Summary: By setting out what the bishops (and their legal advisors) are now claiming about marriage in our society, this article argues that there are significant changes in their account which have not been clearly explained or defended. It traces how the church has viewed marriage in society generally through history and summarises how the bishops previously have interpreted and responded to the introduction of civil partnerships (first for same-sex and later for opposite-sex couples) and same-sex marriage and related these to church teaching about marriage. In so doing, it shows that there are now novel claims being made. These contradict past statements in various ways and raise a number of major questions about the coherence and legality of the bishops’ response to LLF and why what is now being said contrasts in so many ways with past statements the bishops have made.
What are the bishops now saying about marriage? (2023)
Andrew Goddard writes: The first headlines that appeared when the decisions of the bishops in response to Living in Love and Faith (LLF) were leaked emphasised that they were not changing the church’s doctrine of marriage. In particular, that marriage remains a union of one man with one woman. That is indeed the case but in other ways, once set in the context of previous statements, there have been significant shifts which deserve careful scrutiny.
One of the most surprising aspects of the bishops’ response to LLF (GS 2289) was the way in which it spoke about holy matrimony in relation to civil marriage. It did this in order to defend the proposed draft prayers being used in relation to a couple who have entered a same-sex marriage even as the church continued to define marriage as between a man and a woman. The bishops acknowledged (p 7) that
Some may question whether offering a service of dedication, thanksgiving and/or blessing for same-sex couples implicitly contravenes the Church’s understanding of Holy Matrimony especially if the couple concerned has entered a civil marriage. This is an understandable question and its answer – that this service and prayers will not contradict the Church’s doctrine of Holy Matrimony – lies in the complexities that sets the Church of England apart from any of the other churches in the Anglican Communion because of its status as the Established Church, as explained below.
In a section headed “Marriage, the State and the Church of England” they explained further concerning the effect of the 2013 Act that introduced same-sex marriage (p7, emphasis added):
It can therefore be argued that the 2013 Act resulted in there being two institutions in the law of England, both of which for legal purposes amount to “marriage” and have the same consequences in civil law, but which have distinct definitions: civil marriage which is gender neutral and Holy Matrimony which requires the couple to be respectively male and female.
They continued to draw their key practical conclusions from this assessment:
This distinction between Holy Matrimony and civil marriage now means that all couples who enter a civil marriage are obtaining a civil status (which has always been the case); but they are not necessarily entering a marriage as understood by the Church of England (i.e. Holy Matrimony). It can be argued that a same-sex couple entering into a civil status which does not claim to be Holy Matrimony should not of itself be regarded as challenging or rejecting the Church’s doctrine of marriage as expressed in Canon B30 (Of Holy Matrimony) and that those who do so should not, therefore, be regarded as acting in disobedience to that doctrine. On that basis it would be possible for same-sex couples who are in a civil marriage – like those who are in a civil partnership – to have a service of dedication, thanksgiving and/or blessing without contradicting the Church’s doctrine of marriage.
Further explanation can be found in the legal note for General Synod subsequently issued by the Legal Office (GS Misc 1339). Referring to the passages from the bishops quoted above it states (para 5, emphasis added):
Civil marriage and Holy Matrimony both continue to be recognised by the state as conferring the same civil status and there remains a substantial overlap in the legal rules as to preliminaries, annulment and dissolution and they are treated in the same way by other areas of the law, such as immigration law, taxation and so on. However, because what is capable of constituting a marriage for the purposes of ecclesiastical law (the union of one man and one woman) now differs fundamentally from what is capable of constituting a marriage for the purposes of the general law (the union of two persons without regard to their sex), there is a good case for saying that the institution of Holy Matrimony and the institution of civil marriage are now distinct, even though the legal incidents are generally the same for both.
They continue in para 6 (emphasis again added) to use even stronger language concerning what all recognise is “a distinction that has, since the coming into force of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013, arisen between civil marriage and Holy Matrimony” (para 5):
This follows from the terms of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013, which explicitly provides for a definition of marriage in ecclesiastical law (one man and one woman) which is different from the definition in the general law. The two definitions are mutually exclusive and this can be seen as having resulted in there now being two different institutions by the name of “marriage”. Since the coming into force of the 2013 Act, civil marriage in England has taken no notice of the respective sexes of the parties to a marriage; it has become in effect a ‘gender-neutral’ institution. But Holy Matrimony continues to be defined by ecclesiastical law – not by the changed position in the general law brought about by the 2013 Act – and remains “in its nature a union … of one man with one woman”. The 2013 Act explicitly preserves the position in the Canons of the Church of England. Because the sexes of the parties are irrelevant so far as the general law concept of marriage is concerned, the concept of civil marriage is now of a different nature from the concept of marriage set out in Canon B 30 (Holy Matrimony).
A number of problems with this separation of civil marriage from holy matrimony into mutually exclusive institutions of a different nature have already been highlighted particularly by Paul Roberts here (and other important questions about the legal advice are raised by Philip Jones on the ecclesiastical law blog). What follows seeks to set this latest understanding of the relationship between the church’s doctrine of marriage and the changing pattern of legal unions – civil partnerships and marriage – in law within the context of what has gone before. In so doing it compares this account with previous accounts from the bishops. These are set out in order to demonstrate just how much has changed but without full acknowledgement of this fact or a defence of these changes.
Marriage Before Civil Partnerships (Pre-2005)
Prior to the introduction of civil partnerships for same-sex couples in December 2005 the only intimate pair-bond recognised by the state was marriage. Historically, in the words of Stephen Cretney, “the law had traditionally left the regulation of marriage to the Church” (Family Law in the Twentieth Century: A History, p. 4). It was not until just after the accession of Queen Victoria that “legislation ended the long-standing monopoly of the Church over marriage, and paved the way for the secularisation of the marriage rite” (p. 3). Since 1753, the Hardwicke Act had given “the Church of England a virtual monopoly over marriages” (p. 6) as marriage had to be entered into through a service solemnizing holy matrimony within the established Church of England unless one was a Jew or a Quaker or a member of the Royal Family. It was only in 1836 that this changed with a law enabling people to marry in Roman Catholic or non-Conformist weddings (as long as a Registrar was also present). This law also introduced civil marriages for those (then very small in number) who wanted a non-religious ceremony. As a result, Cretney concluded in 2003:
Certainly English marriage law allowed for a considerable diversity of forms; but although the procedure by which marriage can be created may vary widely, the result is in all cases the same. To the law, there is only one contract of marriage (p. 12)
Through the twentieth century, focussed particularly on questions of divorce, further marriage after divorce, and marriage within certain bonds of affinity, there were divergences between the legal definition and the teaching of the Church of England. As far back as 1952 Reginald Haw sought to argue, in his The State of Matrimony: An Investigation of the Relationship between Ecclesiastical and Civil Marriage in England after the Reformation, with a Consideration of the Laws relating thereto, that “the Church of England has continued in her formularies and actions to teach and uphold the doctrine and law of marriage held in Western Christendom prior to the Reformation” but that “the civil law of England has diverged, at first slightly but in these later days to a very wide degree, from the ecclesiastical concept of marriage” (p. 28).
In February 1984 General Synod passed a motion moved by the Bishop of Chichester which asked for a review and report on “the effect of the recent and current changes in society and in Marriage law”. This was in the context of debates concerning divorce and remarriage and led to the publication in 1988 of An Honourable Estate (GS 801) which looked at theological, historical, social and legal aspects of marriage. It concluded its study of the law of marriage and divorce in England by stating:
The Church must judge whether developments in the substantive law and the procedure relating to divorce have had such a deleterious effect on the legal view of marriage that it is no longer possible to hold the opinion that this can be recognised as marriage as understood in the rites, ceremonies and the Canon law of the Church of England. We as a group have no doubt that it can be recognised as marriage by the Church (para 122).
However, in words relevant now we have same-sex marriage, they continued:
We should feel obliged to take a different view about the recognition of marriage if, for example, Parliament were to change the definition formulated in Hyde v. Hyde…[“marriage, as understood in Christendom, may….be defined as the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others”]. But we wish to say as firmly as we can that in our view there have been no changes in the law which have fundamentally altered the basic legal character of the institution in England as a lifelong and exclusive union (para 122).
As a result, the position of the Church of England has consistently been that marriages recognised in law (including those contracted in the context of another denomination or faith or a civil ceremony) are viewed as holy matrimony. In the closing words of the 1988 report, “Marriage is one of God’s greatest gifts to all people, whatever their personal faith and social background…The Church must not imply that there are two sorts of marriage, a first-class marriage for those who pass the Church’s test, and a second-class marriage for everyone else” (para 197)
Civil Partnerships and Marriage (2005)
When civil partnerships were introduced in 2005 the bishops in their pastoral statement viewed them with the conviction that “civil partnerships are not a form of marriage” (para 8) even though “many provisions in the new legislation are, however, similar to or identical with those in marriage law” (para 10) and “civil partners will have the same rights as married couples in relation to property law, taxation, pensions, etc” (para 13). I was among those (in the Grove booklet, Friends, Partners or Spouses? The Civil Partnership Act and Christian Witness) who questioned aspects of this judgment and the General Synod in 2007 while amending the critical motion from Paul Perkins refused to recognise the Pastoral Statement as “a balanced and sensitive attempt faithfully to apply the Church’s teaching to civil partnerships” as sought by the House of Bishops.
The key differences the bishops noted between civil partnerships and marriage included that in law “the nature of the commitment that members of a couple choose to make to each other when forming a civil partnership” is left “entirely open” and that the relationship “is not predicated on the intention to engage in a sexual relationship” (para 11). Referring to the Primates Letter of 2003 (para 16) the bishops made clear that “clergy of the Church of England should not provide services of blessing for those who register a civil partnership” (para 17). In relation to clergy, “the House of Bishops does not regard entering a civil partnership as intrinsically incompatible with holy orders, provided the person concerned is willing to give assurances to his or her bishop that the relationship is consistent with the standards for the clergy set out in Issues in Human Sexuality” (para 19). The bishops did, however, note that “it would be inconsistent with the teaching of the Church for the public character of the commitment expressed in a civil partnership to be regarded as of no consequence in relation to someone in – or seeking to enter – the ordained ministry” (para 21). Therefore, “because of the ambiguities surrounding the character and public nature of civil partnerships, the House of Bishops would advise clergy to weigh carefully the perceptions and assumptions which would inevitably accompany a decision to register such a relationship” (para 22).
In short, the argument was that although “there are concerns that the introduction of civil partnerships in this form may create fresh anomalies and in practice – even though not in law – erode the unique position which marriage has previous occupied” (para 26), civil partnerships were not marriage (the phrase “holy matrimony” is not used anywhere in the statement).
Same-Sex Marriage and Marriage (2014 onwards)
This approach to civil partnerships – that they were not legally marriage – clearly could not apply to the introduction of same-sex marriage. The bishops therefore began their pastoral guidance by restating the church’s teaching on marriage (thus using “matrimony” with reference to the BCP, the only usage in the statement). They noted that once same-sex marriages take place there will “for the first time, be a divergence between the general understanding and definition of marriage in England as enshrined in law and the doctrine of marriage held by the Church of England and reflected in the Canons and the Book of Common Prayer” (para 9).
In relation to the new law’s treatment of the Church of England it was clear that “The Act preserves, as part of the law of England, the effect of any Canon which makes provision about marriage being the union of one man with one woman, notwithstanding the general, gender free definition of marriage. As a result Canon B30 remains part of the law of the land” (para 11). This meant that “it will continue not to be legally possible for two persons of the same sex to marry according to the rites of the Church of England” and “any rights and duties which currently exist in relation to being married in church of England churches do not extend to same sex couples” (para 12, emphasis original). There is however no suggestion that this means there are now two mutually exclusive institutions of civil marriage and holy matrimony as is now being claimed.
In relation to “acts of worship following civil same sex weddings” the bishops reiterated the stance in relation to civil partnerships: “it would not be right to produce an authorized public liturgy” and “clergy should not provide services of blessing” (para 20). Furthermore, in addition to the guidance on civil partnerships, signalling that civil marriage was to be viewed differently, the bishops stated that any prayer with couples entering a same-sex marriage “will be accompanied by pastoral discussion of the church’s teaching and their reasons for departing from it” (para 21, italics added). This clear differentiation between civil partnerships and same-sex civil marriages had more serious implications for clergy. This is because “getting married to someone of the same sex would…clearly be at variance with the teaching of the Church of England” (para 26). This judgment meant that the bishops did not simply require assurances of a chaste life as with clergy in civil partnerships. Instead, they were not willing for those in a same-sex marriage “to be ordained to any of the three orders of ministry” and stated that “it would not be appropriate conduct for someone in holy orders to enter into a same-sex marriage, given the need for clergy to model the Church’s teaching in their lives” (para 27, both bold in original).
Here again the logic is clearly not that the legislation created two mutually exclusive institutions and that entering the new civil one of marriage was simply “obtaining a civil status” and “should not of itself be regarded as challenging or rejecting the Church’s doctrine of marriage as expressed in Canon B30 (Of Holy Matrimony)” as is now being claimed by the bishops in GS 2289. This new line of argument would also appear to be in direct contradiction of the case put and won in relation to refusing a licence to Jeremy Pemberton because he had entered a same-sex marriage (for various commentary on the different stages see links in this article following the Court of Appeal judgment). One of Pemberton’s arguments, was that “there is no doctrine on civil same sex marriage in the Church of England” (para 7 of Judgment). The church rejected this and the Court of Appeal judgment agreed rejecting the argument of Pemberton’s representative (Mr Jones) in favour of that of the church (Mr Linden):
It was not necessary, as Mr Jones suggested, that there should be an express provision prohibiting a priest from entering into a same sex marriage and spelling out the consequences if he did. The teaching and in fact, the doctrine of the Church of England (in the sense in which the Church uses the term) is quite clearly spelt out in Canon B30. Paragraph 1 of that Canon makes clear that the Church of England considers marriage to be between one man and one woman. By its very terms it delimits the concept of marriage in accordance with the teachings and doctrine of the Church in a way which excludes same sex marriage. Furthermore, it is made clear in paragraph 3 that a priest is expected to uphold what is described expressly as “the Church’s doctrine of marriage.” As Mr Linden pointed out, Canon B30 does not state expressly that the Church of England’s doctrine of marriage does not include polygamy but it is quite clear that it does so (para 63).
In Nov 2016, the Legal Office, in advice included as an appendix to GS 2055 published by the bishops as their response to the Shared Conversations, were clear (para 12) that
It is prima facie a breach of Canon C 26 [“Every clerk in Holy Orders … shall be diligent to frame and fashion his life and that of his family according to the doctrine of the Christ, and to make himself and them, as much as in him lies, wholesome examples and patterns to the flock of Christ], read in the light of Canon B 30 (Of holy matrimony)…for a clerk in Holy Orders to enter into a marriage with a person of the same sex. That is on the basis that by doing so, he or she is fashioning his life in a way that is inconsistent with the doctrine of Christ as expounded by Canon B 30 and making him or herself a bad example to the flock of Christ.
The lawyers then floated ways around this which are perhaps the seed of what has now come to flower in GS 2289 and its accompanying legal advice. They were, however, also clear as to what would need to be done legally for this to have force. They set out two options (c and d in para 13), neither of which the bishops have followed though they have made the stronger of the two possible statements outlined and distinguished civil marriage as a whole from holy matrimony:
Amend Canon B 30 to state that [civil marriage] [marriage to a person of the same sex] is a different institution from holy matrimony and that entering into a civil marriage with a person of the same sex does not of itself amount to an act contrary to the doctrine set out in the Canon.
Leave Canon B 30 as it is but issue a teaching document which explains that [civil marriage is no longer the same institution as holy matrimony] [civil marriage with a person of the same sex is a different institution from holy matrimony] and that a person who enters into such a civil marriage should not, merely by doing so, be considered as acting in a way contrary to the doctrine set out in Canon B 30.
In 2018, faced with the Hereford motion asking for the bishops to “commend an Order of Prayer and Dedication after the registration of a civil partnership or a same sex marriage” the legal office was clear that it was necessary “to distinguish civil partnerships and same sex marriages” and that as the motion “runs together civil partnerships and same sex marriages, and given the different doctrinal considerations that are applicable to each, it would not seem possible for the House of Bishops to meet the request contained in the motion to commend a single form of service that related to both”. In other words, these were not simply, as now claimed, two distinct civil statuses which were to be treated in the same way by the church. Each had its own “doctrinal considerations that are applicable”. This view is, however, to some degree questionable in that since the introduction of same-sex marriage those in same-sex civil partnerships can simply convert their status to be recognised as a marriage (from its creation as a civil partnership).
Opposite-Sex Civil Partnerships and Marriage (2019)
On the introduction of opposite-sex civil partnerships the bishops again issued a pastoral statement which, when released in December 2019, caused great controversy. Some felt it inappropriate during the Living in Love and Faith process even though it simply restated (in some places almost verbatim) previous statements and applied them to this new legal status. The bishops again noted that the introduction of same-sex marriage “for the first time, meant that a substantive gap emerged between the Church’s understanding of marriage and that of the State” (para 3) but none of the claims now being made about mutually exclusive institutions were made. Applying the principles from earlier statements the bishops were clear (para 19) that
Because of the ambiguity about the place of sexual activity within civil partnerships of both sorts, and the church’s teaching that marriage between a man and a woman is the proper context for sexual intercourse, we do not believe that it is possible for the church unconditionally to accept civil partnerships as unequivocally reflecting the teaching of the church.
As a result they concluded (para 20), in contrast to their current proposals,
One consequence of the ambiguity contained within the civil partnerships legislation is that people in a variety of relationships will be eligible to register as civil partners, some living consistently with the teaching of the Church, others not. In these circumstances, the House continues to believe that it would not be right to produce an authorised public liturgy in connection with the registering of civil partnerships. In addition, the House of Bishops affirms that clergy of the Church of England should not provide services of blessing for those who register a civil partnership.
In relation to clergy and candidates for ordination the bishops argued (para 26) that “Although there is nothing in the legislation for Opposite Sex Civil Partnerships which determines their social meaning, the arguments advanced in the Supreme Court included the desire for a publicly authorised institution which explicitly rejected the perceived religious connotations of marriage”. As a consequence of this, “clergy and candidates for ordination wishing to enter an Opposite Sex Civil Partnership should expect to be asked to explain their understanding of the theological and social meanings of their decision”. They also argued (paras 27 and 28) that as a civil partnership is not entered through vows, they would not be treated as the same as marriage in relation to candidates for ordination who married after being in a civil partnership that was then dissolved. This argument was then applied in relation to the possibility (still not legally available) of converting an opposite-sex marriage to a civil partnership. Here it was held that “converting a marriage into a civil partnership thus implies the repudiation of a couple’s marriage vows” (para 32). The bishops concluded by stating (para 35):
With opposite sex civil partnerships, and with those for same sex couples, the Church’s teaching on sexual ethics remains unchanged. For Christians, marriage – that is the lifelong union between a man and a woman, contracted with the making of vows – remains the proper context for sexual activity. In its approach to civil partnerships the Church seeks to uphold that standard, to affirm the value of committed, sexually abstinent friendships and to minister sensitively and pastorally to those Christians who conscientiously decide to order their lives differently.
It is notable, given the response to LLF, just over three years later, that:
- At no point does this statement refer to “holy matrimony” let alone treat it as fundamentally different and a distinct institution from civil marriage.
- At no point is there any suggestion that civil marriage is now, after same-sex marriage, a mutually exclusive institution from marriage. Nor that a civil marriage of two people of the opposite sex may not be “holy matrimony” (as the bishops in 2019 view those people in opposite-sex civil partnerships).
- There is a clear statement that “Because of the ambiguities surrounding the character and public nature of civil partnerships, the House of Bishops advise clergy to weigh carefully the perceptions and assumptions which would inevitably accompany a decision to register such a relationship” (para 25). Those entering an opposite-sex civil partnership therefore need “to explain their understanding of the theological and social meanings of their decision” (para 26). This is something the bishops themselves have now failed to do in commending prayers for those entering civil partnerships or civil same-sex marriage.
- There is a clear restatement that marriage – defined in such a way as to exclude same-sex marriage and civil partnerships – “remains the proper context for sexual activity” (para 35). This the bishops fail to reaffirm in their latest document.
Conclusion
This overview of previous bishops’ statements and legal advice shows what a novel and unprecedented understanding is now being presented in relation to marriage, with no substantial legal or theological explanation or justification, in GS 2289 to defend its new proposals.
Nobody disputes that there is now “a substantive gap…between the Church’s understanding of marriage and that of the State” or that, given canon B30, same-sex civil marriages are not holy matrimony. What is disputed is the way in which these two statements are now being developed and how that is being used to justify the bishops’ proposed draft prayers. The bishops’ response and accompanying legal advice has created a situation in which the Church of England appears to be saying that since 2014 nobody entering a civil marriage should be viewed as living in holy matrimony unless they married within the Church of England (although this may not apply to other religious ceremonies, as long as those religions do not also view marriage as encompassing same-sex couples as, for example, a number of churches now do).
Civil marriages, since 2014, are now effectively being treated by the Church of England, as it has previously treated civil partnerships: not a form of marriage. This contrasts with the previous, longstanding view that marriage (or holy matrimony) according to canon B30 is a way of life which is able to be entered into by an opposite-sex couple when they entered civil marriage.
Among the consequences of this are that the service of prayer and dedication after a civil marriage should have been revoked in 2014 and has been misused ever since as the couple are not, on entering the church, husband and wife according to the teaching of the church. In addition, any civilly married couple since 2014 is to be viewed as having sex outside marriage (and so falling short of God’s purposes according to the church’s teaching). They would also now appear to be able to enter holy matrimony only by divorcing and then re-marrying according to the rites of the Church of England.
Alongside this novel and paradoxical account, the bishops have made three further significant moves. First, by treating civil same-sex marriage simply as “obtaining a civil status” they appear to believe it now has no bearing at all on that with which it was previously held to be at variance: the teaching of the Church of England on marriage. This is why, presumably, the prayers are claimed not even to be indicative of any departure from the Church of England’s doctrine. It is as if, despite all that has been said previously, not only civil partnership but now civil same-sex marriage is nothing more than a legal status with as little relationship to the church’s teaching on marriage as a tenancy agreement or business partnership.
This detachment of these civil statuses from canon B30 leads to the bishops’ statement that “It can be argued that a same-sex couple entering into a civil status which does not claim to be Holy Matrimony should not of itself be regarded as challenging or rejecting the Church’s doctrine of marriage as expressed in Canon B30 (Of Holy Matrimony) and that those who do so should not, therefore, be regarded as acting in disobedience to that doctrine” (GS 2289, p 7). On this basis, it would appear that there is no reason the prayers could not be used (especially if at some point there is legal recognition for such in the light of growing polyamory) for “two men and one woman” or some other adaptation of the definition of holy matrimony as long as there is no claim that the status of the couple is one of holy matrimony.
Second, as noted above, one of the bishops’ concerns in the past has been the ambiguity about civil partnerships, not least in relation to whether they are sexual relationships. The bishops no longer seem to be concerned about this. Instead, alongside narrowing the scope of holy matrimony so as to exclude all civil marriages since 2014, effectively treating them the same as they have treated civil partnerships, they have affirmed their desire “to celebrate faithfulness in relationships” (GS 2289, p 3). They are, therefore, commending prayers that “could be used for a couple who have marked a significant stage in the development of their relationship, sealed a covenanted friendship, registered a civil partnership, or entered a civil marriage” (ibid). This couple could, it seems, be either same-sex or opposite sex. They are doing this with no justification as to why this is now possible (without changing the church’s doctrine of marriage) and right in contrast to their past repeated statements against blessing people in non-marital unions.
This is, perhaps, the most significant development in the response. It represents an undefended paradigm shift from framing the church’s teaching and response to changing patterns of relationship in terms of distinguishing two ways of life (marriage and singleness) each with its own form of chaste living (sexual exclusivity and sexual abstinence) to framing its teaching and response in terms of the presence of particular virtues in a relationship (whether or not it is marriage in the eyes of the church) and no clear account of what a chaste life should like for those in non-marital relationships.
Third, the bishops have failed to address the question of sexual behaviour in contrast to their past repeated reaffirmations of the church’s teaching in this area. This failure is, or should be, a serious concern to everyone, whatever their views on same-sex relationships. One of the fruits of the Living in Love and Faith work, one which seems to have had little or no impact on the response of the bishops, is that across our differences on a Christian approach to marriage, identity, sexuality and relationships there is recognised to be both a shared concern about holiness (LLF book, 219-222) and a belief that one of the two purposes of Scripture we can all agree upon is that it is “to call the whole world into holiness” (LLF book, 275).
For the Church of England today, questions about identity, sexuality, relationships and marriage are questions about holy living: what behaviour, what forms of relationship, what patterns of community life echo to the character of God? What ways of living can embody and communicate God’s life? What ways of living shine with God’s love? (LLF, 222).
Although I disagree with them, those fellow Christians who argue for same-sex marriage are not simply asking for same-sex couples to be given what they believe is required by justice and equality. They too believe that sexual immorality is a serious sin but understand what amounts to such sin differently. They are therefore asking for the church to offer them (as sinners like all who seek the prayers of the church and all who commit to holy matrimony) a structured and disciplined pattern of life, a form of ascesis, and to give them, by means of vows, a way in which to commit themselves to this way of life and so to be accountable to each other, to their family and friends, to their church community, and to God for how they live together. In the words of Keith Sinclair’s dissenting statement (whose six points in relation to “affirming non-marital sexual relationships theological and liturgically” provide a succinct critique also of the current proposals):
The Church cannot hold a public service for a couple simply on the basis that it discerns virtues and good qualities in their relationship. It must also be confident that the pattern of relationship it is affirming is in accordance with God’s will. It expresses that confidence liturgically by proclaiming a form of life which is in accordance with God’s will and asking the couple to affirm publicly that they seek to live faithfully within this way of life (para 476).
If the bishops are not willing to extend holy matrimony to include same-sex couples but wish to offer prayers for them (in civil partnerships and same-sex civil marriages and in relationships with no legal status such as covenanted friendships) then they need to set out a clear account of the pattern of holy life to which God calls those forming same-sex unions. They need to provide same-sex couples with a means to commit to that way of life – as the church has done for heterosexual couples with its doctrine of marriage. They should not offer them only what they are currently proposing which looks horribly like a form of “cheap grace” rather than the “costly grace” which we are all offered and called to respond to in Christ so that we can grow in holiness.
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.
In many European countries all marriages have to take place in a civil ceremony but may be followed by a religious ceremony in a church if the couple desire. Roman Catholics have a sacramental marriage in a Nuptual Mass. Anglicans usualy have the Service of Prayer and Dedication after Civil Marriage. Are these Anglican Couples no longer considered to be ‘properly’ married in a state of Holy Matrimony?
Hi Andrew,
Yes – the position, certainly in France, is much more clear.
They do not have the muddle of a state church.
What’s not clear is the view of the churches about the real status of marriages which take place in a seculat setting. RCs, for example, can often have a second marriage after divorce if the first ‘marriage’ was only a civil one, ie not really a ‘proper’ marriage. Is that the status of civil marriages in the eyes of the Anglican Diocese in Europe? Most European counties also allow same-sex marriage so does this ‘taint’ all civil marriages in the eyes of traditional churches that believe in ‘Holy Matrimony’.
No, Roman Catholics will remarry Anglicans too as their marriage was never ‘proper’ in their eyes either, see Boris. Anglicans however treat Roman Catholic marriages as ‘proper’ marriages. The Lutheran Church of Denmark as the established there already does allow homosexual marriages in its churches alongside blessing homosexual civil marriages
Boris Johnson’s former marriage was treated as invalid because he had been baptized as a Roman Catholic, but had contracted the marriage “outside the Church”. If he had been baptized as an Anglican/Protestant and his bride had also been validly baptized, his marriage would have been treated as valid.
William Fisher
Slight correction
Boris Johnsons former *marriages*
Carrie is his third wife. Both his previous marriages ended due to his affairs. Yet according to the RCC its gays who are “disordered” and not allowed to marry
“RCs, for example, can often have a second marriage after divorce if the first ‘marriage’ was only a civil one, ie not really a ‘proper’ marriage.”
Only if they were RC at the time and disobediently had a civil marriage or a Protestant marriage instead of a RC one, or if they were unbaptized at the time of the marriage. If both parties were non-RC but nonetheless validly baptized at the time of the Protestant or civil marriage, it is treated as a valid sacramental one.
Yes but virtually all European nations except Denmark and Iceland and arguably Greece don’t have an established church as we in England do.
In England everyone born or living in a Parish is entitled to a wedding in the Church of England Parish church whether regular church attenders or not or even whether Christened or not. That is a benefit of the Church of England being the established church
Could you please explain why such a marital arrangement is”a benefit of the Church of England being the established church ” ?
As I am a strong supporter of Save the Parish and the Parish system and engagement by the Church of England with the whole community
As I am a strong supporter of Save the Parish and the Parish system and engagement by the Church of England with the whole community
That doesn’t answer the question as to why it is a benefit.
Yes it does. Unlike you I recognise Church of England Parishes serve non Christians as well as Christians eg by marrying and burying them
Yes it does.
No, it doesn’t. It just says you’re a strong supporter of it. That’s not the same as arguing why the thing that you are a strong supporter of is a good thing.
It’s not every born, because gay people and divorcees are not entitled to a church wedding.
For divorcees it’s a decision for the vicar, but I guess you could argue they could have had their first marriage in church.
For gay people there’s no opportunity to marry in church. This apparently unequal provision by the state is why Sandi Toksvig has complained to Justin Welby.
There is every oppertunity for gay people to marry in church: so long as they marry someone of the opposite sex.
There is no discrimination here.
It’s like saying that people who use a wheelchair are not discriminated against at the local library- up ten flights of stairs with no elevator.
MOMs are legally problematic and have often been based on dishonesty. They may work well for a small number of individuals, but for most they are unacceptable and potentially unlawful
Hypocrisy, splendorous hypocrisy.
Peter
MOM can be based on honesty. Any attempt to deceive a marriage partner should be condemned on that basis alone.
Joe S
Yes some MOMs are entered into with both parties knowing about the others orientation, most dont. Even those that do this do not have quite as strong legal status as marriages built on mutual love and attraction
Peter
Again the issue is deception. Nobody is arguing that any Christian should deceive a potential marriage partner in such a way that causes distress or leads to long-term emotional neglect. Can this happen because an individual is inclined to self-deception? Possibly but we should then give everyone the opportunity to have open and frank conversations about theses matters.
Not sure what you mean by legal status other than consummation.
gay people and divorcees are not entitled to a church wedding.
Technically only divorcés. Gay people are entitled to a church wedding if they marry someone of the opposite sex.
They may not want to do that. It may be a very bad idea. But the fact that you don’t want something doesn’t mean you aren’t entitled to it.
S
You’re not entitled to it because you would not be able to get through the vows without dishonesty
You’re not entitled to it because you would not be able to get through the vows without dishonesty
Of course you would. There’s nothing in the vows any being sexually attracted to the person you’re marrying.
It might not be a good idea but there’s nothing in the vows against it.
S
Quote
to love and to cherish, till death us do part;
according to God’s holy law
Unquote
I certainly could not honestly vow this to any woman
I certainly could not honestly vow this to any woman
Why not?
Because I’m gay. I’m incapable of loving a woman as my wife, just as a straight woman would be incapable of loving another woman as her life.
You’re incapable of loving a woman? What about your mother? Your sister? Female fellow Christians?
S
Marrying my mother would be incest. I would be equally incapable of incest!
If you’ve never experienced it personally then I’m not sure I can explain how the love for a spouse is different than the love of a parent, but I’m sure someone would be able to
Marrying my mother would be incest. I would be equally incapable of incest!
Indeed. The reason you can’t marry your mother is not because you would be incapable of loving her; it’s because of consanguinity.
And even if you were capable of loving your mother in an incestuous way, you would still be prohibited from marrying her. Indeed this isn’t an academic point: in real life there are examples of brothers and sisters prevented from marrying due to consanguinity.
But the point is that nowhere in the marriage vows do you vow to be sexually attracted to your spouse. And a good thing too! What if your spouse were to become ill, with cancer, say, such that you were no longer sexually attracted to them? Would you have then broken your vows? No! Because you could still love and cherish them, and take care of them, even if you didn’t find them sexually attractive.
Indeed if you think about it, you can only ever vow to do something you have conscious control over. No one can vow to always be sexually attracted to a spouse, because we have no control over to whom we are sexually attracted. That’s why we vow to ‘love and cherish’ because those are things we can do however we feel. Likewise we do not promise never to find anyone other than our spouse sexually attractive, because that’s not something we can control; we promise to be faithful, because that’s something we can control.
In short: for you to marry a woman might be a terrible idea for all sorts of reasons, but you wouldn’t be lying if you vowed to love her because you didn’t find her sexually attractive, because the marriage vows do not include a vow to find your spouse sexually attractive.
S
Maybe you are sexually/romantically in love with your own mother, but I am not and would be incapable of doing so
Maybe you are sexually/romantically in love with your own mother, but I am not and would be incapable of doing so
Nowhere in the marriage vows do you promise to be remain sexually attracted to or romantically in love with your spouse. Which is good because if they did then no one would ever be able to keep them.
S
You can spin the marriage vows however you wish, but my point is that marrying someone you don’t love in a romantic/marital sense using the CofE vows is dishonest.
You can spin the marriage vows however you wish, but my point is that marrying someone you don’t love in a romantic/marital sense using the CofE vows is dishonest.
Then your point is simply incorrect. As I have explained.
S
To be fair, it’s not a great idea to marry someone you are not attracted to (open definition) on your marriage day.
But the focus has shifted away from honouring the roles of husband/father and wife/mother to validating romantic love.
To be fair, it’s not a great idea to marry someone you are not attracted to (open definition) on your marriage day.
To be fair, I wrote exactly that above.
But there’s a big difference between ‘not a good idea’ and ‘could only be a lie’.
Do you think no one has ever married someone they weren’t especially attracted to, or in romantic love with, because they wanted to have children? Were they lying when they took their vows?
S
In the CofE the only way you could marry someone you were incapable of truly loving would be to say solumn vows that you did not mean.
In the CofE the only way you could marry someone you were incapable of truly loving would be to say solumn vows that you did not mean.
Yes. But the point is that ‘truly loving’ someone doesn’t require being sexually attracted to them, or being feeling romantic towards them.
This is good because otherwise one would be breaking one’s marriage vows if one ever stopped finding one’s spouse sexually attractive, or stopped feeling romantic towards them — both things one has no control over.
So it is entirely possible to make the marriage vows towards someone you are not sexually attracted to and do not feel romantic towards. It might not be a good idea, but you would not be lying if you did.
Because the marriage vows are about what you promised to do . They’re not about how you feel .
The vows use the word love clearly in the context of marriage.
Its Justin Welby levels of spin to suggest that its legitimate to vow it in another sense and not be behaving dishonestly.
A seeks legal advice to support a claim and
remedy.
B seeks legal advice to support their (counter) claim and remedy.
The Bishops have sought leagsl opinion to support their way forward. Legal opinion from counsel often sets out tactics to support a successful conclusion in line with their opinion
Andrew Goddard has traced legal arguments in opposition.
A balanced legal opinion to the Bishop would have considered and weighed the totality and likely outcomes. But it seems that they have sought a legal opinion to support their decisions.
What a lawyers beanfeast there is in the offing.
Very helpful post, thank you.
It is worth noting Bishop Sarah Mullally’s comment from her presentation yesterday, which may (or may not) clarify things: “Opposite sex couples who have been civilly married are understood as being married in the sight of God and of the Church. There is no question of reneging on the validity of that understanding.”
https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2023-02/LLF%20PRESENTATION%20-%20Bishop%20Sarah%20Mullally%206%20Feb%202023.pdf linked as a Notice Paper on https://www.churchofengland.org/about/leadership-and-governance/general-synod/agendas-papers/general-synod-february-2023
Thank Anthony for highlighting this. The problem is that their response to LLF and the legal advice appear to contradict this statement so if as I assume is the case “there is no question of reneging” on this then the response and legal advice need to be rethought or at least clarified.
What is the difference between the Church of England service of blessing held in 2005 for the King and Queen Consort who had committed adultery with each other and a service of blessing for homosexual couples? Answer is none at all.
Both Charles and Camilla and homosexual couples had legal civil marriages at registry offices but not a service of holy matrimony in a Church of England church just a blessing as the Bishops propose.
For those who say homosexual marriages are not lawful, neither are remarriage of divorcees who have committed adultery with each other. Yet the Church of England has and does bless the latter so should bless the former too
The difference is that one of them is actually a marriage (albeit sinfully entered into) and the other isn’t a marriage at all, in the eyes of God.
Chris
Which way round?
Jesus teaching says most remarriage after divorce is adultery. Its public knowledge that Charles and Camilla were sleeping together while both married to other people. Are you saying that their adultery continues and doesn’t count as marriage or inventing an idea that marriage justifies their adultery and that gay people cannot really marry?
Once upon a time the King and Queen Consort might have been a gay couple.
Lawful in Biblical terms in relation to the second paragraph
Sorry 3rd paragraph
Very helpful post, thank you.
It is worth noting Bishop Sarah Mullally’s comment from her presentation yesterday, which may (or may not) clarify things: “Opposite sex couples who have been civilly married are understood as being married in the sight of God and of the Church. There is no question of reneging on the validity of that understanding.”
(Posting again without the links to avoid the need for moderation, hopefully! Presentation is a Notice Paper on the General Synod February 2023 page.)
…which in effect contradicts the bishops’ own proposals…?
which in effect contradicts the bishops’ own proposals
The idea is obviously that everybody should be able to point to an official statement of sooner kind that agrees with their own personal view, so nobody feels the need to leave.
Don’t blame the Church of England’s lawyers for this mess. They had the impossible job of making coherence out of the bishops’ incoherence. The question for the church is: Does God recognise the British State’s marriage certificates contracted between two persons of the same sex, and does the church wish to remain aligned with God’s views?
Whatever happens in the Synod discussion scheduled for tomorrow, the real battle has been deferred to the next General Synod (in York over the long weekend of July 8/9). Sarah Mullaly’s written replies to questions over LLF repeatedly state that the bishops will clarify their position in the Pastoral Guidance due to be issued ahead of that meeting (although I wonder if it will be delayed further).
https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2023-02/QUESTIONS_Notice_Paper_2_LLF_February_2023.pdf
[Note to Ian: the best reply to “You’ve had your question” is “But I haven’t had an answer”.]
Indeed…!
Anton
“The question for the church is: Does God recognise the British State’s marriage certificates contracted between two persons of the same sex, and does the church wish to remain aligned with God’s views?”
Yes, surely that is the essence of it.
Anton, I am sure those driving this process will be happy to be accused of ‘kicking the can down the road’. The call for further reflection is part of a long game in which the Bishops’ new proposals are designed to change the mood music and in which further delay (which may well be extended as you suggest) gives time to change the facts on the ground, for example by the proposals giving a degree of cover for more clergy to come out asserting the merits of their chosen lifestyles notwithstanding that these are incomparible with the current teaching and requirements of the Church of England.
For Synod to act decisively now, could hardly be dismissed as acting hastily. Indeed the 14 Bishop statement, which (in contrast to the All BIshop proposals) provides a scriptural and theological basis for moving forward and appropriately refers to the Church’s curent teaching and most recent decisions on the issue. This is what should be accepted by all and adopted at the current meeting.
It is just possible that the present moment will come to be seen in retrospect as the high point of theological liberalism in the Church of England.
I would prefer the CofE to be more focused on real life than abstract theology. Therefore I think the questions for the CofE should be
What does the church have to say to
single gay people
Married gay people
Married gay people with children
Children of gay married couples
Gay people who have been victims of sexual, spiritual or other abuse by church leaders
now that marriage is legally recognized? How can it ensure that this teaching avoids causing negative impacts for those individuals (bad fruit)? How will it demonstrate that its teaching is more than just words and platitudes for the newspapers?
I would prefer the CofE to be more focused on real life than abstract theology.
You have to get the theology right first though. Because it’s theology that tells you what the whole aim of life is.
How can it ensure that this teaching avoids causing negative impacts for those individuals (bad fruit)?
Well, the worst fruit is sin, isn’t it? So the most negative impact possible on an individual would be to encourage them to sin freely. So in order to answer that question you first have to work out what is sinful.
So you have to do the basic theology before you can answer this question, don’t you?
S
But real life evidence shows that the theology doesn’t work.
There are three contradictory responses within the CofE
1. If our theology doesn’t work for you then you should never have joined our club
2. To put in pastoral tweaks that are inconsistent with the theology
3. To argue for a changes to the theology where it is clearly failing pastorally
But real life evidence shows that the theology doesn’t work.
‘Work’? What does that mean? Theology isn’t something that can ‘work’ or ‘not work’. Theology is either correct or incorrect according to whether or not it matches true reality.
S
It doesn’t work because it is not attempting to connect with real lives and if you try to connect it to real lives it usually causes bad fruit.
The bishops scenario is to keep the theology, but then offer blessings for what their theology says is evil, ban (or claim to ban) conversion therapy that their theology says works and is necessary and apologize for abusing gay people while saying that treating gay people as equal would completely throw away the bible
So both sinful then in Biblical terms (though in Christian terms blessing of the remarriage of 2 adulterers more sinful as Christ condemned that but never homosexual marriage).
So homosexual marriage is as entitled to a Church of England blessing as the blessing services for the remarriage of adulterous divorcees the Church of England has now given
This is a good point. If the CofE (rightly) refuses to marry in church someone with a divorced spouse still living if that would ‘consecrate an infidelity’ then how it ‘bless’ it (as it did with Charles and Camilla) without indicating a civil matrimony is considered not quite ‘holy matrimony?’
The CofE has changed its position further since Charles and Camilla because Harry and Meghan were able to marry in church, even though she is divorced.
My remembrance of Charles and Camilla was that the religious aspect was focused on repentance. Maybe if gay people first apologize for being gay they can get married? Sorry for being flippant, but the disconnect between how gay people and divorced people are treated by the church really frustrates me
And me. But divorce (or the lack of it) is a topic close to Jesus’s heart, so it is an even more egregious case.
Christopher – thank you! Most people opposing SSM wont admit this.
Right, and that is being captive to the norms of the age, or of formative years, or whatever.
Yes, good point. The Church of England gave a full Church wedding to Harry and Meghan despite Meghan being divorced with no adultery involved. So it is now even full hypocrisy for the Church of England not to allow homosexual marriages in its churches, let alone just blessings!
Why can’t you see that the way to achieve parity and equality is twofold? It can be achieved by levelling up or by levelling down. It is not to your credit that you prefer levelling down, but it is even less to your credit that you present it as the only option, knowing that it is not.
Well leave the Church of England if you want a strictly Biblical approach and even opt outs for Parishes doesn’t satisfy you.
Well leave the Church of England
Here’s a hint, telling people who disagree with you to leave so you can get your way probably makes them less likely to leave.
In fairness it could well be that the Duchess of Sussex convinced Justin Welby that her first marriage had ended because her former husband had cheated on her.
Spot on. But why on earth are you assuming the former is a good thing?
Whether the CoE was right or wrong to change its position about remarriage after divorce, the scriptures relating to that and the scriptures relating to homosexual relations are different scriptures. You cannot validly argue from the one to the other.
Anton
Actually Matt 19 is usually the passage that’s quoted to justify the current ban on SSM in CofE churches. This is Jesus teaching on divorce…SSM is not explicitly mentioned, but somehow the interpretation makes life tougher for the single homosexual than the divorced heterosexual!
Are you in the USA?
Yes or no?
Geoff
I already explained my situation. I’m not sure why it’s so important to you.
I’m a former member of the CofE, British citizen and resident of the United States.
I’m gay, in a SSM and have many friends who are personally impacted by whatever the bishops decide.
Is that ok?
Thanks Peter. That is clear and unambiguous.
Why does it matter? It has some relevance to vested or contingent interest.
Just as atheists may have a vested or contingent interest, (benign or hostile) to the CoE, to whom the very idea of Holy Matrimony would be an affront.
Geoff
nobody else commenting has been asked to justify their right to comment. A couple of people are not even giving their Christian names.
Anton
“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.”
actually has lots of slightly different meanings and it will depend upon the individual what they think is the most obvious meaning
1. Its usually interpreted as meaning gay men cant have any sex
2. The plain English meaning is don’t have sex with a man if you’re also sleeping with women, although the new version of the NIV clarifies this as “as one does with a woman”.
3. Someone with knowledge of the culture and primary audience may read it with specific insight as to what thos would have meant to that audience
4. A modern female reader who has been somehow isolated from all knowledge of patriarchy may read this as that she can only sleep with women
Etc etc
If it said “men should not ever sleep with men under any circumstances” that would be far clearer, but it doesn’t. The use of “you” and “as a woman” makes interpretation harder in my opinion
Crazy exegetics. Jut ask if God has changed his mind that same-sex relations are toevah.
Um, Anton which text are you claiming says that? Only anal sex between men is called toevah in Leviticus. I’m not sure by what exegesis of Lev 18:22 or 20:13 you’d widen that to all “same sex relations”.
In friendship, Blair
“Man lying with man as with woman”, which excepts lesbians to be sure but is not explicitly anal sex. I take it to mean the intent to induce orgasm. Two can play at pedantry.
Anton
By that definition though it’s not a sin for gay people to pursue romantic relationships as long as they never intend to cause their partners to have an orgasm.
If that’s all that is banned according to Conservative orthodox theology then theres more than an apology and some new blessings in order!
There is such a thing as repentance. You do not know if anyone has repented of past wrong doings – we have a Saviour who gave His life for our sins which can be forgiven. Ant male/female couple can remarry if they have repented of past wrongs. Jesus actually states that adultery is the only reason for divorce – therefore showing the importance of the physical bond in marriage. You can dissolve a marriage if it is not consummated and in the Same Sex Marriage Act it clearly stated this nonsensically stated that a same sex couple were legally married even though they could not consummate! Two people of the same sex can never be married before God.
Tricia
Do you understand that it seems like hypocrisy if an adulterous couple can “repent” of their adultery before being allowed to marry each other, but a gay couple are not given the same option? If remaining in the relationship is sin for the gay couple then why is it not sin for the adulterous couple? If remaining single for rest of life is reasonable to expect of gay people then why is it unreasonable to expect of (most) divorced people?
Repentance is needed for their sin of breaking the bond of consummated marriage. As I said Jesus clearly states that adultery is the only acceptable reason for divorce – the breaking of the physical union between the pairing. Two people of the same sex can never consummate and, therefore, it’s not holy matrimony. Any sex outside of the married state between one man and one woman is sin. Jesus is very clear:
“Have you not read, that at the beginning the creator made them male and female. And for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.” Matt 19 v4-6
In verses 9 it says -“ I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery”.
I might ask you why a same sex couple cannot accept a Government offer of civil marriage instead of trying to change church doctrine and and tear the fabric of the church.
If you are same sex attracted and you do not act on this you remain in communion with God. Many over the centuries have chosen celibacy in their service of God, it is the greatest calling.
It’s a calling. Not an imposition.
Not an imposition.
It’s only as much of an imposition as faithfulness in marriage is an imposition.
But you think one-night stands can be moral so maaaaaaybe not the best person to opine on sexual morality.
Although I disagree with you on SSM, I agree with you on that. But this is what happens when the church ignores Jesus, cries of hypocrisy ensue.
Peter
Everyone has the option of repentance, but you do not accept the need to repent as you do not accept biblical authority.
Tricia
Gay people cant repent of being gay because they don’t have the power to become attracted to the opposite sex
It’s far easier for adulterers to really repent by returning to their marriages instead of getting church endorsement of their adultery by marrying each otber.
The CofE is hypocritical by allowing pastoral sensitivities toward adulterous couples, but none at all towards gay couples
Peter, As you well knowTricia’s point was not that you should repent of being gay but that you should repent of sodomising with your male friend. The distinction between inclination and act has always been recognised, all the way back to the NT (e.g. James 1;14f) and indeed back to Genesis (Gen 4:7). Repentance presupposes the ability to exercise self-control and choose good rather than evil. That is the human condition, and is what makes choosing the good itself noble and good. The good is whatever God, our Lord and Maker, commands. I speak as a single heterosexual man with no sexual relationships.
You can make rhetorical answers that convince neither yourself (since you are an intelligent man) nor others, but the only person that matters is Jesus Christ, before whom you will one day have to justify your behaviour and your interpretation of the scriptures. Make sure you can justify yourself, because if you do not have the Spirit at all you will not partake in the first resurrection and if you are wrong in your rationalisations you will be punished at the second resurrection for not repenting. Repentance is at the very heart of the gospel. Those who humble themselves will be exalted; those justify themselves will be cast down. You must already have a head knowledge of this, but please do not go away from the presence of the Lord because the call to chastity is the very thing that makes obedience to the gospel costly (Matt 19:22).
Steven
But this shows how clueless the church is about gay relationships.
1. The majority of gay relationships dont involve sodomy.
2. It’s dishonest to describe someone’s spouse as their friend. If the Cofe wants to be an authority on ethics/morality then it must be more honest
3. If the CofE geniunely wants to recognize a difference between gay people and gay sex then where is the teaching for anything other than sex/marriage when gay people are concerned. It’s fundamentally dishonest to claim that the CofE recognizes this difference and then only talk about marriage, civil partnerships and sex. Several years ago Justin Welby promised a zero tolerance approach to homophobia – yet nothing has been done about this. He said the CofE would not continue to practice conversion therapy, but again, no actual action on this.
Martin,
The NT remarriage teaching after divorce as you know, is contentious, but I do not see any indication that a new heterosexual marriage, after a sinful act or an invalid divorce, itself constitutes an ongoing sin.
Certainly blessing of a remarriage where no adultery involved or the other ex spouse was still alive would be a sin in Biblical terms as you would still be married in the eyes of the Church. However many Church of England Vicars now bless weddings even where no adultery by the former spouse
Is it your view that if the Church of England blesses one thing that God disapproves of then it should bless another? Please include a clear Yes or No in any reply.
Yes, otherwise it is complete hypocrisy!
So you believe that two mistakes are better than one mistake?
No, a thousand times No, T1. Hypocrisy is easily avoided by removing the first mistake. It would be absolutely batty to say that 2 mistakes are better than none. Is that seriously what you are saying?
Vicars get a conscience opt out from remarrying divorcees and could do so for same sex marriages too
Vicars get a conscience opt out from remarrying divorcees and could do so for same sex marriages too
They wouldn’t get an opt-out from the Church of England having changed its theology though, would they?
Colin
Isnt that exactly what Jesus teaches?
Hi Peter,
Which verse are you thinking of where Jesus teaches that a new hetero-sexual marriage after a divorce is an ongoing act of adultery?
Colin
Colin
Well Matt 19.
He says remarriage after divorce is usually adultery. Theres no footnote saying it stops being adultery after the wedding night.
Peter,
Presumably we can accept Jesus teaches the same in Matthew 5 as in Matthew 19. NIV 2011 translates Matthew 5:32 as:
“But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”
So, there is no adultery if there has been sexual immorality.
But a divorce by the husband for an invalid reason is ‘adultery’ in and of itself, in the sense that he has not been true to his marriage contract—such is compatible with the Greek (as the NIV suggests) —and certainly Scripture employs adultery that way a great many times—for example in Matthew 12:39.
As regards “who marries a divorced woman commits adultery” this must mean an invalidly divorced woman because the exception clause clearly permits divorce and remarriage.
And in the case of marrying an invalidly divorced woman being adultery I would suggest this is more likely to be rhetoric—as in the ‘adultery’ of those who ‘look at a woman with lustful intent’ (Matthew 5:28).
Why? Because there was no such concept in Israel or the wider ANE. And because adultery was still a capital offence—and by this comment Jesus would make a great many people in 1st century Palestine liable to the death penalty.
But perhaps more pertinently—even the woman caught in literal adultery was offered forgiveness. Are we suggesting she could never marry? But she could never legitimately enter a same sex marriage.
Forgiveness, not condonence of her act. Jesus of course never once mention opposition to homosexuality unlike his clear opposition to divorce except for spousal adultery.
If you back remarriage of divorcees beyond spousal adultery then you are not following scripture, you are just following homophobia
Colin
Both Matt 5 and 19 say very clearly that anyone who marries someone who is divorced commits adultery by doing so. It’s not just the act of divorce that is adultery.
Theres an exception for the wronged party in cases of divorce due to adultery
Is it not the fact of remarriage that is also the ongoing sin? It is not just about the previous marriage.
Is there is no room for metaphor and rhetoric in Jesus’ sayings on this? Pluck your right eye out? The first century context would indicate that if Jesus was speaking literally he would have to explain himself more clearly.
No – no room for metaphor here – the language is clear. Divorce in this day and age is a disgusting business – and it is quite clear that it was just as horrible a business back then.
Colin – of course, to expect Jesus to give precise details of how everything from the Sermon on the Mount and Matthew 19 could be rendered in this life is a serious misunderstanding of these passages. Jesus was talking eschatologically and his teaching, taken as a whole, presents a standard that is too high and too hard for this life. What Jesus says is sin in Matthew 19:9 is sin (and a particularly vile sin at that).
Colin
If theres room for metaphor etc when it comes to Jesus teaching on divorce then theres surely room for metaphor etc when it comes to Jesus (lack of) teaching about gay people.
This is why the CofE (and RCC) is seen as hypocritical and homophobic
If theres room for metaphor etc when it comes to Jesus teaching on divorce
What metaphor do you think Jesus used in his teaching about divorce, and what is it a metaphor for?
S
Ask Colin. It was his claim, not mine
Most people would say his teaching was pretty clear, he just states the consequences of divorce on all those concerned. Why would there be a need to use metaphor?
Not only is there no attempt from CofE to provide clear teaching on same sex marriage (except it’s still “dont do it”, but also its fantastic, amazing and we will pretend to bless it, but wont really), theres never been an attempt to engage with real gay people- married, single, avowed celibate.
I pointed out on the last post that the CofE has spent a decade failing to produce a response to legal SSM. If they wait another decade then they will be another generation out of touch with everyone outside the bishops bubble
80% of people just follow social trends (or what are broadcast as such) anyway. And are afraid of being in a minority among their peers.
The more so with younger people, who have never been exposed to any other perspective, and who (it is proven) do not know what the counter arguments are (which is first base) let alone are equipped to answer them.
We do not usually give authority to those who are aware only of one perspective! Quite the reverse.
But in a generation, those young people will not be young, and their views will be disparaged in favour of their younger successors. for after all young people are always right, and people leak knowledge as they get older.
Christopher
My point is not that the CofE should never disagree with latest trends of thinking, but that by constantly avoiding engaging with realistic gay lives they are not avoiding problems, but actually creating more problems.
If the CofE is currently teaching that SSM couples should get a divorce and kids put up for adoption because their relationships are evil (but also SSRs are amazing and should be blessed, but not actually blessed or whatever), what are they going to tell the grandchildren of SSM couples?!
If your point is that C of E thinking can be confused – yes.
If it is that compromise and diplomatic thinking can be incoherent and self contradictory – yes.
But it was always known that the C of E did not agree with ‘SSM’.
You cannot blame the C of E for things that happen as a result of something they spoke against in the first place. Maybe they spoke against it in the first place partly because they foresaw that messy situations might arise. The fallout is squarely at the door of the secularists who sponsored ‘SSM’ in the first place.
Christopher
In this case its confused on SSM, but entirely absent on anything else relating to gay people. Theres an embarrassed failure to really engage with real people.
what are they going to tell the grandchildren of SSM couples
You think they will be the first generation to have sinful grandparents?
I think in time the children of same-sex couples will, with God’s grace, come to forgive those who deprived them of one of their parents.
S
You miss my point
My point is not that the CofE is telling people they are sinners or not sinners, but that they are failing to engage at all.
Its taken a decade just to discuss what the CofE thinks about SSM and still theres no clear answer. Theres no clear teaching for single gay people. Theres no clear teaching for gay people who have vowed never to have a relationship
Its taken a decade just to discuss what the CofE thinks about SSM and still theres no clear answer. Theres no clear teaching for single gay people. Theres no clear teaching for gay people who have vowed never to have a relationship
I’m sorry, have you mistaken me for someone who thinks the way the Church of England has handled this issue is defensible on any level whatsoever?
S
My original point wasnt to you. I have no idea who you are so I am certainly not holding you personally accountable for the CofEs failures. I was commenting on a decade of the cofe failing to engage with real gay lives.
As I understand it, the CoE like most churches has asked gay people to remain celibate, ie not to sleep with other members of the same sex. Just as it has asked, again as I understand it, straight people not to sleep with the opposite sex outside of marriage.
It is only in the last few years it seems to have become confused, influenced by the changes in society at large. The apparent legal advice the Bishops have received shows just how confused it now is.
Hi PC1,
“As I understand it, the CoE like most churches has asked gay people to remain celibate” – yes… but here’s a little reminder that 1991’s Issues in Human Sexuality allowed a conscientious objection, so to speak, for laity.
In friendship, Blair
which might explain the confusion 30 years later..
thanks.
PC1
But even aside from the last 10 years where marriage has been legal for same sex couples, there are lots of unanswered questions with that teaching. The CofEs failure to engage with reality in its teaching is why it doesn’t work!
1. Are gay people allowed to publicly acknowledge that they are gay or must they remain in the closet?
2. Are gay people allowed to pursue romantic relationships or not?
3. What counts as sex – a non penetrative kiss? A hug? Anything beyond that or just penetrative?
4.If gay people are not allowed to pursue romantic relationships at all – what is the church teaching to prevent the mental health problems that most people would experience when not just been single, but having no expression of romance?
You claim it’s the same thing for straight couples. It’s not. If a straight couple has sex before marriage it’s not treated as a serious problem and even people who committed adultery with one another can marry in the CofE.
The provision of marriage creates “new” (decade old) questions. Most obviously
4. A married couple with small children starts attending their parish church. What is the CofE teaching for them? Somehow I doubt its merely “just never have sex again”. But there is no answer to this question. Just as there are no answers to any of these questions.
As I have tried to point out in another decade the CofE will be trying to explain to adult children of gay parents why their joyful supportive experience being raised by their parents is somehow evil in the sight of God, worse than divorce and maybe akin to being the child of a sexual assault.
1. Of course they are allowed. But I fully accept that doesnt mean they will be warmly accepted in church. On the other hand, why should people feel they have to ‘publicly acknowledge’ their sexuality?
2. You would need to define romantic relationship, but if it means what I think it means then no if it is with a member of the same sex, and that applies to both clergy and laity.
3. I had a friend some years ago who tried to argue that because he wasnt having penetrative sex, he wasnt ‘sinning’. That certainly raised my eyebrow, and I told him what I thought – it reminded me of Clinton’s defence of ‘I did not have sex…’ when ‘all’ they’d done was oral sex. It doesnt wash, like that dress.
In some societies a kiss between men is a perfectly acceptable sign of love and affection between friends. But generally in the west it is not and signifies, as you would call it, a romantic relationship rather than a friendship. It is also the start of the slippery slope Im afraid…
4. I think what can create mental health problems is not a lack of ‘romance’ but a lack of genuine friendship and a real sense of belonging. And a sense of purpose. Sadly a significant number of churches fail miserably in providing that. But that’s nothing new. But the failure of the church is not a reason for an individual to choose to sin sexually.
‘You claim it’s the same thing for straight couples. It’s not. If a straight couple has sex before marriage it’s not treated as a serious problem and even people who committed adultery with one another can marry in the CofE.’
– if it became obvious that a straight couple who are members of a church are sleeping together but not married, then they should be subject to church discipline. Sadly that probably rarely happens, sometimes because clergy just dont want to know. There’s a difference between a one-off experience and a continual, ongoing sexual sin which this scenario would entail. Years ago when I was the lodger in a shared house with another Christian (brethren type) it became apparent he was sleeping with his gf – I could hear them in his bedroom above me! (unless they were secret gymnasts) As he wasnt a friend I did not think it was for me to say anything, but I couldnt help roll my eyes as he went off to his church every Sunday. But then I suppose we’re all hypocrites. But it reminded me that straight single people are subject to strong sexual temptation just as I was/am to all things gay, as it were. God have mercy.
Regarding divorce, I think churches should uphold Jesus’ teaching, and if that means refusing to marry a couple in church then so be it. I think this reflects a fundamental problem, the church perhaps particularly the Anglican church, is viewed as an ‘institution’ that provides certain services to society. In reality it is supposed to be the Body Of Christ on earth, which is rather different.
4. I assume you mean a ‘married’ gay couple. If they want to be members of that church, they should have the integrity to abide by what is expected.
Noone, least of all me, is saying that a gay person cannot be a good parent. That is like saying a gay person cant give love, which clearly isnt the case. So it would not be surprising if the kids raised by a gay couple do appreciate their upbringing. But that does not negate the view of their parents’ sexual relationship from a Christian pov. The same argument could be made of a father with multiple wives and children, but few would say that’s a good setup to be encouraged.
Peter
So it would not be surprising if the kids raised by a gay couple do appreciate their upbringing
I, on the other hand, wouldn’t be surprised if the children end up holding at least some resentment towards the couple who raised them for severing their relationship with their father/mother, as appropriate. It’s one thing to be adopted by a loving couple when your actual parents have abandoned, or been unable to look after you; it’s quite another to discover you were created to order with the deliberate intention that one of your parents would be cut out of your life entirely.
PC1
I think you are answering these questions from your own point of view, not the CofE? My point was that the CofE is failing to give consistent and clear answers to these questions.
1. Even your answer here is as clear as mud!
2. If clergy and laity are banned from forming relationships then why isnt this widely known? Why is it that the CofE will allow civil partnerships if even pursuing a romantic relationship is banned?
3. Again your answer here is not clear
4. This doesn’t answer the question. Its widely acknowledged, even in scripture (!), that most people need a life partner and/or the ability to pursue that kind of relationship to be well.
4(b!) Again this doesn’t answer what the teaching is, merely says that they should abide by it. This is an all too common experience for gay people joining a church- they are expected to live by certain rules, but they are not allowed to know what the rules are!
My point was that the CofE is failing to give consistent and clear answers to these questions.
Deliberately so, at least on the part of the bishops.
Youre right I was giving my own views. Sorry if that was confusing.
1. Answer – yes, they can ‘publicly acknowledge’ that they are gay. The rest of my response was querying the need for that.
2. The CoE shouldnt allow/recognise gay civil partnerships.
3. I thought I had pretty much spelled it out. But in summary, any expression that would normally be viewed as a romantic expression is not appropriate between members of the same sex. Because they should not be in a romantic relationship.
4. I agree the idea of a married couple is portrayed as the ‘norm’ in the Bible, you shouldnt mislead as it is clear that refers to a man and a woman, not 2 men. I think many married couples would say it is the deep friendship that forms between them that becomes most important as life goes on, rather than sex or even ‘romance’. It is sad to see when that friendship does not develop between partners. So I think that is more important than a romantic relationship. Clearly you can have good and deep friendships without having a sexual relationship.
4b. I tend to agree. That is why the CoE’s teaching has been so obviously inconsistent, for example, treating laity different from clergy, but then turning a blind eye when people behave as they should not. And now they have voted to ‘bless’ same sex partnerships, which by its very nature says God approves of such sexual relationships when He does not. But we are all sinners in desperate need of God.
Peter: …there’s never been an attempt to engage with real gay people- married, single, avowed celibate.
I don’t think that is true at the local level or the corporate level.
Joe
Plenty of local churches have gay people as fully integrated in the congregation as the bishops and synod will allow.
I’m talking about the corporate CofEs teaching, actions and press statements. A decade into discussing the “new” legalization of SSM and theres still nothing beyond grand claims that don’t go anyway
Radical new Christian inclusion, zero tolerance on homophobia, no to conversion therapy.
The disagreement is genuine though. Homophobia doesn’t explain everything on the conservative side just as sin doesn’t explain everything on the liberal side.
Joe
But I’m not talking about agreeing or disagreeing with any particular aspect of life for gay people.
I’m talking about not having teaching/policy/theology for ordinary gay people.
The corporate CofE knows it opposes same sex sex, but cant say if it’s ok for gay people to publicly acknowledge their orientation, have gay friends, pursue romantic relationships, kiss, hug etc and it has nothing to say at all to the many gay people who are married with kids!
If they wait another 10 years to really engage with gay people then they’ll have gay people married with grandkids showing up at the local parish church!
Is the teaching that they should divorce, put their kids up for adoption and become deliberately lonely individuals?
The corporate CofE knows it opposes same sex sex, but cant say if it’s ok for gay people to publicly acknowledge their orientation, have gay friends, pursue romantic relationships, kiss, hug etc and it has nothing to say at all to the many gay people who are married with kids!
Look if your point is that the bishops’ response is confused and contradictory and just incoherent at the most basic level, then yes, everybody agrees with that, there’s no need to keep going on.
Joe
That’s not my point.
My point is that, even after a decade trying to come up with a response to one new aspect of gay life, the church corporate is still failing to have any real understanding of ordinary gay people or present any teaching that connects with gay people.
It is no wonder that so many people have deserted the church in the last two generations. Theres a complete lack of interest in reality
Gone missing?
At the heart of all this it seems that the biblical, historic, ecumenical Christian Doctrine of God, has been the first Doctrine to have gone missing in action, abandoned, stripped, pared-down and puny in the mission of CoE revisionist activists, but not only there, but in swathes of the church.
“It can be argued that…” Well no, it cant.
This reminds me of the ‘gay cake’ fiasco, whereby the County Court and Appeal Court both showed themselves to be full of legal amateurs who didnt actually understand what equality and discrimination law meant. It took the Supreme Court to correct them.
Hopefully something similar will happen with this nonsense. as one wonders about the competency of the Bishops’ legal advisers.
It seems, Peter, that the legal opinion, and it is only an opinion, has been obtained by the Bishops, after the event, after their decision, that they have instructed the lawyers to provide a legal argument to support their case. It is not necessarily a question of the lawyers competence. They may be aware that the Bishops case is threadbare: They may even have considered all the points Andrew Goddard has highlighted.
While I don’t know the process led by the Bishop of London, it is unlikely that for someone with a CV in Public Services and well versed in what laughably passes as Public consultation, it would be unlikely that lawyers would have been consulted as part of Bishop’s formal decision, especially as there have been some dissenting Bishops. It seems more likely that informal alliances operate outside the formal system. It would be interesting to know who instructed the lawyers (tell them wanted the lawyers to do).
Where is the nexus of (in)competence and in which specific fields.?
Where does any residue of trust, trustworthiness, reside?
Herding cats?
Or they could have just said, you dont have a case? Too much to ask, ah well.
Or they could have just said, you dont have a case?
Not really; it’s not their job to second-guess the court. And as we saw recently in the Miller prorogation case, courts can make some baffling decisions based on hitherto-nonexistent legal principles seemingly extracted right there and then from their backsides. So you can never say never.
They could have said, Your chances of winning if this goes to court are on the low side, though. Be a bit remiss if they didn’t.
Looking at what the bishops have “proposed” it’s no wonder what no one is satisfied. There was probably no solution that would solve the problem…but this won’t.
The document waffles and contradicts the view of civil marriage ceremonies that has prevailed (and which I think is right and biblically right) that a marriage “civil” or “religious” is actually a marriage in God’s eyes. I can’t believe they are undoing that… removing recognition from existing marriages… not nice… but really odd…the Bishop of London then, seemingly, says the opposite. That’s clear then…
And lots of “we haven’t worked it out yet” phrases.
The “other” bishops letter, whether anybody agrees or not, is streets ahead… and succinct in presentation!
Ian Hobbs
So far I dont think I’ve seen any comments from any bishops about the proposals that are in anyway in touch with real human lives!
Looking at what the bishops have “proposed” it’s no wonder what no one is satisfied. There was probably no solution that would solve the problem…but this won’t.
One wonders how they ever thought they could get away with it. Surely it was obvious none of this would stand up to a moment’s scrutiny?
I can see two possibilities.
One, they are so ground-down and battle-weary, and this has become such an all-consuming cloud hanging over them, that their horizons have shrunk and they thought everyone else must be just as desperate for this to end, and therefore just as willing to clutch at straws, as they are. They really thought that everyone would be so glad to have a way out, so wanting to make it work, that they would be willing to overlook the flaws and everyone would just concentrate on the bits that they could convince themselves meant they had got what they wanted. The constructive ambiguity would work, in other words, because everyone, or at least most people, were willing to suspend disbelief to make it work (to be fair this is the only way constructive ambiguity ever works).
Second, they never intended it to work. They know the Church of England is going to split. But they take seriously what they see as their duty to prevent that at all costs, and they wanted to put this out there, doomed though they know it to be, as a last desperate roll of the dice, so that when the inevitable split happens, they know that they left absolutely no possible avenue unexplored in their quest to avoid the outcome that they know is coming.
Plausible, except that that isn’t a thing that cd actually be said; if it was it wd be leaked. U r there4 relying 0n many different ppl all by chance having the same tacit understanding
Plausible, except that that isn’t a thing that cd actually be said; if it was it wd be leaked
What would the leak be though? ‘Behind closed doors, bishops admitted that they thought their plan was a last desperate million-to-one chance but that they would try it anyway just in case by some miracle it worked’? Well… yeah, isn’t that what everyone figures?
Anyway it wouldn’t have to be said openly… it would just be a matter of everyone understanding that there was no point in anyone raising any objections unless they had a better plan, and no one did.
Christopher – are you trying to create a new language? Something along the lines of Ludvig Hagwald’s transpiranto?
https://gronkoping.nu/om-transpiranto/
l0l
S
Three – they thought they could get away with telling gay people and the media they could get blessing for their relationships, while telling evangelicals and the church of Nigeria that these were merely blessings for individuals
House of Bishops, a collective fit for purpose?
If it were ever possible – a case for the equivalent of putting it into the equivalent of “Special Measures”? Or a dissolution of that tier of CoE parliament?
The Bishops to be fair to them have at least tried to accommodate evangelicals by not going for homosexual marriages straight away but only blessings with an opt out for evangelicals. On a forced vote on homosexual marriage in Synod I would expect liberal Catholics to win about 52% to 48% for evangelicals.
Not that might still fall short of the 2/3 majority to change doctrine but if Labour won the next general election Parliament would probably use that 52% vote to change the law and impose homosexual marriage on the Church of England anyway
T1,
As usual, in your inverted self – focussed way, you are viewing through the wrong end of the telescope.
1 Who or what do you worship?
2 What is the evangel.
Nothing to say? Thought so.
T1
It would hardly be imposing same sex marriage on the Church of England when, at minimum, large minorities of clergy and Laity want to be allowed that option.
It would be imposing it if they require all churches to marry gay people.
As I’ve said before I think it’s far more likely that Labour would reduce the CofEs role in the state (remove the Bishops from parliament) than they would overrule synod like that.
As I understand it marriage is the word we apply to describe human recognition of a fundamental design for living which is implicit in the created order, as evidenced in biological reality. As such it is not a construction, understanding or property of the Christian church any more than the relationship between a male and female penguin who instinctively work together to keep their egg warm and feed themselves while surviving bitter temperatures. It is God’s and, whether human beings recognise that fact or not, they (like the penguins) instinctively understand how it works and get on with it. Being humans we sometimes do pretty well at it and sometimes we corrupt it in one way or another.
But we humans are special to God. And while that gives us unbelievable potential (culminating in living permanently with him for eternity) it can only truly work if we live in the way God intends. So we Christians rejoice in the beauty and life enhancing gift of sex and marriage because (like many other things we share with other creatures) it is wonderful in its own right. But we also specifically respect it and give thanks for it as a gift of God. We recognise that God has given it for our flourishing, and so we want to use it as he intends, neither taking it for granted as mere biological function and necessity nor extending its possibilities beyond the boundaries God has set for it.
We Christians may use terms such as ‘Holy Matrimony’ as a particular application of our recognition that everything that we are and have can be dedicated to God who is our heavenly Father and we his children. But that special term doesn’t mean that we’re describing something different (eg of a higher order); it’s simply a conscious way of reminding ourselves that everything we are and have is the gift of God. Civil marriages/weddings have exactly the same quality (they’re still the gift of God in creation) but they don’t give the same nod to God’s part in the process.
Amen 2 all that.
And some.penguins are gay.
Penelope – do you know if the C. of E. has plans to marry these gay penguins?
No – the penguins will be formally reprimanded for being gay by the archbishop of Canterbury, but then offered blessings in their local parish church, but not their relationship, just as individual penguins
Quite!
*Gay*? Really? A personal preference? SSA? Lifelong mating?.
Or are they followers of Grecko/Roman male sexual dominance or of Freudian and self identity categories?
Are there any Priestly penguins that carry out ritual blessings and celebrations?
Well done, Penelope – you seldom disappoint!
Well done, Penelope – you seldom disappoint!
I like to imagine Penelope Cowell Doe leaning out the window of a black taxi as it zooms past, taking the corner on two wheels; clutching a rolled-up umbrella and with a tartan scarf flapping as she yells, ‘And some penguins are gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay!’
There are hints there of tartanphobia, S. Or maybe there traces of Gerald’s the Scarfe’s imaginative draftsmanship!
Trigger warning, beware: beware of the dirk; beware of the woman sporraned. Beware, Jock, of this tartanitis.
Thank you I aim to please
The bishops are not certain if it is OK to p-p-p-Pick Up A Penguin.
But Penny thinks it is OK for Penguins to have a One Night Stand.
The Penguins are not so sure as polar night can last for six months.
Many are cold but few are frozen.
Like the ones in the book, based on zoo penguins who did responsible work caring for a mum-less baby penguin and promptly afterwards showed they were red blooded males after all, the part of the story that the book did not like or include.
Of course the newspaper report was rubbish. It hs long been known ghat penguins are excellent fathers. That’s how they survive as a species.
Whose biological reality? Straight people?
Attraction to the same sex is a normal part of human diversity. There is diversity in every species. It is part of a mechanism to adapt to changing environments and avoid having the entire species wiped out by disease.
It’s silly to keep pretending that gay people don’t really exist and I doubt many actual biologists would agree with you.
Peter,
I can’t make much sense of your evolutionary adaptation argument.
Homosexuality is an evolutionary adaptation, is it? To stop the entire human species from being wiped out? So naturally infertile SSS will do it, will it, rather than hasten the demise of humanity from a purely reproductive aspect?
And from certain trans voices what’s biology got to do with any of this?
You may be at risk of being denounced as a being on the side of *terfs* by Penelope.
Or is it a consequence of Genesis 3?
Who is pretending, Peter?
Penelope has history here as an advocate of Queer theory, as she seeks to make a fallacious and facile point to undermine Don Benson’s natural law, comment
Now it would be interesting (well no it wouldn’t) to see how she would apply queer theory to *gay* penguins family life.
The penguins aren’t ‘gay’. They are gay. Sweet male couples raising chicks.
Really? Did the penguins engage in male penetration of each other? The nonsense about “gay penguins” was started by staff at a New York zoo. Lonely male penguins in zoos can form social bonds and may try to brood together (even brooding stones). But I have never heard that they engage in sexual penetration. When a suitable female mate becomes available, they separate and breed.
Check out the actual scholarship
Engaging in ‘penetration’ isn’t the definition of gayness any more than it is the definition of straightness.
Engaging in ‘penetration’ isn’t the definition of gayness any more than it is the definition of straightness.
Then what is the definition of gayness?
In a way that can be applied to animals without falsely anthropomorphising them, please.
James, S
Being gay means you experience lifelong attraction to the same sex in tbe way that heterosexuals are attracted to the opposite sex.
Being gay means you experience lifelong attraction to the same sex in tbe way that heterosexuals are attracted to the opposite sex.
And you can see inside a penguin’s mind, can you, to discover what attractions it is experiencing during its life?
Because the whole idea of ‘gay penguins’ seems to rest on a kind of BFSkinner behaviourism, but you’ve just totally denied behaviourism there, so I think you’re left with absolutely nothing.
From J John.
https://www.christiantoday.com/article/this.week.at.general.synod/139809.htm
Is this truly the measure of the CoE?
The Times newspaper for today carries the following sensationalised headline on pages 1 and2: *Priests want prayers to make “Our Father” gender neutral* .So on the one hand ” The Church of England *confirmed last night* that, in Christian teaching, ‘God is neither male or female’ in human terms” {what does this say re the divinity/humanity of Jesus Christ} [my bracketing]?”, while on the other asserting that ‘ Any new liturgy would have to be approved by the— General Synod’ – Q It is or it isn’t ??
Following on from this usual , confused propaganda a counter – argument was permitted from the ‘pen’ of one, Ian Paul, providing a short but excellent rebuttal to the type of woolly thinking on which these ideas are based?
Contrary to much of the foregoing discussion in this post , I believe that above and beyond the current preoccupation within the Cof E on matters what are at heart socio/political, anthropological , yes! and even “spiritual”, lies the core issue : the nature of theology – the truth of who God is ! For those who are of the impression that “equality” is central ; then once this “problem” is solved, there is something else; we then face evidence of history ; evidence which is consonant with the biblical perspective,namely : the ‘will to power’, a change in authority structures leading ultimately to the desire to control. The God revealed throughout Scripture reminds us of the selfishness that is endemic to human nature. The labourers first employed in the vineyard [Matt 20] demanded parity with those who came later. Jesus reveals that we choose either parity or grace. Is, in fact, the demand for equality based upon a genuine concern for justice or upon the contemporary cult of emulating a secular agenda ? Is the God whom we claim to worship based upon the revelatory and historical nature revealed in the pages of Scripture or a projection of a “my truth” mentality, using biblical imagery to suit our particular desires and “needs”?
Solomon had a particular need – “his love of many foreign women”. But God did not primarily chastise him for this. No! Through these relationships, “his heart was not fully devoted to the Lord his God”. He turned to other Gods -male and female. The outcome? One kingdom was divided into two? [1 Kings 11] . Modern parallels? Oh well! Perhaps in these “enlightened days” this is antiquated and thoroughly inapplicable? Lets update the script. When Jesus says “Our Father”, let’s bring him up to date; let’s correct him : it’s “our father and our mother Jesus!” So there !
Indeed, Colin, though I’ve not seen the Times report.
To repeat a comment I made above, yesterday:
Gone missing?
At the heart of all this it seems that the biblical, historic, ecumenical Christian Doctrine of God, has been the first Doctrine to have gone missing in action, abandoned, stripped, pared-down and puny in the mission of CoE revisionist activists, but not only there, but in swathes of the church.
Geoff
Theres a difference between the mechanism of evolution and natural diversity. With respect, you are confusing the two – like confusing petrol with a tractor. I’m not the best person to explain biology to you because I only studied it to GCSE, but theres a big problem with theology that relies on an understanding of biological science that doesn’t allow for species diversity – it’s a wrong assumption!
I’m not the best person to explain biology to you because I only studied it to GCSE,
I was going to write, ‘Clearly, as you seem to think that two women can produce a child’, but then I remembered that even GCSEs include how reproduction in sexual species works; so I assume you failed your GCSE?
but theres a big problem with theology that relies on an understanding of biological science that doesn’t allow for species diversity – it’s a wrong assumption!
The bigger problem is thinking that you can base theology on science. Science can only observe the world as it is; but theology is at least as much about how the world ought to be . And science, limited as it is to observing this broken, fallen, corrupted world, can have nothing to say about that.
That is very true.
S
I know this comment thread is difficult to follow, but twice now you’ve argued against points that I’m actually also arguing against as if they are my points.
I’m not the person appealing to biology as an authority for theology!
Peter,
Only got A level biology.
So let’s explore the binary biological human diversity between male and female and human reproduction (and even at the cellular level)…
There, that’s done.
And now, I still don’t know what you are driving at.
But, as has been mentioned before, to see attractiveness in anyone made in the image of God is not sin, but, even unthingly, unkowingly, it is an indirect appreciation of God himself.
But that is as far as it goes. All SS desire is unrighteous, unGodly, unholy. In fact it is God’s “continuous present” judgement, in God giving us over to those desires along with others. Romans 1.
See also, in far greater detail and thoroughness, Ian Paul here:
https://www.premierchristianity.com/theology/paul-does-condemn-all-same-sex-activity/14743.article
I’m saying that different orientation is a normal part of human diversity. Diversity is not contrary to human biology. Without getting too graphic orientation is not an issue of personality or preference, it has physical aspects.
Gay people are not infertile, though certainly actual infertile people do exist and are permitted to marry in the CofE.
I’m saying that different orientation is a normal part of human diversity.
In this broken, fallen, corrupted world it is. But would it be in a perfect world? That’s the question, and it’s not one science can answer because science is limited to observing this world as it is. Knowledge of how it was supposed to be and how it has gone wrong requires specific divine revelation, and the only source of that is the Bible.
I think it depends on whose perfect world it is.
I think there would be far less conflict on these issues if we all concentrated on the real world rather than drifting off into fantasy. It’s easy to create perfect theology if you’re also the one defining the parameters of reality
I think it depends on whose perfect world it is.
There’s only one perfect world: God’s, as He intended this world to be before it was corrupted by sin.
I sent a comment that apparently is lost in the cyber ether.
Here’s a stripped back version:
Given the talk about separation, from both sides of the debate, why not
Church of England (established)
Church of England (free of state)
If the latter had an acceptable property and financial settlement, they could leave the established version to carry on with the wish for revision of marriage and other matters.
The Free Church of England?
It’s got a ring…
I (personally) don’t believe in inventing new names/adjectives, but holding on to the ones you have been using. You are not revising teaching, but retaining the long held teaching. You are the Church of England.
The revisionists would be the Church of England (by law established), and would seek to make that work.
In the note that got lost, I simply remarked that this would make the Church of England like every other Church in the Anglican Communion, that is, not ‘by law established’ but one whose identity is basically Christian, in the Anglican Communion of churches.
The outstanding example of an “established” church would be the remnant of the Church of England, to be revised in accordance with the state’s wishes.
And one of those (non-established) churches is called “The Free Church of England”!
Exactly so Colin. There is already a place to go, ready made, for those who do not wish to be part of a CofE that is by law established.
There is no real call for a split, not least because people can see that the Free Church of England is tiny and shrinking.
Conservatives in the CofE have no wish at all to leave the established Church. Talks of a negotiated settlement are wishful thinking by a very small number. It’s a complete non starter.
people can see that the Free Church of England is tiny and shrinking
Just like the non-free Church of England then.
“People can see that the Free Church of England is tiny and shrinking.”
Is there a statistical basis for this – not the ‘people can see’ assertion, but for the shrinking? Or is it just wishful thinking?
Average attendance at Sunday services in the C of E fell 2019 to 2021 by 27%.
Not that there is anything distinctive in the strap line on the FCoE home page. ‘We have discovered that God loves us, and in turn we love each other and those around us. Everyone is welcome to join us and experience that love for themselves!’ That sounds very typical of the cliche-ridden spirituality that is all around. Surely God is about to disabuse us.
Yet another good reason that the sizeable and robust Church of England portion (Bishops, dioceses, parishes) ought not to use this name.
Church of England
Church of England (state church)
The latter can have a contest with the Free Church of England in the ‘tiny and shrinking’ contest…
But there is no real movement for it among conservatives Christopher. It is just wishful thinking on your part.
By the way I did have to smile when you said “I (personally) don’t believe in inventing new names”…..because that is exactly what you have (personally) done!
But there is no real movement for it among conservatives Christopher.
But now there isn’t. But that would likely change if there was a realistic chance of the progressive side getting a big enough majority to push its changes though General Synod, wouldn’t it?
(I suspect it wouldn’t happen though; dividing up the Church of English would require Parliamentary approval, and at that point I think disestablishment and nationalisation of the Church of England’s assents and buildings is a far more likely outcome, especially if it happens under a Labour government).
Let’s not get waylaid by folks like T1 whose only redoubt is bizarre.
If the idea has merit, pursue it.
He will have no say. I suspect the revisionists will splinter if he has any place in their deliberations. As they will in any case.
Or rather than go to the bother of that, just treat same sex marriage in the same way as remarriage after divorce- let it be a decision for local priests and their congregations
Or rather than go to the bother of that, just treat same sex marriage in the same way as remarriage after divorce- let it be a decision for local priests and their congregations
Doesn’t work because you can’t change the theology of marriage on a local-congregation basis. A local congregation might decide not to conduct same-sex marriages but they couldn’t decide not to be part of a denomination that had changed its theology of marriage.
Honestly it really does sometimes seem like those in the progressive side think that what the other side is worried about is getting ‘gay germs’ and that they can be bought off with reassurances that they won’t have to have gays in their churches, rather than that the concern is about true theology.
S
But they already do this with divorced people.
There is very clear teaching on divorce and remarriage in the gospels, yet its allowed to be a local pastoral matter.
As I keep saying a problem with the corporate CofE on this topic is that it continues to refuse to engage with real life situations. Allowing it to be a local pastoral issue, like remarriage after divorce, would largely resolve this.
Priests would be saying “yes” or “no” to couples they had at least some sort of personal knowledge of rather than the corporate CofE saying “no” to some wierd abstract imagining of gay people.
But they already do this with divorced people.
There is very clear teaching on divorce and remarriage in the gospels, yet its allowed to be a local pastoral matter.
And look how well that has worked out — it’s brought the Church of England to this point of total collapse. Hardly a ringing endorsement of the approach.
There is also a significant difference in that moving from being a denomination that saw remarriage after divorce as always sinful to one that saw remarriage after divorce as merely in almost all cases sinful (remember that remarriage is only supposed to be permitted in ‘exceptional circumstances’) doesn’t involve a complete overturning of the whole theology of what marriage is and what it is intended for.
So it’s hardly comparable.
Priests would be saying “yes” or “no” to couples they had at least some sort of personal knowledge of rather than the corporate CofE saying “no” to some wierd abstract imagining of gay people.
But that makes no sense (and again shows why the cases of this and remarriage are different). The idea with remarriage is that it’s supposed to be one in exceptional circumstances, so the minister ‘on the ground’, as it were, has to figure out whether those circumstances apply, and therefore can decide, say, to allow the remarriage of one couple while denying that of another.
But there are no possible attributes of a same-sex couple which could make one such couple’s marriage sinful while another’s is not. With all same-sex marriages are allowed, or none are.
So there’s no scope or reason for local ministerial discretion in deciding whether a particular same-sex couple is to be allowed to marry, in the way that the local decision has to be made whether a particular couple can remarry.
So this ‘local discretion’ idea makes no sense, and seems to totally misunderstand the whole point of local discretion when in comes to remarriage.
S
But the CofE practice is not what you claim it is on divorce and remarriage. They dont claim divorce and remarriage is sinful in most cases. They allow divorce and remarriage to be decided locally on a case by case basis after interacting with the real people involved and I’ve never heard of a case being denied universally.
If Conservatives want to persist in opposing all SSM then they need to start applying their theology to straight people. Most divorced people must remain single and celibate for the rest of their lives. People who come to church after remarriage should separate. This would create a much larger group of people at the local level who may be able to provide each other with sufficient companionship. Maybe? But applying strict rules to gay people while compassion to straights is unjust and in itself sinful.
<iBut the CofE practice is not what you claim it is on divorce and remarriage. They dont claim divorce and remarriage is sinful in most cases.
Yes, they do. The motion passed by General Synod in 2002 can be found at the bottom of http://anglicansonline.org/news/articles/2002/CofEsynod0702.html and reads:
‘recognise (i) that some marriages regrettably do fail and that the Church’s care for couples in that situation should be of paramount importance; and (ii) that there are exceptional circumstances in which a divorced person may be married in Church during the lifetime of a former spouse;’
Note: exceptional circumstances. By definition exceptional circumstances are, well, exceptional, and most cases will not be exceptional (or that would be the norm, not ‘exceptional’).
Therefore the Church of England believes that remarriage after divorce is, in most cases (ie, all the non-exceptional ones) sinful.
S
Yes and the “exceptional circumstances” are
1 a woman who was abused by her first husband
2 a man who was cheated on by his first wife
3 anyone else
Yes and the “exceptional circumstances” are
1 a woman who was abused by her first husband
2 a man who was cheated on by his first wife
3 anyone else
I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make here. That the Church of England’s behaviour doesn’t match its belief, due to massive laxity over many decades in disciplining rogue clergy? Well yeah. Everyone knows.
If the latter left the Church of England (as the Gafcon Anglican Church of North America has left the Episcopalian Church), then the C of E, like the Episcopalian church would keep all the historica churches and assets of the Church. There would no property or financial settlement for the Free Church, it would have to raise its own funds and buy or build its own buildings
There would no property or financial settlement for the Free Church, it would have to raise its own funds and buy or build its own buildings
Then they won’t leave, and you won’t get the theological change you want.
If you want them to leave, as you keep saying, you’re going to have to sweeten the deal.
Why would we need to? Given even if Synod doesn’t go beyond the blessings the Bishops propose and approve full homosexual marriage in its churches with the required 2/3 majority then Parliament is likely to vote to allow homosexual marriages in the Church of England anyway within 5 to 10 years. Especially if Labour win the next general election. It would then be up to evangelicals if they want to stay with the security of keeping the C of E historic buildings and benefiting from its assets (assuming still an opt out from homosexual marriage for them) or go their own way with all the risks of having to fund themselves and buy or build their own new buildings
Parliament is likely to vote to allow homosexual marriages in the Church of England anyway within 5 to 10 years.
You keep saying that, but seriously, full disestablishment is more likely. Especially if Labour win an election. You know Labour hates the idea of an established church, right?
No it isn’t. Senior Labour MP Bradshaw just made clear at the Synod fringe MPs are not interested in disestablishment. What they are interested in is changing C of E law, including its canon law if necessary, to allow its homosexual Parishioners to get married in their Parish church.
Why would Labour hate a state controlled, relatively Woke Church? If it gets rid of some of you hardline conservative evangelicals from the C of E, all the better for Labour!
No it isn’t. Senior Labour MP Bradshaw just made clear at the Synod fringe MPs are not interested in disestablishment.
Ben Bradshaw? Senior Labour MP? What are you smoking?
(By the way Bradshaw has already announced he won’t be standing at the next election).
Why would Labour hate a state controlled, relatively Woke Church?
On principle. For a start they hate the monarchy, and the Church of England is associated with the monarchy. They hate the House of Lords, and there are bishops in the House of Lords. They hate the Empire, and the Church of England was heavily involved in the Empire. And they just hate religion, in general.
If they could leave the Church of England alone and have it be a sort of woke cheerleader for leftie causes, then I’m sure they’d be fine with that. But if they think they have to interfere with the Church of England by legislation, then by definition they must have decided they can’t rely on the Church of England to come to the ‘right’ answers by itself.
In which case, why would they go to all that bother just to make a slight tweak to doctrine and hope that has the desired effect (rather than say, angering the members if the Church of England at having their doctrine interfered with and making them vociferous enemies of the government, which seems at least as likely an outcome) when it would be just as easy to nationalise the Church of England: seize the assets and the buildings and transfer them to a National Multi-Faith Network, let any bishops who want to transfer over to management positions in the new network, appoint some Imams and Rabbis alongside them, make the King its patron, and establish it by statute to make it explicitly a creation of Parliament and under Parliament’s control, to avoid any chance of any repeat of the current difficulties?
Actually they don’t now hate the monarchy either. For starters Labour sang national anthem with gusto at their conference last autumn now Starmer has replaced Corbyn. Why would they? Charles is a relatively Woke liberal King anyway. They may not like the Lords much but you don’t even need an upper house, let alone one with Bishops in it, for an established church. See Denmark. Plenty of support in Labour for Islam too, after all Muslims vote for Labour in even higher percentages than atheists do.
All the Synod votes today showed already there is roughly a 60% support level for homosexual marriage within the C of E anyway. Maybe not quite at 2/3 but not far off. So the C of E would be majority behind a Labour government passing legislation to amend its doctrine to allow homosexual marriage. It might in time be included in a National Multi Faith network, though Rabbis and Imams and other religious priests would have to accept homosexual marriage etc too to be formally recognised within the established faith
Actually they don’t now hate the monarchy either.
Oh, they do. They just know they have to pretend not to if they’re going to get elected.
Plenty of support in Labour for Islam too, after all Muslims vote for Labour in even higher percentages than atheists do.
Hence why they’re more likely to get rid of the Church of England and replace it with a Multi-Faith network than make a single doctrinal tweak. Plus King Charles would be all in favour.
. It might in time be included in a National Multi Faith network,
And you would be okay with that? But I thought you loved the Church of England all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind. Surely you would object to it being destroyed and replaced by a National Multi-Faith network?
Most in the Church of England would be happy to be part of an established Multi Faith Network, especially most of the Bishops. Any Muslim, Jewish or Hindu leaders who wanted to be involved however would have to accept homosexual marriage too. The Church of England would still be the established faith, which is my main concern, just a broader reaching one!
The Church of England would still be the established faith, which is my main concern, just a broader reaching one!
And no longer Christian. So not really the Church of England any more; the Multi-Faith Community of England instead.
And you’d be okay with that? You don’t care whether the established faith is Christian or not, so long as it’s established?
No, it would still be the main Christian element in the Multi Faith established community. That would be fine with me
No, it would still be the main Christian element in the Multi Faith established community. That would be fine with me
Why? What would be the point of that?
Are you actually a Christian? Do you actually believe that a Jewish carpenter two thousand years ago was God, died for our sins, rose again, and is the only way for us to be reconciled to God?
Because I can’t really see how you could believe that and be fine with the established faith including Jews and Muslims who each believe things that are totally incompatible with Christianity.
If you actually knew much about Islam you would know that Muslims believe Jesus was a Prophet and the Messiah. In fact the only real difference between Muslims and Christians is Muslims don’t believe in the Trinity.
Jews don’t believe in the Trinity but they do believe in the Old Testament of the Bible, which Christians share with them. I would have no problem at all being in an established Multi Faith Community with Muslims and Jews, the other Abrahamic religions. Though their representatives would have to accept homosexual marriage of course like the Church of England likely ultimately will
I would have no problem at all being in an established Multi Faith Community with Muslims and Jews, the other Abrahamic religions.
So you’re not a Christian, you’re a kind of syncretist. In with case there’s no point discussing this with you as you cannot possibly have anything to add to a discussion which is ultimately about Christian theology. You might as well be an atheist for all you can contribute.
Yes I am a Christian just unlike you not a fanatical one who rejects any connection with Muslims (who share our Christian belief in Jesus as Messiah) or indeed homosexuals and one who supports the Church of England as our established church
Yes I am a Christian
You can’t be a Christian if you don’t believe in the divinity of Jesus (which to Muslims is the most serious blasphemy because it contravenes their most basic principle, that Allah is one and has no equals).
End of.
I do believe in the divinity of Christ. Just unlike you I don’t dismiss any connection with Muslims eg our shared belief that Jesus was the Messiah or dismiss our shared belief with Muslims and Jews in the God of Abraham q
I do believe in the divinity of Christ. Just unlike you I don’t dismiss any connection with Muslims
You can’t have any connection with Muslims if you believe in the divinity of Jesus, because the greatest crime in Islam is to say that Allah has equals, and by believing Jesus is God you are saying just that.
Sorry but that’s how it is.
Either you’re saying you don’t really believe in Christianity, or you’re saying Muslims don’t really believe in Islam.
If you actually knew much about Islam you would know that Muslims believe Jesus was a Prophet and the Messiah.
Yes I know that, but the important thing is that they don’t think Jesus is God, and they think that to say Jesus is God is the greatest sin. Whereas Christians think that Jesus is God.
There’s simply no way to make out that those two can possibly be compatible. At the very core of one is the fact that A; at the core of the other, not-A.
In fact the only real difference between Muslims and Christians is Muslims don’t believe in the Trinity.
Well, sort of, in that you can’t believe in the Trinity if you don’t think Jesus is God. But even if you do consider that ‘the only difference’ it’s still the single most important core aspect of Christianity (Jesus is God) which is negated by the single most important core aspect of Islam (Allah is one). So even if that’s the only difference it’s still enough to make the two totally incompatible, isn’t it?
So if you think you could be in a multi-faith community with them then either you don’t really believe that Jesus is God or you think they don’t really believe that Allah is one. I wouldn’t want to tell a Muslim that they don’t really believe in Islam so I think it must be you.
Either that or you just don’t think it’s that important to be right snooty whether Jesus is God or not, it’s more important to support the state, in which case you’re not a Christian, you’re a syncretic civic religionist.
One gets the impression that in Rome you’d have been going ‘eventually the Church WILL be made to sacrifice to the Emperor…’
S
Its easy for a person to oppose SSRs when it doesn’t impact them personally, less easy if opposing it means walking away from ecclesiastical property and pensions and harder still if it means being single and isolated for your whole life.
Its easy for a person to oppose SSRs when it doesn’t impact them personally, less easy if opposing it means walking away from ecclesiastical property and pensions and harder still if it means being single and isolated for your whole life.
Doing the right thing is never easy.
Conservatives can be same-sex attracted. Conservatives can have gay friends and close family members. It isn’t easy for them oppose the consensus view (supporting SSRs). At the local community level very few do.
Joe
I can tell you lots and lots of gay Christians try to keep to the churches teaching of no sex, no relationships. In my own personal experience and my experience talking to lots of others they walk away because
1. Church leaders behave in an unsupportive and dishonest manner, move the goal posts on what is required or simply decide to encourage them to leave despite following church teaching. The gay Christian feels abused and begins to recognize that church leadership doesn’t know what its talking about when it comes to gays. As a top level example, without giving away personal dirty laundry, look at how dishonest the Bishops have been over these blessings.
2. They are not believed and so find it impossible to make community. If you’re not allowed Christian community or a romantic relationship then it becomes unsustainable. A few years back there was an attempt to hold a annual Christian conference in the US for gay celibates – Conservatives piled on it and denounced it.
3. (Less common) They are given the option of harmful practices such as exorcism or conversion therapy or being removed from the community. This was what the recent protest at Lambeth Palace was about. The corporate CofE says it opposes such practices, but isnt actually doing anything to stop them even now
No the greatest sin in Islam is apostasy. As a Christian I worship the same God of Abraham Muslims do.
Their main prophet is just Muhammad, my main prophet and Messiah is Jesus and we differ on the Trinity. That is all
No the greatest sin in Islam is apostasy.
Where are you getting this nonsense from?
‘The greatest of these sins [the 7 major sins in Islam] is shirk (associating others with Allah), which leads to doom with no hope of redemption, and if a person dies in this state he will abide in Hell for all eternity. Allah, may He be exalted, says (interpretation of the meaning):
“Verily, whosoever sets up partners in worship with Allah, then Allah has forbidden Paradise for him, and the Fire will be his abode. And for the Zalimun (polytheists and wrongdoers) there are no helpers.” [al-Maidah 5:72]’
From https://islamqa.info/amp/en/answers/200632
If you believe Jesus is God, you are coming shirk and, if the Muslims are right, the Fire will be your abode. No paradise for you.
Their main prophet is just Muhammad, my main prophet and Messiah is Jesus and we differ on the Trinity.
You differ, incompatibly, on the single most important point of Christianity (that Jesus was not just ‘the main prophet’ but was in fact God Himself). There’s simply no way past that. The two cannot be reconciled.
Following the logic that marriages entered into by a civil ceremony since 2014 are not recognised by the Bishops as a marriage, what is the position on marriages entered into under the laws of other countries, whether or not those countries allow same-sex marriage? It looks as though the Bishops will have to analyse the legal status of marriage in 194 other countries.
Do they currently accept that a Muslim with two wives who has them both accompany him on a visit to England is married to both of them?
Anton
I guess that would only be relevant if the Muslim wanted to convert to CofE Christianity.
I believe the CofE or at least Anglican communion has made allowances for multiple wives of people from other cultures in the past, but Im not certain.
Muslim with two wives
Recognising a man has two wives? That’s big of me.
The civil law applies to the recognition of marriage ceremonies that take place outside the UK.
I don’t know how recognition has been decided in the CoE even before 2014.
There’s a lot of silliness around at the moment. People on all sides have really wheeled out the hyperbole and tortured analogy, even more so than usual. I don’t necessarily mean here, though there is a little of it, but all over social media; as if Synod itself has an intoxicating effect on the clergy, driving them all slowly mad..
I think Andrew is largely right. If inconsistency is part of the reason we’re here at all, then adding even further deviation and incoherence to that is only going to make things worse, and it is disappointing that when so much time has already been devoted to these conversations, that it should all feel like a chaotic sprint at the end.
Mat – you’re a Baptist pastor. Do you have connections with the C. of E.? Are you thinking of moving to the C. of E.?
I think the point here is that there are some C. of E. things that C. of E. people understand and those of us who are not C. of E. people should let them sort out for themselves.
A key point is what does ‘blessing’ mean and what is the C. of E. actually doing when it gives a blessing to a marriage (or indeed to anything else). I have some experience of the C. of E.; back in 1989 I stuck with a C. of E. for a 10 week period to see what it was like (I moved down to England for a couple of years) – and gave up on it after a good trial period. One Sunday morning, something very interesting happened with their communion. The person leading the service announced that there wasn’t a priest there that morning (some lesser beings had been co-ordinating the hynms, prayers, bible readings, giving the sermon), but we could rest assured that a proper priest had consecrated the bread and wine that morning before he goofed off to fulfill other commitments elsewhere.
Clearly these C. of E. people have a completely different understanding from me of what goes on with the bread-and-wine ceremony and they have a completely different understanding from me of the whole idea of ‘priest’ – and I think that my understanding of these things is in line with the traditional Baptist understanding of these things.
I’d like to know what theological meaning they give to ‘blessing’ and – to be honest with you – why on earth gay people would actually want to be ‘blessed’ in this way and why it seems to be so important to them.
As a ‘straight’ person, I have to say that I would run a mile if any C. of E. priest wanted to bless me, either as an individual or in any other way.
I’d like to know what theological meaning they give to ‘blessing’ and – to be honest with you – why on earth gay people would actually want to be ‘blessed’ in this way and why it seems to be so important to them.
Good question. I mean they can’t just be treating it as having no theological meaning at all but just wanting it as some kind of mark of institutional approval / validation, right? Because that would be kind of taking God’s name in vain.
It has always been extremely simple. If (by Romans 1 and by common sense) a person has so little reverence – a failing many of us are no doubt prone to – as to disregard the creation order, that is a barometer of their disregarding God in favour of their short term desires. The end in view has always been that they can sleep with people of their own sex without feeling the pangs of conscience they have felt at the disapproval of the religious folks. A dream scenario. And in a world where people can make dream scenarii ever more, that is the sort of agenda one would expect to find.
Christopher
I respect your commitment to your beliefs, but when it comes to both biology and what most gay people want you don’t know what you are talking about. Most gay people want equal treatment under the law, not wierd semi ok blessings.
I also think you’re reading Romans 1 correctly. The clue is in the name of the book.
*incorrectly!
Phones always “correct” the worst words, my apologies
Correctly or incorrectly?
People who lived in Rome had a different nature from others?
People were always coming and going there.
Paul speaks cosmically not locally when he speaks about the wrath of God being revealed against sinful humanity; his point is that all are under sin, not just denizens of particular cities.
Why do you respect my commitment to my beliefs? That makes no sense.
(1) If you think something is the likeliest theory, you would not have to be tenacious about keeping holding onto it. You would only have to do that in a losing situation where something was less than likely. But if something was less than likely why would anyone hold onto it?
(2) The only important thing about a belief is the evidence for it or lack thereof.
Romans 1 is very clearly about the 1st century pagan Roman elite who were persecuting the church.
The passage itself says these are idolaters who are in OSMs, but have same sex sex on the side as a consequence of their idolatry
” Do you have connections with the C. of E.? Are you thinking of moving to the C. of E.?”
We all have connections with the CofE, whether we wish it or not! I am not so naive that I am unaware of how the CofE is often the lens through which other churches are perceived and understood by the dominant secular powers. Only a fool would pretend that Christians in England don’t have at least a partially-vested interest in watching how this unfolds. Many different denominations and traditions are watching on with interest, learning and reacting from what’s happening.
More bluntly even than this, it is a fact that my friends and associates in the CofE (and yes, I have many), are also my brothers and sisters in Christ. I should not be ignorant of their pain and difficulty at this time, all the better to pray for them, support them and understand the situation they are in.
So fundamentally, yes, I do think this is in some sense ‘my business’, even if you appear to be saying I should stay out of it.. I happen to think it is in some sense your business as well. 😉
“I’d like to know what theological meaning they give to ‘blessing’ and – to be honest with you – why on earth gay people would actually want to be ‘blessed’ in this way and why it seems to be so important to them.”
The whole conversation about the nature of ‘blessings’, their sacramental status (if any) and how this relates to the role and function of ‘priest’ are an area of this whole conversation that I’m deliberately avoiding on account of the fact that I don’t really understand it very much either. I’m not convinced anyone is articulating it very well, which seems to be part of the problem.
Mat
Matt
The blessings were articulated beautifully by an image on one of the recent posts about this on psephizo – a box of fudge.
That’s what they are – an attempt to fudge the issue of whether gays can get married in church or not. No, but the individuals can be “blessed” afterwards, even though they could have always had that done.
It was a perfectly valid compromise for now. Homosexuals can now be blessed after their civil marriages in a Church of England church. However for evangelicals the definition of holy matrimony remains unchanged and they get an opt out from blessing homosexual couples as Anglo Catholic Parishes get an opt out from having women bishops and women priests
T1
It’s not a compromise because it is no change.
As someone wittily put it on Facebook- the church blesses peoples pets. We have achieved equality with hamsters
As someone wittily put it on Facebook- the church blesses peoples pets
Does it? Well it shouldn’t because that’s pretty blasphemous.
Mat – I’d say that the nature of ‘blessings’, whether or not a priest is necessary to confer the ‘blessing’, what the theological meaning of a ‘blessing’ actually is, is a question of crucial importance before people like me go diving into this.
I don’t really want to involve myself in a bun-fight that is happening at the pagan end of the church, where the bread-and-wine has to be especially ‘blessed’ by a priest before it can be used for communion – and where there is some holy significance in getting sprinkled with magic water.
If that is what it is all about then I’m keeping out of it!
I meant more that I am avoiding the debate about ‘blessings’ specifically in the context of the Bishop’s proposal and debate in Synod. The document would suggest, and as was discussed (at length!) in a previous post, two mutually exclusive understandings such that I am uncertain what exactly was meant by the word: the difference being as much semantic as theological….
The wider conversation about Anglican ecclesiology and Eucharistic theology in particular is something of obvious relevance to us non-conformists, but not really relevant to the discussion here. 😉
S
Yes the CofE will bless pretty much anyone – pets, gays, battleships…
‘There’s a lot of silliness around at the moment’
You’re not wrong there, Mat. For a long time now I keep returning to a mental picture of the hysterical prophets of Baal as they tried to convince themselves that he would measure up to Elijah’s challenge. And I’m not restricting the application of that to our present situation in the C of E.
The whole Western world is going through spasms of hysteria as a mostly discarded sovereign Lord God is replaced by the WEF and the WHO as our ultimate source for wisdom and protection from the fearsome dangers of the natural world, which none of us ever realised existed. Oh, and Boris Johnson (the one with ‘a brain the size of a planet’ – apparently) is leading the charge for world war 3 against that enigmatic Mr Putin who was only trying to bring his own particular style of good order to a country being wrecked by its own historic divisions and the kind attempts of the USA to take control of its strategic location.
Well there’s a nice little segway for anyone who’s had enough of whatever the C of E has decided marriage is.
It was Putin who invaded Ukraine, a free and Christian people on our own continent
Hook line and sinker.
T1 “If you actually knew much about Islam you would know that Muslims believe Jesus was a Prophet and the Messiah. In fact the only real difference between Muslims and Christians is Muslims don’t believe in the Trinity.”
You appear to know nothing about Islam…. or nothing about historic Christianity… You can’t possibly know both of them and come to your conclusion.
You appear to know nothing about Islam…. or nothing about historic Christianity… You can’t possibly know both of them and come to your conclusion.
This person is clearly not a Christian, he’s a syncretist. In fact their view of religion seems to be petty much exactly the Imperial Roman ‘civic religion’ model: belief and truths are unimportant, all that matters is the state’s imprimatur, and all religions are equal so long as they age to bow to the Emperor (today’s ‘emperor’ obviously is gay rights). I would suggest therefore that their views on what is fundamentally a matter of Christian theology can be given no weight.
Hi S…. Sadly, I think you are right. It’s not a, conclusion I try to rush to… but the evidence is overwhelming.
What puzzles me is the absolute lack of knowledge being willingly shared… re the Faith… Islam.. the place/role of the monarch… said list almost endless.
I thought once before, “don’t feed the troll”. Time to take my own advice.
It’s not a, conclusion I try to rush to
Nor me, which is why I try to give people every opportunity to clarify their position. But in this case every clarification makes it more obvious that what this person is interested in is civic religion.
“Mr Putin who was only trying to bring his own particular style of good order to a country being wrecked by its own historic divisions”
So was Hitler
If the CofE doesn’t agree that human beings have a right to liberty and self government then the gays have no chance
That reminds me of this classic from an early series of All Creatures Great and Small, when a farmer was concerned about the welfare of a favourite pig asking Herriot to take particular care, because it was a *Christian* pig.
Born in England, I must be Christian, even a Christian atheist or pagan dressed in gowns of office.
In relation to another post I commented that we are reaping the whirlwind.
Here is more evidence that society is terminally sick. Is this not the reason why our civilisation, according to Scripture, will be cast down, thrown into the sea like a great millstone? The Church is doing nothing to counter the sickness; it is part of it.
https://dailysceptic.org/2023/02/08/one-in-five-girls-identifies-as-trans-the-truth-about-whats-going-on-in-englands-schools/
Church of England schools do not appear to be different.
I await today’s vote with little hope.
It seems that if you want to combat the demonic lunacy of what’s going on you should expect opposition rather than support from the Church of England. Individual Christians may indeed support you and some other Christian organisations such as Christian Concern are excellent but the institutional church is now captivated, obsessed with its own nonsense, and incapable of applying rational thought, let alone theology, to deal with any of this stuff.
While prayer should be our first recourse, God works through the actions of courageous people (often those who are natural members of the awkward squad!) who are prepared to stand up against wickedness. We Christians have to recognise that in the current situation God’s purposes are being worked out through people who are not necessarily Christian.
The stand against destructive ideology and the growing global forces of tyranny is certainly happening (ignored of course by the mainstream media) but it is not specifically Christian – well not in the UK anyway. I happened to mention the tyranny of ’15 minute cities’ to a Christian the other day – she’d never even heard of them! Jordan Peterson is all over this stuff, he’s certainly got guts; no wonder they’re out to silence him.
Don Benson
Lots of these “excellent” “Christian” organizations use outrage to drive donations or profits and often stretch the truth or outright lie.
When did dishonesty become a virtue in Conservative Christianity? Its mindboggling to me that there isnt more outrage at the dishonesty of the bishops in this latest response to LLF. Is the bible “clear” about the gays, but not about lying?!
20 out of 200 is 10%
This is clearly an exaggeration by a school child about her peers self expression, which at her age is certainly exploration. The percentage of genuine trans people is less than 1%
So dont panic!
This is clearly an exaggeration by a school child about her peers self expression, which at her age is certainly exploration. The percentage of genuine trans people is less than 1%
Let’s just hope ones who are just ‘exploring’ don’t have any irreversible surgery before they come to their senses, eh. But I guess that’s just a chance we have to take in order to be in the right side of history. Progress always has casualties, right?
S
Small children are not having irreversible surgery. Even at 16 it’s very rare
Even at 16 it’s very rare
And how many of those are mistakes, I wonder. But hey, a few kid maimed and made infertile when they were just going through a phase is just the price we have to pay for progress, right? As long as it’s ‘very rare’.
It shouldn’t happen at 16, even very rarely. In fact, ideally it shouldn’t happen at all.
In fact, ideally it shouldn’t happen at all.
Well, if an adult wants to mutilate their own body, I think it would be immoral, and for a doctor to help them would be highly unethical, but it shouldn’t be illegal.
Mutilating children should be though.
And as this points out, medical treatments can be just as damaging long-term as surgery and they are given to young children: https://www.thefp.com/p/i-thought-i-was-saving-trans-kids
Today it is illegal to consensually attempt to rejig the mind to match the body, but legal to perform genital operations far outrunning ‘female circumcision’ to rejig the body to match the mind.
S
Just for context there are far far more surgeries to have breasts enhanced at 16 than removed at 16. There are also other medical reasons to have breasts removed that have nothing to do with being trans.
Just for context there are far far more surgeries to have breasts enhanced at 16 than removed at 16.
So we should stop both. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
There are also other medical reasons to have breasts removed that have nothing to do with being trans.
And nobody would suggest that someone with, say, breast cancer shouldn’t have a mastectomy. The horrific part is unnecessarily mutilating healthy bodies.
Peter JERMEY:
Yes, there are perfectly valid and pressing medical reasons why women may unfortunately need to have their breasts removed. The delusion that one’s female sex is the wrong one, and that one should and can “transition” to the other sex, is not one of them.
Anton
In England any attempts to make gay children attracted to the same sex (conversion therapy), with or without their consent, is legal, despite almost a decade of promises from the government that it would be outlawed.
The attempt to outlaw conversion therapy is not because theres a desire not to diminish the number of gay people. Its because it doesn’t work and has caused chronic health problems for some of its victims
Its not true that most trans surgery is lawful.
S: I agree with you on both counts, but if such mutilation is to happen at all, I would make the minimum age at least 25.
I also think that it should be illegal to give puberty blockers (except in the very rare cases of precocious puberty) or cross-sex hormones to minors.
I agree with you on both counts, but if such mutilation is to happen at all, I would make the minimum age at least 25.
I think the minimum age for voting should be 30, so I’m not going to quibble.
I also think that it should be illegal to give puberty blockers (except in the very rare cases of precocious puberty) or cross-sex hormones to minors.
See the link I referenced above.
If you were to make PBs illegal in most cases, how would you deal with kids who experience really extreme gender dysphoria? Would you just let them suffer even though there was a solution that at least got them to adulthood?
If you were to make PBs illegal in most cases, how would you deal with kids who experience really extreme gender dysphoria?
Same as you treat any extreme mental illness in children. With therapy, potentially psychiatric drugs to help them cope.
The vast majority of such cases resolve once the patient has gone through natural puberty.
What was that all about?For any of us who are unfamiliar, and have some passing interest, with what takes place at the CoE Synod here is a clear explanation, with voting results from yesterday:
https://www.anglicanfutures.org/post/what-was-that-all-about
There is indeed a lot of talk of separation at TA. On both sides of the spectrum. People are keenly aware the situation in untenable.
Here at this site, the name “Andrew Godsall” has been invoked as an example “of all is well,” and “everyone gets to see what they want.” That is a correct appraisal from what he writes about.
Simply allow the Church of England to continue as previously, when it comes to mission and theological conviction.
The Church of England (state church) can then be free to pursue its vision. That would be a good outcome all around, satisfying TA’s Peter and Susannah both. And Andrew Godsall can keep smiling his happy smile.
Christopher you keep going on about the mediated settlement that will surely come. There was little sign of it over the last two days in General Synod. Conservatives predicted that the motion would never be passed. It was – with a slight amendment. None of the wrecking amendments came anywhere near passing. And nothing with a whiff of mediated settlement came near the final motion either. What I understand Stephen Cottrell to be saying is that the matter needs to be settled so that we can finally move on.
We have come a step closer to that settlement today. Some Provinces in the Communion will no doubt huff and puff. As will members of ACNA. It will all be hot air.
The motion that has been passed is pretty much exactly as I predicted a few years ago. The trajectory is now clearer. And it isn’t separate Provinces, or a negotiated separation.
And Christopher – you too have said in the last that you will no longer be commenting again. But then you confect a new name and here you are again.
What I understand Stephen Cottrell to be saying is that the matter needs to be settled so that we can finally move on.
Is this the same Stephen Cottrell who has been quoted as saying ‘this is not the end of that journey’?
That doesn’t sound a lot like saying the matter needs to be settled. Indeed quite the opposite; that sounds a lot like saying that matter is not settled and will be revisited in the future. So nobody can move on; everyone remains in a state of suspended animation, waiting to see what the final settlement, the end of the journey, might be.
“I have to leave the Church of England at this point” — so Susannah, fresh off the TA press.
Case in point.
“I have to leave the Church of England at this point” — so Susannah, fresh off the TA press.
Is ‘leave the Church of England’ like ‘stop commenting’?
I genuinely don’t know, but you ask a good question. She has said this before.
She ought to work to settle into a revisionist version of a state church called the Church of England (or choose another name; that’s not for me to say). That seems to be what she wants (i.e., she’s not going to the Methodist Church). She speaks of co-religionists who bless her transition and her chosen life-style. Recently she and the Peter at TA have seemed to be on the same page re: separate entities. Along with many others.
The vote at GS appears to have made her hit the reset button “I am leaving.”
I doubt she will cease commenting. She may well be the most prolific commentator at TA and elsewhere. Almost a full-time job.
Speaking of which…back to work! Thanks for your responses.
Thought she said somewhere, sometime, in the comments here that she trusted/supported the Bishops in whatever they decided.
Thought she said somewhere, sometime, in the comments here that she trusted/supported the Bishops in whatever they decided.
No, she was quite specific; when I asked if Susannah Clark would commit to supporting whatever the bishops came up with, the answer was no, on those on the other side should commit to supporting what the bishops come up with if it was ‘accommodation’, but Susannah Clark was firm in not committing to accept the result if it was not ‘accommodation’ (and as it turns out was wise not to leave such a hostage to fortune).
See : https://www.psephizo.com/sexuality-2/what-are-the-practical-implications-following-living-in-love-and-faith/#comment-414755
I genuinely don’t know, but you ask a good question. She has said this before.
She ought to work to settle into a revisionist version of a state church called the Church of England (or choose another name; that’s not for me to say). That seems to be what she wants (i.e., she’s not going to the Methodist Church). She speaks of co-religionists who bless her transition and her chosen life-style. Recently she and the Peter at TA have seemed to be on the same page re: separate entities. Along with many others.
The vote at GS appears to have made her hit the reset button “I am leaving.”
I doubt she will cease commenting. She may well be the most prolific commentator at TA and elsewhere. Almost a full-time job.
Speaking of which…back to work! Thanks for your responses.
But the long game remains, as long as theological liberals, including pro ssm, remain gatekeepers for ordination and training. Wasn’t that part of the direction of travel the Bishops had decided upon?
Not if there are two distinct entities.
The liberal ‘gatekeeping’ would be inside the Church of England (state church wishing revisions).
The Church of England (as at present, non-state) would regulate their own ordination and training.
It is surely going to come to this in time anyway.
AP.
Is that what is meant by some form of mediated settlement?
If not, what is meant by it? I’ll not hold my breath for an agreed, clear definition from the Bishops.
The fact that it has been mentioned by the ABoY may be some indication that it has been considered, and sketchily discussed, foreseen as an (inevitable ?)outcome, though perhaps not; perhaps it was a throwaway off-the-cuff, placatory comment.
It is not as if Vaughan Roberts position was previously unknown, having responded with some weight to the Bishop of Oxford’s attempt to steal a march, even as that Bishop, seemingly deliberately ignored Robert’s theological, Biblical and pastoral formative and concluding deliberations.
Anglican Priest
I dont know the lady you are talking about, but most LGBT people don’t want to change the CofE for the sake of controlling the institution. Most LGBT people want to be treated as equals for their own lives and the lives of others. So she has left now because she has come to the conclusion that equality isnt going to happen and that people like her will always be treated as “other”
I’d like to think that wherever Susannah finds a home, whether that be in the CofE or elsewhere, the commenting does not cease.
It’s an unwise thing to be too happy when your enemies are silenced, and the general culture of the comments has benefited from some of Susannah’s contributions over the last couple of years. Yes, even the ones I profoundly disagreed with. There are many commentators here who comment ‘against the flow’, shall we say, of the general disposition of commentators, and I’d take relentless essay-length comments and challenges over puerile insult and lazy repetition any day.
and the general culture of the comments has benefited from some of Susannah’s contributions over the last couple of years.
Though I doubt anyone will miss the tediously regular declarations that this is the last comment ever.
If you’re going to go, don’t announce the fact. Just slip away quietly into the night.
You’re not wrong.
Agreed. I would like to think that, in her absence, commenters here could refrain from snide remarks. But, having observed commenters here, I don’t hold out much hope for Christian charity.
Comprehensive report on today’s proceedings and vote:
https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2023/10-february/news/uk/bishops-proposals-to-bless-same-sex-couples-carried-by-synod-despite-sustained-opposition
Next stop along the road: remove gender-specific (male) references to God from prayers and liturgy.
The lawyers of the Church of England are correct that since 2013 there are two categories of marriage in England. Charged by the bishops, they have come up with this comment in an attempt to retain the traditional doctrine of marriage (ie, man and woman, the effect of which is to deny church weddings to same-sex couples) while allowing the bishops to hold on to their evident desire to view same-sex weddings as legitimate, albeit without (quite) saying so.
The questions that must now be put to the Church of England to expose the contradictions into which its bishops have led it are: (1) in which category are a man and a woman (neither married before, to avoid excursions) who underwent a civil marriage as unbelievers and then become Christians; (2) in which category are a same-sex couple who underwent a civil marriage as unbelievers and then become Christians; (3) are a same-sex couple who have contracted a civil marriage married in the eyes of God? Each is a binary question and, whatever else is said in reply, binary answers to each must be demanded in the response.
To adapt some comments of Churchill to today’s debate: This is not the end; it is not even the beginning of the end; but it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning. And to Welby: You had a choice between unity and truth, and you may end up with neither.
Welby correctly chose unity and the blessings compromise today was probably the only one to keep evangelicals and liberals together.
If the compromise today was too far for even evangelicals like you, off you go to your nearest Baptist church and don’t forget to shut the door on your way out!!
Who are you to tell me that?
I suggest that the answers to your questions, if the Church of England’s doctrine of matrimony has not changed, are:
(1) Married
(2) Not married
(3) No.
Like you I look to scripture for the answers. But I want to know what the bishops say. Asking binary questions is the best way to find out. Snow them with demands that the Pastoral Guidance contain answers. They have painted themselves into a corner. Given that the situation has arisen from their failure to keep a biblical line, James 3:1 comes to mind.
“Vaughan Roberts is the leading figure for conservatives. His speech at the outset of the debate is a crucial statement.
He called for a mediated settlement.
As the debate reached its conclusion, the Archbishop of York – not a natural friend of conservatives – referenced Roberts’ contribution and went on to say himself “we need some sort of settlement”.
Exactly
AP.
Is that what is meant by some form of mediated settlement?
If not, what is meant by it? I’ll not hold my breath for an agreed, clear definition from the Bishops.
The fact that it has been mentioned by the ABoY may be some indication that it has been considered, and sketchily discussed, foreseen as an (inevitable ?)outcome, though perhaps not; perhaps it was a throwaway off-the-cuff, placatory comment.
It is not as if Vaughan Roberts position was previously unknown, having responded with some weight to the Bishop of Oxford’s attempt to steal a march, even as that Bishop, seemingly deliberately ignored Robert’s theological, Biblical and pastoral formative and concluding deliberations.
Christopher you keep going on about the mediated settlement that will surely come. There was little sign of it over the last two days in General Synod. Conservatives predicted that the motion would never be passed. It was – with a slight amendment. None of the wrecking amendments came anywhere near passing. And nothing with a whiff of mediated settlement came near the final motion either. What I understand Stephen Cottrell to be saying is that the matter needs to be settled so that we can finally move on.
We have come a step closer to that settlement today. Some Provinces in the Communion will no doubt huff and puff. As will members of ACNA. It will all be hot air.
The motion that has been passed is pretty much exactly as I predicted a few years ago. The trajectory is now clearer. And it isn’t separate Provinces, or a negotiated separation.
And Christopher – you too have said in the last that you will no longer be commenting again. But then you confect a new name and here you are again. Thank you for your contributions.
And it’s strange that ‘Peter’ at Thinking Anglicans seems to be saying the same things as you hear Christopher. A little bit more than a coincidence ……
Evangelicals now have to declare that they are in broken fellowship with their bishops and that they will no longer fund the dioceses.
St Helen’s Bishopsgate was correct.
Money is the only language these theological ignoramuses understand.
Time to separate. We don’t need them. They need us.
I always find bullying and blackmail so comforting on a Thursday evening.
Why should the faithful pay to be ministered what the Bible would count as heresy?
How is separating with the property we have paid for alk our lives “blackmail”, Penny?
We know the Church of England is now a busted flush.
I think you know that too.
Parish churches belong to the parish. Not to the current users of it. We are stewards only.
Parish churches belong to the parish.
Do they not belong to God? Isn’t that what the whole consecration business is about?
“The parish” is a legal entity that most people don’t know exists and one that can be created, changed or abolished by law.
A bit like the invention of “same sex marriage” in which a man leaves his wife and children and takes up with another man for a sexual partnership condemned in the New Testament and then calls it “marriage”.
God isn’t fooled. But He always offers repentance.
“The parish” is a legal entity that most people don’t know exists and one that can be created, changed or abolished by law.
I don’t think it does exist at all actually?
‘Legally, ownership of a church is generally vested in the incumbent and held on trust by the PCC for the parishioners, while the contents are the distinct responsibility of the churchwardens who hold them on trust for the parishioners.’
https://www.buildingconservation.com/articles/ecclesiasticallaw/ecclesiasticallaw.htm
I assumed Jeremy Pemberton was talking about moral ownership (in equity, that would be the ‘trust’ referred to above) rather than strictly legal title.
Hence my point that the ultimate moral owner of a church building is God, as the church building will have been consecrated, ie, set apart and given over to God for His purposes.
This is all up until the government decides to nationalise the Church of England and expropriates the lot, of course.
I know no such thing. And St Helen’s isn’t even in communion with the diocese.
And James your abuse of Jeremy is both nasty and incorrect.
They could also do that and vacate the buildings.
Geoff, I don’t know.
The robust and mission-minded Church of England segment that is not interested in revising marriage ought to plan carefully about what kind of property and financial settlement would come their way, should they seek to distinguish themselves from the state-church segment wanting revision.
But I do not know what Vaughn Roberts has in view.
I do not think it is wise to do this church by church but en masse. And I would insist on retaining the nomenclature the Church of England. For that is what they are.
If others want to diverge and carve out a new view of marriage, in line with civil statute, that would be possible for them. The state-church segment.
I wouldn’t present myself as disaffected but as historically and theologically remaining where you have been.
Let’s see what comes of the calls for a settlement. Obviously people like Andrew Godsall continue to see what they want to see. No evidence that will stop.
Hopefully men like Vaughn Roberts and the ABofY will pursue their thinking on this matter.
There’s no point in pretending things will just rattle along. People are beginning to see the pointlessness. Let the Church of England wishing to remain true to the historical positions do so, and those who want to chart a new course do that as well. We have Provinces that differ in serious ways over this matter, and that reality has been “good disagreed” itself to death now. The signs of strain are clear and a new way is to be charted.
Each side covets the Title Deeds to the Established church and its worldly assets – an historic building in every parish and assets so vast that Welby can simply click his fingers and find 100 million pounds to pay to ????? in reparation for slavery. That covetousness is why both sides will fight, and in my opinion why the faithful will probably lose. What the liberals will become is the church of this world. May they come to recognise that fact while in this life.
That covetousness is why both sides will fight, and in my opinion why the faithful will probably lose
If they try to cling to the baubles and worldly trappings of establishment they shall certainly lose.
But if they can put truth ahead of wealth, then they might well win. Because it will turn into a game of chicken; if there is no resolution then eventually a government will say, ‘Look, sort yourselves out or you get disestablished, you lose your buildings and your assets and your positions’; and in any game of chicken the side with less to lose wins. If the truth-seekers stand strong and let the government carry out its threat then the liberals, with nothing left of what they value in the denomination any more, no buildings, no money, no prestige, will leave (probably for the new nationalised multi-faith community that the government will set up under state control).
It will be a real-life demonstration of the truth that he who tries to save his life will lose it, but he who lays down his life for the truth will find it.
Anton
I disagree
Gay people want equal treatment. In the CofE context this is also a national and secular issue because the church is established
Conservatives want all churches to teach their theology which necessarily means inequality.
Neither side really wants a leaky Victorian parish church that costs the earth to heat
Peter: You speak of ‘conservatives’ and ‘their theology’. But the theology you mean is one which has prevailed in Judaism, then Christianity, and is set out in their scriptures, for 3000 years; and the challenge to it is coming only from Western secular culture, the only culture in history to seek to generalise marriage to same-sex couples. So, did the Jews and the church get it wrong for 3000 years, or is an antiscriptural culture leaking into its church?
The church should be willing to re-examine its scriptures in every generation and culture. But to abandon them is to abandon the only reliable source of information we have about Jesus Christ’s words and actions. And to abandon them selectively is to subject them to editing on the basis of a hostile culture and on no more than what people want them to say.
Anton
I disagree that modern Conservative Christian theology is the same as 3000 year old Judaism. Conservative Christians dont even agree internally on lots of issues (women priests, if gay people actually exist or are just deluded straight people, exactly how the spirit manifests today, social justice) so which particular branch are you claiming is the authentic one?
“Let’s see what comes of the calls for a settlement. Obviously people like Andrew Godsall continue to see what they want to see. No evidence that will stop.”
And people like you, Christopher Seitz, will continue to see what they want to see without there being the slightest shred of evidence to support it. Vaughan Roberts and other evangelicals might talk about settlement = separation. But they don’t have a cats chance in hell of negotiating that. There is simply no evidence for it.
Stephen Cottrell will want a settlement. He certainly has given no indication that he will want a separation, and I can’t see that any diocesan bishop has yet indicated that. There is no momentum for it, and the outcome of the vote today will have reinforced the view that a middle course is possible.
This isn’t South Carolina Christopher. The culture is entirely different, and so is the history. And the particular legal mess that Mark Lawrence inflicted upon the Episcopal Church in that state has been a clear warning to any diocese or church that favours separation. The only way a separation is going to occur here is if Evangelicals decide to leave and begin again. And it will only be Evangelicals. This is not a matter where Conservative Anglo Catholics are going to want to make themselves even more vulnerable.
‘cat’s chance in hell’
Andrew – are you referring to Schrodinger’s cat here? If so, it’s probably appropriate – right now, the C. of E. is locked in the chamber – and we don’t know if, when we open the chamber, we’ll find it alive or dead.
That would be sad. The faithful and robust portion of the Church of England–whose vast preponderance of Bishops voted for (g) on marriage in the Church of England–should only seek an arrangement that is fair-minded and financially appropriate. If the revisionist state church won’t allow that, they are stuck with (g) and the refusal to bless same-sex unions as Holy Matrimony in the church. Why not agree to remain the revisionist state church, and so be able to conduct same-sex services according to their wishes on this matter?
There are disagreeing provinces in the AC, and the same disagreement is festering inside the Church of England. Let there be two provinces.
I for one Hope Mr Godsall can find some calm amidst his storm and personalization. It serves no purpose.
This is an important topic and one that I, with a PTO in the CofE, hope we can make progress on.
Progress has been made today Christopher. Neither of us will see the arrangement you seem to so desperately and separately seek in our lifetime.
I fear the personal storm and turmoil is all yours. You are the one using a pseudonym. Be proud of who you are. There is no need to pretend.
Ah, yes. Where is the pretence in the CoE? Where and how does it start, and how does it continue, at the individual and at the corporate level? It is abroad in the CoE, it seems, and trust and integrity have been torpedoed with malodorous Machiavellian machinations.
Liberalism and Christianity are different religions in any denomination.
They certainly aren’t in the Liberal US Welsh or Scottish Anglican churches or the Church of Scotland or the Lutheran Church les of the Nordic nations which are already performing homosexual marriages in their churches
Pretend Christianity in operation.
“Anglican Priest” is not pretend. It’s who I am, having served in the Communion in Scotland, France (CofE), Canada, and the USA. I like its scope.
Mr Godsall seeks to find a “Christopher Seitz” under every bush. Now I’m Peter from TA!
Let’s keep our eye on the prize. The upward call of God in Christ. Let’s make a good witness in His name.
Another name for the Church of England (non state) could be Church of England (Anglican).
Then there would be a Church of England (state church). Able to conduct same sex weddings without let or hindrance.
I fail to see why this isn’t what those in favor of same sex marriage want. Charitable, fair, irenic.
“Another name for the Church of England (non state) could be Church of England (Anglican)”
Ah yes, that’s really going to work Christopher.
When you talk below about arrangements that will be agreeable to both one thing is certain: both will wish to retain the Anglican title deed. You can be certain that will be non-negotiable for both parties.
The Anglican Diocese of SC retained 90 percent of its properties. Probably not a good area for Andrew Godsall’s retorts. The two new Bishops are getting along very well. She had negotiated the sale of two properties to the Anglican diocese as well. A good model for an amicable divorce after the court finalized things. A good model wherever there is entrenched disagreement.
Surely that is what is wanted.
Hope is to be found where?
Matthew 6?
https://youtu.be/hwc2d1Xt8gM
1. Q.
What is your only comfort
in life and death?
A.
That I am not my own, 1
but belong with body and soul,
both in life and in death, 2
to my faithful Saviour Jesus Christ. 3
He has fully paid for all my sins
with his precious blood, 4
and has set me free
from all the power of the devil. 5
He also preserves me in such a way 6
that without the will of my heavenly Father
not a hair can fall from my head; 7
indeed, all things must work together
for my salvation. 8
Therefore, by his Holy Spirit
he also assures me
of eternal life 9
and makes me heartily willing and ready
from now on to live for him. 10
1. 1 Cor 6:19, 20.
2. Rom 14:7-9.
3. 1 Cor 3:23; Tit 2:14.
4. 1 Pet 1:18, 19; 1 Jn 1:7; 2:2.
5. Jn 8:34-36; Heb 2:14, 15; 1 Jn 3:8.
6. Jn 6:39, 40; 10:27-30; 2 Thess 3:3; 1 Pet 1:5.
7. Mt 10:29-31; Lk 21:16-18.
8. Rom 8:28.
9. Rom 8:15, 16; 2 Cor 1:21, 22; 5:5; Eph 1:13, 14.
10. Rom 8:14.
Heidleberg Catechism
Or the Methodists in the UK doing homosexual marriages too
The rot set in years ago in Methodism:
1 Paucity of teaching/theology with whole acceptance of higher biblical/ form criticism.
2 An authorised communion service to Mother God.
The Methodist Church in Britain is nearly extinct.
You probably didn’t know that, did you?
You are not really aware of what is going on.
Does T1 stand for “Troll no. 1”?
I commend the temperate and rationale comments by “Peter” at TA.
“We are not a united church. When a marriage has died the parties have to accept the marriage is over. We must move beyond denial.
There will be no settlement until and unless we accept conservatives and liberals are no longer one church.
However, without a settlement there will be – as the bishop of Guildford said – a “war of attrition” which will leave only rubble in its wake.”
One can pray that arrangements acceptable to both sides can be worked out.
One can pray that arrangements acceptable to both sides can be worked out.
Precedent’s not on your side here, though. And neither is the fact that neither side has won, but neither side has clearly lost either, so both sides are going to figure it’s worth hanging in there and fighting.
The progressive (pro same-sex marriage) Tobias Haller writes:
“But it was only and ever an appearance; communion was and is severed; and now, it seems, we are talking about acknowledging the breach with a real divorce, and deciding the terms of who gets the silverware — perhaps literally. It is time for those on both sides of the divide to sit down and take this seriously.”
Let irenic and realistic voices come together.
Christopher, in the spirit of working, if not walking together, how about you and I put our differences completely aside and have a careful, respectful and monitored e mail conversation to see what kind of arrangements we might propose that would be acceptable to both parties. In a similar manner to the correspondence Andrew and Giles Goddard had with each other some years ago. What do you say?
Yes, Anglican Priest, a divorce in the Church of England is the only way now.
Thatis what I said in effect above – that fellowship with the bishops is now broken and evangelicals must stop funding them – and Penelope called it “blackmail” and “bullying”.
Very strange- because Penelope certainly believes in divorce and division of property when one party is being abused by an unfaithful partner.
Evangelicals don’t need the dying Church of England. We just want a fair share of the property we have contributed to all our lives, and we’ll get on with Gospel task and leave the dead to bury the dead.
Well you won’t get it, as the Anglican Church of North America found the Episcopalian Church in the US kept all the assets and great cathedrals and churches when it left.
If evangelicals want to leave the Church of England over homosexual blessings that is their affair. You will have to build and buy your own buildings though and be self funded from your own congregations. You aren’t getting a penny or a single building from the C of E!
Very Christian of you, Troll no. 1.
But even you know how close to death the C of E is.
The Church of England has £10 billion in assets and one of the largest property portfolios in England.
If evangelicals leave they aren’t getting any of it!
The Church of England has £10 billion in assets and one of the largest property portfolios in England.
Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:
But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:
For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.
It is clear that you don’t possess the buildings; they possess you. Ichabod.
Exactly… It seems strange to some people that the “silverware” or “establishment” are not actually church of God essentials….
Andrew Godsall knows there is already the network Anglican Mission in England with bishops and fellowship with the great majority of the Anglican world.
So the structure already exists. The liberal churches are dying: I watched on my computer fhe service from Manchester from the parish of Rachel Man was vicar and there were 18 people at communion, and hardly anyone under. There is no future in this and Andrew Godsall knows it.
Perhaps that is why cathedrals have been turning themselves into amusement parks with mini-golf and other gimmicks.
James yes I know that structure exists. It’s the European version of ACNA.
It isn’t part of the Anglican Communion so I don’t think it will satisfy Anglican Priest. He will wish to be part of that once the divorce is finalised as indeed will both parts of the separation.
Thought you said after Lambeth, there was no world wide Anglican Communion now. Must have misunderstood.
The CoE is no longer Anglican!? Has gone rogue!
And an evident busted flush. Let’s not pretend.
The CoE has gone rogue Anglican.
Anglican Priest can speak for himself, I won’t second guess his thinking. You should do the same.
But you do understand that the C of E is dying, don’t you?
That the liberal parishes have very few children and most parishioners are elderly? There will be a wave of closures over the next five years.
And you may understand also that Welby and Cottrell’s foolish act of closing churches ended churchgoing for many elderly people as well.
I am sure you have seen this in part of the world.
James Anglican Priest has posted a great deal under a previous name and I know full well – and respect full well – his desire to be part of the Anglican Communion.
It will be non-negotiable for both parties in any settlement.
Speak for yourself, there are plenty of children and families in my relatively liberal church and pensioners too. We have a few homosexual couples too and more will also be more willing to come now homosexual blessings are allowed and they are welcome
You’re making it up, Troll #1. There are actually few children in the Church of England and they are mainly in the evangelical churches.
Liberal churches don’t have youth movements, they have Messy Church. Not a basis for growth.
“Rachel” Mann’s church gets 18 to communion – all over 50.
No you don’t get to dictate to me what happens in my church because it doesn’t suit your ideological agenda. I know my church, I know who goes there, not you!
My Church does Messy Church yes but it also does Common Worship and 1662 BCP services. It caters for every age group in the Church of England, it just doesn’t also rage against homosexuals in committed relationships, so we have some of them in our congregation too!
I will try to say this gently, but of course everyone will remember how Mr Godsall proudly declaimed that no one in the Church of England cared about or knew about the Anglican Communion.
I’m not sure what has changed. It might be that once the GSFA indicated, pursuant to the developments in the CofE, that the role of Canterbury and the place of the CofE were now requiring evaluation, the “Anglican Communion” was something to know and to care about after all.
I say this with no relish. It is time to think a bit outside the box, for all the reasons already enumerated. Not to engage in an hominem or side-shows. Some form of settlement needs to be worked out.
The significance of the Anglican Communion has, for my part, never been in doubt. I will look forward to further statements from the GSFA. And I note the reactions cited by Dr Paul from ++Alexandria and the Orthodox Primate present this past week at GS.
Christopher the average member of the pews in CofE Churches don’t care about the Anglican Communion. I’m not convinced that average members of pews across the world care much about the Anglican Communion. Witness that those who seem to want most to be called Anglican – ACNA and members of the SC breakaway diocese were content to leave the Anglican Communion.
But the bishops and clergy and enthusiastic laity – such as those who sit on synods and councils and so on where decisions are made are quite a different matter. In those circles, neither the Conservatives nor Liberals will wish to abandon it. And Lambeth 2022 seems to have been a success in keeping together the majority of provinces across the Anglican world despite boycotts by some.
So therein lies the major problem. The route to separation is the route with the most questions and always will be. No one is currently prepared to take that route. There is simply no evidence that they are.
I fully agree, let us put aside the snide remarks that make up ad hominem.
The GSFA will make pronouncements. They did before Lambeth. Their option will be, I am sure, the setting up of a parallel body. Provinces will then have a choice of where to belong. No prizes for guessing where the two Provinces in England will remain. The idea of a third Province would not fly for conservatives before. There is no evidence that it will fly now. A few loud voices on social media yes. The odd voice in GS. But the odd cuckoo call does not make spring.
James
This same decay has happened to almost every denomination in the west. The few that buck the trend are either relatively small and specialist or are attracting a large number of immigrants.
In England the CofE is in decline, so is the RCC, the Methodists, Baptists and the Evangelical Free Church of the Final Word of Revelation. None are in decline because they are too welcoming or tolerant of gay people. The church in general has failed to attract or evangelize two generations of English people
Most Danes are members of the established Lutheran Church of Denmark which has long blessed and now allows homosexual marriage in its Churches.
The Baptists generally don’t allow any recognition of homosexual unions, either blessings or marriage but are still declining
Most Danes are members of the established Lutheran Church of Denmark
No they aren’t; only 2.5% of Danes regularly attend church. 2.5% is not ‘most’.
70% of Danes are members of the Lutheran Church
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Denmark
70% of Danes are members of the Lutheran Church
No they ain’t. It takes more than ticking a box on a form to be a member of a church. It takes commitment and at the very least it takes turning up.
S
Church attendance unfairly favors more conservative denominations because if you believe it’s a sin, or almost a sin, to miss church then you are more likely to attend than if your theology is that it’s ok to only attend occasionally
Church attendance unfairly favors more conservative denominations because if you believe it’s a sin, or almost a sin, to miss church then you are more likely to attend than if your theology is that it’s ok to only attend occasionally
It doesn’t ‘overstate’ then, does it? It accurately states.
It’s not filtering by attendance which unfairly favours the proportions of liberals by counting people who aren’t really members but just turn up once or twice a year, or even only for weddings and baptisms.
The church in general has failed to attract or evangelize two generations of English people
And do you not think its readiness to go along with the mores of the culture has been a major contributing factor to its being seen as irrelevant?
After all if the Church just says the same things as society, what is the point of it? It’s redundant.
S
The CofE doesn’t adapt to social changes, none of the major denominations have. They are all still following a kind of post enlightenment educational community model.
Major social changes that have occurred over my lifetime- easy access to information and entertainment, most parents working full time and people not living in the communities in which they are raised have not led to any major changes in the church.
The fact that the CofE is beastly to LGBTQI people I would think attracts some, but puts off more. I think their failure over sexual abuse is far more concerning to the average person trying to decide what to do with their Sunday.
You are wrong about the efect of mainstreaming homosexuality, Peter. Churches affirming homosexuality and having homosexual leadership are in serious decline because families won’t go there, leaving it to the elderly and to influential gays in the choir etc.
African churches and new Pentecostal churches are not generally declining. They are not positive about homosexuality at all.
Correlation isn’t causation.
“And penguins are not mars bars” Darwin
If you choose to leave the Church of England despite the blessings compromise not full marriage then tough. Prepare for a tough, hard nosed approach from the C of E. You walk, you will be told you won’t get a penny from the Church nor a building. You will have to raise the funds and get the buildings yourselves
You walk, you will be told you won’t get a penny from the Church nor a building.
This is what passes for Christian charity in the Church of England, I guess.
The true Church of Christ is “living stones” in whom the Holy Spirit of God dwells, resides.
Another voice:
“If the Archbishop of Canterbury wants to retain his role within the Anglican Communion (and he clearly does) he may find that some sort of structural settlement within the Church of England is necessary. I understand the immense reluctance but there are good reasons to investigate the option of a new province.”
What we can now see is
1) a vast Anglican Communion alliance in the GSFA
2) an Archbishop of Canterbury who has made clear his desire to remain titular head of it
3) serious calls for mediated settlement given intractable divisions inside the CofE and obviously different levels of commitment to the wider Anglican Communion and the fact of establishment
4) a willingness to entertain the possibility of distinct provinces
4) a willingness to entertain the possibility of distinct provinces
Christopher could you point to where we see that willingness? I’ve seen a few voices on social media expressing that but nothing in any of the structures where it would be necessary.
“What we now see is
4) a willingness to entertain the possibility of distinct provinces”
Christopher could you point to where we see that willingness? I’ve seen a few voices on social media expressing that but nothing in any of the structures where it would be necessary.
See now the 9 February statement of the GSFA. It has been released at their website.
Mr Godsall writes “The GSFA will make pronouncements. They did before Lambeth. Their option will be, I am sure, the setting up of a parallel body.”
They will not set up a “parallel body” though the language is instructive of the position he holds.
They will set up the future Anglican Communion.
The question is what “parallel body” will exist alongside this. It is obvious that the ABC does not want to head up a “parallel body” outwith the main Communion bloc. He has made this clear.
“They will set up the future Anglican Communion.”
Oh I have no doubt they will set up a body that they will call the (Real) Anglican Communion, just as the conservative body in North America set up an Anglican Church. It remains to be seen how successful that venture will be in attracting Provinces to join it. Sadly it will enshrine the homophobia that is enshrined in their culture.
Richard Bauckham speaks for many of us when he writes “I am one of those (and I think there are a great many of us) who feel very strongly that this is not an issue on which Christians or churches should divide. We welcome an “Anglican fudge,” with its ambiguities and silences, that can preserve, at least for a while, our fragile unity. We are inclined to resent the fact that some seem determined to analyse and define to the point of removing the fudge and reducing us again to irreconcilable opposites and deny us the the means of good disagreement that LLF seemed to be offering. “
So Christopher I think we are in agreement about what the GSFA will attempt to do. But I imagine that too will cause a split. By no means all in the ‘Global South’ will jump ship for the shiny new parallel body.
Lambeth 2022 gave us a good indication of the shape of the future Anglican Communion. And I suggest that the new parallel body will face greater difficulties than they might imagine.
I found Froghole’s usual clarity helpful on this Christopher.
“What seems to be the case is that these churches want to assert their ‘independence’ from Lambeth when it suits their political purposes, and also want to assert their ‘dependence’ when it suits them. Successive archbishops have proven susceptible to flattery (which bolsters their amour-propre) and threats. As in Francafrique, the neo-colonial mindset works in both directions.”