which it previously claimed it could not offer because of its unchanged doctrine of marriage.

In short, the argument being advanced to defend the development of the prayers, if accepted and followed through, by cutting apart same-sex marriage and holy matrimony, cuts off the branch on which the church has been sitting to resist same-sex marriage in church as contrary to doctrine. It would appear to entail that there is no reason, in principle, why there cannot be a service in church in which two people of the same sex enter a same-sex marriage in law without such a service being indicative of a departure from the church’s doctrine of marriage. The question then becomes whether an argument which reaches this conclusion is coherent or plausible.

If, as seems likely, the church refuses to take this step, at least at present, then the state—appealing to the legal logic used by the bishops to defend the prayers—could simply amend the current legislation to enable some form of Prayers of Love and Faith to be recognised as the means to enter marriage as a civil status and permit Church of England buildings to be used to enter such marriages on the basis that the Church of England has declared that doing so is not contrary to its doctrine and so has no grounds, especially as the established church, to refuse to allows its buildings to be used in this way. Should the Law Commission proposals that marriage in future be legally structured around authorised celebrants rather than buildings then this would become even easier with clergy simply being so recognised and then authorised to officiate and able to argue they are not acting contrary to the doctrine of holy matrimony.

The most serious, perhaps only serious, potential stumbling block to following this logic through in this way is that contracting a same-sex civil marriage currently (unlike civil partnership, meaning there really is no obvious ground given the legal advice to prevent these being entered into in church as now permitted in law) requires making vows in which each party takes the other “to be my wedded wife/husband”. This language, it might be argued, cannot be used in a Church of England service given its doctrine of marriage. But once one has accepted that “marriage” can be used both for holy matrimony and civil marriage and it is recognised the language is used here to speak of the latter and so something other than “husband” and “wife” in holy matrimony are these terms really only able to be univocal and so an insurmountable problem? If it is a problem, why is coming to church for prayers of blessing having just uttered these words to each other and in order to mark and celebrate that occasion and having this legal status in relation to each other not also a problem? 

If, however, it is simply the terms used in the vows to enter a civil marriage which are a problem, then we need to follow through the logic of this position as well. It presumably means that all services using the prayers with a same-sex married couple will, if they are to be legal, have to avoid the language of “husband” or “wife” or “spouse” or “marriage” or “wedding” because however true they are in terms of civil status and common usage their use in a service of Christian worship would amount to a rejection of the church’s doctrine of holy matrimony. In the words of the lawyers critiquing the official legal advice (2.3 conclusion, p. 9), the minister will on this basis have “to explain to the congregation that they are gathered to seek God’s blessing on the couple on the occasion of their entering into a civil marriage, which is however, in spite of appearances, not really a marriage and nor is the marital dimension of their relationship being blessed”. This almost Monty Pythonesque condition is, in fact, accepted in earlier official Church of England legal advice from 2018 in relation to the Hereford motion’s call for “an Order of Prayer and Dedication after the registration of a civil partnership or a same-sex marriage”. Referring to the condition that “it would not be lawful for a minister to use a form of service which either explicitly or implicitly treated or recognised the civil marriage of two persons of the same sex as equivalent to holy matrimony” (repeated exactly in the current legal advice at para 3 as quoted above and so still applicable), it observed that while in theory it might be “possible to compose a form of service” which met this requirement (surely one will appear soon in Private Eye),

it seems unlikely that such a form of service would be considered usable by those clergy who would wish to officiate at a service of prayer and dedication after the registration of a civil partnership or a same-sex marriage. Such a form of service would have to omit any reference to the parties’ marriage or their being married; or, if it did contain such a reference, would have to contain explanations and disclaimers as to the nature of the civil marriage and its not amounting to marriage so far as the Church’s teaching was concerned. Either way, such a service might well be considered pastorally unusable in respect of the occasion for which it was intended. It is not clear what such a service would or could actually do. Nor is it clear in what way it would glorify God and edify the people (see Canon B 1.2 for this requirement).

In summary, if the legal office’s argument about separating holy matrimony from civil marriage is accepted (as it currently must be for the legality of the prayers to be secure) then either there is no reason not to allow same-sex marriages in church or the prayers are likely to be “pastorally unusable” in relation to a couple in a same-sex marriage.

Why not same-sex married clergy?

A similar argument can clearly be developed in relation to a question which is still undecided within the episcopal discernment process but will presumably be answered in the pastoral guidance—whether or not the church should continue its prohibition on clergy entering same-sex marriages. 

The current position of the Church of England is summed up in the Pastoral Guidance issued in 2014 which stated that “Getting married to someone of the same sex would, however, clearly be at variance with the teaching of the Church of England” (para 26). As noted above, the arguments advanced in the Pemberton case was that clergy should not enter same-sex marriage because of the church’s doctrine of marriage. Here, again, however, the logic of the current proposals and their legal rationale seems—without any reference to Scripture or theology or Christian moral reasoning—to have effectively sawn off the branch on which the church has been sitting. 

If a same-sex civil marriage is indeed as described above by the lawyers—simply the conferring of a civil status on the couple who “do not need to be considered simply by obtaining that civil status as rejecting or challenging the definition of Holy Matrimony in Canon B30”—why are clergy prohibited from entering one? We have accepted clergy in civil partnerships on the basis that these are not marriages so if we are now saying that civil marriages are also not marriages why not at least extend the rules in relation to civil partnerships to same-sex marriages? Furthermore, if, as proposed, clergy can officiate at a service blessing those who have just entered a same-sex civil marriage why can they not enter one themselves?

Once this step is taken then of course there are all sorts of difficult questions raised concerning the conduct expected of clergy in same-sex marriages given their need to fashion their own life and that of their household according to the way of Christ and be a pattern and example to Christ’s people (Canon C26): should a surviving spouse from a previous legal marriage (either same-sex or opposite sex) or a civil partnership be an impediment to ordination as it is for holy matrimony (canon C4.4)? Should questions be raised about the appropriateness of any long-term cohabiting same-sex relationship that is not a legal marriage just as it would be for an opposite-sex long-term cohabiting relationship? Given that there are no vows to exclusivity or permanence for same-sex marriages what would count as conduct unbecoming for clergy in them? Here the legal advice in seemingly entailing the lifting of the current prohibition on same-sex clergy highlights the need for the church to develop a theological account and sexual ethic in relation to same-sex civil marriage.

How did we get into this mess?

Although the background to the change in legal advice and novel argument concerning the relationship of civil marriage and holy matrimony is unclear there is an obvious and hopefully not unduly cynical explanation. There was a desire to keep marriage restricted to opposite-sex couples but to develop the church’s practice, particularly liturgically, in response to committed same-sex couples many of whom would be in civil marriages. In order to satisfy the legal requirement that any liturgy be “neither contrary to, nor indicative of any departure from, the doctrine of the Church of England in any essential matter” previous legal advice needed to be reformulated and some distinction drawn between holy matrimony and civil marriage. What we have been given is the best attempt to do this in order to provide legal cover.

However, it now appears that in relation to same-sex marriage, the novel argument concerning the limited relevance of the church’s doctrine of marriage to justify the prayers has wider ramifications and probably unintended consequences. If it is accepted and we move out from it in our thinking (rather than just producing it to defend what we have decided we want without considering its logical consequences) then there are potentially major implications in relation to the church’s liturgy and expectations for authorised ministers. 

Some will welcome this and argue we need to accept these outcomes because they flow from the rationale currently offered for the prayers’ legality. Others, unwilling to accept these outcomes on theological grounds or on the grounds that even if the outcomes are desirable it is ridiculous to claim they are possible without indicating a departure from the doctrine of marriage, will see this as a further argument against the legal distinction between holy matrimony and same-sex marriage which undergirds the prayers’ legality.

This risks an unproductive impasse and highlights that the current approach is driving us into a cul-de-sac. It would be much better to approach the questions we face from a different angle, one which for some reason the bishops decided to leave to the side in their rush to commend prayers. Instead of asking “how can we respond, especially liturgically, to those in our churches and communities who are in same-sex relationships, including civil partnerships and same-sex marriages without changing our doctrine of marriage?” why not ask “Given we agree that “God gives us the Bible…to call the whole world into holiness” (LLF, 275), what should we teach concerning the pattern of holy life to which we are called as baptised believers in Christ and in particular what do we say and offer to those who are in or seeking to be in a committed same-sex relationship of some form?”. Then, in the light of this, we can address how our biblically-formed Christian vision relates to various forms of “civil status”.

III  “Take Two…”?

It is likely that the bishops did not address the question of the pattern of holy life initially because they knew—especially in relation to same-sex relationships—they had deep, probably unbridgeable, differences. It would therefore appear attractive to first see if, in order to stand some chance of achieving the desired goal of walking together, a practical consensus on where to walk could be reached leaving this difficult question to the side. The problem is that this question cannot be avoided for long given that the church has historic teaching on this matter which it has regularly and recently reaffirmed, which many see as part of the doctrine of marriage, and which any practical actions—including prayers—need to respect unless the received teaching is replaced with something new. The problem is also that—as we have seen—whatever practical agreement was able to be achieved on prayers would soon begin to unravel if it lacked its own theological rationale and integrity as it was interpreted and explained differently due to different existing answers (which do have a theological rationale and integrity of sorts) to this more fundamental question.

One answer to the question is to reaffirm what the LLF learning outcomes described as “the Church’s inherited teaching on Christian living in love and faith, especially with regard to marriage and singleness”. For many, much of this is in fact embedded within the doctrine of marriage given the teaching of the BCP and Canon B30 as the Bishop of London’s answer last November confirmed. As recently as 2019 the bishops’ pastoral statement (para 9) reaffirmed that

sexual relationships outside heterosexual marriage are regarded as falling short of God’s purposes for human beings

and the legal advice in GS 2055 concluded that (para 9) 

a service which sanctioned or condoned such a sexual relationship would not meet the requirement that a service must “edify the people” and would probably also be contrary to, or indicative of a departure from, the doctrine of the Church of England in an essential matter.

If this remains the teaching of the bishops concerning the pattern of holy living then this would place some tight constraints on the use of the prayers to non-sexual relationships (although a carefully articulated account of pastoral accommodation and their silence on sexual activity may enable a case to be made for this to be loosened). It would also mean little or no change in relation to expectations on clergy conduct (although it may be possible to extend the current expectations on civil partnered clergy to at least some in same-sex civil marriages such as those already married before seeking ordination).

If this conservative answer is not acceptable, and clearly it would distress many after the LLF process were that to be the outcome, then an alternative answer has to be given. This would be along the lines of what LLF materials set out as possible alternatives and LLF learning outcomes described as “emergent views and the Christian reasoning behind them”. A number of questions then arise for the bishops to answer:

  • Does this alternative answer amount to a change of doctrine or not?
    If it does not, then why is this the case given past statements, the BCP teaching about the purposes of marriage etc and how can the perception be avoided that those who do want a change of doctrine (to same-sex marriage) are—having failed to achieve that—now simply claiming that other lesser but still significant changes are not, in reality, a change in doctrine?
  • Whether viewed as a change in doctrine or simply in teaching (being distinguished, in a way which would need defending, from doctrine), how is this change to be determined and authorised given past episcopal teaching statements and the 1987 General Synod motion on sexuality (‘Higton’)?
    In other words, by what processes among the bishops (House or College?) and/or General Synod and with what level of consensus is a new teaching to be established? Probably the best answer here both theologically and procedurally would be to express the teaching liturgically and seek authorisation using the usual synodical processes under canon B2.
  • Which of the “emergent views” is now being commended by the bishops?
    Although many would wish simply to extend marriage to same-sex couples the bishops appear to have ruled this development out and it would appear to be some form of quasi-marital “permanent, faithful, stable” same-sex relationship which is distinct from holy matrimony that the current proposed prayers are seeking to which it is proposed the church should offer its commendation and prayers of blessing.
  • What is the basis—biblically, theologically, and ethically—for this development in church teaching?
    Here there is a need to set out a coherent account of “the Christian reasoning” for the proposal, likely drawing on the work of LLF.

Once the bishops have agreed these developments in the church’s teaching then outstanding issues in relation to the prayers can be returned to with greater clarity as to the doctrine and teaching of the church. In particular, following the pattern which is used for the marriage service and the service of prayer and dedication after a civil marriage, the prayers can now be focussed on the couple committing themselves to the pattern of shared life that is understood by the church to be chaste and holy. The church would therefore not now be offering to bless couples without reference to the pattern of their relationship, or on the basis simply of some legal status, or on the basis of somehow discerning certain qualities in their individual relationship that made them eligible. The church would instead be offering people a disciplined form of shared life, alongside marriage, as a good which enables growth in Christlikeness and encouraging them to embrace this through vows and praying for God’s blessing on them as they do so. 

The draft prayers already include something along these lines in the rather mysterious category of “sealing of a covenanted friendship” where “words of promise may be used” (p. 29). That nomenclature and the current draft words are probably unlikely to fit the bill but they provide a basis within the current draft for this development. The task would be, in the light of the agreed vision of a chaste, holy same-sex relationship, to find a name other than marriage (perhaps Robert Song’s “covenant partnership” even if defined differently from in his Covenant and Calling: Towards A Theology of Same-Sex Relationships) and forms of words that express that pattern of life as mutual promises. 

Only then, in the light of this, can decisions be made as to whether this pattern of life is compatible with civil partnership and/or civil marriage and perhaps should even be required to take one of these legal forms. It might even be possible that the church’s form of words for entering it may be able to be recognised by the state as a means of gaining that civil status thus not needing a separation between a civil and religious ceremony.

Similarly, in relation to the pattern of life expected of those in authorised leadership, the church would not be left having to expect same-sex partnered clergy to embrace a secular legal form (neither of which requires formally undertaking disciplines such as sexual exclusivity or lifelong faithfulness) and then having to work out what conduct would be “unbecoming” for a Christian leader living within it. Instead, the requirement would be to enter liturgically the chaste form of life commended by the church. By so doing they would clearly fulfil their promise to endeavour to fashion their own life and that of their household according to the way of Christ and be a pattern and example to Christ’s people (Canon C26).

IV  Conclusion

One way of explaining where we now find ourselves is that we need to recognise that the path we have started down is looking like a dead-end and needs to be reconfigured with a theological vision at its heart not a purely pragmatic cobbled-together compromise supported by dubious legal argumentation. A major error has been thinking that the prayers should take the lead and set the agenda. They have become, as it were, the horse, and the pastoral guidance with its account of church teaching and its practical outworkings is the cart. The further problem is that the Prayers of Love and Faith (PLF) and accompanying rationale are—as in the image used at the top of the blog—theologically sketchy in contrast to Living in Love and Faith (LLF). 

This has led to the situation described above where it is thought we have sufficient consensus to proceed but that is increasingly proving to be only because key questions which divide us about the pattern of a holy life in Christ have yet to be addressed and the logical consequences of novel ideas concerning civil same-sex marriages have not been sufficiently thought through. Those questions cannot be avoided when it comes to the pastoral guidance especially in relation to the use of the prayers and expectations of clergy. 

What is therefore needed now is to return to the substantive work of LLF and determine in the light of that what the doctrine and teaching of the church in relation to marriage is currently and should be going forward. In particular, the bishops need to offer a vision for the pattern of holy living for those who identify as gay, lesbian or same-sex attracted and the Christian disciplines that should be part of any committed same-sex relationship. Then, and only then, will we be able to discern the form of a coherent way forward that has theological integrity and sufficient consensus that we can walk together with as few as possible in the walking party believing they are being led into trespassing. 

It may of course prove to be the case that we will have to admit that on these questions we are standing in such different places that we cannot, sadly, find “a point that each of us, by stretching out our arm, can touch and reach the fingertips of the other”. We have, if that lack of consensus proves to be the case, to consider what we are being called to do in relation to the prayers (their wording, use, and procedural form of authorisation), the pastoral guidance, and the forms of “pastoral reassurance” which will not only require providing safeguards for a concerned minority but answering even more searching questions about what—given deep disagreement about the pattern of holy living—should be the ecclesial space within which we pray together for “the Holy Spirit to move among us and to continue to guide us and shape us into the likeness of Christ”.


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. He is a member of the subgroup looking at Pastoral Guidance, but is writing here in a personal capacity, neither reflecting the work of the group nor drawing on it.


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

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


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

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


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

245 thoughts on “The Prayers of Love and Faith and the call to a holy life”

  1. In a sense the bishops are right that there is more than one kind of marriage. There are marriages that God recognises and marriages that the State recognises. A gap opened up between these in England long ago, in 1753 with Lord Hardwicke’s Act requiring marriages to take place in the Established church. Prior to that, a couple could declare themselves married (although one hopes they were not committing bigamy). I am uncertain whether there was any requirement before 1753 that they *inform* the authorities, for purposes of inheritance, for instance; the detailed works of Rebecca Probert (a lawyer) should be consulted on that subject. Lord Hardwicke brought his Act forward because marriages not contracted in church before 1753 were being taken less seriously in the event of breakdown.

    The biblical criteria for marriage are clear if implicit in Genesis 2:24: it should have at least the intent of Permanence, be Intimate, be Public, and be Exclusive (acronym PIPE). And biblical marrriage is between man and woman (as defined by primary sexual characteristics recognisable in the Ancient Near East, for the avoidance of doubt). Bible-believing Jews and Christians believe that these criteria are God’s own.

    The secular State now recognises same-sex marriage. So be it. But the church has a duty to God to stick to God’s definition. Where it fails to do so, its leaders should be defied by all believers in Jesus Christ – who should fight a vigorous spiritual battle to cleanse it of false shepherds.

    Reply
    • No, the established Church, which the Church of England is, has a duty to recognise those who have been married by the state. That now includes married homosexual couples, married divorced couples etc. Even if it does not mean full marriage of homosexual couples in church it does require blessings of homosexual couples after civil marriages which the prayers of love and faith drafted by the Bishops and approved by Synod do. Those who refuse to recognise allowing blessings of homosexual couples in Church of England churches have no business being in the established church and should leave it for a Pentecostal, Baptist or charismatic church which are free evangelical churches with no formal links to the state like the Church of England

      Reply
      • If you think that any church has a higher duty to the State than to God then you are mistaken. In saying what believers ‘should’ do you are exceeding your authority.

        Reply
          • The Church of England as long as it is the established church must always respect and adhere to loyalty to the State. As well as being a Christian church

          • “The Church of England has a duty to the State as much as to God and Christ.”

            That’s, almost, hilariously funny… Except you seem to think that’s logical or theological or even practical… Which makes your position supremely sad.

            BTW “The King” is (like any of us) just passing through, temporarily holding his post. There are alternatives to God but no equals by an eternity if miles. It’s irrational to think otherwise. Not to mention that the Supreme Governor is there (if it still means anything really) to defend the Faith not to create it out his own head or for his own purposes.

      • No, the established Church, which the Church of England is, has a duty to recognise those who have been married by the state.

        No, the Church of England’s first du is to God, not to the state. The clue is in the word ‘church’.

        As an established church it may also support the state; but only when such support does not conflict with its primary duty to God.

        Reply
          • No, the Church of England has an obligation the state and to God.

            And when those two duties conflict, the duty to God is primary and the duty to the state is secondary.

          • No, the Church of England as long as it is the established church has an equal duty to both. Hence the King is its Supreme Governor.

            Evangelical free churches may have a primary duty to God not the State, the established Church of England has a duty to the State and God on an equal basis

          • No, the Church of England as long as it is the established church has an equal duty to both.

            It can’t have an equal duty to both, because sometimes the two are in conflict. Then, obviously, it can only do its duty to one; and that must be God, because its duty to God is its primary duty, and its duty to the state only secondary.

          • Sadly, you don’t seem to have read the careful, cogent points in the article you are purporting to argue against. Instead you are asserting a meaningless mandate of ‘duty’ for the Church of England on the grounds that the Church is established. The Church has no ‘duty’ to rubber-stamp decisions taken by governments. Its responsibility is to teach the faith, lead people to God, minister the sacraments and be a prophetic voice in the nation. Its legal ‘duty’ is to do these whilst upholding canon law.

          • The prime duty is to God. The clue is in the name established ‘church’.
            You think the state ranks above God? Yes/no/avoid question?

        • Established comes before Church. The C of E also has the King as its supreme governor, it is a state church that happens to be Christian too

          Reply
          • it is a state church that happens to be Christian too

            It can’t ‘happen’ to be Christian. Either it is Christian, in which case it puts duty to God above all else, or it puts duty to the state first, in which case it isn’t Christian at all but a form of State Shinto.

            Those are the only two options and you’ve made it clear which you prefer and it isn’t Christianity.

            In the Roman Empire you’d happily have been sacrificing to the Emperor, wouldn’t you? After all that was the established church.

      • The Church of England as the State Church correctly interprets the word of God in the English context anyway, so by definition they cannot disagree

        Reply
        • The Church of England as the State Church correctly interprets the word of God in the English context anyway, so by definition they cannot disagree

          So are you saying that if the government of the United Kingdom passed a law authorising the extermination of all Jews, and the King signed it, that by definition God would agree with that law?

          Reply
          • Well of course it wouldn’t and opposed the Holocaust but nonetheless the Church of England did support the banishment of Jews from England which had begun in 1200 and was not reversed until 1656. Just as the Church of England supported the Act of Uniformity in 1559 mandating worship only under the Book of Common Prayer and the Act of Uniformity 1662 which excluded evangelical Protestant non conformists from public office in England. Much as it supported the Test Act of 1673 requiring all civil and military office holders to take the oaths of allegiance and supremacy and receive the Anglican sacrament and the prohibition on nonconfirmists attending Oxford, Cambridge or Durham universities until 1871. Just as it supported the Popery Act 1698 which imposed strict application of anti-Catholic laws.

            Just as the Church of England also supported

          • Well of course it wouldn’t and opposed the Holocaust

            So you agree that the established church shouldn’t always support the state?

            but nonetheless the Church of England did support the banishment of Jews from England which had begun in 1200 and was not reversed until 1656.

            And do you think the Church of England was right to support those measures?

            Or, in our own time, we have bishops in the Church of England speaking out against government policies on the grounds those policies are against God’s will; do you think they should stop doing that, and instead offer full support to the government, on the grounds that the Church of England’s duty to the state overrides its duty to God?

          • I think the Bishops should focus on reviving Parish Ministry and their role in leading the established church rather than criticising the policies of the elected government yes. Albeit their criticisms of the current Tory government’s migration policies in sending migrants to Rwanda might find favour with the likely next Starmer Labour government if current polls are right

          • I think the Bishops should focus on reviving Parish Ministry and their role in leading the established church rather than criticising the policies of the elected government yes

            I suppose at least you’re consistent. Pagan, but consistent.

    • OK but then the church needs something to tell gay people beyond “dont get married”. It also needs a clear understanding on how to treat gay people who have not married, who have married and who have married and have children.

      Does the church teach the unmarried gay person that they are fully included in the church or that they are under suspicion because they could try to marry?

      Does the church teach the married couple that they must divorce to be welcomed into the church? What if they co-parent children together?

      Reply
      • Peter – the word ‘co-parent’ – as far as I understand it – has a specific meaning. It precisely refers to people who are not parenting their children together; it refers to couples who have split up – and who reach some sort of agreement whereby the child spends half of the week with one parent and half of the week with the other parent.

        At any rate – this is the only context in which I have heard the term ‘co-parenting’ before – and I’m sure that’s not what you mean here.

        Reply
        • Jock

          Sorry I was trying to avoid endless comments about how a gay couple can’t possibly (biologically) be parents, but I just made it more confusing

          Reply
          • Sorry I was trying to avoid endless comments about how a gay couple can’t possibly (biologically) be parents, but I just made it more confusing

            I think the phrase you were looking for is ‘what if they are raising children together?’ then.

  2. CS Lewis in Mere Christianity spoke of and advocated a bipartite system with two kinds of marriage.
    What he meant, I am sure, is that many unions undertaken are not and do not pretend to be Holy Matrimony, and that Holy Matrimony is no way the same thing as the other, being of another order altogether.
    However, the difficulty there is a conscious unfair 2 tier system where the goods of Holy Matrimony are withheld before they are ever properly explained to or understood by many of those who would be in a position to benefit from them.

    Reply
    • CS Lewis in Mere Christianity spoke of and advocated a bipartite system with two kinds of marriage.

      He did; but his whole point was that the Church should recognise one (and be clear about what that entailed) and not the other. The problem with these proposals is that they want the Church of England to simultaneously recognise and not-recognise same-sex civil marriages, depending on what is the convenient point to be making at the time. Just be careful not to collapse the wave function!

      Reply
  3. Andrew’s last piece was almost unintelligible in its attempt to gaze into the future and this piece reads almost like he was not even part of the shared conversations, LLF and all that. Clearly he doesn’t care for what GS decided but to just ignore all the stuff that has gone on for the last years reads like a desperate attempt to resist any change at all.
    Change is coming. Andrew at least has the opportunity to be part of the implementation phase. But to keep referring to the picture of the post it notes without any acknowledgment of context is just the worst kind of journalism. And to refer to the GSFA grouping as if it were an entirely homogenous entity is misleading. There were bishops from the Global South at the last Lambeth conference who had no idea what the GSFA was and indicated that it could hardly, therefore, speak with a coherent voice. Likewise to keep going on about GAFCON as if it were the real deal is just ignoring the fact that GAFCON contains groupings who are not even Anglican.
    We understand that there is a split. We understand that conservatives like Andrew are bitter about it all. But please, be a little more creative in writing and thinking? The repetition and style is just becoming tedious.

    Reply
    • Clearly he doesn’t care for what GS decided but to just ignore all the stuff that has gone on for the last years reads like a desperate attempt to resist any change at all.

      Two straight questions:

      1. How can the opinion that civil marriage is an entirely distinct thing from holy matrimony be reconciled with the previous opinions that there can be no such clear distinction?

      2. If those opinions can’t be reconciled, how can it be true that there has been no change in doctrine?

      If A was true at some time in the past, and not-A is true now, then there must have been a change between then and now, yes?

      Reply
      • Not if opinion is doctrine/truth or is not doctrine/truth, according to the mood of the room, at the Chameleon Court of Canterbury.
        What a philosophical farce. The unbearable lightness of opinion, not weighed in the balance.
        Mene mene tekle upharsin.

        Reply
      • Before reacting, say, to the latest piece of legislation in Uganda it might be instructive both to read what the Act actually says and to appreciate the cultural differences between, say, the UK and Uganda. Between January 1895 and January 1897 22 Catholic and 23 Anglican young men were tortured and killed because they refused to give in to the king’s homosexual demands because they followed Jesus. The way they died led to their executioner and eventually the king himself turning to Jesus. The Gospel then ran swiftly through Uganda, carried by indigenous evangelists. The martyrdom lies at the heart not just of the Church of Uganda but the nation itself. So attempts to promote homosexuality in Uganda strike at the deepest roots of the people. Thousands made pilgrimage to Namugongo to remember this on 3 June. In the Ugandan town where I worked there were two bars where formerly those who were attracted to people of their own sex could meet. There was also an understanding that sexuality was much more fluid than the way it is presented in the UK. The attempt by the Church of England to bless what is anathema in Uganda is seen as neocolonial imposition. It is seen as an attack on children and so the response has been robust. An understanding of the way language is used differently in different cultures is also needed. No bishop ever entertained thoughts of stoning homosexuals but used such hyperbolic language to rebut being dictated to by the west. The present Ugandan situation would not have risen without the developments in the UK.

        Reply
  4. I think the present situation has arisen simply because the Church – and one must also assume nearly all of its bishops – no longer believe in the final authority of Holy Scripture in all matters of faith and conduct. That’s fine, but there is now an 85% portion of Global Anglicans who have no intention of abandoning their Scriptural roots, and many of them live in parts of the world where it is very dangerous to be seen or heard to be a believing Christian. For all that, they are growing in numbers and we are slowly disappearing. I suspect many will now find little point in flogging a dead horse but rather line themselves up with those who have courageous faith in frankly hopeless situations.

    Reply
    • Michael –

      If one essentially abandons the principle of ‘sola scriptura’ then one is quite easily at the mercy of anything and everything. This is why, generally and spiritually speaking, the English Methodist Church has collapsed.

      Reply
    • “That’s fine, but there is now an 85% portion of Global Anglicans who have no intention of abandoning their Scriptural roots”

      This kind of thing is oft quoted but is not properly researched and is rather like saying there are 26million members of the CofE because that is how many are baptised by the C of E.
      All kinds of Anglicans are picky about which bits of scripture they adhere to and which they abandon.

      Reply
      • Nice attempt to divert the discussion from the parts of scripture relevant to same-sex relationships to the parts irrelevant.

        Reply
        • About 6 verses of scripture might make reference to same sex relationships so are relevant to a niche discussion whereas the vast thrust of scripture is rather more interesting in the wider discussion about human relationships.

          Reply
          • Would you consider summarising what the relevant verses do say rather than what they don’t? One would hate to consider you evasive.

          • Interestingly the infamous ‘clobber’ verses have all but disappeared from the debate inside the Church. You hardly hear anyone approvingly quote Leviticus. Even Romans 1 is going missing. Instead now the same-sex civil marriage is here, it seems to have changed the question, and so shifted the Scriptural ground beneath our feet. Now the parts that get focussed on are Genesis 1 and 2, Matthew 19, and Ephesians 5. Makes you wonder if the Bishops have a point: if the arrival of same-sex civil marriage can change the question, and the Scriptural focus, why can’t it change the answer?

          • Anton I imagine you must have seen the arguments about those verses many times before. If you haven’t, then I’m not sure how you can really engage with any discussion. Let’s try and be more creative in our discussions.
            May I commend a short book to you? Exchanging the truth of God for a lie by Jeremy Marks.

          • I imagine you must have seen the arguments about those verses many times before. If you haven’t, then I’m not sure how you can really engage with any discussion. Let’s try and be more creative in our discussions.

            The point of a discussion isn’t to be creative, it’s to find the truth.

          • So instead of summarising the verses you yourself regard as relevant, you refer me to a book and question my capacity for debate.

          • Yes – because there is no point going over arguments that have already been rehearsed again and again. Rather like this article by Andrew: it doesn’t advance anything just goes over the same tedious ground.
            And I think it was you who began with questioning the ability to debate. Two can play at that stupid game.

          • Yes – because there is no point going over arguments that have already been rehearsed again and again.

            Why not? The point of arguing is to discover the truth.

            But I guess you don’t believe in truth.

          • Anton: thanks for your question.
            I believe Mary was a virgin at the time of the birth of Jesus. And of course that would mean she had not had sex with anyone. I have no idea how one could be a virgin and have had sex. They are mutally exclusive aren’t they?

            And just for clarity I certainly did say the bible says almost nothing about sex before marriage. And I would never deny saying that. So what S is going on about I have no idea.

        • No point in going over the debate again? Going over the debate again is precisely what those who wish to import the secular notion of same-sex marriage into the church have been doing in the last two decades. They have been repeatedly trounced in debate over the scriptural position – it’s hardly difficult – but the foolish reluctance to expel them into the wider world from which their doctrine came means that they keep bouncing back with unscriptural arguments deriving from other sources.

          Reply
          • The scriptural position you refer to is a tiny number of verses which largely don’t relate to our current situation compared to the great tradition of scripture that explores the breadth of human relationship.

            I commend Jeremy Marks book to you. Excellent evangelical perspective.

          • The scriptural position you refer to is a tiny number of verses which largely don’t relate to our current situation

            Genesis 2 relates to our current situation.

          • The great tradition to which you refer took for 2000 years the view that same-sex physical relationships were not acceptable to God. Now suddenly you ignore those verses and also overturn all tradition of how to read them, in favour of a reading that you personally happen to agree with. Readers may wish to form their own opinions of this dialogue.

          • Anton readers take different views – that’s why General Synod had a vote. Let me think..now what was the outcome….,

          • Oh gosh no truth is not determined by a vote. Truth is absolute, by definition. What is not absolute is our ability to grasp the truth. Various wise people have recognised that. St Paul spoke about seeing through a glass darkly. Albert Einstein said that Blind belief in authority is the greatest enemy of truth and that truth is what stands the test of experience. Lessing (the philosopher) that the search for truth is more precious than the possession of it.

            As to logic – well Einstein is useful there too. Logic will get you from A-Z, but imagination will get you everywhere.

          • Albert Einstein said that Blind belief in authority is the greatest enemy of truth and that truth is what stands the test of experience.

            Well, that’s correct. Or as Philip K. dick put it, truth is that which doesn’t go away when you stop believing in it.

            Lessing (the philosopher) that the search for truth is more precious than the possession of it.

            But this is just incorrect. Possession of the truth is far more precious than the search. The whole point of searching for truth is to find it and recognise it when you’ve found it.

            As to logic – well Einstein is useful there too. Logic will get you from A-Z, but imagination will get you everywhere.

            Yes, that’s the problem with imagination. It gets you everywhere, including places where you absolutely ought not to go.

            But reading you talking about truth is interesting, Andrew Godsall. Remember how you claimed not to believe that man had walked on the moon, because you reserved the word ‘belie’ for things that you subscripbe to without actually thinking they are true, like you you ‘believe’ in God? Of course you later reverse ferretted on that because you realised how silly it was making you sound.

            But then also remember how you continue to claim you ‘believe’ in the creeds, while denying the truth of the virgin birth.

            You clearly have a weird, cock-eyed view of what ‘truth’ means when it comes to religion — you seem to think that religion is composed of thing s ‘believe’ rather than thing we think are true, as if there could be some kind of different between the two, and this is how you justify saying the creeds without crossing your fingers even thoguh they contain things you don’t think are true: you’re only saying you ‘believe’ them and in, your view, you can ‘believe’ things even though you don’t think they are true.

            You are like the worst kind of atheists I encounter, the ones who don’t even give Christians like me the credit of realising that I am a Christian because I think it is true. They, and you, consider that we al know, at some level, that what we are saying isn’t true, but we go through the motions and pretend to ‘believe’ it because it gives our lives some shape, some purpose, some meaning.

            It’s al a big game of let’s pretend, they (and you) think, where we make up the rules of what we ‘believe’ according to our communities and our traditions, because none of it’s actually true.

            And that’s why they get surprised and, ultimately, offended tat we can’t change the rules of our make-believe game to fit in with modern societal mores. They think they’re asking us to change the rules of our make-believe game, so all we have to do is find some way to do that that still fits in with the traditions we want to respect. So we could change the way we read the Bible, for example, decide that certain parts are only applicable to the past or that the writers of them were unable to see beyond their own cultures and we know better now.

            They don’t realise that the Bible is the Word of God and so is truth, unchanging and absolute. And that they’re not asking us to change the rules of a game of make-believe, but asking us to change the fundamental truths of the universe. Which of course we can’t do.

            And let me tel you it’s hard enough dealing with that kind of atheist as it is without them operating fifth columnists like you in our own ranks, trying to undermine out search for truth by claiming that truth is unfindable, the search is all that matters, and it’s all a big bag of make-believe — literally, ‘make’ ‘believe’, because you’re again on record as saying you think we choose what we believe, ie, we make it up, rather than ‘believing’ simply being a word to describe what we are convinced is true.

            So as you claim we can chose what we believe, for you it’s no big deal to simply choose to believe something different, something more in keeping with the modern world. Presumably you could have justified sacrificing to the Emperor too, somehow, by making your belief match what was required just as you justify saying the creeds when you don’t think they’re true.

            And, well, it’s tiring and annoying. But there it is.

          • S you talk rot so much of the time.
            I know for a fact that men walked on the moon.
            And I believe in the virgin birth.
            None of your words ever change those two things.

          • I know for a fact that men walked on the moon.

            This is the point. You won’t say you believe that men walked on the moon, because you’re trying to maintain this distinction between things you ‘believe’ and things you actually think are true.

            And I believe in the virgin birth.

            And this is just a lie. You think Jesus had a human father. Therefore you don’t believe in the virgin birth.

          • S dear I think you will find that the annunciation stories in Matthew and Luke claim that Jesus was conceived without a human father, but later in the Gospel of Luke, Joseph is listed as Jesus’ parent and father (Luke 2:27, 33, 48; 4:22). Indeed, through Joseph’s lineage, Jesus is shown to have descended from King David (Luke 3:23–38).
            The wise person simply accepts that these contradictions can’t quite be reconciled and rejoices in the mystery of the Virgin birth.

          • The wise person simply accepts that these contradictions can’t quite be reconciled and rejoices in the mystery of the Virgin birth.

            It’s nice to have you explicitly admit you don’t believe in the virgin birth, I will be bookmarking this so I can refer to in in future if you ever try to claim that you believe in the creeds.

          • You are unable to read obviously.
            I believe in the Virgin birth. Explicitly. It’s a profound mystery in which I rejoice. Explicitly.

          • I believe in the Virgin birth.

            The virgin birth is that Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus.

            You think that Joseph was Jesus’ biological father.

            Therefore you must believe that Mary had had sex with Joseph before Jesus was conceived.

            So then you don’t believe in the virgin birth, do you?

            You’ve basically explicitly spelt out that you don’t believe in the virgin birth, so as I say, I’m bookmarking this in case you try to claim in the future that you believe in the creeds.

            You can fling abuse at me all you like, it won’t change a thing.

          • Then you will be bookmarking the page where I say
            I believe in the Virgin birth. Explicitly. It’s a profound mystery in which I rejoice. Explicitly.

          • Then you will be bookmarking the page where I say
            I believe in the Virgin birth.

            The page where you say that and then immediately afterwards explicitly admit that you are lying when you say that, yes. That page. This page.

          • Except of course you can’t point to anywhere I say that. It’s your imagination dear.

          • Except of course you can’t point to anywhere I say that.

            You said explicitly that think Joseph was Jesus’ human father. So yes I can.

          • In that case you will tell me the time I said that and quote the exact words I use to explicitly say that 🙂

          • In that case you will tell me the time I said that and quote the exact words I use to explicitly say that

            Are you claiming you don’t think that? Well in that case all you have to do to get me to stop saying you don’t believe in the virgin birth is to state explicitly that you think that Jesus had no human father, and that the genetic material in Jesus’ Y-chromosomes did not come from any human man but was created miraculously by God in a breach of the laws of nature.

            In you can’t explicitly say that then you don’t believe in the virgin birth, now, do you?

          • Ah you have had to back down now haven’t you dear. You claim that I “said explicitly that think Joseph was Jesus’ human father. So yes I can”

            And now you can’t point to anywhere I make such a claim can you? Oh dear. Sorry you have disappointed yourself so badly again.

            Let me repeat for the avoidance of any doubt. I believe in the Virgin birth. Explicitly. It’s a profound mystery in which I rejoice. Explicitly.

            Now, when you can support the claim you made at 8.30pm we can continue. But now by your own admission, you can not support your claim with any evidence.
            I don’t need to prove anything here. I’ve said explicitly what I believe. And you have claimed I have also said something else. But as usual, you can’t back that claim up. When you can back up your claim, I will respond again, but not until.

          • I believe in the Virgin birth.

            That’s a lie. The proof is that you refuse to state that you think that Jesus had no human father. If you really believed in the virgin birth you could and would simply make that statement.

            Your sophistry isn’t fooling anyone, except perhaps yourself.

          • Dear S: Instead of disputing with Andrew Godsall what he did and didn’t write in the past, why not just ask him the simple Yes/No question, “Do you believe that Mary did not have sex with Joseph or any other man prior to the birth of Jesus Christ (and ‘sex’ includes so-called heavy petting)?”

          • Instead of disputing with Andrew Godsall what he did and didn’t write in the past, why not just ask him the simple Yes/No question

            I have done. The point is that if you ask Andrew Godsall a simple question it will simply not be answered; either there’ll be a load of guff which is no answer at all, or the answer will be to a totally different question in hopes that the unwary will be fooled into thinking the question was answered.

            For example, the question ‘Do you believe Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus?’ would get the answer ‘Of course I believe in the holy mystery of the virgin birth’. As you can see the question has not been answered, but evaded by means of equivocation on the term ‘virgin birth’; Andrew Godsall does not mean by it what everyone else does, to wit, that Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus; but hopes that no one will notice that and will think the question was answered.

            This isn’t a court of law, where it can be required that a yes/no question gets a yes/no answer in pain of a contempt charge. There is no way to force Andrew Godsall to answer questions in the terms in which they are asked, or even to be explicit about the definition of terms in the answers. So it is necessary to construct the answer by asking questions and then pointing the jury — ie, the readers — to the conspicuous gaps in the replies.

            Fortunately, Andrew Godsall is (fatally) incapable of not engaging and (even more fatally) utterly convinced of his own intellectual superiority, so given enough rope he will gladly hang himself many times over. One just needs someone with the patience to spool it out.

            And, perhaps, someone to direct the attention of some of the laity of the Church of England to what their clergy actually believe (and what they think of people who actually do believe in the real virgin birth, ie, that they’re credulous fools).

          • Dear S: I’m afraid that it *is* incumbent on you to back up your claim that Andrew Godsall is being disingenuous by providing a reference to a past thread.

            Dear Andrew Godsall: Do you believe, please, that Mary did not have sex with Joseph or any other man prior to the birth of Jesus Christ (and ‘sex’ includes for this purpose so-called heavy petting)? The favour of a clear Yes or No in any answer you give is humbly requested.

          • I’m afraid that it *is* incumbent on you to back up your claim that Andrew Godsall is being disingenuous by providing a reference to a past thread.

            A past thread? What about a current thread on this very page where Andrew Godsall supports sex before marriage by writing that the Bible is ‘not at all clear’ about it, then immediately denies doing any such thing? Is that not proof of disingenuousness?

            Or do you mean a previous example of disingenuousness on the specific issue of the virgin birth?

          • Anton: thanks for your question.
            I believe Mary was a virgin at the time of the birth of Jesus. And of course that would mean she had not had sex with anyone. I have no idea how one could be a virgin and have had sex. They are mutally exclusive aren’t they?

            And just for clarity I certainly did say the bible says almost nothing about sex before marriage. And I would never deny saying that. So what S is going on about I have no idea.

          • I believe Mary was a virgin at the time of the birth of Jesus. And of course that would mean she had not had sex with anyone.

            Then why have you not made that statement on any of the other times you have been asked, over the past (at least) two years?

            And more to the point, how do you square that with your expressed view that God is incapable of intervening in the operation of natural forces? Because a virgin giving birth is certainly a large intervention in the normal person of natural forces, isn’t it?

            <i€And just for clarity I certainly did say the bible says almost nothing about sex before marriage. And I would never deny saying that. So what S is going on about I have no idea

            You said that the Bible says almost noting about sex before marriage, and then claimed that you hadn’t endorsed promiscuity. But your statement about the Bible was intended — and you have not confirmed this — to mean that you don’t think sex before marriage is wrong. So therefore you were endorsing promiscuity, which you claimed you weren’t doing.

      • All kinds of Anglicans are picky about which bits of scripture they adhere to and which they abandon.

        Andrew Godsall, you think that the Bible is not God’s Word, but the product of fallible human beings. Stop trying to claim that you just disagree with people about how to read the Bible when the actual issue is that you disagree on the very basic fundamental fact of what the Bible is.

        Reply
      • Indeed, Anglicanism is faith linked to reason using the Book of Common Prayer as the foundation for worship. Not taking every word of the Bible literally. Those who want to take every word of the Bible literally have any number of evangelical free churches, Baptist Churches or Pentecostal churches. They are welcome to attend such churches. We Anglicans however have our own distinct theology, we are Catholic but reformed, neither evangelical alone nor Roman Catholic or Orthodox alone

        Reply
        • Indeed, Anglicanism is faith linked to reason using the Book of Common Prayer as the foundation for worship.

          And the thirty-nine articles, right? They’re just as important as the Book of Common Prayer to Anglicanism, aren’t they?

          Reply
        • Those who wish to change 2000 years of scripture-based tradition are the ones who should quit the Church of England. The price of not expelling them a generation ago could be that they gain hold of its worldly assets and prestige. But what are those things compared to keeping hold of Jesus Christ?

          Reply
          • The price of not expelling them a generation ago could be that they gain hold of its worldly assets and prestige. But what are those things compared to keeping hold of Jesus Christ?

            T1 is only interested in the assets and the prestige, T1 has been very explicit about that.

          • Spoken like a nineteenth century slave owner.

            Are you really trying to suggest that slavery, an evil institution perpetrated by sinful, corrupted men as a result of the Fall, is in any way like God’s good plan for creation as He communicates it to us in the opening chapter of Genesis?

          • S

            It’s undeniable that the slave owners justified their actions using scripture. You and I may not believe that the bible promotes slavery and racism, but conservative Christians at the time certainly did and it was progressive Christians who campaigned against it.

            Just because something is “traditional” does not make it moral.

          • It’s undeniable that the slave owners justified their actions using scripture.

            And it’s undeniable that they were wrong to do so, and this was obvious at the time.

            You and I may not believe that the bible promotes slavery and racism, but conservative Christians at the time certainly did and it was progressive Christians who campaigned against it.

            No, it was conservative Christians — ie, those who cared what the Bible actually said — who campaigned against it.

          • Indeed, Pete. 1900 years of Christian tradition supporting slavery undermined by revisionists!

          • Comparison with slavery is specious. Jesus’ words, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”, is enough to rule out slavery. I accuse those who owned slaves, but used arguments from the Bible to try to justify it, of bad faith. The only possible question is how exactly an evangelical Christian from a wealthy family, who inherited slaves when his father died, should wind down his slave-owning upon an island far away. Even then I am in no doubt that he should do so.

            The Bible is enough, both in the case of slavery and SSM. Which is why proponents of churchly SSM do their utmost to rubbish or avoid the relevant verses.

          • Christians have weaponised scripture to defend patriarchy, racism and slavery.
            Just as they now weaponise certain texts to condemn gay relationships.
            Some Christians even claim that the Bible is univocal about marriage and that the doctrine of Christian marriage has remained unchanged for 2000 years.
            Which is absurd.

          • Christians have weaponised scripture to defend patriarchy, racism and slavery.
            Just as they now weaponise certain texts to condemn gay relationships.

            Christians have misused and misread and denied scripture to defend patriarchy, racism and slavery.
            Just as now they misuse and misread and deny scripture to try to claim that same-sex sexual activity isn’t sinful.

            There, fixed that for you.

          • I am not interested in discussing on this thread how to discuss the Bible. I am not interested in discussing here what the Bible has to say about slavery or heterosexual marriage or divorce (or the FA Cup Final). I am interested in discussing here what the Bible says about homosexual relations and in discussing the attitude that Jesus Christ took to the Old Testament. Those are the two subjects that proponents of churchly SSM do their utmost to avoid.

            What do you understand by the Hebrew word toevah in Leviticus 18:22?

          • To Peter Jermey: The Catholic church had formally outlawed slavery centuries earlier. And in England the abolitionist movement was two-pronged, by nonconformists who had won converts among slaves in the British Caribbean, and by Anglicans who had political clout. You say that Wilberforce et al. were seen as ‘radical revisionists’, but you don’t say by whom. Hypocritical churchgoing slaveowners, perhaps?

          • People like Wilberforce were seen as radical revisionists.

            I don’t care what anyone is ‘seen as’. I care what they are. Wilberforce and the other abolitionists were evangelicals who took the gospel seriously and set themselves against the sinful aspects of the dominant culture of their day.

            Just like conservative Christians are doing today.

          • I’m sure it is. Which is problematic.
            But you haven’t answered my question about Genesis.

            I’ll start. Abomination (which is the usual translation of toevah) can mean a taboo, or something less disgusting/grave. The author(s) of Leviticus does not tell us why a man lying with a male the lyings of a woman was a taboo, although there’s extensive scholarly reflection on this – much of it to do with shame/effeminacy/patriarchal roles.
            In any case, the lyings of a woman proscription seems to prohbit one act – anal sex. The text is entirely silent on motivation, identity, orientation, relationship etc.

            Your turn.

          • ‘The text is entirely silent on motivation, identity, orientation, relationship etc.’

            Of course it is. Because the focus here is on bodily acts, in accordance with the bodily differences between men and women. It is for this precise reason that this instruction has consistently been read as a prohibition on all kinds of same-sex acts (including by extension those between women, hence Rom 1.26), regardless of motivation or any other issues.

            This is really ‘boo texts 101’.

          • To Penelope Cowell Doe: Man lying with man as with woman means sexually. Two men forced to share a bunk in an overcrowded pandocheion (wayside inn, as in the tale of the Good Samaritan) are not prohibited from doing so. Deliberate sexual stimulation between men is what is prohibited. Leviticus is not more specific.

            Toevah has deeply negative connotations and nothing you say shows otherwise. Do explain how, if you think you can.

          • Ian

            I cannot believe that you are so ignorant of HB scholarship on the Levitical prohibitions.
            Nor is your argument about the text’s extension to female/female sex acts and its reiteration in Romans 1 at all convincing.

          • I cannot believe that you are so ignorant of HB scholarship on the Levitical prohibitions.

            What does ‘HB’ stand for here?

          • I have, Penelope; I said that Strong’s satisfied me for the use of toevah both in Leviticus and in the Genesis verse you mention.

            Toevah has deeply negative connotations and nothing you say shows otherwise. Do explain how, if you think you can.

          • Firstly, Strongs isn’t reliable.
            Second, why are the shepherds an abomination?

          • Second, why are the shepherds an abomination?

            At a guess the shepherds were abominable to the Egyptians because the shepherds were foreigners and the Egyptians were massive racists?

          • Penelope, you have made no case that Strongs is unreliable in the verses we are discussing – the one I raise from Leviticus and the one you raise from Genesis.

            I have no idea why shepherds were regarded as the lowest of the low in Egypt, but is it in doubt? And doees it do anything to overturn the view that toevah in Leviticus 18:22 is strongly negative?

          • Strongs is based on the KJV, is not a lexicon and is, therefore, not always accurate on the uses of words in context. So, toevah/abomination may not carry quite the theological freight you are placing on it.

          • My original question, Penelope, was what do you understand by the Hebrew word toevah in Leviticus 18:22? You have conspicuously avoided answering it for several comments in this subthread now. I highlight this fact for the reader and put it to you again.

          • Anton

            I would say “do unto others as you would have them do to you” necessarily means no slavery and necessarily means no discrimination against gay people

          • Peter: the golden rule certainly applies in regard to slavery. But discrimination is a word that applies when two things that are identical are treated differently. Are homosexual and heterosexual sexual activity the same in any way other than the intent to gain sexual pleasure? Is the bible discriminatory?

          • But discrimination is a word that applies when two things that are identical are treated differently.

            I am old enough to remember when being discriminating was a good thing.

        • We don’t know the true percentage. The only way to calculate it would be to undertake a proper survey of the views of all those in the Anglican churches in the areas under question. Hasn’t been done.

          Reply
          • Oh and of course one reason it hasn’t been done is because in some of those countries it is too dangerous to express a view about same sex partnerships for fear of being beaten up and put in jail for life. So even an estimate needs to be taken with a very large pinch of salt.

          • Makes no difference, because the chances of people in those countries departing from the New Testament is negligible; thus their chances of reversing the New Testament are nonexistent.

          • In other words we have no idea of the actual percentage, so this continual quoting of 85% is similar to saying that the C of E has 26 million active members.
            The chances of people in those countries departing from the NT are as high as anywhere else in the world because they are human beings. And do appalling things like torturing people and locking them up in prison for life if they are gay.

          • That is a supposition. Maybe different countries are precisely as faithful to the NT as each other. It would be a bit of a coincidence if so.

            Anyway it was not my point whether they in fact lived up to the NT standards or not; my point was whether they *approved of* breaking the NT standards or not.

          • No it was not. Your point was your question.
            What is the true percentage if not 85?
            How is it calculated?

          • Oh and they clearly approve of breaking NT standards because of the manner of their treatment of LGBT people

    • What do you think Scripture tells gay people to do?

      I get that it’s very clear that sleeping with someone of the same-sex isn’t a “get out of jail free card” when you’re married, and just as much a defilement of your marriage bed (and harm to your wife) as adultery with someone of the opposite sex. But that’s not the question we’re facing is it?

      Reply
    • ‘The Church – and one must also assume nearly all of its bishops – no longer believe in the final authority of Holy Scripture in all matters of faith and conduct.’
      That includes most self-identifying evangelicals, who for example do not believe that God created the heaven and the earth in six days and rested the seventh day. Another topical example would be the doctrine of the ‘Trinity’, denying Scripture’s testimony that Jesus is ‘literally’ the Son of God, but belief in God as Creator is of particular relevance. Conservatives wish to uphold the traditional view of marriage on the basis of Genesis 2, but they don’t believe that Adam was the first man or Eve the first woman, created from Adam’s side. The situation is indeed hopeless.

      Reply
      • Well given your definition of an evangelical Steven it is hopeless! I wonder just how many would fit it? Reading your postings I have often wondered where you go to church. Do any fit your beliefs?

        Reply
        • Presumably you are not saying that I have misrepresented Scripture and its testimony that God created the universe and all things in its (notwithstanding your referring to ‘your beliefs’). If you are, then that’s the point to address.

          If the whole world, including the Church, believes a lie, what is the virtue of being among the majority? Truth comes from God and from his word; most of humanity rejects it (I Ki 19:18, John 6:67f, I Cor 1:20). Comfortable though your position is now, your siding with the majority rather than with what God has testified will not stand in your favour when you meet him face to face.

          Reply
          • I am simply interested in knowing if you go to a church that subscribes to a six day creation, the historicity of Adam and Eve and Eve created from Adam’s rib, but do not subscribe to the doctrine of the Trinity. I do knot know of such a church, perhaps you could enlighten me? Perhaps you don’t belong to a church and just see yourself as an unafiliated Christian ?

  5. It may of course prove to be the case that we will have to admit that on these questions we are standing in such different places that we cannot, sadly, find “a point that each of us, by stretching out our arm, can touch and reach the fingertips of the other”.

    Obviously in that case what we have to do is reach out and all close our eyes and pretend that we can touch each other. We must talk about how warm each other’s hands are; we must joyfully exclaim that we can feel each other’s fingers wiggling. And most of all we must shun anyone who tries to tell the truth. Because what’s the alternative?

    Reply
  6. “Given we agree that “God gives us the Bible…to call the whole world into holiness” (LLF, 275), what should we teach concerning the pattern of holy life to which we are called as baptised believers in Christ and in particular what do we say and offer to those who are in or seeking to be in a committed same-sex relationship of some form?”

    Well quite.

    I do think though that the ‘conservative’ side in this ongoing drama needs to take some responsibility for that question being continually avoided. The effort it takes to drag out of them what they might think about answering this question is like getting blood from a stone.

    Lambeth 1.10 sketched out the broad different possibilities:
    1) homosexuality is a disorder, but one that can and should be changed/cured or is simply not real. The pattern of holy life is literally no different: if you’re not called to celibacy like St Paul was, you should marry someone of the opposite sex.
    2) relationships between people of the same gender should not include genital expression. This then breaks into two versions. A) The pattern of holy life for a gay person is lifelong celibacy, and this is understood as an instruction of Church teaching, not a calling from God. B) The pattern of holy life can include relationships and partnerships, but there cannot be sexual union. This is akin to the Church’s approach to clergy in civil partnerships today.
    3) committed homosexual relationships fall short of the biblical norm, but are to be preferred to relationships that are anonymous and transient. Therefore the pattern of holy life for a gay person is a form of same-sex marriage, albeit conceived as something like a dispensation.
    4) the teaching on marriage applies to gay people and gay relationships in the same way as it does to straight people. Those not called to celibacy, are right to marry. Accepting your sexuality means this includes same-sex marriages for gay people.

    The first approach has been fairly roundly rejected. Issues in Human Sexuality cautioned against trying to ‘cure’ homosexuality 30 years ago. It’s taken a few decades for all parts of the Church to absorb that (ex-gay ministries were still circulating in some evangelical circles throughout the 2000s, and the infamous Exodus International didn’t collapse until 2013).

    The second approach is seductive but flawed. A command to celibacy is rejected routinely in Scripture – Jesus warns against it in Matthew 19, and St Paul does the same in 1 Corinthians 7. It is striking how many gay Christians who live celibate lives are very clear that it is not a calling, but a command (or even a martyrdom) – see Ed Shaw or David Bennett. Church tradition has a long history of celibacy of course, but not like this. Monks and nuns lived communally, took vows of celibacy only after careful and long consideration, and had their lives especially set aside for doing something for the Church. That is wildly different from what is being suggested here of imposing celibacy on people from the start with no discernment, vows are effectively assumed, they live alone not communally, and there is little acknowledgement of them let alone any particular role for them or purpose to their celibacy. The experience of civil partnerships in the clergy show the shortcomings of covenanted non-sexual relationships. The biggest problem is that hardly anyone believes they’re real. Those in those relationships find it is simply assumed that they are having sex whatever they say. Conservatives like the Church Society argue that these relationships are just a temptation to sin. It also places an odd theology about sex into the discussion – by obscuring the role of sexual union in a marriage (i.e. not the procreative purpose) – and that’s before we get into questions of where the line is between acceptable physical affection and unacceptable sexual behaviour.

    The House of Bishops appear to have settled on the third approach. To do this they rely on Ephesians as the foundational text to understand marriage. Personally I see a problem. It takes St Paul using a metaphor of marriage to explain Christ and Church, and inverts it to make the metaphor the purpose of the whole idea of marriage. In so doing marriage is elevated to the pinnacle of holy life, when St Paul says it’s better not to marry. And we have to glide over lots of other parts of Scripture that tell us man is not made to be married (Genesis), marriage is a practical response to sexual desire (Matthew 19), a concession to avoid us burning with passion (1 Corinthians), and a help to us in our lives (Ecclesiastes 4). The worrying part for everyone, is that conservative side of the debate agrees with the Bishops that Ephesians ought to be the foundational text, and the marriage is not ordained as a source of companionship, remedy for sin, and raising of families; and is instead ordained through history in order to provide St Paul with a handy metaphor in his letter to the Ephesians.

    So, if sexual orientation is not changeable and someone’s sexuality is something they should accept, what does the Bible tell us about a pattern of holy life? St Paul says it is best not to marry, and Jesus himself exemplifies that. But both Christ and Paul are clear that this is not an instruction, and the appropriate response to sexual desire is marriage – which lands us in the fourth approach.

    “Two are better than one, because they have a good reward for their toil. For if they fall, one will lift up the other; but woe to one who is alone and falls and does not have another to help. Again, if two lie together, they keep warm; but how can one keep warm alone? And though one might prevail against another, two will withstand one. A threefold cord is not quickly broken.”
    – Ecclesiastes 4:9-12

    Reply
    • What is set in reinforced concrete is the avoidance of the whole question of Holiness of,
      1 God
      2 Christians
      By the revisonists.
      And of course that presupposes there is such a thing as sin and what scripture reveals that it is, comprises.
      ” The sin underneath all sin is seeking to be our own Saviour and Lord…put(ting) our ultimate and trust in things other than God …seeking to get around God or get control of God in order to get hold of those things.” Timothy Keller.
      I’d add, it is when we get our hope, security, satisfaction, acceptance, identity, from anything or anyone outside of God, our sense of being complete(d), fulfilled, by anything or anyone outside of God.

      Reply
      • Geoff

        Lots of Christians see it as unholy to exclude or discriminate against (or jail or execute!) LGB people.

        It’s circular logic to say someone doesn’t care about holiness because they agree with same sex marriage. If you could find someone who simultaneously says same sex marriage is a sin, but that they also think they are good then those individuals fit your accusation, but you won’t find many of those outside the college of bishops!

        Reply
        • Peter,
          You have completely ignored the points, by ignoring the questions. So it is not circular at all when there has been no attempt at a Biblical answer. By you, (nor by the Bishops, so far as I am aware, but stand to be corrected).
          You seem to be somewhat rattled, Just as it should be for all of us as we look into our own sin and God’s Holiness.

          Reply
          • Geoff

            The Bible says holiness comes from God through salvation which we cannot earn.

            It doesn’t come through rejecting marriage, sealing oneself off from the world or heterosexuality.

            Does that answer your question with a biblical answer?

      • Hardly, Geoff. Look at St Paul’s argument in 1 Corinthians 7 – he’s explicitly against couples depriving one another of sex, for fear of people’s lack of self-control. Although Paul regards it as best not to be married, he concedes that it is better to marry than to “burn with passion”. Marriage isn’t the barrier to holiness, it’s the command to lifelong celibacy when that isn’t a gift imparted to you by God.

        Reply
        • Although Paul regards it as best not to be married, he concedes that it is better to marry than to “burn with passion”. Marriage isn’t the barrier to holiness, it’s the command to lifelong celibacy when that isn’t a gift imparted to you by God.

          You can tell that you are wrong because the logical consequence of your argument — which boils down to ‘no one should be deprived of sex’ — would be that someone who cannot contain their sexual urges, but who cannot find anyone willing to May them, would be justified in using a prostitute.

          This clearly cannot be right, yet it is the logical conclusion of your argument. Hence, by contradiction, your argument must be invalid.

          Reply
          • who cannot find anyone willing to May them

            Read: ‘who cannot find anyone willing to marry them’.

          • It will never cease to amaze me how often you guys really only see the husbands in a marriage, and are completely blind to the wives.

          • It will never cease to amaze me how often you guys really only see the husbands in a marriage, and are completely blind to the wives.

            Sorry, what’s that supposed to mean?

          • AJBell ‘It will never cease to amaze me how often you guys really only see the husbands in a marriage, and are completely blind to the wives.’ Indeed. To engage in this conservative world on the subject of sexuality is to find yourself almost exclusively in a world of men talking to men about men.

          • To engage in this conservative world on the subject of sexuality is to find yourself almost exclusively in a world of men talking to men about men.

            Again, what is that supposed to mean, in relation to what I wrote?

          • S

            Gay people don’t get married in order to have sex. Neither should straight people.

            If you are getting married in order to have sex then your marriage is not going to last.

          • If you are getting married in order to have sex then your marriage is not going to last.

            I agree but AJ Bell’s argument is that people should be allowed to get married so that they can have sex rather than ‘burn with lust’.

            I think this is an obviously spurious argument for the reason gjven but I am glad you agree with me.

          • Paul’s argument is really against bans on marriage. He’s arguing bans on marriage lead to sexual immorality. It’s very easy to see the church today falling into this problem

          • Paul’s argument is really against bans on marriage.

            Yes that’s my point. Paul is against bans on marriage. Paul is not saying that people have a right to have their sexual desires fulfilled.

            You would agree that it would be wrong for someone who had sexual desires that were not being met because she couldn’t find anyone to marry to visit a prostitute, yes? That would be wrong?

    • The worrying part for everyone, is that conservative side of the debate agrees with the Bishops that Ephesians ought to be the foundational text

      Um doesn’t the conservative side of the debate say that the foundational text ought to be Genesis 2? I’ve never seen any conservative perspective that doesn’t hold Genesis 2 as more foundational that Ephesians. Jesus, after all, explicitly said that Genesis 2 was the foundation of marriage, didn’t He?

      Reply
      • The paper put forward by the ‘conservative’ Bishops (Cocksworth, Snow, Duff etc.) earlier this year – their “short theological summary of the doctrine of marriage as the Church of England has received it”. That absolutely pushes Ephesians as the key foundational text for understanding marriage. Genesis gets a mention, but largely as a warm-up act to the point being made in Ephesians.

        Reply
        • That absolutely pushes Ephesians as the key foundational text for understanding marriage. Genesis gets a mention, but largely as a warm-up act to the point being made in Ephesians.

          This one?

          https://drive.google.com/file/d/1aYyMitqZL7c0ftjxM3_maGmptBzVVz_D/view

          If so you’re totally mischaracterising it. Ephesians is used in the introduction, yes, but just because it’s mentioned in the BCP marriage service. But the foundation — as you can tell by the way it’s the subject of the paragraph headed ‘First’ on p. 4 (the foundation of something is the thing that comes first, you see, what everything else is built on) — is Genesis.

          Reply
      • I would say that Genesis 1:27-28 is foundational. That humankind is male and female is related to the human purpose of being fruitful and multiplying. This is the core, and the fundamental reason why the ‘revisionists’ are wrong. Sex is for procreation, and sexual desire exists to encourage us towards this, and to bind the father and mother in the care of their children.

        I follow the “Daily Dose of Hebrew” which recently was going through the Song of Songs verse by verse. I struck me how so much of the language in the voice of the man as he describes his beloved is language of fruitfulness. This remarkable poem sees erotic love as directed towards fertility.

        Sexual desire for someone of the same sex and sexual activity between people of the same sex just does not fit this purpose in creation. It is essentially sterile.

        Reply
        • Disagree completely. Being fruitful and multiplying is not the human purpose. For a start it’s not a unique instruction to humans, but is to given to lots of animals (Genesis 1:22). Jesus, the most fully human person ever, did nothing to get married and have children. St Paul tells us the opposite – that is better not to marry (a similar message to Jesus in Matthew’s Gospel).

          Sex is for procreation? Again, that’s at odds with Genesis again where once we move past the animalistic portrayal of humankind in Genesis 1 to the first marriage in Genesis 2, purpose of sex is unitive: a man leaves his mother and father, and holds fast to his wife and they are one flesh. Procreation doesn’t come into it. And it’s this that Jesus refers to in Matthew 19. In the New Testament any idea that the purpose of marriage and sex is procreation doesn’t get a look in. In 1 Corinthians Paul argues that marriage is to prevent us burning with unfulfilled passion which will tempt us to immorality. Indeed he’s very concerned that people are having their sexual needs met inside marriage, not just the men but also the women. In Ephesians the unitive purpose is again explored – husbands should love their wives because no one ever hated his own flesh. Children get a brief mention in 1 Timothy 5 where Paul encourages young widows to marry, but this is shown to be about avoiding slander. The primary worry Paul has is that if they don’t marry their sexual desires will lead them astray.

          Reply
          • Jesus, the most fully human person ever, did nothing to get married and have children.

            And He didn’t have sex. So what does that tell us? It tells us, if you’re not going to have children, then don’t have sex.

          • in Genesis 1 to the first marriage in Genesis 2, purpose of sex is unitive: a man leaves his mother and father, and holds fast to his wife and they are one flesh

            But this is exactly why there can’t be such a thing as a same-sex marriage. the purpose of sex is unitive: uniting the two halves of the human race, male and female, into one flesh, in the image of God. A male/male relationship, or a female/female relationship, doesn’t unite anything.

          • It is a calumny to describe the portrayal of humankind in Genesis 1 as ‘animalistic’. Being the “image of God” is hardly that. So, procreation (rather than ‘reproduction’) is involvement in producing new creatures who are in the image of God. That is hardly a low calling.

            “The purpose of sex is unitive”. I’m not sure exactly what you mean by that. But the term “one flesh” strongly suggest kinship, i.e. blood relation. See the use of the word basar in:

            ‘and Laban said to him, “Surely you are my bone and my flesh!”… ‘(Gen 29:14)

            ‘…and let not our hand be upon him, for he is our brother, our own flesh…’ (Gen 37:27)

            ‘None of you shall approach any one of his close relatives to uncover nakedness. I am the Lord.’ (Lev 18:6)

            How do a man and a woman become blood relatives? Because the children they beget are blood relatives of both.

            It is also untrue that the role of marriage in childbearing is not mentioned in the New Testament. Luke 20:27-40 contains the question of levirite marriage. Note that this is to attempt to ensure that the deceased brother has children to continue his name. Jesus does not question the whole principle. However, he does make clear that in the resurrection there is no marriage. Why not? Because there is no need for procreation where there is no death.

            It is something of a distortion to speak of 1 Cor 7:26 as saying it is about having our “sexual needs met”. The context is entirely about a man and his parthenos – virgin or young woman. There is an existing relationship here. The ESV uses ‘betrothed’ to describe the woman, which seems fair to me. If this is right, then the two have embarked upon the journey to marriage, and Paul says that it is not wrong for them to continue this. To do otherwise might be seen as dishonourable.

            In fact the whole language of “sexual needs” seems wrong. No other person is their for the purpose of satisfying some desire of mine. That is to objectify them. If a man burns with passion for a 12 year old girl, should that need be met?

          • In fact the whole language of “sexual needs” seems wrong.

            Indeed, no one has sexual needs. People may have sexual desires, but not needs. We need food; we need water; we need oxygen; we need vitamin C or we get scurvy. No one can dies from not having sex.

          • The NT is silent on the goods of procreation. Or, rather, not silent – negative perhaps. The texts are also fairly lukewarm about sex, but when it is recommended, as a prophylactic, it’s for assauging lust not for making babies.

          • David, what then do you think St Paul was going on about at the start of 1 Corinthians 7? He’s insistent on the need for spouses to give each other their conjugal rights (this is not just something a wife gives to her husband – it cuts both ways), and that this is driven by the need to avoid sexual temptation. He explicitly says that your spouse has authority over your body.

            PS: To try and equate same-sex marriage with paedophilia is contemptible.

        • I think conservatives are took quick to latch on to simple models as if they are universal. Even if you declare all LGB people to be lying or deluded- how do you fit people with lifelong infertility and people who have an intersex condition into that? You can’t!

          I also think conservatives (or actually this is part of the human condition) apply rules to others that they don’t apply to themselves. Which conservative married couple has sex only for procreation? That’s never ever been the only purpose for sex! Too often such teaching has been used by church leaders to make young people submissive to sexual assault. That alone doesn’t mean it’s incorrect, but it is a red flag about the sincerity of these views.

          Reply
          • Which conservative married couple has sex only for procreation? That’s never ever been the only purpose for sex!

            ‘Sex without the possibility of procreation is wrong’ DOES NOT EQUAL ‘sex is only for procreation’.

          • S

            No conservative Christians practice that.

            Elderly conservatives still have sex, infertile conservatives still have sex, most conservatives use condoms

          • Indeed. That is because we do not believe that each individual act should be procreative, but that the sexual relationship overall should be.

          • No conservatives only have sex when there is a possibility of procreation.

            Ah, I see. But the point is that they don’t deliberately stop the possibility of procreation, eg by always using contraception when having sex.

    • “in particular what do we say and offer to those who are in or seeking to be in a committed same-sex relationship of some form?”

      The bishops should adhere to the lex orandi lex credendi corollary.

      In the pastoral guidance on same-sex marriage, the bishops wrote: “Same sex relationships often embody genuine mutuality and fidelity…., two of the virtues which the Book of Common Prayer uses to commend marriage. The Church of England seeks to see those virtues maximised in society”.

      If the CofE is truly seeking to maximise mutuality and fidelity in society, then why is the some of wording of PLF so specifically addressing just couples.

      If PLF could be amended to eliminate explicit references to couples (e.g., N and N), then it could become a resource for celebrating a far wider range of relationships in our society that exhibit virtues of mutuality and fidelity (e.g., an army unit that have returned from a dangerous mission in which some of their members was killed), but without being perceived as bearing such a striking resemblance to the marriage service.

      Of course, removing references to couples from the PLF wouldn’t prevent clergy from exercising discretion over the context in which they are used. However, this approach would preserve the catholicity of the prayers, which, if amended in this way, would no longer be indicative of a departure from the doctrine of the Church.

      Reply
        • You think the army chaplains currently lack suitable prayers for when members of the unit have been killed?

          Clearly he doesn’t; but for a denomination like the Church of England where liturgies are supposed to be standardised, wouldn’t it be useful if instead of using bespoke prayers as army chaplains presumably currently do, they could draw on a set format that is used throughout the entire denomination to recognise committed non-sexual relationships.

          Reply
    • AJ

      There’s another possibility which Lambeth 1.10 very clearly rejects, but has been resurfacing in the last few years

      The idea that gay people are in some sense evil and to be universally rejected, perhaps even jailed or executed. We tend not to see Christians advocating for execution or jail sentences in the west, but the sentiment of “these people cannot be reconciled to our way of living” is a major strain of thought within churches in the west.

      Reply
      • True – although it’s remarkable quite how many are willing to look the other way, or find they are suddenly quite enthusiastic about the Church adapting to the prevailing culture (see the excuses being peddled at GAFCON by folks like Richard Coekin for example).

        Reply
      • The question is whether sexual desire for someone of the same sex is part of God’s original design plan or a consequence of the Fall. Given that we are all fallen, the only reliable answer is God’s; and readers of scripture – Jews, then Christians – have considered the answer unambiguous for 3000 years. Same-sex-attracted evangelicals (such as Sam Allberry) agree with that scriptural 3000-year unbroken tradition, and secular gays are also in no doubt what Leviticus says (they just regard it as deplorable and unauthoritative). Only a tiny minority of a minority wants to change church doctrine. The trouble is that they have come to dominate the Church of England’s House of Bishops. It is difficult not to write intemperantly about people who take money from the faithful to spread heresy. These bishops are parasites on the body of Christ and I would not change places with them for anything in the world.

        Reply
        • Anton

          I don’t think it matters very much. The reality is that gay people exist and are required by Jesus teaching to make the most of their lives, not pretend to be straight and not pretend to not exist

          The vast majority of gay people in the church and outside the church believe church teaching is obviously wrong , ridiculous and harmful.

          Reply
          • The reality is that gay people exist and are required by Jesus teaching to make the most of their lives

            What? Nothing in Jesus’ teaching requires anyone to ‘ make the most of their lives’. That’s modern new agey psychobabble claptrap.

          • I mean if anything Jesus was very much against the idea of people making the most of their Earthly life. Do not lay up treasures on Earth, and all that.

  7. Steve – are you there? Any more choice similes (preferably involving a bikini)? Just to find out if there are Sanctimonious Pharisees listening in. The last one was beautiful – and the reaction it elicited was highly entertaining …..

    On the subject of this thread – I think we’ve found a great new way of praying. Prayers aren’t really spontaneous. Rather, they’re something got up by a committee of divines, with a legal team checking every detail of the text of the prayer! to make sure we’re not praying for something illegal. Yes, I’m sure that is the sort of prayer that is pleasing to God.

    Reply
        • Steve – yes – ‘Horfe with round fundament; why doth he emit a fquare excrement?’ (from Flann O’Brien somewhere). I think he’s trying to tell us that the draught prayers from the House of Bishops come from the horse’s fundament .

          Reply
          • lol.
            That reminds me of a Samuel Johnsonesque blog site . He would have been an interesting read.

  8. Andrew Goddard is spot-on in writing: “the logic of the current proposals and their legal rationale seems—without any reference to Scripture or theology or Christian moral reasoning—to have effectively sawn off the branch on which the church has been sitting.

    As I wrote on 21st May, 2023:
    “In his Ecclesiastical Law blog, Philip Jones has maintained that canon B5(3) imposes a 2-stage test: 1) doctrinal soundness – “neither contrary to”; (2) public perception – “nor indicative of any departure from the doctrine of the Church of England.” (https://ecclesiasticallaw.wordpress.com/2023/02/03/canon-b5-and-the-prayers-of-love-and-faith/)

    Even if the bishops assert that “the prayers are for the people not for their relationship”, then they would still need to contend with the argument that there is a widespread public perception that the prayers are for the both the people and their relationship.

    Philip Jones further explains why canon B5 relates to public perception: “As its title makes clear, canon B5 is concerned with the ‘conduct of public prayer’. Ecclesiastical law does not, and realistically cannot, regulate private prayer…Prayers may still confuse or mislead the public about the Church’s doctrine, even without actually contradicting that doctrine. Canon B5(3) is worded to prevent this. Like justice, sound doctrine must not only be done, it must be seen to be done – by Anglican lay worshippers, and by persons of any religion and none. Not just by the Legal Office.”

    The reasonable public perception of the Church’s doctrine of marriage has already been declared in the judgement for the Pemberton Employment Tribunal (p. 43). It went: “Here, I agree with the Respondent [Bishop Inwood], the “doctrines” of the religion must refer to the teachings or beliefs of that religion, not to what might more narrowly be understood by “doctrine” within a specific religious community such as the Church of England.”

    “Whilst a court will not simply accept an assertion as to the doctrines of a religion, it equally cannot be expected to enter into theological debate to determine those doctrines for itself. The ET was entitled to find that the doctrines – the teachings and beliefs – of the Church of England were as stated by Canon B30 and, with specific regard to same sex marriages permitted by the Act, as evidenced by the Pilling report and the Pastoral Guidance (ET paragraphs 171-187). That being so, it was equally entitled to accept that those doctrines were clear: marriage for the purposes of the Church of England was “between one man and one woman” (paragraph 188)”

    Notably, Pemberton entered a same-sex *civil* marriage which did not (to quote the Legal Note for PLF) incorporate “the blessings contained in the Marriage Service from the Book of Common Prayer or Common Worship” and yet, his same-sex civil marriage was still held to have contravened the Church’s doctrine of marriage.

    As it stands, the Legal Note for PLF cannot now contradict the Church’s previous legal position by now maintaining that the mere inclusion of Note 5 (“Any adaptation or new texts added by the minister here or elsewhere in the service must not involve the incorporation of the blessings contained in the Marriage Service from the Book of Common Prayer or Common Worship”) is sufficient to demonstrate that “nothing contained in the draft prayers would amount to, or be indicative of, a departure from the doctrine contained in Canon B30”.
    If that were the case, then (contrary to the Church’s previous legal declaration and the upheld judgment) that would imply that there was nothing in Pemberton’s same-sex civil marriage that amounted to a departure from the doctrine contained in Canon B30.
    The bishops can’t have it both ways. Either they admit that the Church’s position in the Pemberton judgment was erroneous, or they uphold that judgment.

    If the latter, then it means that , like Pemberton’s same-sex civil marriage, the absence from PLF of “blessings contained in the Marriage Service from the Book of Common Prayer or Common Worship” doesn’t somehow prevent those prayers from being indicative of a departure from the doctrine of the church.

    Reply
    • It can and it will, Synod has voted for the blessings of homosexual couples as not contrary to holy matrimony and therefore under Church of England law. For goodness sake, Church of England churches even marry divorcees where no adultery involved ie beyond mere blessings and I don’t see you whinging about that contradicting Church of England doctrine?

      Reply
      • For goodness sake, Church of England churches even marry divorcees where no adultery involved

        Only in exceptional circumstances.

        I don’t see you whinging about that contradicting Church of England doctrine?

        Then you haven’t been listening, have you? Plenty of people have pointed out that the Church of England went wrong on divorce and that that was a step on the road to its current troubles.

        Reply
        • Most Church of England churches marry divorced couples even without adultery in church and marry heterosexual couples who have had pre marital sex in church too. Even the C of E’s Supreme Governor, the King, had a blessing in an Anglican English chapel when he remarried Camilla despite their adultery with each other.

          So the opposition of some evangelicals in the Church of England to homosexual couples who have only had sex with each other and are married in English civil law having a blessing in a C of E church is absurd and it is right the Bishops and Synod have now allowed it

          Reply
          • Most Church of England churches marry divorced couples even without adultery in church

            Only in exceptional circumstances, not ordinarily.

            and marry heterosexual couples who have had pre marital sex in church too.

            Only after ensuring during marriage preparation that they understand that their previous behaviour was sinful and they repent of it.

            Even the C of E’s Supreme Governor, the King, had a blessing in an Anglican English chapel when he remarried Camilla despite their adultery with each other.

            Oh, you’ve stopped claiming that Charles was re-married in church then. Good-oh.

            So the opposition of some evangelicals in the Church of England to homosexual couples who have only had sex with each other and are married in English civil law having a blessing in a C of E church is absurd

            It’s not absurd, because to allow such blessings would be to change the Church of England’s doctrine and Synod has explicitly voted not to change doctrine on this matter (paragraph (g) of the resolution as passed).

          • No it is absurd and ludicrous hypocrisy when couples who have had pre marital sex and divorced couples can be and regularly are married in Church of England churches but homosexual couples in lifelong unions married in civil law aren’t even allowed a blessing. Hence it was only right that the Bishops and Synod have now approved by a majority full blessings in Church of England churches from July for homosexual couples

          • No it is absurd

            How is it absurd to oppose changing Church of England doctrine when the Synod passed a resolution stating that doctrine has not changed?

      • S

        It’s not really changing Cofe teaching, because the teaching isn’t there. We have “gays dont get married or have sex”, but none of the leaders can explain that theology in anything approaching a reasonable way and there is no theology beyond that! Nearly all the bishops are clearly embarrassed by their failure to come up with anything substantial or even moral

        Reply
        • It’s not really changing Cofe teaching, because the teaching isn’t there.

          Suggesting that sex outside a monogamous opposite-sex marriage isn’t sinful would absolutely be a change in Church of England teaching.

          And that applies just as much to opposite-sex fornication as any same-sex activity.

          Reply
  9. ‘the minister will on this basis have “to explain to the congregation that they are gathered to seek God’s blessing on the couple on the occasion of their entering into a civil marriage, which is however, in spite of appearances, not really a marriage and nor is the marital dimension of their relationship being blessed”. This almost Monty Pythonesque condition…’

    Not almost. Just had an image of Michael Palin in a dog collar trying to explain to his congregation what on earth he was doing. Even more difficult with the stammer he had in A Fish Called Wanda. And chips up his nose.

    Reply
  10. “the pattern of holy living for those who identify as gay, lesbian or same-sex attracted and the Christian disciplines that should be part of any committed same-sex relationship”

    I see an urgent need to clarify the pattern of holy living for heterosexuals, too. Whether they are unmarried, or married, there are Christian disciplines of self-denial. It would be helpful if the self-denial that is expected of same-sex attracted people can be seen as essentially the same as those who cannot find a spouse, or whose spouse is unable to meet their needs. Logically most marriages have one spouse with a higher sex drive than the other and in a certain percentage of those the difference in sex drives will be great enough to require self-denial etc. It is made out that an entirely different thing is being expected of those who are same-sex attracted, as if heterosexual people need practice no painful self-denial at all. Furthermore, self-denial should be presented as an opportunity for glory and freedom, not as the the occupation of killjoys.

    Reply
    • Paul

      The same thing happens in homosexual marriages – usually one spouse has a higher sex drive than the other.

      It’s quite a different thing to say a married couple must be faithful towards one another and to say gay people must remain single, really actually *isolated*, their whole lives.

      I understand for conservatives the big issue about same sex relationships is the sex part, but that’s not the biggest issue for gay people who want to seek a relationship

      Reply
  11. “It would be helpful if the self-denial that is expected of same-sex attracted people can be seen as essentially the same as those who cannot find a spouse, or whose spouse is unable to meet their needs”

    I’m sure it would be helpful to your argument. It would however, be a lie.

    Reply
  12. I think we have here a classic exposure of the dishonesty and the bankruptcy of situation ethics.

    Just like the Government with SSM, it has already been decided in advance which END is in view. The thinking towards that end therefore ”has” to be manufactured later.

    Any conclusion worth its salt is obviously the *product* of thought, not a fait accompli for about which post-eventum thought has later to be done to ”justify” it.

    Who would act thus? (1) Those for whom thought is not their forte. (2) Ideologues.

    It reminds me of Bernard Randall’s case. The opposition (both school opposition and judiciary) effectively said that his words were too clever for them to understand, ”SO” he loses the case. No – if you are not at a level to understand things then it is you that lose the case. The bishops are expecting to win with a preemptive approach (the resort of the dishoniest) that is summarised thus-
    Act now, think later.
    (Or: act in haste; repent at leisure.)

    Reply
  13. Reality check.
    Yesterday U was with some friends, a retired none stipe, URC minister. We were part of the same church. after the FT minister retired the URC provide no oversight and the eldership n did not subscribe to the URC embraced sexual ethics/ ssm.
    After a handful of years some young families moved from another part of the City to lead and join the church and leave the URC to join FIEC.
    But now and it it a big one, though the church is now thriving and vibrant in the local community the dying URC want an unpayable amount for the building, even though tge history of the ownership of the land is disputed by he founding members, now in their late 80’s early 90’s.
    Does the not but mirror TEC?
    A sifting and winnowing await.

    Reply
  14. “They should offer a theological account and moral vision of holy living, including for gay and lesbian relationships”

    Clearly this should have been done a decade ago, if not longer ago.

    Id suggest the reasoning against doing this is that the bishops have no confidence in “conservative” theology to actually better gay people’s lives, but dont want inclusion either. Like politicians trying to hide policy positions they have no reasoning to defend.

    Reply
    • Peter – the problem for me is that I have no confidence that you are a Christian. Your perspective in much of what you have written indicates ‘way of the world’ rather than ‘not of this world’.

      As I’ve indicated before, I’m not a C. of E. man and, in fact, right now I’m not affiliated to any church. I don’t really understand what ‘church blessing’ is supposed to be. I can, however, understand that singleness is not an option (I met the woman whom I married when I was 33 years old – before that I was single – and I’d say that – at least for me – singleness was very much a sub-optimal situation).

      If you want gays to be accepted – rather than persecuted, I’m OK with that. Furthermore, I have seen a gay couple, who adopted a child (who would otherwise have spent his childhood in an orphanage) and everybody agreed that the child’s life was much better having been adopted than it would have been in the orphanage. So if you’re arguing for the valuable contribution that gay couples can make, I think this is completely clear.

      But throughout (particularly on the earlier thread of ‘Family Life’ and what the project commissioned by the Archbishops) you consistently seem to drag everything down to the lowest common denominator. I mean – of course the church has to accept repentant sinners,. When a sinner accepts that he/she is a sinner, repents of his/her sins through Jesus Christ, the church has to take them where they are and bring them forward in the faith. But the starting point of the church has to be that divorce, single-parent families where either there was divorce or the single parent was never married in the first place, etc …. the starting point is that all this comes from broken lives where the root cause of the brokenness is sin. ‘The church’ does not overlook the fact that sin is the root cause; the church does not welcome people who point blank refuse to accept that they are sinners – and who refuse to accept the damage they have inflicted on children (for example if the parents have split up and have engaged in a co-parenting arrangement).

      Maybe I’m reading too much into your comments, but it seems to me that you often overlook sin and try to tell ‘the church’ that it should do likewise, with the argument ‘well, that’s what society is like – the church had better accept it if it wants bums on seats – and keep its mouth shut about the sinfulness of the lives of those who buy into such societal norms’.

      If you really want to argue that singleness is not a serious option for gay people and that gay couples can make a valuable contribution, then people like me would take this much more seriously if you didn’t seem, at the same time, to be sticking up for every unrepentant toerag of a sinner who has done an awful lot to damage children’s lives.

      But when acceptance of gay couples is linked with acceptance of adultery, divorce, broken homes, I draw some negative conclusions about it.

      Reply
      • What a lot of self-serving nonsense. You really wish you could agree with Peter about X, but because he says things you disagree with on Y, you are compelled to disagree with him about X as well. It’s ridiculous – theology as a mere political game.

        Reply
        • AJ Bell – gosh, you seem to be in a bad mood this morning 🙂 Nope – you’ve (quite deliberately) misunderstood it – but no point in discussing with you.

          Reply
        • You really wish you could agree with Peter about X, but because he says things you disagree with on Y, you are compelled to disagree with him about X as well. It’s ridiculous – theology as a mere political game.

          Surely the one playing the political game is the one who demands an inch with the intention of taking a mile, ie, the one who asks for reasonable accommodation in special circumstance A while planning, when that exceptional accommodation is granted, to use it as a precedent to argue for far more far-reaching changes in the general, rather than the exceptional, case?

          Basically, isn’t it the progressives who are playing political games by using bad-faith theological arguments about exceptional cases to try to push towards general change, not the conservatives who are trying to resist such games by pointing out the bad faith?

          Reply
          • S – there is (of course) the ‘you can tell a man who boozes by the company he chooses’ principle, which is often a reasonable guide. If we’re talking about theology here, then having perused some of his comments, I feel that AJ Bell is advocating the theology of George Best (you no doubt recall the interview he did with Terry Wogan, where he explained to Wogan, ‘Terry, I enjoy …….’ (he used a derogatory term used to describe carnal activities for purely recreational purposes). Of course, GB was strictly heterosexual, but promiscuity is promiscuity is promiscuity – and the Good Lord casts those who wantonly engage in that sort of thing into the eternal fire (at least I hope he does).

            All this gay business is something that I don’t understand, in the sense that as far as I can see, nice girls are nice – and men simply aren’t attractive – at least not in that way. I really can’t understand the attraction. Furthermore, as far as I can see, Scripture seems to make it
            clear and plain to me that one man, one woman, in lifelong union is the only appropriate place for sex. But the verses in Scripture which indicate this simply back up the intuitive ideas that I already had in the back of my head.

            I can therefore sympathise with someone who says that they aren’t attracted to the opposite sex; they would like their life partner to be of the same sex – and that singleness is a hard and lonely option, that it is cruel for the church to impose this on people. I can understand all of this very well; I would not like to be single.

            The problem here is that when we find someone advocating for this = letting people have a life partner of the same sex – invariably they’re also advocating in favour of a liberal attitude towards promiscuity and lots of other nasties. These are the nasties that lead to broken homes, single parent families which arise through divorce or somebody deciding to have children outside the context of a stable union, etc … etc … all the things that lead to huge psychological damage, particularly on the children – also on the spouses of adulterous partners.

            On other threads, we’ve seen (for example) Andrew Godsall suggesting that pre-marital sex is OK, because in the process those involved will learn how to please their future partners – leading (in his opinion) to happier marriages (when precisely the opposite is the case). With ‘friends’ like that, those advocating for greater acceptance of gay couples don’t really need any additional enemies. AG really is undermining the cause with absolutely everything he writes – he makes it look as if acceptance of gay couples is all part of accepting a greater level of promiscuity.

            I am looking for someone advocating for acceptance of gay couples who, at the same time takes a robust view concerning promiscuity, adultery, basically those things which have caused so much psychological damage to children in recent decades – and I’m having very great difficulties finding it.

          • The theology of George Best? You’re going to have to do better than just erecting your own straw man, Jock.

          • Jock: you have an adolescent view of human sexuality that you don’t seem to have ever escaped. It reminds me of the playground when I was 14. You certainly undermine your cause with everything you write. AG advocates responsible sexual relationships.
            As to sex before marriage, the bible is not at all clear about such a thing, and says almost nothing about it. What it does say has to be extrapolated.

          • Andrew Godsall – you – and those who present similar arguments – are the biggest obstacle to the sort of thing that Peter Jermey wants (if I have understood him properly).

            He has indicated that companionship is the most important thing and that singleness is not an option. He knows that a relationship with someone of the opposite sex wouldn’t work and feels that his life-partner has to be of the same sex. He wants to be not only tolerated, but also accepted and welcomed within this context.

            All this actually sounds reasonable – and as I have indicated, I’ve seen at least one example of this, where it seems to work (gay couple who adopted a child who would otherwise have spent his childhood in an orphanage).

            You are the one who comes in and conflates this with all sorts of promiscuity. You have confirmed that I didn’t mis-remember, or mis-quote you; as far as you are concerned, sex-before-marriage, multiple partners-before-marriage is wholly OK and part of the learning experience.

            I strongly disagree with you on this matter. You have to understand that, by conflating these two distinct and separate issues, you are actually making it harder (rather than easier) for the likes of Peter Jermey and – as I said – with ‘friends’ like you, he doesn’t actually need enemies.

          • Jock: please point to where I have ever mentioned any support for promiscuity. Then you can go back to giggling behind the bike sheds with your school chums.

          • please point to where I have ever mentioned any support for promiscuity

            Well you certainly refused, when given the opportunity, to condemn promiscuity, instead writing ‘As to sex before marriage, the bible is not at all clear about such a thing, and says almost nothing about it. What it does say has to be extrapolated.’ — the only possibly interpretation of which in context is that you don’t think sex before marriage is always wrong.

            And not condemning promiscuity is quite bad enough.

            Unless you would like to now state that all sex before marriage is wrong and sinful?

            (See how slippery Andrew Godsall is?)

          • you have an adolescent view of human sexuality that you don’t seem to have ever escaped

            Hm, anyone else, when reading anything Andrew Godsall has written, catch an echo of a helpful voice from another time?

            My darling nephew,

            So your new woman has discovered sex, you say, and you have managed to get her into contact with a boy she likes, and who is putting pressure on her to have sex with him; but she is wondering whether she should save himself until they are married. As you write in your plea for advice (or might one even call it a lament?), we thought we had eradicated these ideas of the Enemy’s for good in the generation when you were still a third-class Junior Tempter; and yet they still keep springing up anew like wildflowers bursting into life in a meadow that we thought had been wholly choked by beautiful thorns.

            Nevertheless, the old rules, the ones that I explained to you over and over again, still apply. Do not attack the Enemy directly! Find a way around his defences. In this case, a tried and true method is not to try to convince your woman that waiting for marriage is wrong, but to seed the idea that it is childish. The way to do this is simple. Children do not understand sex; and children are in awe of things they do not understand. Therefore (not, this is not a logical ‘therefore’, but a ‘therefore’ of emotional association; so skip over it as quickly as possible, lest your woman see that it does not follow at all!) to hold sex in the awe and reverence that the Enemy intends is to be like a child. To be truly grown-up it is therefore necessary to treat sex like any other bodily function or social interaction. Slip this idea into your woman’s consciousness next time she is thinking about this boy and you’ll have them cohabiting before you know it. And of course once you’ve done that with this girl it will become easier and easier for you to convince her that the same applies with the next boy, and the next, and the next, until finally she is utterly beyond any possibility of emotional intimacy. At this point your work is almost done!

            You might protest that this is too obviously nonsenseical for your woman to fall for it; but rememebr the other lesson I taught you, that audacity can be our greatest strength. If you can, with a straight face, repeat something utterly ridiculous, you will cause all who hear you to doubt themselves, indeed, to doubt their very sanity. Just look at the success that has been achieved with the latest campaign to come up from the depths of the nethermost strategic minds of the Lowerarchy, ‘A man can be a woman’.

            Of course you should not try such an advanced manoeuvre as that. It takes special training to know how to disseminate ideas that run counter to all logic and experience, and if you try and fail you risk your woman beginning to pick at the loose thread and unravelling all the good work that your inferiors have been so assiduously building over the decades. But in this specific area, you have the distinct advantages that you are working with, rather than against, your woman’s natural inclinations. In short, she wants to believe. And when someone wants to believe there is no limit to the deception that you can visit upon them!

            Your affectionate uncle,
            Andrew.

          • Andrew Godsall – well, it looks as if S got in before me and made the points that I would have made.

            You did write ‘As to sex before marriage, the bible is not at all clear about such a thing, and says almost nothing about it.’ This does not look to me like a condemnation of sex before marriage and, in my book, sex before marriage is promiscuity. (Even if people avoid the sex-before-marriage bit, having had several boyfriends or girlfriends before marriage is very bad for the marriage – and is certainly not the Christian way).

            I do remember threads where you went much further than this – but I honestly can’t be bothered trawling through past threads – and I didn’t open a bookmark folder entitled ‘The Clangers of Andrew Godsall’.

            You’re right, though, that I have found some of your past contributions highly entertaining (and, no doubt, I expect to be entertained further in future).

          • There is little hope that the Church could ever have a grown-up theological conversation about sex and sexuality if the schoolboy attitudes displayed by some of the commenters here were representative of CoE ‘members’. Fortunately, I think they are not.

            The caricature that only boys put pressure on girls to have sex – what about the girls persuading the boys?
            Or that it’s unwise to have too many girlfriends or boyfriends before marriage, even when these relationships are chaste.

            This isn’t doctrine; it’s patriarchal ideology disguised as religion; it’s a false and harmful emphasis on a mistaken notion of purity. It’s culture pretending to be spirituality. It’s barren and vacuous.

          • Penny thank you for your voice of reason. Jock seems to get beside himself with excitement even at the mention of a bikini and can’t get beyond referring to the sexual act as ‘having it off’ – an expression I have not heard since I was 14 and in the playground.

            Jock, the things I have noted above don’t get me any confidence as to what things might be ‘in your book’. What I do know is the CofE’s acknowledgment that a couple who are intending to marry are going to be sexually active and accept and support them in their relationship. I have been taught that in pastoral practice since before I was ordained in 1988 until recent retirement. The CofE will go on teaching that. There is a world of difference between that approach and promiscuity. I note that you can not be bothered to find any places where I support promiscuity. I will take that as a retraction of your claim.
            Please be a little more mature in your attitudes.

          • There is a world of difference between that approach and promiscuity.

            No, there isn’t. Because ‘intending to marry’ is very different to being married. You can ‘intend to marry’ someone from your second date (perfectly sincerely), have sex with them, move in together, split up eighteen months later, meet someone else, intend to marry them, move in together, split up, meet someone else, intend to marry them, move in together, split up, etc, etc, several times before actually getting married.

            I assume you would recognise that that is promiscuity, and that the Church of England, even in its dense state, would not try to claim that such a pattern of behaviour is okay?

          • Andrew Godsall – again S made the point for me – and he made it very well; the sentence that I quoted from you in this thread is supportive of promiscuity – at least as I understand it.

            There are certain things – concerning sexuality – that do great damage to people – and I’m very surprised that you fail to see this empirically, particularly following your 35 years of pastoral experience – I’m also surprised at Penny.

            If you fail to see it, especially with all your experience, then there is probably no point in further discussion with you. I’ll reiterate the main point though; trying to establish a looser view of acceptable sexual behaviour in general – and then trying to put support for gay couples *in this context* – does absolutely no favours to people like Peter Jermey, whose main interest (from what he wrote earlier on this thread) seems to be companionship – and an answer to the question of what gay people are supposed to do when they (understandably) see singleness as a non-starter.

            With friends like you and Penny, they don’t really need enemies.

          • Jock: Peter Jermey would have to speak for himself but I would be very surprised from the things he has written that he advocates that same sex couples should only be companions and remain celibate.

            You are right that there is little point in discussion with you as you have such a juvenile view of sexuality. Please refrain from accusing me of supporting things I expressly do not support. Sex for a couple who are intending to marry is quite different to promiscuity. But with your juvenile view I am not surprised that you can’t see any difference.

          • You are right that there is little point in discussion with you as you have such a juvenile view of sexuality.

            You keep using that word ‘juvenile’ without any attempt at justification. What exactly is ‘juvenile’ about it?

          • (Perhaps I should be specific. What exactly is ‘juvenile’ about the view that sex is holy and sacred, an awesome and wonderful thing; that it is the highest and deepest level of intimacy possible between two physical beings? Because that seems like rather the opposite of a ‘juvenile’ view to me.)

          • S – thanks again for pointing out the obvious. You are, of course, correct.

            Your post in the Screwtape style was spot on – very good and very incisive. Dismissing the Christian approach to sexuality as immature, juvenile, adolescent, etc …. does seem to be the way the devil is currently operating – and he has no difficulties in finding operatives.

            Did you write this yourself?

          • Jock – let me be clear that the Christian approach to sexuality, as for example now written in the C of E Common Worship marriage service, is wonderful. Of course, as you have almost no knowledge of the C of E you won’t know that at all, and neither will S who seems to be happy being behind the bike sheds with you.
            I don’t believe your approach is by any means Christian. I wrote that “Jock seems to get beside himself with excitement even at the mention of a bikini and can’t get beyond referring to the sexual act as ‘having it off’ – an expression I have not heard since I was 14 and in the playground.” That is all very far from being Christian.

          • Andew Godsall – well, you can take things out of context and manufacture a picture which you know to be false if you want to – which is precisely what you are doing here. I use the term ‘having it off’ when – and only when – promiscuity is in view (which I think you have understood). Bearing false witness isn’t particularly Christian either.

          • I don’t believe your approach is by any means Christian

            What, precisely, is not Christian about the view that sex is holy and sacred, an awesome and wonderful thing; that it is the highest and deepest level of intimacy possible between two physical beings?

          • “Bearing false witness isn’t particularly Christian either.”
            Exactly Jock. So please stop it.

          • For that matter, what is ‘juvenile’ about the view that sex is holy and sacred, an awesome and wonderful thing; that it is the highest and deepest level of intimacy possible between two physical beings?

            Andrew Godsall never answered that question.

      • Jock

        I’m saying a far more basic thing than any of what our suggest. I’m say the church needs to have clear workable teaching for how gay people should lead their lives. They have chosen not to even attempt this.

        I agree that the church is great at accepting that people are imperfect. The problem is that they do not really allow those same imperfections amongst gay people. Same sex marriage is dealt with more severely than divorce and remarriage, for example.

        I’m sorry if I seem too worldly – I need theology to actually work in the real world and that’s why you see me as “worldly”.

        If I was not a Christian then I’m not sure why that would mean you were forbidden to agree with me. I’m sure I agree with Rishi Sunak on some things and he’s not a Christian.

        Reply
        • Peter – I never said I was forbidden to agree with you – in fact, you make many good points. I’m more interested in your salvation. On the gay issue – yes – it’s completely clear that solution seems to be to tell gay people that they essentially have to spend their lives alone – and I’m inclined to agree that this is a very hard teaching. As I indicated, I have seen a gay couple adopting a child who would otherwise have spent his childhood in an orphanage – and there was every indication that the child’s life was better as a result of being adopted than it would otherwise have been. So, for the points that you make on this issue, I’m inclined to agree with you.

          I’m looking, though, at the previous post on family life – the sort of ‘societal change’ that you seem to think the church should accept if it wants to get ‘bums on seats’. This goes much, much further than simply accepting that gay people exist and accommodating them; it involves an acceptance of the awful things that heterosexuals get up to, which destroy the lives of their children and of their spouses. But I should stop here, because the things of greatest concern to me are issues connected the previous post – and not this one.

          Reply
      • I dont think it’s good for a couple to stay together ‘for the sake of the children’ if that is what youre saying. I think you’ll find that at least sometimes when couples split, their children become happier precisely because they no longer have to live with often unhappy and constantly bickering parents throughout their childhood. I know the stress and unhappiness that comes from such a situation where little love seems to be expressed between one’s parents, but instead seemingly constant anger and frustration.

        Reply
        • I think you’ll find that at least sometimes when couples split, their children become happier precisely because they no longer have to live with often unhappy and constantly bickering parents throughout their childhood.

          Possibly, sometimes, in cases where the parents really are violent towards each other.

          But I think that far more often the parents are just unhappy, or bored, or just think that they could do better or that their spouse is holding them back; but they realise at some level that simply wanting to be happier is not a good reason to break up their family. So they convince themselves that their children will be better off if they were happier (it’s very easy to convince ourselves of arguments, however spurious, for things we want to do anyway).

          Perhaps it’s true that it is sometimes not good to stay together for the sake of the children. But I am sure that it is better to stay together for the children on many more occasions than it is better to spilt up for the sake of the children, and I would be very suspicious of anyone claiming that they split up for the sake of the children: I suspect in the vast majority of cases they just wanted out of the marriage and the children were a convenient excuse.

          Reply
          • S – I don’t think he’s talking about parents *claiming* that the reason for their split was to make their children happier.

            PC1’s comment – he says he knows the stress and unhappiness – so it looks as if he’s describing his own background; he’s describing it from the point of view of a child subjected to such a background. If this supposition is correct, then it means that he has survived a traumatic upbringing – so my strong respect.

            I’d also say that I’ve always enjoyed PC1’s comments here – he quite often expresses views that are close to my own; with any interaction I have with PC1 here, I always feel as if I’m interacting with a fellow Christian.

          • I don’t think he’s talking about parents *claiming* that the reason for their split was to make their children happier.

            Nevertheless that is the context in which the argument ‘it’s better for the children if their unhappy parents split’ is most often made: by parents wishing to justify them putting their own happiness above not breaking up their family.

          • Angry words can be just as bad or nearly as bad as physical violence when it comes to the effect on children. But when I was a kid a husband giving the odd slap to his wife was common place, thankfully less so now (hopefully). In a previous generation to mine I know of a relative whose husband slapped her on their honeymoon! What an awful introduction to married life.

            I find it amazing that it’s only recently that domestic abuse, not just violence but mental, is being taken seriously by the authorities.

            In my own case, as I am anonymous here, I can say that my dad occasionally slapped my mum though it was always in another room, rather than right in front of us. But I can still remember the heart-thumping fear and stress that induced in me. Their seemingly constant arguments and bickering not involving physical violence, often over very trivial matters, caused constant stress to me. I dont remember a holiday when they didnt bicker at some point leading to a fall-out. My childhood wasnt hell compared to many others, but I still remember all that crap. It probably explains why I hate confrontation to this day. And I remember thinking as a young teenager that I would have been quite happy if they divorced and I lived with my mum – I would have had some peace at last. Such is life. I suppose my main point is a marriage should not continue at all costs because it is viewed as ’till death do us part’. Sometimes it is better, especially for the children, to end it.

        • PC1 – you are (of course) correct – but it’s a situation that I can’t for the life of me understand. I certainly don’t understand it if the two people who have the child together are Christians. I mean, when you have a child, then the child instantly becomes the most important thing, doesn’t it? Even if there are disagreements, a little bit of generosity towards each other should be enough to prevent the situation you are talking about happening?

          You’re right that the sort of situation you describe does happen – and when a marriage reaches rock bottom in that way then a split is probably the only serious option – still, I can’t fathom it.

          Also – any child psychologist will tell you that it’s terrible for the children. The bottom usually falls out of the child’s world when the parents split ……

          Reply
  15. We had a great sermon today on 2 Peter 1:20-2:10.
    It is interesting how the expression ” clobber verses” are used to denounce and renounce and plainly undermine scriptures irrefutably plain meaning when read contextually across the whole canon of scripture.
    False teaching, here, from culturally based opinion, own interpretation, was infiltrating the church and of course everything would be hunky dory, no looking back to God’s judgement: He doesn’t, never has, never will execute judgement. Or, that was then, we know better by far today ( as we look through the wrong end of the telescope- it’s only a matter of optics after all)
    Do we grieve over sin, our own included?
    Who is now counted righteous, why and how? Are there any Good News transformative manifestations in belief and behaviour?

    Reply
  16. Geoff

    My attempt at a clobber verse

    Do not do anything that endangers your neighbour’s life. Leviticus 19.16

    There’s no aterisk saying “unless your neighbor is gay”

    Reply
  17. BTW, (Irony Alert)
    I don’t think that CoE horse would sell well, fetch much, at this year’s Appleby Horse Fair, even if there are bets on a wing and a prayer and even though it may be the pride and joy of the Bishops stables, well chuffed with its up to the minute, artificially engineered, honed credentials, and created in their own image, ready to be pranced around the starting, owners, and auctioneers enclosures.

    The digitally enhanced, signed and dated, silk prints will be well hung with prominent pride of place, displayed in all training and service areas of our Institution- the Greatest Show on Earth.
    BY ORDER of the BISHOPS of Barnum
    ” The Noblest Art Is That Of Making Others Happy.”
    P.T. Barnum

    Just Give Them What They Want.

    Reply
  18. The neglect of the Gospel of the Kingdom [ Repent] and and it’s subsequent abandonment,similare to neglecting and casting away the Law [ casting off restraint ] has resulted in the lack of knowledge of what Repentance means’
    At the gate-house of the kingdom a price is required to enter the Kingdom which all have to pay, whatever our orientation. Repentance
    But what is Repentance? The odd fellow on here has nerry a clue.
    Consider EZRA Chapters 9&10
    The rebuilding of the temple was delayed because of a significant
    problem. the people and the bad example of the priests[named]
    had taken foreign wives in rejection of the ordinances of God.
    After great contrition Ezra said ,10:10 And Ezra the priest stood up, and said unto them, Ye have transgressed, and have taken “strange wives”, to increase the trespass of Israel.
    10:11 Now therefore make confession unto the LORD God of your fathers, and do his pleasure: and separate yourselves from the people of the land, and from the strange wives.
    This they did in repentance [i.e. they stopped doing what they were doing with resolve ] Yes put away your “Srange wives” and put off your” strange dress”[ I will leave that for you to ferret out]
    As the Lord Jesus said “It is better that you enter into life maimed
    than for your whole body should be cast into hell.” Thus there may be granted to you an entrance in to the fabulous riches of the Kingdom of God.
    It is not enough to confess your sin without repentance [aka King Saul] It is not enough to creedaly confess the same sins every Sunday,[Offering the same sacrifice continually ]
    Repentance is required which brings forth fruit unto repentance. Put away your “strange “”wives” what ever your orientation. Failure to do so is so tragic.{ Solomon }

    Reply

Leave a comment