Steven Croft, the bishop of Oxford, yesterday published a booklet Together in Love and Faith, in which he sets out his thinking about same-sex relationships, and proposes that the Church of England should provide public services for the blessing of same-sex civil partnerships and marriages, but allow a conscience clause for those who dissent, and eventually conduct same-sex marriages. This is a view he shares with the three suffragans in the diocese, which is telling; despite most of the large churches being evangelical, Steven did not appoint any bishops who agree with the Church’s current doctrine. Steven realises that this will be divisive, and so proposes a structure of differentiation—something that he says the other three do not agree with.
I have known and worked with Steven on and off over the years, on Synod and Archbishops’ Council, and particularly in relation to ordination training. Up until now, he has only offered hints about his thinking, and his change of direction on this issue, and so it is helpful to now know where his thinking has got to. This short piece cannot offer a full critique of his booklet, but there is a similar length commentary by Vaughan Roberts, who leads St Ebbe’s, one of the largest churches in the diocese, available for free download from the Latimer Trust. I simply offer here some observations about some of the language used here and some of the arguments made.
Before considering the content of the booklet, it is worth asking why Steven has decided to publish this at this moment. The College of Bishops (consisting of all diocesan and suffragan bishops in the C of E) have just met for three days, will be meeting again in December, and there will then be a meeting of the House of Bishops (diocesans plus elected suffragans, who form one of the three houses in General Synod), in order to bring a proposal for a way forward to General Synod in February. John Inge, the bishop of Worcester, has just published a letter supporting Steven, so this has clearly been coordinated. But it seems very odd for two bishops to appear to be driving a coach and horses through an existing process. More than that, I don’t think there is any doubt that Steven’s proposal, were it tabled, would not reach the 2/3 majority required by Synod, so it has no real hope of being delivered. What, then, is Steven hoping to achieve?
We start with the booklet’s title: ‘Together’ in Love and Faith. This is rather odd, since Steven is completely clear that what he proposing will not command consensus, and in fact will bring division into his diocese, to the point at which he notes many bishops will be uncomfortable with his proposals. In fact, it will bring division not just to his diocese, and not just to the C of E, but to the Anglican Communion. I do find it remarkable that he is writing this hot on the heels of the Lambeth Conference, where it was abundantly clear that the move of some Western provinces to do what Steven is proposing has divided the Communion, perhaps terminally. When this was first mooted by The Episcopal Church in the US, it was believed by the majority to be a ‘tear in the fabric of the Communion’. And, as Darrin Snyder Belousek highlights, in his excellent Marriage, Scripture, and the Church:
The creational-covenant pattern of marriage…is a consensus doctrine of the church catholic. Until the present generation, all Christians everywhere have believed, and every branch of the Christian tradition has taught, that marriage is man-woman monogamy’ (p 52).
So Steven is proposing division within the Church, division from the Communion, and division from the beliefs of the church catholic. It doesn’t look very ‘together’ to me.
As he begins to explain the background to the booklet, he makes some strange assertions about where we have reached. First, in relation to LLF:
Most of the comments in Listening with love and faith that were on the theme of same-sex relationships and marriage expressed the hope that the LLF course might contribute to the acceptance of same-sex marriage or blessings of same-sex partnerships (page 76). (p 1).
Church Society issued a critique of the ‘Listening’ document for exactly this reason—that it presented views as if they were representative when there had been no proper sampling process. Eeva John, who has been convening the LLF project, replied to say that the book was not intended to be representative, and just offered a sample of views. So Steven is here using this book to draw a conclusion expressly ruled out by those leading the process.
He then suggests that his is something of a lone voice:
There are not many examples of bishops who advocate for change having set up either their proposals or the rationale for them. This can give me an inaccurate impression of a House of Bishops that is uniformly conservative. (p 2)
If that is so, then Steven must be the only person in the C of E who thinks this. Ten years ago, Nick Holtam, then bishop of Salisbury, ‘came out’ in favour of same-sex marriage and ‘split the Church‘. There has been a steady stream of comments on social media, of attendance at Pride events, of rainbow flags flying from cathedrals with episcopal approval. It is true that no-one has set out a rationale—but that is because the House of Bishops were supposed to be thinking about this together, not each one ploughing his or her own furrow!
Steven concludes his introduction by saying that his contribution ‘is offered hesitantly’ and that ‘I may be wrong’. I suppose this could sound like appropriate modesty—yet he knows his clergy, and he knows this is going to split his diocese. At his ordination, he was called to ‘share with their fellow presbyters the oversight of the Church, speaking in the name of God and expounding the gospel of salvation’, and he made vows to ‘teach the doctrine of Christ as the Church of England has received it, … refute error, and … hand on entire the faith that is entrusted to you’ as well as ‘promote peace and reconciliation in the Church’. So why create division and disunity on something on which he is not yet confident, but might still be wrong? Would it not be better to keep his own counsel until he is sure?
In Part 1, Steven recounts his own journey. He notes that when he came to Sheffield, he found ‘the diocese has a broad spread of views among its clergy’. This is a situation common across the C of E, but it is worth reflecting on what it means. What he is telling us is that there were many clergy who did not actually believe the doctrine of the Church of England on this matter, their own ordination vows notwithstanding. Has this been created by a failure in ordination training, or a failure in selection and discipline within the Church? It has certainly been exacerbated by a complete vacuum of episcopal teaching over a very long time. It does not appear that Steven’s response to this situation was to help his clergy understand, own, and teach the Church’s doctrine on marriage.
He then comments:
But I was already finding (I would find increasingly) tension between my commitment to this interpretation of scripture [‘orthodox and generous’] and my vocation as a priest and pastor and evangelist. (p 5)
Steven repeatedly calls himself ‘evangelical’, but this is a very long way from an evangelical understanding of Scripture. What he appears to be saying is that, on the question of marriage, sexuality, and sexual ethics, scripture is a hindrance to him and not a help. It is inhibiting his ministry in every area. This isn’t just at variance from an evangelical approach; it appears to be at odds with what the C of E states about scripture. Again, in the ordinal we find:
Will you be diligent in prayer, in reading Holy Scripture, and in all studies that will deepen your faith and fit you to bear witness to the truth of the gospel?
All our liturgy and formularies appear to assume that Scripture is an aid, not a hindrance—in fact, the greatest resource we have in shaping us and equipping us for ministry. Steven appears, in this area at least, to think differently.
Now you don’t have to read Scripture for long to realise that it is hardly an off-the-shelf, pastoral handbook. There are some very difficult things to read there, and since the context of Scripture is at some historical and cultural distance from us, it needs careful reading and interpretation—something this blog is dedicated to. Yet, as Queen Elizabeth II was told at her coronation as she was handed a Bible: ‘Here is Wisdom; this is the royal Law; these are the lively Oracles of God.’ If Scripture is not our foundation, formation, and guide for what it means to minister, then what is?
Steven notes that the 2017 report by the bishops, GS2055, was not ‘taken note of’ by Synod. He wishes now he had spoken out in dissent, though I am not sure what that would have achieved. What he does not comment on is the reason why this report was not received: some thought it too ‘conservative’, and others too ‘progressive’, pointing to the lack of an available ‘middle way’ even then. Neither does he recognise that, were it presented today, it would be received by Synod because of the shifts in Synod’s make up. (This variability in itself raises a question about the theological role of synodical government.)
In Part 2, Steven embarks on making the case for change. He starts by stating that ‘as an evangelical, I retain a high view of the authority of Scripture’—yet he has already made it clear that he is finding that Scripture undermines, rather than resources, his work as a ‘priest, pastor, and evangelist.’
He talks about the question of the pain of those who are LGBTQ+, and Vaughan Roberts engages well with that issue in his response. Steven then goes on to say some striking things about the relation between the Church and culture. There is a ‘divergence’ between the Church and society (p 13); this disjunction has grown sharper in recent years; ‘we seek to serve everyone, whatever their beliefs’ (p 14).
After commenting on ‘faithful, stable’ gay relationships, he returns to this theme in chapter 3 ‘Our culture’s moral view of the Church’s present policy.’ Culture sees same-sex attraction as a given, and therefore any limitation of sexual expression in this context is unjust.
We now have a profound dislocation between the Church of England – the establish church, and to serve the whole of our society – and the society we are called to serve… We are seem to inhabit a different moral universe. (p 20)
I confess I find this such strange language, I hardly know where to begin. What does it mean for the Church to ‘serve’ the society in which it is located? Is it to affirm that culture’s moral outlook, and accommodate itself to it? Such a claim completely ignores the historical reality of the church, not least the way that the the early church grew rapidly throughout the Roman Empire in the first three centuries—precisely by offering a radical, shocking alternative that was certainly viewed as immoral by the culture of the time, not least in the area of marriage and sexuality (Rodney Stark’s The Rise of Christianity is very good on this, as is The Patient Ferment of the Early Church by Alan Kreider). Surely the way we serve our communities and culture is the same way that Jesus did: by proclaiming the coming of the kingdom of God, with its radically inverted values, and inviting, challenging even, people to ‘repent’, that is, turn away from their current way of living, assumptions, and beliefs, and believe in this good news. I am puzzled that someone who has been so involved in evangelism could miss this.
Secondly, Steven’s language appears to ignore the basic orientation of Scripture, in particular, the New Testament, with its eschatological outlook. This sinful world is facing the judgement of God, yet the future kingdom has broken into the present, and God’s gracious invitation is that we should die (to sin, to our own selfish preoccupations, and to our previous way of seeing the world) and live a new, resurrection life after the pattern of Jesus. This isn’t a marginal idea; it is central to baptism (see Romans 6), the Christian rite of initiation. If we are not ‘living in a different moral universe’ from our surrounding culture, then we are not even at the starting gate. I wonder what on earth Steven thinks Jesus means when he says ‘If the world hates you, know that it has hated me first’ (John 15.18). The Johannine motif of ‘the world’ captures just this tension: on the one hand, God ‘loves the world’ (John 3.16), and we are therefore to be engaged in the world in loving service, but this world that God loves often rejects his invitation and in doing so is opposed to him. We should expect exactly the same response—offering loving service, but often finding ourselves at odds—as Christians always have.
Thirdly, Steven appears to have an odd view of what ‘culture’ believes. It is not the case that ‘culture’ merely thinks gay people should be able to marry; this is just the tip of the sexual revolution iceberg. Our culture is far from monochrome, but some of the major themes are expressive individualism, which includes the idea that we are primarily autonomous individuals, and that what we feel tells us what we should do and have the right to do. Sex is seen primarily as a leisure activity, which we can engage in without any restrictions and ties, as long as there is consent—though, paradoxically, which can also do great harm and so is view warily. Our bodies are containers for the real person, which is found by looking in, and so the body can be manipulated and changed to conform with our feelings about ourselves. I don’t think it is really possible to separate attitudes to gay marriage from these wider themes—and if a radical feminist believes it is high time to push back against this, why won’t a bishop? Does Steven think we should accommodated ourselves to these views? If not, why not, and if so, why not on gay marriage?
Two comments on Twitter this morning highlight the basic problems here.
The Bishop of Oxford's concern: "a radical dislocation between the Church of England and the culture and society we are attempting to serve"
Morning prayer: the faith of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego; the lukewarm church in Laodicea; prayer "to reject the world’s deceits".
— Christopher Landau (@talkChristianly) November 4, 2022
I look with interest to seeing the Bishop’s defence of extreme patriarchy in the Middle East, the defence of the caste system in India, and of polygamy in Africa for ensuring that Anglicanism remains consistently and universally against radical cultural dislocation…
— Joshua Penduck (@JoshuaPenduck) November 4, 2022
Steven then goes on to make particular claims about the nature of same-sex sexual partnerships. He compares a gay relationship with his marriage, and sees many similarities (p 17). That is hardly surprising, if friendship, shared interests, and a commitment to journeying together are part of traditional marriage—but what does this tell us ethically? And why does sex need to be part of such a partnership, when such qualities are often present in committed celibate friendships? What he avoids is the things that set his marriage apart: bodily and therefore psychological differences; and the inherent possibility of procreation, leading to (biological) family. Steven does a similar misleading parsing when he talks about the ‘goods of marriage’ in Augustine (p 21). He lifts the goods of marriage completely out of their context, as if they are goods that might apply to any form of relationship, and ignores the context in Augustine and in the C of E Marriage Service of male and female, and sexual union as a reuniting of what God divided in the creation account of Gen 2. Why should we not apply these ‘goods’ to friendships? What does sex have to do with it? And if we ignore the form of ‘male and female’, why pay attention to ‘two’? Could this not apply to sexual groups? None of these questions are even hinted at, let alone answered.
Part of the rationale for the approach here is what Steven thinks culture believes about sexual orientation, which he appears to think we should believe too.
It is clear that we inhabit a broader culture in which attraction to a member of the same sex is believed not to be a matter of choice but genetic. This is the way you are. It is not something that could be changed or mitigated. (p 19)
Steven is here making a number of remarkable claims. The first is that genetics determine our sexuality. You don’t have to pause for many minutes to realise how improbable that claim is; perhaps the colour of my eyes might be genetically determined (setting aside the question of epigenetics) but how could something as complex and relational be fixed by my genes, when babies are not even born knowing there are two sexes, but have to learn this in their early months and years? In fact, research (mostly done by gay campaigners) suggests that genetics contributes around 11% to the determination of sexual orientation (if such a thing can be measured) and various environmental factors (parenting, relational experience, age differences, even social environment) all contribute. And, particularly in women, orientation is far from settled, and can be highly changeable through life. These things are all well established in the literature, so I wonder about Steven’s claim to have ‘read widely’; he appears to have not read much of this.
The second remarkable claim is that because something is not chosen, it must be morally acceptable. In what other area of life do we believe that? I cannot think of any connection with any mainstream system of Christian ethical thinking which would claim any such thing. And which ‘traditional’ Christian thinkers at the moment argue that we choose our orientation? I can think of none.
Steven then claims that the sense of injustice in the belief that marriage is between one man and one woman has caused ‘anger and alienation among a whole generation’. Yet research shows it is older church members, not the younger ones, who mostly agree with him. And even within his own diocese, the largest churches and those with most young people are almost entirely ones who hold to the current doctrine of the Church. In my city, Nottingham, there are many large and growing churches attracting young people; every single one of them holds to the Scriptural, traditional view of marriage. That is not to say that there are no issues there, or that the view of young people in these churches is uniform. But it does show that Steven’s claim here—that we must change to reach young people—is without foundation.
In part 3, Steven looks at the scriptural evidence which might support a change in the Church’s teaching. He suggests a range of principles for interpreting Scripture well, but I don’t think any of these follow either accepted evangelical or even academically respectable approaches, such as looking at context, reading the whole canon together, attending to the detailed content, or noting different kinds of writing which I have set out elsewhere.
His first principle is ‘Christ at the Centre’, but rather than focussing on the actual teaching of Jesus here, he collapses this into ‘the test of love’. That would be helpful, except that we live in a context where people claim that ‘love is love’ when there are many ways this word is used, and a culture which appears to believe that, if you don’t give someone what they want, that is ‘unloving’. So it is not a very helpful test.
Steven’s second principle is ‘The Primacy of Mercy’.
I realise that, of course, Jesus calls everyone to repentance and a change of heart, throughout his ministry. There is a strand in Jesus’ teaching about upholding righteousness and the law – sometimes setting out a much stricter interpretation than the rabbis of the day. But repeatedly in the gospels, judgement and mercy are brought into contrast with one another, through the encounters of Christ with the Pharisees and teachers of the law. In every instance, Christ prefers and privileges mercy, grace and gentleness. (p 28)
This is another point in the booklet where I had to ask myself which gospels Steven is reading. Jesus’ call to repentance isn’t a mere introduction; it sums up his ministry. He spent time with ‘toll collectors and sinners’ but precisely in order to bring them to repentance and change (Luke 5.32). Those who do not follow his teaching will find their lives destroyed like houses in a storm. The way to life is hard and the gate narrow, and few find it. Those who don’t listen to him will be thrown into outer darkness. He does not hold back in his stern judgement of those who disagree with him. And judgement will come on Jerusalem because the people did not recognise in Jesus the coming presence of God himself.
Gentle Jesus, meek and mild, is a parody and a distortion of the Jesus we meet in the gospels—but it appears to be the Jesus that Steven wants to follows.
Even more startling is Steven’s next claim—that Jesus was ‘largely silent on the matters of human sexuality’. Curious then, that in the Sermon on the Mount in Matt 5, he chooses to put questions of sexual propriety as the second and third specific issues he addresses, in between murder and lying as core issues relating to discipleship. Curious too that, when the question of food laws and impurity arise in Mark 7.21, Jesus talks of the ‘evil thoughts’ which come from the heart and defile people, and lists three things related to sexuality amongst the 12, in first, fourth, and eighth position in his list. As John Nolland has shown, sexual ethics mattered to Jesus!
It is true that Jesus did not respond directly to the question of same-sex relations—because no Jew would need to raise that question with him. Rejection of all same-sex sex, in whatever context, was a uniform conviction in first century Judaism, and it was one of the main things (along with Sabbath observance, food law, and circumcision) which marked Jews out from gentiles. He does, though, in response to the question of divorce in Matt 19.3–6, go out of his way not just to focus on marriage, but to focus on God’s creation of humanity as male and female as the basis of marriage—exactly the issue that Paul picks up in Romans 1.
Steven’s cursory reading of Levitical texts on the basis of the fictional conversation in The West Wing is quite bizarre; the claim that ‘everything has changed’ so we pay no attention to Old Testament commands and ethics is breathtaking, and seems to follow the pattern of Marcion rather than Jesus. What is strange is that, every week in Confession in Communion in the C of E, we are reminded of Jesus’ summary of the greatest commandments—one of which comes from Leviticus, right between the two prohibitions on same-sex sex.
His discussion of the Pauline terms in 1 Cor 6.9 and 1 Tim 1.9 follows discredited readings of people like gay NT scholar Dale Martin (who goes on to argue that all forms of sex can be ‘Christian’) and appears to be out of touch with the mainstream consensus. For the avoidance of doubt, I repeat again here the list of scholars, all of whom think ‘traditional’ teaching is wrong, but who are all quite clear that they disagree with Scripture.
It is very possible that Paul knew of views which claimed some people had what we would call a homosexual orientation, though we cannot know for sure and certainly should not read our modern theories back into his world. If he did, it is more likely that, like other Jews, he would have rejected them out of hand….He would have stood more strongly under the influence of Jewish creation tradition which declares human beings male and female, to which may well even be alluding in 1.26-27, and so seen same-sex sexual acts by people (all of whom he deemed heterosexual in our terms) as flouting divine order (William Loader, The New Testament on Sexuality pp 323–4).
Professor Gagnon and I are in substantial agreement that the biblical texts that deal specifically with homosexual practice condemn it unconditionally. However, on the question of what the church might or should make of this we diverge sharply (Dan O Via, Homosexuality and the Bible: Two Views p 93).
Where the Bible mentions homosexual behavior at all, it clearly condemns it. I freely grant that. The issue is precisely whether that Biblical judgment is correct (Walter Wink, “Homosexuality and the Bible”).
This is an issue of biblical authority. Despite much well-intentioned theological fancy footwork to the contrary, it is difficult to see the Bible as expressing anything else but disapproval of homosexual activity. (Diarmaid MacCulloch, Reformation: Europe’s House Divided, 1490-1700, p 705).
Homosexual activity was a subject on which there was a severe clash between Greco-Roman and Jewish views. Christianity, which accepted many aspects of Greco-Roman culture, in this case accepted the Jewish view so completely that the ways in which most of the people in the Roman Empire regarded homosexuality were obliterated, though now have been recovered by ancient historians…
Diaspora Jews had made sexual immorality and especially homosexual activity a major distinction between themselves and gentiles, and Paul repeated Diaspora Jewish vice lists. I see no reason to focus on homosexual acts as the one point of Paul’s vice lists [in 1 Cor 6.9] that must be maintained today.
As we read the conclusion of the chapter, I should remind readers of Paul’s own view of homosexual activities in Romans 1, where both males and females who have homosexual intercourse are condemned: ‘those who practice such things’ (the long list of vices, but the emphasis is on idolatry and homosexual conduct) ‘deserve to die’ (1.31). This passage does not depend on the term ‘soft’, but is completely in agreement with Philo and other Diaspora Jews. (E P Sanders Paul: The Apostle’s Life, Letters and Thought pp 344, 373).
The task demands intellectual honesty. I have little patience with efforts to make Scripture say something other than what it says, through appeals to linguistic or cultural subtleties. The exegetical situation is straightforward: we know what the text says. But what are we to do with what the text says? I think it important to state clearly that we do, in fact, reject the straightforward commands of Scripture, and appeal instead to another authority when we declare that same-sex unions can be holy and good (Luke Timothy Johnson).
Steven does come clean at one point, when he comments (p 34):
Has our understanding of same-sex desire and attraction changed significantly because of advances in science, social science and culture, such that we would now offer a more nuanced interpretation for gender and same-gender relations? In my view that case can be made and, in the light of that increased and better understanding, justifies a careful revision to the doctrine and teaching of the Church.
In other words, no, Scripture does not tell us the truth about sexuality, and that presumably includes the teaching of Jesus. We need to look elsewhere, he believes.
He signs off the discussion of scripture with comparison between the debate about marriage, and previous debates about the ministry of women and slavery—but does so without actually attending to the very different nature of the issues, the biblical texts involved, and the differing things those texts say. In particular, he avoids the obvious reality that, on these other issues, the texts appear at first to pull in different directions. By contrast, on the question of male-female marriage and the implications for same-sex relations, the texts are univocal.
He claims that the trajectory of justice requires that we reject the teaching of Scripture on marriage—but fails then to notice that neither Jesus nor Paul, nor any of the OT prophets, with their insistent focus on justice, believed that the one followed from the other. He appeals to the Council of Acts 15, but ignores the fact that the Council’s decision was made in the light of scripture, not in defiance of it, and that admission of the gentiles fulfilled OT prophecy of God’s eschatological goal. Slightly inconveniently, the Council also ask that one of the key OT commands they adhere to is that of avoiding sexual immorality, which would of course have included same-sex sex.
Steven claims that the creation account in Gen 1.27, ‘God made humanity in his image, in the image of God he created them, male and female he created them’ puts our common humanity above our sexed nature, and allows for fluidity—against I think every single commentator who has written about this text, and in defiance of the way this text is read in the rest of Scripture.
He also cites the argument about relationships that produce ‘good fruit’, while setting aside both Paul’s contrast between the fruit of the Spirit and sexual immorality in Gal 5.19–22 (where, again, Paul includes not one but three terms related to sexuality), which for Paul would certainly have included same-sex sex. And the purpose of ‘fruit’ is the production of new plants and growth, as Jesus sets out in the parable of the sower in Mark 4. What has happened to Western churches who have abandoned historic teaching on marriage, and chosen to bless same-sex relationships? Every single one has experienced division and decline, with falling attendances actually accelerating. That is the ‘fruit’ test we should be paying attention to.
This post has ended up being much, much longer than I ever intended! The reason for this is that, as I wrote, I found so many bizarre claims in what Steven has written—and there are more that I have not commented on. His approach appears to be completely at odds with the processes that were agreed in the Church and by the bishops; he repeatedly makes quite implausible claims; he appears to be entirely out of touch with key areas of debate in relation to psychology, culture, and the biblical witness; and he offers the most peculiar interpretation of the relation of the Church to the world.
But, following the article title, I need to ask one final question: what is Steven Croft thinking?
The Church has long been facing a decline in attendance, which is rapidly coming to a crisis point in many dioceses. At the same time, these dioceses were also already facing acute financial pressures, which were then exacerbated by Covid. In response to the missional challenges, there has been proposed from the ‘centre’ a rethinking of the Church’s focus and activities, and this has faced stiff opposition from many quarters for a variety of reasons. Clergy have been increasingly feeling under pressure. And both churches and dioceses are now facing stern challenges with the cost of living increases, including energy prices. At the same time, on a wider scale, the Anglican Communion appears to be in its dying days as a meaningful fellowship.
Into this context, Steven now wants to bring division and disunity. This will have a direct impact on confidence, on mission and growth, and on finance. It feels as if the good ship Church of England is running on one engine, listing to port, holed at or below the waterline—and Captain Croft wants to grab the helm and steer her onto the rocks.
Lord have mercy.
On the title:
I think he is trying to get in first, so that he can be the one to establish the narrative. Narratives once established can be difficult to remove.
On the final point:
(1)The C of E was on its knees statistically before COVID…
(2) …and is so even more since COVID.
(3) This is the very age when parishes have already become benefices and the parish structure has already been labelled unsustainable. Along with those precious centuries-old buildings and heritage. And now this….
(4) The present attendance stats mask a mode age in the seventies and eighties so things are actually much worse than the percentage-attendance we see (or certainly will be in 10-20 years).
(5) But the worst own goal is that those in their seventies and eighties are precisely the ones who are the least likely to be amenable to his proposals anyway. A considerable number of them will be shocked by them. They are of course precisely the generation that remembers before the sexual revolution, after which the attendance and vocations falls were precipitate. The present proposals seem eager for more of the same precipitate plunge, and to fatten up the same sexual revolution that has been attendance’s cancer.
(6) [As of course will biblical scholars and logicians both be tearing their hair out at his argumentation (the fruit of 50 years’ discussion is so many fallacies and non sequiturs as this?). Especially, as you say, the chronological snobbery, and blindness to counter-culturality.]
(7) Result: even individual parishes will be divided. It is far worse than a matter of two provinces in the UK (a logistical nightmare, largely for the benefit of those who will be dead in 25 years) or several in the Anglican Communion (which will be immediately broken if his proposals are taken on board); the division will penetrate beyond that to most individual communities.
(8) You mention the ignorance of science regarding the nature of what we call homosexuality. This is one of around 20 central issues not particularly covered by LLF, because anything not PC is debarred from discussion before we even start.
(9) And all this in a context where it has long been well known how liberal initiatives correlate with and lead to decline.
The longest suicide note in history? There is now a strong new contender for the title.
But the worst own goal is that those in their seventies and eighties are precisely the ones who are the least likely to be amenable to his proposals anyway. A considerable number of them will be shocked by them.
This is more or less the exact challenge I put to a friend of mine and fellow student who was defending and praising the publication. He had no answer to it. For him, public perception and the feelings of the clergy and bishops were more important (though he didn’t say it) than the feelings of the faithful in the pews. I think that’s a fatal miscalculation.
Yes, quite.
When I wrote ‘ignorance of science’ I mean the writer’s ignorance not science’s ignorance.
Think of all these 70odds and 80odds. They are the bulk of the C of E. After a lifetime’s devoted service, and not a little wisdom and experience attained, they are now told by their ‘youngers and betters’ that in fact they should have been either pursuing or valuing a more sexually lax paradigm all along.
After all, look at the ‘good fruits’ that paradigm has manifested. In family stability, for example….
It is ugly.
On a small point. What evidence do you have for your point (5)? You might think that might be the likely response of older people, but I don’t know of any evidence to support this – and my own experience of working through LLF with a lot of old people is that they were very largely much more accepting of same-sex relationships than assumptions about the views of old people would suggest. Most couldn’t see why the church didn’t marry same-sex couples.
Jeremy, the evidence is the 2012-13 age-based analysis re SSM stances.
Phew.
1 Corinthians 5:5 comes to mind.
Kyrie Eleison indeed.
This is extremely poor timing regardless of motive, and I do not think that motive inconsequential. I find am still unsure about what it is; the line between desperate and overconfident is thin…
Regardless, preempting the outcome of an important decision meant to represent a consensus position among a group by publishing your own, either in support or denial, is intellectually dishonest and frankly manipulative. If a politician did this they’d be eviscerated in the press, and rightly so.
Moreover, the wave of support and praise he’s received for doing this is only going to encourage others to do the same, and already is. The HoB have been a leaky bucket for some time, and plenty of people have espoused strong opinions before, but they at least have had the tact to not publish them as teaching resources available on the diocesan website. Currently there is a bookstore selling material written by Bishop in direct contradiction to the espoused teaching of the institution he represents. It’s a little mad.
But not all my ire at the moment is primarily directed at the Bishop. The CT, which seems to have been co-opted into a mouthpiece for the Bishop, has published the same article close to 10 times on Twitter (with different quotes emphasised) praising the bishop in the last 48 hours, to the acclaim of his many supporters.
bah humbug.
Mat
‘A profound dislocation between the Church of England… and the society we are called to serve… We are seen to inhabit a different moral universe.’
Of course! Were it otherwise the church would never left the starting blocks. Indeed Israel would have disappeared in the sands of history centuries before.
The primary call of the church is to the service of God – and thereby to shape the world (not the other way round). Otherwise the church under Nazism absorb Nazism, a church under Communism absorb Communism, a church under Islam absorb Islam – and the church would cease to exist – and why St Paul says: ‘Do not be confirmed to this world’.
The root meaning of holiness is to be set aside for a task, namely, the service of God. That makes us different – and the vows made at baptism, confirmation, ordination, and consecration (of bishops) reflect that. How is it that a bishop can be so unaware of the meaning of his own vows?
Do not Bishops promise to uphold the teaching of the apostles? The idea that St Paul or any of the rest of the apostles would have endorsed gay marriage is absurd.
LGBT+ is an ideology – a political belief system which intends to transform the world. The reason the church must give no place to ideology is that it already has a belief system: the kingdom of God, the proclamation of Jesus. At baptism we affirm belief in Jesus and all that he did and said and renounce the world and its ways. How have we got to a place where (some) bishops are leading us to apostasy?
“LGBT+ is an ideology”
I don’t have an ideology. I have a wife.
And we love each other.
You have a wife as a result of your ideology. I could neither ‘change my sex’ nor marry someone of the same gender because, ideologically, I don’t think either are possible.
Then it’s you who have the ideology, Ian. A socially conservative ideology. Did you marry your wife because of an ideology, or because you love her?
We just married because we love each other. Love was what determined that, not ideology.
Terms like “gay ideology” and “trans ideology” and “cultural marxism” (whatever that is!) are just lazy terms of abuse or marginalisation.
My reply to Paul was to make the point that marrying the person you love, being attracted to the person you are attracted to, sacrificing and sharing and laughing and crying and living your normal day-to-day life is NOT what he calls “an ideology”.
It’s simply our lives.
You can’t call common sense or universal biology ‘socially conservative’. It is just reality. Do people write what they do in science textbooks because it is true or because it is repeating what has been written before?
Love was what determined that, not ideology.
‘Love is all that matters’ is an ideology.
It’s just as much an ideology as ‘all property should be owned by the state’ or ‘governments should be elected by the people’.
The OED definition of an ideology is ‘ A systematic scheme of ideas, usually relating to politics, economics, or society and forming the basis of action or policy; a set of beliefs governing conduct’ and the LGBTQ+ worldview is certainly that.
My reply to Paul was to make the point that marrying the person you love, being attracted to the person you are attracted to, sacrificing and sharing and laughing and crying and living your normal day-to-day life is NOT what he calls “an ideology”.
It is underpinned and allowed by an ideology. You might as well say, ‘Going to the shop and buying whatever groceries you want is just normal day-to-day life, it isn’t an ideology’. Maybe it isn’t; but it is underpinned and only allowed because of an ideology, the ideology of free-market capitalism. If we lived under a different ideology, like communism, it wouldn’t be possible.
Similarly your marriage is underpinned and allowed by your ideology. Under a different ideology it wouldn’t be allowed.
There’s no such thing as ‘not having an ideology’ or being ‘ideology-free’. Everyone has an ideology. Some have more than one.
You can’t call common sense or universal biology ‘socially conservative’. It is just reality.
Yes, but ‘we should pay attention to reality’ is an ideology.
Do people write what they do in science textbooks because it is true or because it is repeating what has been written before?
Science tells you what is, but your ideology — and everyone has one, there’s no such thing as a ‘non-ideological viewpoint’ — is about how you react and respond to what is.
No, I married her because I loved her. But this possibility was formed both by nature and by Scripture. You would not marry your pet, not because you don’t love it, but because you have a set of assumptions that would not permit this.
Please don’t pretend there is not a very developed ideological position that is shaping your actions. There is. For all of us.
You are married in the eyes of the State but how would you go about determining whether you are married in the eyes of God?
If I could express it another way – we all have values. We cannot live a value free life. The question a professing Christian must ask is are my values consistent with Scripture. Which is the word of Christ.
Suzanne, the pull of love is powerful but love itself is value laden. What if my love is for another man’s wife, or freedom from my present marriage, or for promiscuity, or my sister, or for two people at once, or for minors…. Love, at lest romantic and sexual love is not an open check book – it responds to values either self-imposed or imposed by society or imposed by faith. Christ is a ‘light’ in this area as every other.
Dear Ian.
Your talk of ‘ideology’ is unwise here. Susannah writes that she married her partner (a female) on account of love. Oddly, your response to her is framed in terms of ideology, which you associate (without explanation) with ‘possibility’. Perhaps you’d explain precisely (or even roughly) what an ‘ideological possibility’ might be. Her marrying a male is certainly a legal possibility; very many gay women have, knowingly or otherwise, taken up that possibility. Wherein lies the ‘ideological impossibility’?
Peter Jones
Perhaps you’d explain precisely (or even roughly) what an ‘ideological possibility’ might be. Her marrying a male is certainly a legal possibility; very many gay women have, knowingly or otherwise, taken up that possibility. Wherein lies the ‘ideological impossibility’?
Perhaps it might help you to understand if you think of two other ideologies, like capitalism and communism. Our laws are based on the ideology of capitalism, which makes private ownership of capital, and therefore buying shares of ownership in a company, a legal possibility, and very many people, either in their own right, or through pension funds, etc, have taken up that possibility.
But from within the ideology of communism, that would not be allowed: private individuals would not be allowed to invest in a company and take part of the profits of that company for themselves. Instead, the profits would be distributed among the workers, or used for the good of all society.
So something which is a legal possibility, because our laws are based in one ideology, is an ideological impossibility when viewed from a different ideology to the one on which our laws are based.
In this same-sex marriage case, our laws are (and have been since 2012, haven’t we come a long way in just ten years) based on an ideology which says that two people of the same sex can get married. We can argue about the deeper principles of that ideology, but clearly one of its conclusions is that such same-sex marriages are an ideological possibility, just like one of the conclusions of the ideology of capitalism is that private ownership of shares in a company is an ideological possibility.
But there other ideologies to the ideology which underpins our current laws on marriage, just like there are other ideologies to that which underpins our current laws of property ownership, and just like under communism some of the things which our current property laws say are ideologically and therefore legally possible would be ideologically impossible, so under these ideologies — one of which is the traditional Christian sexual ethic — some of the things which our current marriage laws say are ideologically and therefore legally possible would be ideologically and legally impossible.
And of course it is possible to switch the basis of laws from one ideology to another — it is only ten years, indeed, since we switched the ideology underpinning our marriage laws from one ideology to a different ideology.
Does that make it clearer?
A comment on “we love each other”. This is precisely the kind of statement which is problematic. That two people love each other (meaning, presumably, erotic or romantic love) does not make the actions taken as a result of this morally justifyable. Many an adulterous relationship has been claimed to be ok because “we love each other”.
Right. The ideology is, ‘anything doing in the name of love is okay’. But it isn’t.
God is love.
Love is not god.
Dear ‘S’
Do you think that (for example) Susannah would disagree with your substantive point here? If so, what makes you think that?
Peter Jones
Do you think that (for example) Susannah would disagree with your substantive point here? If so, what makes you think that?
I think that if Susannah disagrees with the substantive point then Susannah will say so and explain why, and then I will address Susannah’s arguments.
I also think that if you disagree with my substantive point here then you should say so and explain why, rather than ask me to speculate on what someone else might think, which obviously I’m not going to do.
Strangely of course the writer of 1 John does indulge in that transferability:
“God is love, and those who live in love live in God, and God lives in them”! He doesn’t say, “God is love, and those who live in God live in love, and God lives in them”, which is what you might expect. So love lived out is evidence of the presence of God.
Uncomfortable? Probably, but that is what he says.
The flaw in your comment is that the church does live in the world and must. There is nowhere else to live. Of course, the Amish create a little world of purity entirely separate from the rest of the world (though even they trade with sinners). Closed Brethren try to keep themselves separate. But the Church of England is about as far from that kind of a church as it is possible to be, and was always intended to be a church whose life was intertwined with that of the nation. It started coming apart after 1688, but to be established at all requires a reckoning at least with the changing moral perspective of the nation.
I agree, as I did yesterday
Yet again, John 16.13 is used by revisionists to justify any departure from Scripture. The only truth The Spirit guides us into is the truth revealed in Scripture, not into some new unscriptural truth which seems compatible to the prevailing culture.
We need immediately to take soundings from as many John scholars as possible. Is this an allowable, let alone likely, reading of John 16.12-13?
A very brief response to the previous two comments (Jonathan and Christopher Shell): you rightly highlight the conceit of the ‘revisionist/ ‘progressive’ view. To imagine that the Spirit might lead us into a knowledge or revelation of God which is fundamentally inconsistent with what Jesus has revealed would be to split the Gospel of John into a ‘Jesus’ and a ‘Spirit’ gospel: i.e. Jesus said this, but the Spirit will teach us something else. Now this was the line of the Gnostics, and has been of Islam, but it is not that of the gospel: not only would it be self-contradictory; and not only is Jesus saying that the Spirit will lead the disciples into an ever-deepening knowledge of who Jesus is; but the task of the Spirit is precisely to lead the disciples into all the truth – a verse which points back to 4:23: ‘true worshippers will worship the Father in [the] Spirit and [the] Truth.
vs. 23 & 24 have too often been taken as a kind of mood music about Christian worship (sort of = ‘in the right spirit’ and ‘in a truthful manner.’) But the reality of John is the Spirit will point to Jesus as Jesus pointed to the Spirit. These verses are – like the gospel – rooted indivisibly in both christology and pneumatology. We are to worship the Father in the Spirit who is the Truth, and Jesus who is the Truth (14:6). cf. also 7:37-39.
The way in which Jesus refers to the ministry of the Spirit precisely parallels the way in which Jesus himself in ch. 5 sees (19), watches (20), hears and listens to (30) the Father. In ch. 16 the Spirit will not speak on his own, but will speak whatever he hears (13 – a verse which is correlative to 5:19 and 30); the Spirit will glorify Jesus (14) just as it Jesus did (13:31-32); the Spirit will take/ receive the things of Jesus (16:15) just as Jesus reduced the things of the Father and expounded them to the disciples (e.g. 17:6-8).
All these cross-references point to the one ministry of the Son and the Spirit.
Today I heard on Premier Radio, as a result of Croft’s 58 page *essay*, Croft, followed by Ian Paul.
Croft points were
1 He’s been double listening.
But significantly his order of priority was to
a) LGBTI community and their hurt
b) society/ culture
c) scripture (with its paucity on the matter)
d) comparison with church change on divorce.
I was driving at the time but even within the confines of radio, they were clearly the key points, drivers, priorities, he chose to emphasize. That was his chosen framework.
Has Stephen Croft family who are LGBGT. So often Ive discovered the major apologists from within Christian circles have a vested interest,
John if people were honest about their sexuality I suspect all families would include someone who was gay etc or at least has experienced such feelings. So it wouldnt be a surprise with his family.
But I take your point, if a close family member (eg your son) comes out as gay and Christian then that inevitably puts his parents in a dilema.
Peter
A really important thing to remember is that Conservative Evangelicals have as many gay children, brothers, sisters, cousins etc, as anyone else. In the past this was just denied, covered up, swept under the carpet, treated as a source of shame; but now we live in an age of greater honesty about such things, and it won’t do any longer to just wish the gay family members away. A huge amount of lasting psychological damage was done to the gay children of Conservative Evangelicals by church leaders in the past: may the 21st century prove kinder to them.
This doesn’t have anything much to do with ‘conservative evangelicals’. The struggle to accept gay children was the hallmark of just about everyone prior to around 1990.
And this discussion isn’t about the view of a small group; it is about the doctrine of the C of E as a whole, and in fact of the church catholic.
Would anyone actually trust “a conscience clause” or even alternative episcopal oversight? I’m in favour of female priests, but it’s obvious that the concessions made to those who are not where given in bad faith by many- only designed to get the job done, and then let those who disagreed to die out. I’m aware of a number of candidates for ordination who all found that opposition to women priests or being ordained by a female Bishop put unbelievable roadblocks in their path forward.
Secondly, why should there be separate protections for those who maintain the current teachings of the CofE. If we are allowing mixed conscious on this issue, shouldn’t it be the liberal wing who can have alterative flying bishops? The assumption is that the vast majority of Bishops and clergy, if not congregations and churches are in active favour of the switch.
A mutual friend of the Bishops son, Andrew Croft, did tell me at his surprise that his Sole Survivor was seen as the “gay friendly” youth festival. Apparently because the issue wasn’t addressed “from the front”, but at seminars, and people flying Pride flags from their tents weren’t told to take them down, this gave the perception to some in the lgbt community. Maybe the Bishop thinks that the CofE can likewise pack in all the young lgbt-identifying/”allies” who have stopped going to church but went to festivals like that when younger?
I do wonder if he thinks all the large conservative churches have tapped out the “conservative youth” demographic and that, because “woke youth” are more virtuous and discerning, there is the opportunity to get the (ex-church going) pro-lgbt youth crowd back into church and build liberal mega churches if only the Church would show they were affirming enough.
I strongly believe he is incorrect; the polls all show that “anti lgbt” issues are stated as the number one reason why young people are put off church. Young people who get more “virtue points” for saying that rather than saying that they wouldn’t go anyway because they don’t believe in God, don’t feel the need for a saviour and find the whole thing weird.
Second reason is that, although anecdotally, I have found far, far, far more young people with a strong Christian faith – among all streams and beliefs- who have simply slowly stopped going to church while still believing, to stopping believing by a long, slow, not thinking about God until they realise they have ceased to believe and it “doesn’t make sense”, among those who have abandoned the traditional Christian sexual ethic- both straight and gay- especially if their partner is not a Christian.
The church has been packed with the “right sort of people”. It always has, but the “right sort” has changed. I recall a candidate for ordination who was living with one flatemate of the same sex while going to an evangelical church telling of the delight in the eyes of his DDO when he thought he was in a gay relationship , and subsequent sadness when the DDO realised that this was not the case. It was made clear before the DDO realised his mistake that being in an active same sex relationship would not have prevented his ordination, indeed it seemed to him that he would have been fast tracked.
I know of at three people who have confided in my that they are considering swimming the Tiber if this becomes the Bishops official position, and 3 times as many who would break from the CofE for a different protestant denomination. And that’s just 24 hours in from Croft’s statement
Would anyone actually trust “a conscience clause” or even alternative episcopal oversight?
It’s more basic than that: there simply is no form of ‘mutual accommodation’ that would allow those who hold the traditional view to act with integrity. Yes, a conscience clause might say that a minister doesn’t have to officiate at a same-sex wedding (though by refusing to do so they would no doubt ensure they were frozen out of all future positions) but consider the following scenario:
Say I am a (non-clergy) member of a fairly standard, middle-of-the-road Church of England church, and I hold the traditional view on sexual ethics. The church is going to have an away weekend and I have volunteered to organise the accommodation.
The venue has three types of room: dormitories for singles, family rooms for, well, guess, and a few twin rooms for married couples.
Now, imagine a same-sex couple have recently moved to the area from a liberal church where the minister was only too happy to ‘marry’ them. They have started attending the church, they would like to come on the away day and, what’s more, they would like one of the twin rooms.
What can I do? If I refuse and put them in the dormitories, I am not ‘accommodating’ them (literally and I promise that pun did not occur to me when I came up with this story).
On the other hand if I accede to their request I am treating them as if they were really married when I believe they are not, so I have lost my integrity. I have become a liar to myself.
Okay, you may say, so recuse yourself and let somebody with less scruples take over the job.
But now you’ve said there are a whole swathe of jobs in the Church of England that holders of the traditional view who wish to act with integrity are barred from. So they aren’t being ‘accommodated’, are they? Effectively they have become second-class parishioners.
‘Mutual acommodation’ if simply logically impossible. It wasn’t really possible with female ministers / bishops, but it was easier to hide because a church either had a female minister or it didn’t and so you could go there or not. But this sets individual members of congregations in conflict with each other. How can you have a congregation, where some couples regard themselves as married and some people sitting next to them in the pews firmly believe they are living in sin? How can that possibly work?
“How can that possibly work?”
Surely with civil marriages already being legal, it is already working? That scenario could already happen in your church now. Gay married couple join your church… you’re faced with the same dilemma now, aren’t you? Any overall change in church policy doesn’t change the dilemma you outline.
As you would expect, I can’t see why you think you have to be some bedroom policewoman in the first place, when what people do or do not do in private together is their business, and the church weekend presumably doesn’t take place in the bedroom, so you could all just get on with whatever you’ve gone there to do like, you know… fellowship?
Why would a civil gay marriage be any less tricky in your predicament than a church-celebrated one? I don’t get it.
Gay married couple join your church… you’re faced with the same dilemma now, aren’t you?
Except that now, the doctrine of the church unequivocally supports one side, that of the person who holds to traditional sexual ethics. So there’s no dilemma. One side is, according to the Church of England, in the right, and the other is in the wrong.
The logical inconsistency only occurs if you try to say you have a position where both sides are respected and right. That can’t work. It’s like saying A and not-A can be true at the same time.
As you would expect, I can’t see why you think you have to be some bedroom policewoman in the first place, when what people do or do not do in private together is their business, and the church weekend presumably doesn’t take place in the bedroom, so you could all just get on with whatever you’ve gone there to do like, you know… fellowship?
Um, because it’s a church weekend so you can’t have unmarried couples sleeping together? You wouldn’t have an unmarried opposite-sex couple sharing a room, obviously, would you?
It doesn’t actually. Read Issues in Human Sexuality
But Suzanne what people do in their bedroom or who shares the bedroom is not completely private. It is the responsibility of the church. The bible has many bedrooms that God objected to.
Surely you get that the bible disapproves of most divorce and remarriage situations, promiscuity, adultery, homosexuality etc. if the Bible is the Word of God then the church must uphold its standards, In 1 Cor 5 a man is excluded and shunned because of his sexual relationship.
The bible speaks quite a bit about sex and we are not at liberty to ignore it.
‘Secondly, why should there be separate protections for those who maintain the current teachings of the CofE. If we are allowing mixed conscious on this issue, shouldn’t it be the liberal wing who can have alterative flying bishops?’
Exactly so. Did you see my letter in the Church Times today? https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2022/4-november/comment/letters-to-the-editor/letters-to-the-editor
This…. Yes…
“This suggests an obvious solution to our current impasse: invite those who want to change to accept oversight from the European jurisdiction of the Episcopal Church in the United States Europe, or from the Scottish Episcopal Church, or perhaps, in time, from the Church in Wales. That way, the C of E will have continuity, the Communion will not be further divided, and those who seek “equal” marriage will have it. “
No thanks. I’ve been a member of the Church of England all my life. My children are too. We’re not going anywhere. Nor should you. But if you can’t stomach that arrangement of us all co-existing together (I am willing to, are you?)… then it’s obvious that the opponent of co-existence and ‘accommodation of one another’ will be the person who needs some kind of alternative set up. Far better we all just co-exist and love each other. And get on with life in our parishes, helping the sick, visiting the elderly, comforting the bereaved.
I do, however, take seriously that some on the conservative wing of the Church of England may decline this kind of inclusive broad church. But I think that is what will be proposed, and I put it to you that if people like me are content to go with that, then why would we choose to leave or seek other oversight? Unity in Diversity means we are a Church which recognises the reality of different views. If that’s the way the Church goes, then that ‘accommodation’ becomes the status quo.
People at either extreme, who insist on the absolutist position and imposing their view on everyone else… well, clearly they are the ones who will have to decide if they want to take action or seek some other arrangement.
Most people won’t.
But I think that is what will be proposed, and I put it to you that if people like me are content to go with that
Of course you are content to go with that, because your solution means you get to do whatever you want and everyone else has to bend around that.
See above where your ‘solution’ to my example was ‘the same-sex couple get what they want and everyone else has to pretend that’s fine’.
But we are already all coexisting together now.
And your solution is that we should all coexist together.
Your solution is something that is already happening.
I have near zero confidence that, in the quite short term, other views will actually be “protected” if this goes through. Though I support male and female ordinations… those who maintain the “men only view” have been badly treated.
What would be different?
Ian H, being frank, I think that’s a very fair concern. Philip North was treated dismally.
Yes indeed and thank you for the letter Ian. Incidentally, for some reason I was invited (by my personal email) by CEM to sign the list but when I investigated this the final question was
“Willing to Solemnize SSM? Yes – Not Sure/Don’t Know – No”.
I received an acknowledgment (but with no recognition of how I ‘voted’). Is it significant that CEM have not published the number who have selected the 2nd & 3rd options? (to me this suggests a slanted approach to publishing the results generally). Perhaps if more orthodox clergy were made aware of this fact and were to sign this petition with a ‘no’ (as I did) we might find out the true proportion of serving priests/distinctive deacons who are and are not in favour of ‘equal’ marriage – assuming CEM were honest enough to publish the full results.
https://ring.cofe-equal-marriage.org.uk/solemnize-ssm/
Thanks for the link…
I’m not sure about signing as it’s headed “Add your name to the list of clergy who would marry same-sex couples”… Will they just count names but not take note of the crucial (last) question asking one’s position on taking SSMs?
Plus, they seem keen to know who has an MBE. Didn’t realise these things counted in the Kingdom of Heaven….
Will they just count names but not take note of the crucial (last) question asking one’s position on taking SSMs?
– Ah, I hadn’t thought of that… It woudl be interesting to see if my name turns up on the list of ‘Willing to conduct’ – if so, it would bring the whole survey into question.
Could some canny journalist not get CEM to publish the actual number of ‘Not Sures/Don’t Knows’ and ‘Noes’?!?
Why do they say scripture has a paucity on the matter?
It is about the amount one would expect given the topic’s degree of prominence in everyday life. It is unanimous as far as it goes, so what is the problem?
As in today’s Times, sometimes the biblical witness is presented as being Leviticus! Not a mention of Paul in sight.
But if you are going to speak of scripture you cannot just leave out Paul who wrote more books than anyone.
Plus he is NT not OT.
He treats in Rom 1 homosexual behaviour as his choice example, out of all the possible examples that could have been chosen, to illustrate the endgame of mankind’s refusal to honour the God of whom they cannot be unaware through the creation.
So what is now being recommended is that people do things which are the quintessential failure to honour God. Triviality to replace the proper awe.
Hello Christopher,
The word paucity is mine, Scripture doesn’t have much to say was his point on loving faithful same sex unions. He didn’t actually mention any scripture, only that passing reference of dismissal. It is something that Ian sets out more fully above:
“After commenting on ‘faithful, stable’ gay relationships, he returns to this theme in chapter 3 ‘Our culture’s moral view of the Church’s present policy.’ Culture sees same-sex attraction as a given, and therefore any limitation of sexual expression in this context is unjust.
We now have a profound dislocation between the Church of England – the establish church, and to serve the whole of our society – and the society we are called to serve… We are seem to inhabit a different moral universe. (p 20)”
I mention the radio talk, because, as I said, it reveals his hierarchy of needs, to be satisfied, of priorities in descending order of importance.
Not sure where God gets a look in.
Scripturally, we are not called to serve society, but to serve God. Yes, we are also called to serve, in the sense of love, one another, even one’s neighbour, from which one might, at a stretch, get the idea of serving society. But this is not to be equated with loving the godless ‘values’ of society, and ‘serving society’ is not the language Scripture uses to express the Church’s calling. We serve society first and foremost by calling everyone, including ourselves, to be obedient to the gospel. One cannot please both man and God: Gal 1:10. A bishop who thinks otherwise is not fulfilling even the most basic qualification for office.
Scripturally, we are not called to serve society, but to serve God
I assume that the Bishop of Oxford will be removing any mention of Thomas Becket from his diocese, Becket having been killed for refusing to serve the state — so presumably the Bishop thinks the troublesome priest got what he deserved?
Ah but all those red-letter Christians just ignore Paul (and Leviticus for that matter). Odd given Jesus’ red-letter high view of the Hebrew Scriptures.
People use the ‘paucity’ argument for Jesus too – He didnt mention gay sex so He clearly approves. Completely ignores the fact the only reason He mentions divorce was because of the current debates at the time on the subject, and of course the simple fact someone asked Him about it. No such debate on gay sexual relationships.
Peter
I’m in my early 30s. I came to faith whilst studying at Oxford in 2007 and was baptised at St Aldates (charismatic evangelical Anglican church in Oxford) as a student / adult in 2008. After leaving Oxford, I subsequently attended another charismatic evangelical Anglican church in London for a number of years.
I stopped attending the Anglican church about seven years ago, at least partly because I was convinced that the Anglican call for unity in the church was leading faithful bible-believing Christians into fellowship with false teachers (i.e. those who led others into sin & ultimately to hell).
I’m now a pastor at an independent charismatic evangelical church. I feel bitterly disappointed at the prospect of the Anglican church endorsing gay marriage. I think it will only harm the Christian witness in this nation (given the division it will cause) and undermine teaching and proclamation of the biblical gospel.
I want to remind faithful Anglicans, that the power is not in the institutional church, but in the gospel itself and the witness of the Holy Spirit. If I was serving as a minister in the Anglican church now, I’d say, is it time to consider leaving the CofE? As ministers, we’re in the business of preaching the gospel and saving souls, not protecting an institution. Christian unity is important, but not at all costs, and not to the detriment of preaching the biblical truth. If the church does decide to take the same approach as the Bishop of Oxford, isn’t it time to call time on the CofE?
I realise this is not an easy decision! Forgive me if this feels too strong! It’s tragic to see the church which has been a bastion for truth in previous generations to consider publicly turning away from biblical teaching.
‘If the church does decide to take the same approach as the Bishop of Oxford, isn’t it time to call time on the CofE?’
Yes, I think so. That is why whatever is proposed for February is so important.
Given that it is a real possibility, how would you think evangelicals should have fought to prevent it reaching this point, and – more importantly – what can they do between now and February?
Wow. Goodness, Ian. I haven’t heard you imply you’d be done with the Church of England if that happens. Is that what you’re saying? That you would leave?
I hope you don’t, and of course we don’t know for sure what’s going to unfold, but you’d leave the Church of England sooner than remain in a Church which accommodates both your views on gay sexuality, and those who want to affirm it?
Of course, don’t answer if it puts you in a difficult position, or you wish to keep your views private.
But ‘yes [you] think so…’ to ‘it’s time to call time on the CofE’?
a Church which accommodates both your views on gay sexuality, and those who want to affirm it?
As I have pointed put elsewhere on this page, such ‘accommodation’ is not in fact possible.
It would equate, in practice, to the liberal side being able to do whatever they want and the traditionalists being told to keep quiet because their views are offensive.
Clearly leaving would be preferable to staying as a second-class citizen.
The traditional views aren’t offensive. They are honest. But I do think they cause harm. However, no, in a future Church, they should not ‘keep quiet’. They should be loved as fellow Christians. I myself am traditional in other areas of my Christian life. I want a Church where love and grace somehow prevail, even in the context of our differences. I believe, on the grounds by which many ‘conservative’ Christians read and understand the Bible, that they read it right. The Bible authors don’t condone sex between men. The theology of ‘traditionalists’ is coherent. But the Church of England today has two main (contradictory) views. Why does accommodating both make the ‘conservative’ Christians “second-class Christians”.
We are all ‘second-class’ compared to Christ. And yet, there we are – the Church – and we’re called by name, and we’re His.
Where I do owe you the respect of your intelligence, is that I agree that there are ‘liberals’ who want an ‘absolute’ outcome. For them it could be a case of ‘doing a Philip North’ on ‘conservatives’… promising a place at all levels of Church life, but not keeping that promise. There are people who will call your views ‘homophobia’. They aren’t. It is conscience and faith.
So I very much agree there are real causes for concern. If things do move towards accommodation of two theological views on sex… then everyone should focus on the frameworks and structures of how groups are protected. That will be so important.
But I don’t want any Christian, so-called conservative or so-called liberal, to be sidelined, treated as second class, shunted down a ghetto.
People can only believe what they believe. The divide of views is real not pretend. It’s not going away. The realpolitik points to accommodation of both views. I’ve told you all along that’s the direction of travel. And to add, further to earlier, I have no involvement in anything the bishops are doing right now. Either believe me or not.
I just find it all saddening. I watch Ian’s videos and I love his ardour for God. I don’t want him to leave the Church of England over this. We are a Church that just has different views. It’s painful.
You believe the teaching of Jesus that marriage is between one man and one woman ’causes harm’ and so must be rejected?
Therefore anyone continuing with the current teaching of the Church will also be ‘causing harm’?
However, no, in a future Church, they should not ‘keep quiet’.
And yet when I asked a pretty reasonable question about how this would work in practice, you said that the solution was to ‘stop being the bedroom police’.
What is that if it’s not being told to keep quiet?
Why does accommodating both make the ‘conservative’ Christians “second-class Christians”.
I explained above, with a practical example. Either the same-sex couple gets to stay in married quarters — which is not accommodating of the view that they are not actually married — or they don’t — which is not accommodating of the view that they are.
It’s simply impossible to accommodate both views.
And one could come up with more and more examples. And it’s impossible to believe that the view which had to give way would not be the traditionalist one, in all cases.
No Ian, I do not believe “the teaching of Jesus that marriage is between one man and one woman ’causes harm’.”
I think it teaches great good. Because the principles of marriage, covenant commitment, fidelity, givenness, caring, tenderness, self-sacrifice, are good.
What causes harm in my mind is when Christians in the modern world kind of co-opt marriage for ONLY men and women.
Of course Jesus was addressing the people of that time, and discussing why marriage as they culturally understood it at that time, was precious and good. And they reported that discussion in their own words, in their own culture, with their own presuppositions. Ut didn’t even cross their minds at that time that man-man sex could even possibly be a basis for marriage – they took that as read – and Jesus was talking to them on their own terms, in their own time, and their own religious culture.
But what causes harm, with the cultural experience we have today – the experience that gay and lesbian people can also have devoted, sacrificial, tender relationships, and be good and decent people – is refusing to accept the precious nature of *their* relationships as good, decent, life-enhancing commitments too, and the way the brilliant institution of marriage might be a blessing for them too (not to mention a blessing to their church and secular communities). And the harm also, of vilifying those relationships.
So yes, these traditional views can cause harm… but we all cause harm in different ways… and yet I should far rather ‘evangelical conservatives’ stayed in the Church of England, as a precious part of the Church of England, for all their other merits and what they bring to the Church. Bear in mind that my own early Christian journey was rooted in the evangelical tradition, and evangelical church has blessed my children. Why would I want people to leave? I just want us to seek grace to co-exist, in a diverse but devoted Church of England.
I want YOU to stay. I want my home church to stay. In such an eventuality as the Bishop of Oxford proposes, I think most people in most parishes WILL want to stay… because they feel part of the Church of England, they are committed to its week by week pastoral life, and most do not even worry in depth about all the detail of these debates. There think there is more to Church than sex. And there is.
‘What causes harm in my mind is when Christians in the modern world kind of co-opt marriage for ONLY men and women.;
Er that is precisely the teaching of Jesus.
So you do think that Jesus cause harm…
No Ian, I do not believe “the teaching of Jesus that marriage is between one man and one woman ’causes harm’.”
[…]
What causes harm in my mind is when Christians in the modern world kind of co-opt marriage for ONLY men and women.
It’s not ‘Christians in the modern world’ who co-opt marriage for ONLY men and women. Jesus taught that. So you are there saying that you think the teaching of Jesus that marriage is [ONLY] between one man and one woman ’causes harm’, aren’t you?
There think there is more to Church than sex. And there is.
There is more to church than sex, of course. But there isn’t more to church than the Bible. You want the Church of England to junk the Bible… at which point it wouldn’t be a church any more, would it?
Ian,
Jesus was addressing people in the parameters of their own time and their own culture, and they then report what is basically His affirmation of marriage as they understood marriage.
I agree with that affirmation of the value of marriage, so no, I don’t think Jesus caused harm.
What Jesus would say in our culture, our time, about the value of marriage – and whether he would be happy for gay and lesbian people to have access to that blessed institution is a different matter.
For the people of his time and religious culture, man-man marriage simply wasn’t part of the cultural possibilities, so he was addressing the possibility before them, and fundamentally endorsing marriage as a framework for devoted relationships.
And I agree.
Other writers in the OT and NT from their religious communities had a cultural antagonism to men having sex with men (about which they reported nothing from Jesus)… they wrote from within their own specific cultures and, although I absolutely agree they were not okay with man-man sex, what they viewed as holy or unholy was coloured by their own cultural pre-suppositions. In our society here in England (as elsewhere in other places) we have a wider understanding of marriage and sexuality, but we can still draw strongly from the emphasis Jesus placed on marriage as a platform for commitment, devotion, care, fidelity – but also apply that in a wider cultural sense to gay and lesbian partnerships.
There is also the imperative of love with operates like a prism and filter through which all doctrine needs to be understood. So many people in the Church of England today feel convinced in their God-given consciences… I suggest by the power of the Spirit… that gay and lesbian relationships, like heterosexual ones, can be platforms for decency, compassion, care, companionship, self-sacrifice, joy, and intimate tenderness. And a very large part of the membership in the Church of England just want to affirm that love, that blessing, that givenness and devotion of two people to each other.
Susannah, the idea that Jesus’ teaching was ‘limited to his culture’ and doesn’t apply to us flies in the face of just about everything every Christian group has believed for the last 2000, flies in the face of the approach of the early church to its culture, contradicts the understanding of the C of E, and means that Jesus is not, in fact the Word of God.
It is so far away from historic, orthodox understandings of the importance of Jesus’ teaching for us—and I think shows what is really at stake here.
Jesus was addressing people in the parameters of their own time and their own culture, and they then report what is basically His affirmation of marriage as they understood marriage.
Okay, so Jesus affirmed marriage as they understood marriage.
They understood marriage as ONLY between a man and a woman.
Therefore Jesus affirmed marriage as being ONLY between a man and a woman.
You say that the teaching that marriage is ONLY between a man and a woman is harmful.
So you are saying that the teaching that Jesus affirmed is harmful.
Yes?
There is also the imperative of love with operates like a prism and filter through which all doctrine needs to be understood.
That is not a universally agreed position, in fact it is very controversial.
As Professor Lewis wrote:
‘St. John’s saying that God is love has long been balanced in my mind against the remark of a modern author (M. Denis de Rougemont) that “love ceases to be a demon only when he ceases to be a god”; which of course can be re-stated in the form “begins to be a demon the moment he begins to be a god.” This balance seems to me an indispensable safeguard. If we ignore it the truth that God is love may slyly come to mean for us the converse, that love is God.’
they wrote from within their own specific cultures
You do realise, don’t you, that you are writing from within your specific culture just as much as they were writing from within theirs? You haven’t stepped ‘outside’ culture, to some external vantage point where you can survey others within their cultures while you remain neutral and unaffected.
You think some of the things they thought were bizarre; well, hundreds of years in the future, people will think that about you. That’s a good thing always to remember. Your beliefs, shaped by your culture — just like mine, just like everyone’s — will seem as strange to people of the future as those of the people of the past seem to us.
What Susannah is writing is absolutely breathtaking.
She is saying that culture is a higher authority than Jesus.
I knew that liberalism was much the same as cultural conformity, but this is another level. Through history there have been many cultures, ranging from superb to appalling.
‘Wow. Goodness, Ian. I haven’t heard you imply you’d be done with the Church of England if that happens.’
Then you might not have been listening. You cannot affirm SSM without denying Scripture.
If the C of E denies Scripture it is no longer the C of E. It would have to detach not only from Scripture, but also from its Formularies. I don’t see how that could happen in terms of process, but it would be the end of the Church as we know it.
Thank you for being honest, Ian, and for your clear and unequivocal statement of your position. This is, I believe, the position most evangelical Anglicans will take. Denial of Scripture is the line in the sand.
And, let us not lose sight of the fact that these arguments also apply to all sexual relationships outside of heterosexual marriage. Either we submit to the authority of Scripture or we do not. Feelings of love or erotic desire cannot be the grounds on which we base our behaviour, although they very often are.
After 33 years of marriage to a woman I divorced her because I ‘fell in love’ with another woman. My erotic and romantic desires were fully realised, and I had a great time in the midst of the chaos and pain I had created, but, thank God, after several years I was convicted of my sin. I repented and turned away from my illicit sexual relationship, and it was very difficult to do this and remain loving friends. We now have lived a celibate deep friendship for many years, believing in the Scriptural prohibition on divorce and remarriage.
Relationships are complex. We are all sinful, inside and outside of heterosexual marriage. But what the Bible calls sin, is sin, and the moment we try to accommodate sin is the moment we are no longer the Church.
There is a lot of pain but a lot more healing. This grace of God, that comes to us in Jesus Christ enables us to rise beyond our sinful desires and practices and to walk this way. When we stumble, he holds our hand so we do not fall.
I have deep compassion for all those caught up in these dilemmas personally, including some of my most loved people. But we cannot allow our compassion to overrule what Scripture clearly teaches. Either we believe or we don’t. Either we do or we don’t. The Gospel calls for obedience. There is no easy answer.
Thank you so much for honest sharing of your painful story.
Fight on valiantly for truth, brother!
Incidentally, I wouldn’t ‘glory’ in that scenario. I’d just feel really sad.
For a start it would go against my own core belief: that we are a Broad Church and we should be able to love each other so hard, that we co-exist against all the odds, and find a way of grace in our differences.
I do pray for you, as I pray for plenty of other people, and if you would ever like to talk, by phone or face to face, I would welcome you doing so. I really mean that.
This pastoral crisis is not some game of scoring points. It’s real, and I recognise it hurts. It hurts all parties, being honest. I also recognise, you would probably be self-effacing and add, that your heavy concern is not for yourself, but pastorally for those you feel could be hurt by a new direction.
We are a deeply divided Church on this issue. We hurt. All of us.
Susannah
we are a Broad Church and we should be able to love each other so hard, that we co-exist against all the odds, and find a way of grace in our differences
But your differences are over precisely what it means to ‘love’.
If to ‘love’ someone means to wan the best for them, then how can you watch them live in a way which means their eternal soul is destined for Hell without saying anything?
How can that be loving? Surely if you love someone so hard you must be willing to do anything to save them from that fate — even tell them things they don’t want to hear?
You’re asking people to love you less, not more, by asking them to accommodate sin which will end up in people going to Hell.
If the ‘official’ teaching of the CoE changed to acceptance of gay marriage but individual churches and their leaderships could continue to reject such a change, could that not mean leaders like yourself could remain under the Anglican umbrella? People would then choose which church to attend.
Peter
If the ‘official’ teaching of the CoE changed to acceptance of gay marriage but individual churches and their leaderships could continue to reject such a change
That couldn’t possibly work, for the reasons I already outlined.
S,
You keep saying that, but the realpolitik suggests that many people in the Church of England would accept that, and not just on the so-called ‘liberal’ and ‘affirming’ side.
Whole none of this is ideal for either ‘side’, given that Lambeth 1998 I:10 is now dead in the water as far as the changes that are inevitably coming, plenty of ‘conservatives’ may well now see a settlement to allow them to keep preaching their own views as the best outcome they can negotiate.
As I say, not ideal, but pragmatic in terms of the reality of the divide.
I appreciate that’s difficult to come to terms with but, as Peter here says, and he has ‘conservative’ views, this now HAS to be resolved, and the sooner we face up to the reality coming, and work with all the grace we can muster towards a settlement, the better
I’ll try again. So many typos and lack of clarity in my haste. Sorry!
S,
You keep saying that (‘it could not possibly work’), but the realpolitik suggests that many people in the Church of England would accept the accommodation of two views which you quoted, and not just on the so-called ‘liberal’ and ‘affirming’ side.
While none of this is ideal for either ‘side’, given that Lambeth 1998 I:10 is now dead in the water as far as the changes that are inevitably coming, plenty of ‘conservatives’ may well now seek a settlement to allow them to keep preaching their own views as the best outcome they can negotiate.
As I say, not ideal, but pragmatic in terms of the reality of the divide.
I appreciate that’s difficult to come to terms with but, as Peter here says, and he has ‘conservative’ views, this now HAS to be resolved, and the sooner we face up to the reality coming, and work with all the grace we can muster towards a settlement, the better.
You keep saying that (‘it could not possibly work’), but the realpolitik suggests that many people in the Church of England would accept the accommodation of two views which you quoted, and not just on the so-called ‘liberal’ and ‘affirming’ side.
Right well I’m sure that the progressive side’s realpolitik sim is exactly that: that they can claim to be pursuing a programme of ‘mutual accommodation’ but because, as I have shown, that is impossible, in practice what it will mean is a change of doctrine with those which hold the traditional view told, ‘you are free to hold these views and we respect your right to hold them, but you must never act on them or express them in the church or on social media’.
And their hope is that those who hold the traditional view will be so demoralised, and feeling like they have nowhere else to go, that they will just accept that and — to paraphrase Václav Havel — put the ‘workers of the world unite’ sign in their greengrocers window.
While none of this is ideal for either ‘side’, given that Lambeth 1998 I:10 is now dead in the water as far as the changes that are inevitably coming, plenty of ‘conservatives’ may well now seek a settlement to allow them to keep preaching their own views as the best outcome they can negotiate.
And this is exactly the mafia negotiation tactics the progressive side hope will get them to the Situation described above: ‘change is coming, we can do this the easy way or the hard way, you won’t like the easy way but I promise you if you make me do it the hard way you really won’t like it.’
I wonder if you, and they, realise how much you sound like the new gang that has arrived in the neighbourhood going around explaining to the local business owners that change is inevitable, and if they sign up to the protection racket, hasn’t over their profits, agree to act as fronts for the numbers and the drugs, then they can keep trading, and that’s a good deal, the best they can hope to negotiate. Because change is inevitable and you can either adapt to the new reality or you can fail to adapt and you know what happened if you fail to adapt? Ask the dinosaurs.
It might work. But if you can’t make people feel demoralised and isolated — if they realise that there’s actually enough of them that they could reasonably spilt off and make a go of it — then I think they may very well do that, and you’ll have won, but all you’ll have won is a load of old buildings, no income to maintain them with, and the ashes of a denomination.
Ian
You say: “But it seems very odd for two bishops to appear to be driving a coach and horses through an existing process”.
And yet, isn’t that exactly what +Lancaster; +Maidstone and +Blackburn and you yourself were doing right at the beginning of the LLF process with the publication of “A Beautiful Story” video by CEEC? That was clearly setting out a stated position, threats even, at a point in the process where we really were meant to be listening….
It seems to me that affirming bishops who are now speaking out like +Stephen have been respectful and restrained and I for one, as a charismatic evangelical welcome this pronouncement.
Simon
Affirming what?
Simon, the two scenarios are not at all comparable.
At the start of the LLF process, I stated that I believed in the Church’s doctrine, and that I hoped that the LLF process would not undermine that, and that a change in doctrine would be catastrophic.
Many other people expressed their views, and they were entitled to. LLF was not a gag on the Church.
However, LLF has come to an end, and the HoB and CoB are in a process of consultation, to try and agree what to bring to Synod. That is a confidential process involving the bishops in discussion—which Steven has completely broken faith with.
That’s the difference.
And as an ‘evangelical’, could you outline for me what an ‘evangelical’ reading of Scripture looks like that would challenge current doctrine? Steven doesn’t offer one.
Thank you Ian.
I think the phrase that describes +Croft’s action is at heart an “attempted coup”. Yes, there are bishops who will agree with him and will happily (have already) joined the orchestra but it comes across as an attempted short circuit… As you say +Salisbury did this 10 years ago, dividing his senior staff and promising to protect those of an orthodox position. (I was in the meeting where he explained his actions. ) I didn’t handle it well enough.. being inflamed at his inbuilt conclusion that others would need to be a protected group rather than him as a break away clique.
Homegroup is reading 1 Thessalonians currently… the call is to stand in the freedom of the saving Gospel… Idols left behind, a costly discipleship . But apparently we need to keep on the right side of them nowadays… culturally connected…
Thank you again for this excellent position summary. Perhaps Croft’s approach made it too easy for you (winks).
And, no, it wasn’t too long!
For those of us who are non-Anglicans, could someone explain what a ‘provincial arrangement’ would look like and how it would distinguish itself from the rest of the CofE?
Would it for example, involve parallel dioceses with separate Bishops and training routes?
What would be its ecclesiastical characteristics?
And how would it work for, for example, a single congregation some of whom hold to the traditional sexual ethic and some of whom are in same-sex ‘marriages’ ?
We could just split and split until everyone was a ”congregation” of one.
The sidelining of truth leads inevitably to that conclusion.
Christopher
I’’m with you in this post but its worth pointing out that the championing of truth can be divisive too. The examples of what is ‘sound doctrine’ become more and more demanding until its hardly possible to have fellowship with anyone. Two extremes – one makes no firm lines and the other has lines that don’t allow any difference of opinion whatsoever.
What would happen to a minister who preached a sermon condemning sexual sin, including same-sex sexual activity, to a congregation including some people in same-sex ‘marriages’?
In the current situation, theoretically ‘nothing’ (in a formal sense) – as that what happened to me when I first did precisely that some years ago. There was no-one (to my knowledge) in a same-sex relationship (SSM wasn’t legal then) but the result was:
(i) a few people in favour of SSM complained to me and, in good faith, left the church
(ii) rather more thanked me for making my position clear and
(iii) subsequently at least 3 ‘just looking’ couples joined the church as they were looking for a CofE church that was orthodox on marriage.
If the CofE changed its doctrine to accommodate SSM that would change everything, if I were still in the CofE in theory I could be disciplined for teaching what would by then be heresy (unless my church was in some kind of ‘other integrity’ set-up) – but that’s hardly ever happened for those going against official CofE teaching today.
If they had any integrity people in same-sex marriages would not be attending such a church in the first place. If that was that minister’s view and teaching it would be odd if they stayed there.
The Church of England is the Established Church. It’s there for every person who lives in a parish. Anyone may attend.
That said, if a person has transport, they might exercise choice if they wish to.
There are many examples of socially-conservative churches where gay and lesbian individuals and couples are loved and valued, included in community life, and very much part of those church communities. And of course, that’s the attitude any Christian community might be expected to have.
I don’t know what I think about the issue of gay marriage and the church, but I emphatically agree that the Bishop of Oxford’s actions, in the circumstances, seem inappropriate, and only likely to make things much more difficult for the C of E and the Anglican Communion generally. I may be wrong.
I think you are right.
Unfortunately it looks like the Baptist Union might be going the same way.
We can only hope that we do not. I would be personally surprised if the Baptist Union did make the shift but it’s far from impossible; the pressure is real.
It depends ultimately on how churches in the union perceive the impact of the vote before council. Ostensibly it’s a minor procedural change, the removal of a single clause in an appendix that concerns gross misconduct offenses, but bound up within that are questions of the Union’s authority, what ‘accreditation’ actually means and how we reconcile shared decision-making with our independence. Understanding that is why it is this that’s caused the real animus to grow. Plenty of people didn’t like the changes in 2013, but could stomach them as permissible difference under the declaration of principle. This is something else, something more fundamental, and yet something quite different from the challenge faced by our brothers and sisters in the CofE.
A former Baptist President, Yinka Oyekan, penned this letter in May that’s worth reading if you want to understand how many Baptists are feeling.
http://www.evangelicalbaptist.uk/downgrade-of-the-cross/
Some people are already prepared to leave if the lines are crossed. At the moment however I don’t count myself among them. Just about.
If the lines are crossed the the BU in it present form will irrevocably change and become diminished. Many are talking about forming a new Union. Then there are all the problems with property, pensions, Regional Associations, colleges and so on. It could all get very messy.
In discussions I’ve had with many BU ministers, there is also wider issue that many think the BU has lost its evangelistic mojo.
“In discussions I’ve had with many BU ministers, there is also wider issue that many think the BU has lost its evangelistic mojo.”
100%. I think the same. The most common complaints I heard at assembly last year were along the lines of “these issues are important, but we need to be out there, doing the work of the gospel.” Or “why on earth aren’t we talking about mission / evangelism!?”. There’s a definite rearrange-the-deckchairs-on-the-Titanic atmosphere.
From what I gather is being discussed by the potential ‘breakaways’, the issues over property, pensions, structures and resources are not so great as to be insurmountable.
Mat
I welcome Oyekan’s stand on this, however, I wonder how far his welcoming stance to liberals, high churchmen and Catholic Baptists has precipitated the crisis.
The Baptist Union in Scotland is non-executive. This gives great autonomy to any individual church.
I doubt that there is such a thing in the Bible as structural union. Each church was in fellowship with other churches but that union was a unity of the Spirit. Although apostolic authority created a unity around the faith once for all delivered to the saints that authority began to be challenged – witness the second epistles. In 1 John the false teachers leave the church. They developed trendy gnostic ideas (the body is irrelevant only the spirit matters) and feeling superior left. Soon a situation arose where the dominance in the church belonged to those who had abandoned apostolic teaching. This is so in 2 Timothy. It seems there that Paul advises those who are true believers to meet together and so strengthen faith. Is he advocating this within the existing church or instructing them to leave once it has become apostate. By revelation the emphasis is on individual christians being loyal to Christ whatever is happening in the church.
I can understand that it must have been very difficult for the apostles to advocate leaving churches they had been instrumental in bringing to birth. Also it was a poor public witness to Christ. Nevertheless there comes a point it seems where purity is more important than unity and even public appearance. Of course, leaving is not undermining unity for there is no unity. The only unity that matters , the unity of the Spirit, is missing and what is left is darkness and light attempting to have fellowship.
He is just reflecting reality, homosexual marriage is legal in the UK (and indeed most of the western world now) and has been for years and the Church of Scotland and Methodist church have already allowed priests to perform gay marriages for committed homosexual couples. Ultimately the Church of England is going to follow suit. Probably there will still be some flying bishops for priests and parishes which don’t want to perform homosexual marriages as there are for those that don’t want women priests.
If some members of the Church of England won’t accept even that compromise they can go and become Pentecostal, Baptist or Roman Catholic, all of which still take a firm anti homosexual marriage line
Ah, I see. So anyone who actually believes the doctrine of the C of E at the moment needs now to leave. Why?
Because you are fighting a battle to change an institution that is no longer worth the bother. Your talents will be better used where Christians gather now, and that is not in the CofE.
“There is no getting away from it: the Christian rule is, ‘Either marriage, with complete faithfulness to your partner, or else total abstinence.'” Mere Christianity – CS Lewis.
Dexey
It is a very big step for evangelicals to leave a church that they may have given many years of their lives to. There is a sense of injustice – they are the ones with church orthodoxy on their side. There is the gall of conceding defeat and the nagging feeling that they have let the Lord down. Leaving means jettisoning the State church model that many for various reasons believe in. There is the question – where do we go; there is no comparable form of church. There is the reality of earning a living for those employed by the church.
These are a few that I can think of from outside, those inside will no doubt have many more. I have witnessed from outside a couple of church divisions in my time and they had a profound impact on those involved.
At one time I was strongly of the opinion ‘Come out and be separate’. Now, while not denying that impetus, I recognise it is very difficult to know just when the fight is no longer worth it and I can see the wrench in leaving.
Yes – and worse than that is that it would be a surrender to enemy powers. It would leave strongholds in the hands of secular forces that could have been in the hands of Christian forces. So how can that be a good option? It is precisely a bad and avoidable option.
The pattern that all views are accepted by virtue of being views needs to be exposed, because it tramples truth.
Just a clarification. Baptist churches (in the UK) have varied positions on same-sex marriage. I know of a number which have registered to perform same-sex marriages. And I wouldn’t be surprised if some Pentecostal churches follow suit.
I was thinking of the Ministerial Recognition rules Jonathan, which is a national issue not a local one. Currently it regards Baptist ministers in SSM as conduct unbecoming and merits disqualification.
The permitted difference currently is for the church, not the minister.
Baptist churches have liberty, under the declaration of principle, to interpret God’s law. Because SSM does not violate the 1st principle (about Jesus and His authority), it is something that we have agreed to accept different views on.
However the Baptist union, as an accrediting body, holds ministers to slightly greater doctrinal integrity / professional standards (there are debates about this, and I’m oversimplifying), and spells out where some of the ‘lines’ are. One of these is that while a minister is permitted to conduct and teach SSM in accordance with their conscience, they are not permitted themselves to enter one.
This creates both a double standard that many see as problematic.
Hence the proposed changes.
I am aware of this Mat. However, appealing to the DoP so that two churches can both claim the leading of the HS and then arrive at two mutually and diametrically opposed views of marriage, is quite frankly bizarre.
However, appealing to the DoP so that two churches can both claim the leading of the HS and then arrive at two mutually and diametrically opposed views of marriage, is quite frankly bizarre.
Well, I presume that’s what makes it a ‘Union’ rather than calling itself a ‘Church’. Congregationalists are presumably the same, if there’s any of them still around. Effectively each individual Baptist church in the Union is, I guess, in some ways its own little denomination.
A bit like the USA, which is why I ask about arrangements for mutual recognition, as it was the requirement in the USA’s constitution that states must recognise public acts in other states that meant that once same-sex marriage was legal in one state it was effectively legal in all.
“Effectively each individual Baptist church in the Union is, I guess, in some ways its own little denomination.”
You may not be far wrong in that assessment S.
I wasn’t explaining foo your benefit Chris, as it was Johnathan I was replying to. I appreciate that as a fellow Baptist you understand the workings of our system.
The DoP is fantastic, but it does require some sort of doctrinal anchor beyond itself. A common joke is that actually a Jehovah’s Witness or a Mormon could probably sign it, given how broad it is.
S, you are right. We are a union of independent churches, although we do ‘pool’ our autonomy for certain things, like legal and finance, where it is expedient or practical to do so. Some people say we are a ‘denomination’, which I consider close enough if not quite true, but still infinitely preferable to ‘movement’, which I loathe, or the more cynical ‘the Together’.
Baptist churches have liberty, under the declaration of principle, to interpret God’s law. Because SSM does not violate the 1st principle (about Jesus and His authority), it is something that we have agreed to accept different views on
Out of interest, how does that work if a same-sex couple, ‘married’ in a church which has been licensed for such, moves to a church which does not regard same-sex marriage as real? Does the new church have to recognise them as married under some equivalent of the USA’s ‘full faith and credit’ clause? Or is the assumption that it won’t happen because why would they join such a church?
However the Baptist union, as an accrediting body
Are Baptist Union churches required to only appoint accredited ministers, then? Are ministers assigned and paid by the denomination as in the Methodists or the URC, or are they hired by the church?
It’s slightly off the point but how different denominations work is kind of fascinating in a very nerdy way.
In our Baptist church a same sax couple are welcome to attend services but not to take on any responsibility ; music group, flower rota, teacher etc.
In our Baptist church a same sax couple are welcome to attend services but not to take on any responsibility
I see; and is that the same whether or not they have been married in another Union church? Has anyone ever challenged this?
(I guess this is slightly on-topic because it seems to be the sort of thing that Susannah Clark’s ‘accomodation’ would have to involve, but I can’t see in working in a denomination that is less confederal and more centralised in nature, like the Church of England, where you would expect anything recognised in one church in the denomination to be recognised in all.)
It’s academic at the moment. As far as I’m aware the latest members are all refugees from other churches fleeing ssm acceptance.
As far as I’m aware the latest members are all refugees from other churches fleeing ssm acceptance.
There’s a lot of it about
It can’t really be challenged S . Baptist churches have a very high level of self-autonomy and in general the BU cannot dictate or decide their praxis except probably in matters of property where the building and title deeds are held by the Baptist Corporation and not by the church.
In theory, a Baptist church could even appoint their own minster in a SSM and the BU could not stop it, except that the minister would not be accredited or recognised by the BU.
In theory, a Baptist church could even appoint their own minster in a SSM and the BU could not stop it, except that the minister would not be accredited or recognised by the BU.
Ah, so ministers are appointed (and presumably paid) by the church, not the denomination? That’s different from some denominations where they are paid by the denomination.
(Although sometimes the minister’s salary is paid by denomination but expenses are paid by the church, which creates a crazy perverse incentive situation where ministers are assigned to widely geographically separated churches because the denomination, as it pays the salary, can tell them where to go, and has no reason to minimise travel expenses, because those are paid by the church, thus landing the churches with a massive petrol bill to divvy up… while they’re supposed to be being grateful for being provided with a minister!)
Are there any circumstances in which a church could be expelled from the Union? What would happen to the buildings then? Presumably legal ownership is with this Corporation which I assume is a charity, so the actual legal owners are the trustees of the Corporation, and the building would then become a charitable asset that would have to be disposed of according to charity laws & rules.
“Ah, so ministers are appointed (and presumably paid) by the church, not the denomination?”
Yes to both. The church calls and pays, the union acts as the accrediting body.
“Are there any circumstances in which a church could be expelled from the Union?”
Yes, though I am not aware of it ever having happened. It probably has, but I don’t know off the top of my head any examples. Most churches facing that possibility leave before it gets to that point.
“What would happen to the buildings then? Presumably legal ownership is with this Corporation which I assume is a charity, so the actual legal owners are the trustees of the Corporation, and the building would then become a charitable asset that would have to be disposed of according to charity laws & rules.”
Not always. Many Baptist churches do own their buildings, to do with as they see fit. It was much more common historically, but the increased costs of buildings/relocations means churches wanting to build in the last 30 years or so are much more closely tied to the Union.
Hopefully this lengthy tangent is worthwhile to other readers. But a tangent it remains, so I will add no more.
We should go back to talking about the Bishop of Oxford. 😉
Mat, quite right. Folks, this is not a general discussion board.
Yes, that’s broadly correct S. Baptist ministers are paid by their church. I have not heard of a Baptist Church being expelled from the BU. I know of some ministers who have lost their accreditation due to bad behaviour.
There have also been cases of Baptist congregations deciding they no longer want to be Baptists anymore and become part of say a New Frontiers church or some other outfit. In this case the BU may try to come to some amicable arrangement with the church over the sale of assets if they are held in trust ( a church buy out) or the new church vacates the premises and meets elsewhere.
This leaves the remaining (disgruntled) congregation having to maintain a building with less financial resources. If the BU does sell the building to the new church then the dissenters either remain of leave and go elsewhere.
If the remaining church eventually folds then the BU may sell the property to boost their pension assets or enhance other financial needs like the Baptist Missionary Society or even use it to support other Baptist churches.
We should go back to talking about the Bishop of Oxford
You mean the vicar of Bray…
I hope this has been helpful for others, but can I reassure everybody that I am extremely aware of the Baptist world, the DoP, ministerial recognition rules and other such matters.
“I hope this has been helpful for others, but can I reassure everybody that I am extremely aware of the Baptist world, the DoP, ministerial recognition rules and other such matters.”
Forgive me then for any assumed ignorance on your part.
The largest global Baptist denomination, the Southern Baptist convention is firmly anti gay marriage. The vast majority of evangelical Pentecostal churches are also socially conservative and anti gay marriage too.
However the Church of England as long as it is the established church will ultimately reflect the views of the majority of its Parishioners in England which is pro gay marriage. The Church of England is a Protestant Catholic tradition church with some evangelicals in it. It is not an evangelical Church nor is it the Roman Catholic Church but the state church most accessible to the average English person, even if only for Christmas and Easter and the odd wedding and funeral and remembrance Sunday for many of them who do go infrequently
T1: ‘However the Church of England as long as it is the established church will ultimately reflect the views of the majority of its Parishioners in England which is pro gay marriage.’
The majority of its parishioners think Jesus was a good man, and his death was a moving example, but did not achieve anything particular.
So should the C of E reflect that? If not, why not?
‘Most accessible’? Really? So how come that 3/4 of those who attend church in England *don’t* attend the C of E?
The majority of its parishioners think Jesus was a good man, and his death was a moving example, but did not achieve anything particular.
How many of its clergy agree with them?
It is perfectly compatible to teach what Jesus said and conduct gay marriages, given no teaching of Jesus Christ anywhere in the New Testament condemned homosexual marriage for committed, monogomaus gay couples. The only clear condemnations of homosexuality in the Bible are in the Old Testament, which is primarily the Jewish not Christian Bible and from Paul but I am a Christian ultimately not a Paulian, Christ was my Messiah not Paul.
Of those who attend Churches in England, the plurality attend Church of England Services
no teaching of Jesus Christ anywhere in the New Testament condemned homosexual marriage for committed, monogomaus gay couples
Wrong. Jesus’s teaching was that the reason for marriage was that God created the human race divided into male and female, and marriage brings these two distinct and complementary halves of the divine image back together to one one, complete, flesh. This can’t happen if the two bodies involved are both of the same half. (Matthew 19:4-6).
Jesus’s teaching about marriage therefore does rest on the definition of marriage as being the union of one man and one woman only, not of two men nor of two women nor of any number of persons greater than two.
Nowhere anywhere did Jesus condemn committed homosexual partnerships. Marriage between a woman and a man is the most common and if you want to interpret Jesus’ words as that being the only form of marriage fine but personally I note that homosexual marriage was not condemned anyway by Christ
Nowhere anywhere did Jesus condemn committed homosexual partnerships.
So? The question here is what is the definition of marriage: is it a union between a man and a woman, or is it a union between any two people, regardless of sex.
Jesus explicitly defined it as the former.
Whether He ‘condemn[ed] committed homosexual partnerships’ is irrelevant. He taught that marriage was a union between the two forms of human created by God, male and female, to create one flesh.
That is what Jesus taught. You can’t get away from that. Even Susannah admits that is what Jesus taught (Susannah just says He only taught that because He was trapped within the confines of first-century Jewish culture, which as an argument has its own fatal flaws but which at least admits that Jesus did teach that).
Marriage between a woman and a man is the most common and if you want to interpret Jesus’ words as that being the only form of marriage fine but personally I note that homosexual marriage was not condemned anyway by Christ
Jesus defined the permitted form of marriage. Same-sex unions are not within that definition. So, yes, He did exclude ‘homosexual marriage’ from the definition of marriage. That He didn’t ‘condemn’ it doesn’t matter: the question is, ‘did Jesus teach that the only valid definition of marriage is between a woman and a man?’ and the answer is plainly, ‘yes He did’.
There are two ways you can define something. You can give a negative definition, which says what is not included, and then whatever is not on that list is included in the definition.
Or you can give a positive definition, which says what is included.
For example, prime numbers are defined as any integer other than one, which has no factors other than itself an one. So anything which meets the criteria is a prime number and anything which doesn’t, isn’t. That’s a positive definition.
But transcendental numbers are defined as any real or complex number which is not not the root of a non-zero polynomial of finite degree with rational coefficients. That’s a negative definition.
You seem to have noticed that Jesus does not specifically say that same-sex unions cannot be marriages. but that’s because Jesus doesn’t say anything about what types of unions can’t be marriages, because He doesn’t give a negative definition of marriage: He gives a positive definition of marriage. He defines marriage by setting out what a valid marriage is, not by listing all the things which aren’t a valid marriage.
For example, nowhere does Jesus teach that (or I guess, in your words, ‘condemn’) a four- or five-person union cannot be a marriage. Do you think that means that the Church of England could recognise polygamy, if the society decided polygamy was okay?
Of course it doesn’t: because polygamous unions do not fall within the positive definition of marriage that Jesus sets out in Matthew 19:4-6, which is, a union of one man and one woman.
And neither does a same-sex union.
T1
I find the notion ‘no teaching of Jesus Christ anywhere in the NT condemned homosexual marriage’ quite astonishing. We should remember that Jesus is the Word who speaks in both the OT and the NT. He endorsed the OT and authorised the apostolic teaching of the NT. To narrow authoritative revelation down to the words of the incarnate Christ is incredibly naive. It may be convenient but it is crass.
Moreover, ass more than a few have pointed out Jesus takes the religious leaders back to creation to describe marriage – one man and one woman becoming one flesh for life. The statement even astonished his disciples. They thought it was a hard statement. jesus agreed and said it would only be adhered to by his disciples. The notion of his teaching allowing for homosexual marriage by his failure to condemn it is just silly.
He didn’t condemn incest, wife-beating, polygamy, pedophilia, bestiality and many other immoral acts this does not mean he approved. His silence is hardly a license to indulge, especially if it goes against other clear texts or the grain of Scripture.
The thing is, to fail to see this suggests to me you do not have the indwelling Spirit who conveys the mind of Christ.
And look how the Church of Scotland is flourishing.
One could simply turn your comment on its head…
I could say that if you wish to impose your views on all of us, I object. Go and join the Scottish Episcopal Church.
It’s a position that suits you… that’s its only value. Are you are not prepared to start a fresh organisation and to see who joins you?
No, because I am English not Scottish. The SEC does not exist in England. By contrast if you want to take a hardline anti homosexual marriage line and prevent priests who want to conducting gay marriages even if priests who oppose doing so are not forced to then you can leave to churches that do still want to ban homosexual marriage across the board. If you are evangelical in England you can become Baptist or Pentecostal for example given both churches in those traditions largely take that line or if you are high Anglican you can go to Rome and become Roman Catholic. Ultimately the choice is yours!
By contrast if you want to take a hardline anti homosexual marriage line and prevent priests who want to conducting gay marriages even if priests who oppose doing so are not forced to then you can leave to churches that do still want to ban homosexual marriage across the board.
And no doubt if the Church of England changes its doctrine many people will do just that. But the point is that if you are a member of an organisation and you come to disagree with the organisation on some matter the onus is on you to either leave, or to make a convincing enough case for change.
The status quo is always the default, and those who are content with it have no obligation to leave; the burden of proof or action is always on those advocating change.
And increasingly those who want to allow gay marriages and blessings are in the majority, at least amongst the Church of England clergy. Christ himself never preached against committed homosexual unions.
Those who still want to ban homosexual marriage in their church across the board will inevitably leave to Roman Catholic or evangelical churches like the Pentecostals or Baptist Churches or a GAFCON Anglican tradition Church like the Free Church of England
And increasingly those who want to allow gay marriages and blessings are in the majority, at least amongst the Church of England clergy.
That is a problem yes. But as I understand it the body which sets Church of England doctrine is tri-cameral, so a simple majority of clergy is not, by itself, enough for change.
Christ himself never preached against committed homosexual unions.
Jesus taught that marriage only exists between a man and a woman.
Those who still want to ban homosexual marriage in their church
Again you seem to miss that the ban is already there do no one can want ‘to ban’ anything. The ones who want change are the ones who want to lift the ban, so they are the ones who have a make a convincing case for change, or else leave. The ones who maintain the status quo do not have to leave, until and unless the doctrine changes.
48% of Anglicans also say gay marriage is now right, just 34% wrong. Therefore the Church of England allowing blessings of same sex unions as the Methodist and Lutheran Churches, the Quakers, Unitarians and Church of Scotland and SEP, Church in Wales and US Episcopal Church and Anglicans in Canada and New Zealand already do is inevitable.
https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2020/6-march/news/uk/number-of-anglicans-in-favour-of-same-sex-marriage-rises
Jesus never said homosexuals were excluded from marriage and it was exclusively for opposite sex couples
Jesus never said homosexuals were excluded from marriage and it was exclusively for opposite sex couples
Jesus did say that marriage is exclusively for opposite-sex couples, and we know He said that because (for instance) Matthew recorded His saying it in chapter 19 of his gospel.
Nope….
I joined the CofE in 1961….was converted in 1967, ordained in 1977… I’ve been “Anglican” for 61 years.
Some cuckoo has popped into the nest and says I ought to leave because it believes something radically different. It should be building its own nest but I suggest it lacks the courage….
Your argument above that Jesus approves of gay marriage because He didnt explicitly condemn such relationships is, quite frankly, nonsense. The ONLY reason He refers to marriage and divorce at all is because He was explicitly asked about it because reasons for divorce were being debated at the time. There was no such debate about same-sex sexual relationships because all Jews understood it was wrong in God’s eyes.
And I would remind you that Jesus held a very high view of the ‘Jewish’ Scriptures which you seem to want to dismiss as, well, ‘Jewish’.
I would suggest you read some of the writings by Preston Sprinkle as a starting point.
First class post. Very helpful. Croft and his ilk beggar belief both in their bizarre reasoning and their denial of biblical authority. The argument that we must be like the world to win the world is so much the opposite of what the bible teaches and what experience has shown that I wonder how any right-headed person can moot such a view. Steven is not going to turn the world upside down – he doesn’t want to; he thinks it is already the right way up.
Martyr’s are the result of opposing culture. Little chance of Steven Croft becoming like his namesake.
Ian’s is a discerning, trenchant and scripturally faithful response to the bishop’s sophistical attempt to precipitate the revolution that many have been working towards.
The comments voice a lot of indignation, which I share, but the truth is, it is theologically and intellectually rootless. It is based on the NT to be sure, but neither Christ nor his servant Paul simply give us doctrine, they give us an understanding of reality that is rooted in creation, and thus in God/Christ as Creator. And at that point most of the protesters will part company with the apostle.
The Church’s ‘doctrine on marriage’ is not rootless. It stems from the most primal of all scriptural documents, the book of Genesis, and most Christians do not accept its testimony. ‘The exegetical situation is straightforward: we know what the text says.’ But thanks to the spiritual power of science as an ideology, we are convinced that the truth lies with the wisdom of man rather than the wisdom of God. The world is thus very much with us. The evangelical house itself is divided, and without intellectual foundations and coherency the cause is lost. That is why God cries, “Come out of her, my people!” I say this at the same time as acknowledging the rightness of the prophetic emphasis on the future kingdom and the citation of John 15:18.
We are witnessing the last gasps of a once Christian civilisation that, having rejected the Creator, is now in its rebellion seeking to undermine the created order itself, and indeed does not even want to procreate (birth rates are at an all-time low). Can we even now not see the cosmic significance of this … the undermining of family, the negation of male-female mutuality, the calling into question of the reality of sex itself? Things we accept and honour not only instinctively but because they are what in the beginning God ordained?
Steven Croft is a deceiver. And although many see through him, at a deeper level, they too are deceived.
Science’s anti-Genesis ‘Big Bang’ account of reality is entirely false.
Why do you think the Big Bang is anti-Genesis? The Big Bang says there was a beginning. Genesis says there was a beginning. Various eastern religions say the universe was always there. 4000 years after God told us that the universe had a beginning, man works out the same thing in his own strength.
There being a beginning is an extremely vague and general area of overlap, you’ll agree. Either there is a beginning or there is not, so there are only 2 options in the first place. If there are only 2 options, agreement on which one is right is not a coincidence of any significance – it is like a coin toss. But it is worse than that, because it is not clear that ‘no beginning’ is a coherent option anyway. When you write of Genesis, everything but everything being scrunched into a ball and then having an explosive expansion is NOT what Genesis writes about.
“No beginning” is perfectly clear: it means that if you have a videocamera in a room with a clock in the background then if you play the video backwards the process goes on indefinitely, without end. Whereas if there is a beginning then it doesn’t. No looseness there.
You say, “everything being scrunched into a ball and then having an explosive expansion is NOT what Genesis writes about.” Genesis doesn’t mention the laws of planetary motion either. Genesis is not a science textbook, as has rightly been said; yet it must be consistent with science when science is done correctly.
This matters because to say you must deny the Big Bang to become a bible-committed Christian is an off-putter to conversion to many people. It is also perverse given that there is active agreement between Genesis and science on the biggest thing – that there was a beginning.
Here’s a challenge – tell me exactly which verse(s) in Genesis contradict the Big Bang.
But you have not remotely addressed my main point. Almost every culture and almost every creation story agrees on something so vague and general as ‘there was a beginning’. Mainly because it is hard to see what the alternative is. So it is a case of ‘big deal’, as they say. This is an overlap on one point, and that point a very insignificant one. You however use a datum as weak as that as ammunition.
The video camera could do that in logic, but how could it do it in reality? Infinity is a problematic concept. Anything that works in abstract but could never work in reality does not work.
Genesis does not disagree with a manual for a Ford Escort either.
I have always thought that the ‘everything was scrunched into a full stop’ idea strains belief – as well as not explaining where the everything came from. It explains nothing and does so by a remarkably unlikely-sounding means. However that does not mean it is or is not true – that is to be left to the progress of science. There has been more doubt shed on it recently by scientists.
You have failed, when asked, to cite a verse that contradicts the Big Bang.
The problem with the Steven Robinson’s of this world is that they just cannot accept that a Christian who accepts the truth of the Big Bang theory etc can simultaneously reject same-sex relationships, because it completely negates their basic argument. But there’s quite a few of us around.
Peter
It seems you have not read Genesis 1 in a while. It says that God created the heaven(s) and the earth in six days, the earth on the first day, the sun and the planets on the fourth day. ‘Day’ is defined in the text. ‘Create’ means to bring into existence that which was previously not in existence and generally to bring about that which nature by itself cannot bring about. Creation necessarily happens ‘in the beginning’, as Jesus himself reiterated (e.g. Mark 10:6). By contrast, the Big Bang model says that matter has always existed, that before the Big Bang all the trillions of galaxies of the universe were concentrated in a ‘cosmic egg’ (LeMaitre’s term) smaller than a pea, that this ‘infinitesimally small’ thing spontaneously exploded and over billions of years the heavens formed themselves into galaxies. Astronomers deduce from the asteroids that the sun is a third generation star (4.6 billion years old as against the age of the oldest stars in the Milky Way, which is 13.5 billion years), and that the earth, like the asteroids, formed from the leftovers of the solar nebula. Natural processes, not a Person, formed the Earth. Thus the world brought itself into existence. Over time DNA came into existence by itself and the first microbes, deep-time ancestors of human beings. The world consists solely of matter. You are ‘star stuff’. Animals don’t have a soul or spirit and you don’t have a soul or spirit. In addition, the story does not agree at all well with what we have discovered astronomically over the last 70 years. I suggest you go to the link at the end of my comment and find out more. The James Webb telescope is doing nothing to confirm this super-sophisticated origins myth.
It is this naturalistic view of the world that ultimately lies at the root of the western Church’s faithlessness. Cosmology, geology and evolutionary biology over the last 160 years have abolished God, and instead of remembering that the wisdom of man is folly with God and that the nations are darkened in their understanding, alienated from him because of the ignorance that is in them due to their hardness of heart (I Cor 3:19, Eph 4:18), the Church has assented to it. She has accommodated herself to the thinking of the world, just as, inevitably, she is now also doing in relation to what it means to be male and female and what it means to be holy.
I would be more impressed with your summary of the science if it did not begin with basic errors, where you say that “the Big Bang model says that matter has always existed, that before the Big Bang all the trillions of galaxies of the universe were concentrated in a ‘cosmic egg’”. The phrase “before the Big Bang” is meaningless. According to the scientific account time itself started in the Big Bang. Think that over, and please also read my reply to Christopher above.
By contrast, the Big Bang model says that matter has always existed, that before the Big Bang all the trillions of galaxies of the universe were concentrated in a ‘cosmic egg’ (LeMaitre’s term) smaller than a pea, that this ‘infinitesimally small’ thing spontaneously exploded and over billions of years the heavens formed themselves into galaxies.
No, see, the very phrase ‘before the Big Bang’ there is a misunderstanding. In the Big Bang model there was no ‘before the Big Bang’ because time began at the Big Bang. It’s not like the tiny dense pea of matter was sitting around in — what — and waiting for — something — and then exploded. Rather the ‘pea’ started exploding at the exact same instant it came into existence, which was the exact first moment of time. This was Fred Hoyle’s objection to the Big Bang model, incidentally (and he came up with the name).
Astronomers deduce from the asteroids that the sun is a third generation star (4.6 billion years old as against the age of the oldest stars in the Milky Way, which is 13.5 billion years), and that the earth, like the asteroids, formed from the leftovers of the solar nebula.
A third generation star, yes, the but third generation was the first generation which could possibly have supported life (the first two generations being needed to produce the heavier elements to make up the planets). Is that significant? I don’t know, but it feels so, that there haven’t been loads and loads of goes-around until life just ‘happened’ to appear by chance on one. Life appeared as soon as if was possible, almost as if that were the goal.
Natural processes, not a Person, formed the Earth.
False binary. ‘Natural process’ is a how and ‘a Person’ as a who, so there’s no reason they couldn’t both be true and that ‘a Person’ formed the Earth using ‘natural processes’ (that the Person had created).
Thus the world brought itself into existence.
The Big Bang theory definitely does not say that. Indeed there is much speculation among physicists who accept the Big Bang model about what (quantum fluctuations in some kind of probability?) caused the Big Bang, because it certainly wasn’t — according to the theory — self-causing.
Over time DNA came into existence by itself and the first microbes, deep-time ancestors of human beings.
Yep, that bit’s correct.
The world consists solely of matter.
The material world consists solely of matter, but that s true, it’s just a tautology. The Big Bang theory only concerns itself with the material part of the world. It neither claims that the material part of the world is the only part of the world, nor that it isn’t. Anything non-material is simply outside its scope.
People who claim that the world consists solely of matter aren’t Big Bang physicists, they are people like Daniel Dennett who study (or, in Dennett’s case, studiously ignore) consciousness.
Animals don’t have a soul or spirit and you don’t have a soul or spirit.
Again, this is isn’t a claim or even an implication of the Big Bang theory, this is a claim of people like Dennett. The Big Bang theory is perfectly compatible with you or me or animals having souls or spirits (and even with nutty quantum panpsychist woowoo whereby not just you and me and animals but even trees and rocks have souls).
In addition, the story does not agree at all well with what we have discovered astronomically over the last 70 years.
Now, that’s a decent point. Hoyle, after apparently quietly admitting defeat after the discovery of cosmic background radiation, apparently came to think himself later perhaps partially vindicated in the light of ongoing observations. Never quite certain enough to make big statement about it though.
It is this naturalistic view of the world that ultimately lies at the root of the western Church’s faithlessness.
Does it though? Or does not rather the centring of an identity-focused conception of human nature lie at the root, and the adoption of the naturalistic view of the world — certainly not something required by the Big Bang model — is a consequence of the adoption of this human-centric view, with its requirement that God be written out of the picture in order to make us masters of our own destiny, rather than its cause?
Cosmology, geology and evolutionary biology over the last 160 years have abolished God,
None of those have abolished God. All are perfectly compatible with God.
What as abolished God is the desire to see human beings as fundamentally in control of their own destiny, and the fulfilment of human desires as the chief end of life. That is the only change over the last few centuries that requires the abolishing of God (because if God exists the morality exists and human desires are not supreme); not anything to do with cosmology, geology or biology.
Cosmology, geology and biology have been interpreted in such a way as to lend support to the abolishing of God, but that’s not the only way to interpret them, and the motivation to put that interpretation on them has come from the push to abolish morality and all forms of constraint on desire (which requires the abolishing of God).
and instead of remembering that the wisdom of man is folly with God and that the nations are darkened in their understanding, alienated from him because of the ignorance that is in them due to their hardness of heart (I Cor 3:19, Eph 4:18), the Church has assented to it. She has accommodated herself to the thinking of the world, just as, inevitably, she is now also doing in relation to what it means to be male and female and what it means to be holy.
Now you’re bang on here. The churches have indeed assented to the centring of human nature and the progressive removal of all constraints on desire as the driving force behind the modern world, and the current tussle over what it means to be male and female (and not just with regards to marriage) is indeed part of that fight.
But you need to correctly identify the source of the ideas with which we are at war, and they don’t come from astrophysics: they come from the view that humans are the centre of the universe (and indeed, that each human is the centre of their own universe, with ‘their truth’, and their fulfilment of their own self-created ‘identity’ being that little universe’s chief end and purpose).
Comments of this length and density, on issues other than the article, breach my Comments guidelines. Please desist.
Comments of this length and density, on issues other than the article
The whole discussion that sprang from ‘Science’s anti-Genesis ‘Big Bang’ account of reality is entirely false’ is on an issue other than the article, which I don’t remember mentioning the Big Bang even once.
So either massive, spurious claims like that, tagged on apropos of absolutely nothing to the end of comments which do deal with the article, themselves breach the guidelines; or they have to be rebutted lest they appear validated by being left to stand unchallenged.
S, this is not a ‘General Christian issues discussion board’. If you want that, set one up.
I have asked repeatedly for better observance of guidelines. I don’t have time to patrol. The simpler thing would be to ask you all to desist from commenting for a few weeks.
this is not a ‘General Christian issues discussion board’.
Sure. And I agree that this sub-discussion is off the topic and it absolutely ought not to be happening, and you are absolutely correct to try to stamp it out (and even if you weren’t correct this is your web page so you would be entirely within your rights to do whatever you want, up to and including deleting anything you like or banning anyone you like).
And I try not to get involved in meta-discussion and especially ones like this because it makes me seem petty, but all that annoyed me was being singled out for criticism when it seems that the actual fault was tagging on the claim about ‘Science’s anti-Genesis ‘Big Bang’ account of reality’ to the end of a totally unrelated comment, and that once that happened a discussion on the topic was inevitable; that I wasn’t even one of the ones who responded to that off-topic non sequitur, but only responded to the response; and that my response to the response was detailed, cogent, entirely focused on and relevant to rebutting, point by point, the response to the response, engaging entirely with the ideas and not the person; and yet of all the comments in the off-topic discussion apparently my single contribution was the only one that merited being flagged as in breach of the guidelines.
Yes, I know I sound petty. And I have, as above, no recourse because as the owner your decisions are final. But I was annoyed.
As Christopher got in just ahead of me, I had better clarify that my comment was a reply to Anton.
Steven
I do agree Christ’s (and Paul’s) ethics on marriage and a number of other things are rooted in creation. Undoubtedly a theistic evolutionist position does not sit comfortably with this. In fact, if right, we may expect the Bible to argue that the survival of the fittest is a fundamental ethic.
Ian, I despaired when I read Steven Croft’s booklet. It sounded like all of the same material and arguments that have ripped apart both the Anglican Church of Canada and the Episcopal Church over the past 20 years.
One thing orthodox people in those two churches have learned is that “accommodations” are only temporary. The institutions of the churches will not put up with strong orthodox views being expressed and given even equal voice. The revisionist views will push and push until those views become the sole accepted view. And what happens then? You see an English version of the Anglican Church in North America basically being forced into existence as there will no room left. It is as if the Borg have arrived and stated “Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated. ”
As a person who has gone through these trials and exercises over the past 16 years personally, I do sympathize with the orthodox in the Church of England and I will continue to pray that “manfully you will fight under Christ’s banner against sin, the world and the devil and continue Christ’s faithful soldier and servant unto your life’s end”.
Personally I have no problem with an English version of the Anglican Church in North America, the Free Church of England Calvin Robinson belongs to is in that mode for those who cannot accept homosexual marriage. However allowing priests to conduct homosexual marriages or blessings in the main Church of England is inevitable
Questions. Questions.
1 Idolatry: what is being worshipped here?
2 Is the CoE of itself an idol? If it is it will fall.
3 is there any sense of procrastination, prevarication in the New Testament.
4 Who are the useful idiots in it all?
5 Where is the discipline for the mockers of due process? Have ranks really been broken? or is silent and unopposed acquiescence an indicator of silent support of a figurehead?
6 Who amongst the Archbishop’s, Bishop’s is against change in settled church doctrine. Dare they speak out. Fear and self interest is a terrible combination..
6 Is this all of a piece with Lambeth? Part of the Lambeth play book.
7 The Church of Scotland is an example of the result of evangelicals thinking they can change the system from within and stop the rot, is it not?
Many buildings now are not so much whitewashed tombs, but greystone tombs. Even while the claim that those to leave correctly are those seeking to change. Net result: all leave, the stayers don’t stay, last long. And the Gospel life is where? Amongst the faithful.
8 Is the CoE worth saving from itelf.? Only Christ knows? Just Who is its Saviour? Who, is it for?
What is its purpose? Is it fit for purpose?. In its up to the minute state – no. Grievously, lamentably, so.
The whole thing is like a C S Lewis novel, like That Hideous Strength.
The machinations and their deeper consequences are clear enough to the reader (as they are now to us) otherwise the novel would not be effective.
Let me repeat the only question that matters to biblical Christians within the Church of England: As well as praying, what actions can we take between now and February?
I was a member of a Student Christian Union over 40 years ago. we voted to disestablish ourselves from the Student Union. Immediately 150+ members had to find another venue. We did quite easily and started to meet in a church instead. I guess it’s going to happen with the CxE. Grand old churches will still have undercover secret Christians covertly trying to administer truth to individual tourists by dropping in the truth during a guided tour.
Psst, don’t tell anyone but I went to a cathedral service recently. The preacher held up a copy of a book by Tom Wright and recommended it. I won’t say where or when as I don’t want to get anyone into trouble.
More important. Steve. Where *is* Tom Wright in this?
You know, I do not know. Has he issued any statement on SSMs etc?
He has written/ spoken about gnosticism, but in this matter of CoE doctrine, others may know.
“It is, of course open to anyone to say, on the basis of my argument so far, that they regard the distinction between homosexual and heterosexual behaviour as one of those cultural distinctives which are irrelevant in the gospel; that homosexual behaviour simply is part of some cultures today, and that the church must respect, honour and bless it. You will not be surprised to know that I do not share this view. I am not an expert on current debates, and defer to two splendid books: Richard Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament, and Robert Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics. But I may perhaps, as a long-time specialist on the letter to the Romans, put in my small contribution.
Paul’s denunciation of homosexual practice in Romans 1 is well known but not so well understood, particularly in relation to its place in the argument as a whole. It is too often dismissed as simply firing some Jewish-style thunderbolts against typical pagan targets; and it is regularly thought to be dealing only with the deliberate choice of heterosexual individuals to abandon normal usage and indulge in alternative passions. It is often said that Paul is describing something quite different from the phenomenon we know today, e.g. in large western cities.
This is misleading. First, Paul is not primarily talking about individuals at this point, but about the entire human race. He is expounding Genesis 1-3, and looking at the human race as whole, so here he is categorizing the large sweep of human history as a whole – not, of course, that any individuals escape this judgement, as 3.19f makes clear. Second, the point of his highlighting of female and male turning away from natural usage to unnatural grows directly out of the text which is his subtext, here and often elsewhere: for in Genesis 1 it is of course male plus female that is created to bear God’s image. The male-plus-female factor is not of course specific to humanity; the principle of ‘male plus female’ runs through a great deal of creation. But humans were created to bear God’s image, and given a task, to be fruitful and multiply, to tend the garden and name the animals. The point of Romans 1 as a whole is that when humans refuse to worship or honour God, the God in whose image they are made, their humanness goes into self-destruct mode; and Paul clearly sees homosexual behaviour as ultimately a form of human deconstruction. He is not saying that everyone who discovers homosexual instincts has chosen to commit idolatry and has chosen homosexual behaviour as a part of that; rather, he is saying that in a world where men and women have refused to honour God this is the kind of thing you will find.”
N.T.Wright, speaking at the “Future of Anglicanism” conference, circa 2002. The bold is my own emphasis.
It is possible his view has change since the beginning of the SC and LLF, but goven his suspcious silence in the years since I suggest it probably hasn’t.
Also, apologies for the long quote. The full transcript of which is here: https://ntwrightpage.com/2016/07/12/communion-and-koinonia-pauline-reflections-on-tolerance-and-boundaries/
A splendid piece of clear thinking.
Mat, thank you. As Christopher says, a splendid piece, and reinforcing the point that, biblically, the moral order is founded in the created order, as defined at the beginning of God’s revelation of himself. Morality does not subsist in a vacuum. The world of human souls and bodies is part of the natural world, and you get your concept of morality from your understanding of how that world originated. Bishops and many others feel at liberty to free themselves from the moral order as scripturally defined because the Church as a whole and the world as a whole has already dissociated itself from the created order, and to that extent they are not being inconsistent. Anton and ‘S’, conservatives in their morality but liberals in their cosmology, illustrate the confusion. Tom Wright, I suspect, also adheres to the neo-pagan origins myth propagated by Brian Cox et al. but he is at least clear about what Scripture says. To quote Luke Timothy Johnson again, ‘The exegetical situation is straightforward: we know what the text says.’ The Bible itself is not confused and not inconsistent.
Anton and ‘S’, conservatives in their morality but liberals in their cosmology, illustrate the confusion
I would dispute the characterisation of ‘liberal in cosmology’, but sadly responding in any more detail on this matter will earn me a rebuke from the owner so I guess you can call me whatever you like.
I too dispute that I am a liberal in my physical cosmology. I believe the biblical account in Genesis as material fact, not myth. I have argued why, too: science and Genesis accord that there was a beginning.
I might also add that I unsure whether I am a ‘conservative’ in my morality, unless the adjective is meant as a synonym for ‘biblical’ in which case Yessir!
I might also add that I unsure whether I am a ‘conservative’ in my morality, unless the adjective is meant as a synonym for ‘biblical’ in which case Yessir!
I am definitely a conservative in matters of morality in that I think we should stick with what we have unless a very convincing case is made for change.
Same attitude as I have to cosmology. And everything else: the burden of proof is on those proposing any change, and the bar is high.
A conservative is someone who understands why Mr Chesterton doesn’t go around dismantling fences.
Good question.
Matt’s quote was from 2002. I doubt Wright has moved much, but given Croft’s movements one can never quite tell. I do recall NT Wright calling the trans ideology “Gnosticism” within the last 5 years.
He did a podcast in 2019 that touched on sexual ethics that I’ve not listened to: https://askntwrightanything.podbean.com/e/13-christian-sexual-ethics-homosexuality-and-transgender/
Looks like the Bishop of Reading has now broken faith with the LLF process like Croft has. Maybe all this was his intention all along. BBC news/Berkshire.
Chris this is poor reporting. She has stated her own convictions – as folk on all sides are free to do. But she then said, “but I’m aware this is a decision the whole church has to come to and own together.” She has not ‘broken faith with the process’ – she has affirmed her allegiance to it.
She has not ‘broken faith with the process’ – she has affirmed her allegiance to it.
But you must admit that she is clearly trying to set expectations about which way the bishops’ discussion will end up.
And that this may then feed back into those discussions because some bishops may feel pressured not to disappoint those expectations, out of fear of the inevitable media backlash if they are disappointed.
Whether she intends to influence the decision by means of this feedback mechanism is something about which we can only speculate, but you can’t deny that the feedback mechanism is real.
Timing and influence is important, in forming an assessment.
I am assuming here that the Bishop of Reading agrees with Steven Croft’ s views that church is to serve the culture. This is the central issue. If this is the collective view of the HoB when it comes to GS then it is over for the CoE.
Now you distort what the Bishop of Oxford said. Have you his booklet?
‘read’ – sorry.
I have distorted nothing David.
Chapter 3 ” Our culture’s moral view of the Church’s present policy. ‘ Culture sees same-sex attraction as a given and therefore any limitation of sexual expression is unjust’. Croft is careful to state here that he does not believe that *any* limitation of sexual expression is unjust (just homosexuality). However, he further states that
” we now have a profound dislocation between the Church of England – the established church , and to serve the whole of our society we are called to serve… We are seeming to inhabit a different moral universe”
So two things here: Croft believes that the CofE is out of kilter with modern sexual mores and inhabits an out of date moral universe with respect to homosexuality and ought to cater for it.
He also states the (the Cof E) is to serve its society. From his first assertion one infers that the ‘society’ sets the moral framework in which the church operates and in the second, we are to serve it.
Now I don’t know how you make the finer distinctions between ‘society’ and ‘culture’ but while the early church ministered to its contemporary society it certainly didn’t serve it or was dictated by it. As well as ministering to those in need, It called people to repentance warning of the judgement to come.
If Croft had stated that we are called to minister to our society then I may well have distorted what he said but I don’t find him saying that.
One wonders that in say, 50 years time and say polyamory becomes an accepted form of sexual morality in society’s moral universe then Bishops in the Cof E would find a way to serve that -if indeed it still exists by then.
The only thing I can find in Croft’s writings which points to an exit strategy for the Cof E on this issue s his apparent support for a separate province which I think would be strongly resisted by his fellow Bishops. He does not seem to make it clear in his missive how this would work which is why I asked earlier on if someone could explain this scheme.
Thank you for clarifying and I gladly you acknowledge that you have read his booklet. But I think you report him selectively and therefore distort his views.
Yes, he points out the significant split between our culture’s moral views and traditional Christian teaching (p19). That is surely a fact. But it doesn’t not follow from that that he thinks secular culture should drive Christian belief. Nor does he say that.
That brief section is one of four that he uses to set the scene.
Significantly the major section that follows – Part 3 – is entitled ‘Would these changes be consistent with scripture?’ So he is not simply going with cultural norms. He is testing the questions/issues against scripture. He is an evangelical. Scripture is central to him – as for you and me. But you make no reference to this extended section at all. So it significantly distorts his position to only quote from his short section on cultural morals without engaging with his more extended discussion of bible and theology in Part 3.
Even in the extract article in the Church Times, there are these 3 fallacies I noticed, at least:
(a) ‘alienation between church and society’ – but one may doubt that the values of the church and those of the society have never been the same or even 60% the same.
(b) Our culture views being homosexual like being lefthanded. How irrelevant is that? The question is whether it is accurate to do so. Otherwise we have here cultural fundamentalism – the culture is always right. It is?
(c) ‘Even to raise the question feels proper in our present context’ – in other words we should always be influenced not only by the culture but even in the direction of the culture.
For those of us who have repeatedly been saying that liberalism is cultural conformity, this just further proof of what we have been saying. But one would expect an authority figure not to fall into logical fallacies so easily.
The Church of England is there to serve and connect with all its Parishioners, all of them and no matter how religious, as it is the established Church in England. That does not apply to evangelical Presbyterian or Baptist churches or the Roman Catholic Church since the Reformation as they are not the established church in England but
there only to serve their congregations
The Church of England is there to serve and connect with all its Parishioners
No, it’s there to proclaim the good news of Jesus’s death and resurrection, and call people to repent, that they might be saved from everlasting death.
No that is not the only role of the Church of England. Its role is also to provide the village fete, weddings and funerals and baptisms to all Parishioners who want one, charity for those who fall on hard times, preservation of historic churches and cathedrals, a focal point for Remembrance Sunday and royal occasions as befits the fact the Monarch is its Supreme Governor etc. That is why it is the established church
Its role is also to provide the village fete, weddings and funerals and baptisms to all Parishioners who want one, charity for those who fall on hard times, preservation of historic churches and cathedrals, a focal point for Remembrance Sunday and royal occasions as befits the fact the Monarch is its Supreme Governor etc.
Ah. You are of the Sir Humphrey ‘God is an optional extra’ school of opinion about the Church of England. I see.
https://youtu.be/qUSTKisEgTo
That’s just not so. You’ve reduced part of Church of God to mere back rubbing.
The (ASB service as its to hand) Ordination Service for ministers contains the responsibility to “to proclaim the word of the Lord, to call his hearers to repentance…”
Of a Bishop “to make disciples of all nations…”
We serve people by first serving and being obedient to God… It involves confronting sin (in all of us) not accompanying it to judgement.
T1 – does this include Hindus? Because one of the Prime Minister’s jobs is to appoint the Archbishop of Canterbury, so we can expect the next ABC to be a Hindu. What is the Hindu position on SSM?
Yes that includes Hindus. Sunak went to Winchester, a college founded by a Christian bishop after all. All Parishioners regardless of religious views are served by the village or town or suburban church or city Cathedral as the Church of England is the Established Church. There is nothing to stop a Hindu marrying an Anglican in their local Church of England Parish Church for example. The PM only appoints the Archbishop of Canterbury from candidates provided to him by the Church of England so that is not an issue.
Some ancient Hindu texts see homosexuality as a biological condition and they take a less hardline line against it on the whole than say Muslims, Jews, Roman Catholics or evangelical Christians. Even if they are not in favour of it as such either
On Will Jones’s ‘Faith and Politics’ website there is still a comment I made in 2020 regarding Will’s question: ‘Should evangelicals engage with Living in Love and Faith?’ In summary I said “no” because it was ” an enticement to come and fight on the enemy’s ground by the enemy’s rules.”
But I went on to say that evangelicals, while not engaging at all with LLF, should produce and widely circulate their own material (much more concise and straightforward) setting out “once and for all, the theology and practical application of marriage, sex, sexuality, and respect for the boundaries which God has set so that people can flourish.” My vision was of very well produced material; faithful theologically; clear and unambiguous; written in a memorable style (no endless waffle); and above all presenting a fair account of scriptural teaching on the issue.
In Steven Croft’s precipitate and ill disciplined intervention (along with that of other bishops who are joining in) we have clear evidence of the true nature of those who’s entryism has always been a key component of what has driven the revisionist cause. Lest anyone object to the word entryism, it has already been pointed out in comments above that those who have been ordained into the C of E made solemn promises to defend and teach the church’s doctrine – no ifs or buts. Either today’s revisionists meant it sincerely at the time and have since changed their minds (in which case the honourable thing to do was to resign and conduct their campaign from the position of a layperson), or they secretly disagreed with the church’s doctrine but made the promise – an undeniable case of entryism, and seriously dishonourable action within a Christian church.
Had everyone acted honourably over the last couple of decades we could not possibly now be in a position where it’s assumed that the bishops will be recommending (on the basis of no serious theological investigation) a radical shift in what Christians have always taken for granted in terms of sexual ethics. Constructive appointment strategies and insincere promises have been a central feature of a determined and self replicating inner group within our church. Those who lament what is going on need to recognise how it’s been done and to accept the reality of where we are. LLF has done its job, created momentum and fired up expectations.
Alongside prayer, those who are prepared to fight to the end for our church’s soul must now appeal directly to General Synod members – of all three houses. We can be sure minds are still open to being convinced either way! There may just about still be time to produce and circulate that kind of material which I mentioned earlier. My practical advice would be to spend what little time and energy is left in calling people to look into the mind of our sovereign Lord and Creator through the words of scripture, because they’ll never find it in the proclivities and demands of those who peddle their disordered ideology through the surrounding culture. Do your best; the rest is in God’s hand; despite our fumblings he can work miracles!
I agree that there should have been no engagement with LLF, but assessment and/or refutation of given points would always be appropriate.
They were trying to reinvent the wheel, and then ignored so much of the best, and most detailed, of what had previously been written. You don’t replace detail by sketchiness.
Matthew 12:25
Discuss
It is important to note that those asking for revision are themselves quite sharply divided. There is the laissez-faire liberalism going back to Rousseau. There is the categorical liberalism going back to Locke.
The first grouping believes everyone ought t be able to co-exist. The second does not. If a thing is right/wrong, then that is so all the way down.
It is important to keep this in mind. These two groupings both want revision. They both view the received teaching as inadequate/provisional/one thing among others, or wrong/hurtful/to be effaced. They tend to see themselves as the CofE — either on the basis of a metric to which appeal is made (though if honest they acknowledge it is hard to verify), or because the CofE must/ought to be X because of the wrong/hurt, etc. They take the position therefore that it is others who will need to find different arrangements, either the both/and of Rousseau or the either/or of the other camp.
This means that the Rousseau position will of necessity be under attack, at present, and invariably over time. And so we observe that in the “Kate and Susannah exchanges” and similar declensions. Sympathetic appeals to the first model are, one might hope, efforts at a definition of getting along not unlike having various options are the supermarket. No one need miss out. And so they are winsome in their own way.
The problem is that they arise and exist only in that self-generated ambit. Their durability is at the level of a wish (‘why can’t this not work out’) instead of something genuinely durable and concretely true. So to agree to the conditions of this is to move outside of any genuine, scripturally grounded, ecclesiology — on the one side — and to make the church constantly ‘hostage to fortune’ — since, minimally, Liberalism # 2 does not want it and will not let it allow its ‘hurtfulness’, and it is unacceptable to those who believe the received scriptural and catholic deposit is what gives the church its very identity, in Christ.
It might not be clear what forms of separation will emerge, but what is clear, one should hope, is that these two forms of liberalism are incompatible, from the ground up.
I say this only in an effort to understand what the call for revision genuinely looks like. I cast no aspersions. Those who want revision have had lots of time to make their views known, and they have done that. They are to be thanked for the clarity achieved over time.
I’m not sure where to put this comment in all of the above, so here it is at the top level…
One of Ian’s comments is a critique of +Steven’s ‘test of love’. I think that is on the button, and is one of the crucial issues here. Everyone is keen to talk of ‘love’. The crucial thing is what is meant by this overused word. Tom Wright wrote somewhere that “love is a word which needs to delegate”. I have not read the LLF material, but I suspect that it did not contain any discussion about the different kinds of love that there are.
I hope all here are familiar with CS Lewis’ “The Four Loves” which explores the different kinds of love. Our modern world is enthralled with Romantic or Erotic Love. But this is not the love spoken of when Jesus said “love one another, as I have loved you. By this shall all men know that you are my disciples.” It is not the neighbour love which is required of us.
Kierkegaard wrote a piece on this very area in his “Works of Love” (e.g. here: http://www.faculty.umb.edu/lawrence_blum/courses/306_09/readings/kierkegaard_works.pdf). Erotic love is inferior to neighbour love because it is a love for the loveable. The problem we face is that if love is taken to mean romantic love, that means that to say “I love you” means that “I affirm your loveliness.” In contrast, God shows his love for us, and the world, in our unloveliness. It is a love intended to change us to be lovely – by conforming us to His Son.
Another aspect of this worship of romantic love is that our society has devalued committed relationships with (wider) families, and devalued deep friendships. As a result, the only deep relationship offered to someone by our societal values is to find a sexual partner. Support for SSM flows from this poverty.
The job of the Church (of Jesus Christ) in England is to demonstrate and so offer deep relationships to all that are not sexual. After all, following the discussion on Luke 20:27ff, such relationships are a foretaste of the age to come.
Yes indeed. Romantic-Love, Charity-Love, and sexual practices are three different things.
This debate might continue with the cliche ‘Love the sinner, but hate the sin.’ If a pedophile joins your church, you must show them charity-love, while strongly discouraging the pedophilia. The Love Jesus is mostly on about is charity-love. What would Jesus say about romantic-love ? Probably first that the power of romantic-love is a good picture of the mystic intensity with which we should love God and the Gospel, but second that romantic-love is very dangerous in that it can come between us and God, just as wealth can come between us and God if we don’t treat it right. The power of romantic-love blinds people to the need to be honest about right relationships before God, and this is the mistake being made by many same sex couples when they defend themselves as being simply ‘in love’ with each other.
Marriage is defined by God and it is not for us to try to change it or to over-analyse it, but it is surely a God-legal means to formalize a relationship which may have roots in romantic-love but which under God must become a permanent relationship of charity-love between the two people and in which sexual activity is acceptable (and therefore must be heterosexual), largely in the context of pro-creation, leading to a mutual charity-love grouping called a family.
So being honest, what sexual practices are acceptable to God, Jesus, and by implication our church ? Almost none ! A heterosexual married couple who indulge in even mildly Sado-Masochistic sex are just as sinful as any homosexual practices. When one of the commentors said we should not be ‘bedroom policemen’, I’d obviously agree in one sense, but in another sense, quite a lot of stuff which all types of people might get up to is not acceptable. We can be slightly tricked here in that married heterosexuals think their position legitimizes any bedroom activities, but much is not acceptable, just as scripture denounces homosexual practices.
So coming back to the CoE debate. I would like to be able to have a liturgy which celebrates and blesses the charity-love between two people in a same-sex relationship, but must be careful to go no further, either in blessing their romantic-love, or by implication condoning their sexual activity.
Serious question: what is immoral about consensual S/M sex between a couple in a mixed-sex marriage?
Its not what our bodies are for. It is making an idolatry of sexual relationship and it puts sexual impetus to waste. Surely it is obvious that, while all sex cannot be purely for procreation, the variety of activity has to be modestly circumscribed, and certainly not an obsession.
Are sadism and Masochism moral acts? Does either fit in with the care for others and preserving the dignity of the body that belongs to Christianity? Can we imagine any of the apostles approving such practises.
For me, although I think a biblical case could be easily constructed developing the lines suggested above, for me a question like that Penelope depresses me. I don’t think anyone indwelt by the Spirit would even need to ask that question. The Spirit of holiness would be crying out to the conscience. A regenerate heart would feel how inappropriate sadomasochism is.
Yet, I know my own heart. Sin is deceitful. May God open our eyes and hearts and fill them with the holy love of God.
Are sadism and Masochism moral acts? Does either fit in with the care for others and preserving the dignity of the body that belongs to Christianity? Can we imagine any of the apostles approving such practises.
For me, although I think a biblical case could be easily constructed developing the lines suggested above, for me a question like that Penelope depresses me. I don’t think anyone indwelt by the Spirit would even need to ask that question. The Spirit of holiness would be crying out to the conscience. A regenerate heart would feel how inappropriate sadomasochism is.
Yet, I know my own heart. Sin is deceitful. May God open our eyes and hearts and fill them with the holy love of God.
Penelope’s question is the perfect example of the degradation that that road leads to; no talk of the stars, only of the gutter.
Jonathan, John and Christopher
Supplementary: why is consensual S/M an ‘obsession’, but other sexual intimacies which aren’t purely for procreation aren’t?
I mean this very seriously. I am not defending S/M. nor nay sexual intimaccy, just wondering why it is beyond the pale. Is role play? Is oral sex?
I don’t really understand why S/M acts can’t show care for the other and dignity of the body. Isn’t that what consent and ‘safe words’ are all about? I have no idea about the disciples – I don’t often speculate about their sex lives, but I bet their spouses grumbled about the long absences.
As for the stars and the gutter, that rather depends on why you think S/M is ‘degredation’. Clearly, some couples don’t and are talking of the stars.
Serious question: what is immoral about consensual S/M sex between a couple in a mixed-sex marriage?
Raging again against any constraint on desire, Penelope?
I spotted this article which has got Penelope taped, if anyone wants to understand:
https://reactionaryfeminist.substack.com/p/this-never-happens-again
S
That statement is defamatory. Please withdraw it immediately.
Please withdraw it immediately.
No.
Then it is fortunate, for you, that you remain anonymous and that your email is fake. Otherwise, you would be hearing from my solicitor on Monday.
Otherwise, you would be hearing from my solicitor on Monday.
You would have no case.
(So you should probably be glad you don’t know who I am as it’s saved you wasting a lawyer’s fee, and who has spare cash for that, with the price of petrol what it is?)
Is murder by consent moral?
German sausage
And S/M is akin to murder how?
And S/M is akin to murder how?
Both are about causing bodily harm.
Do you think that consensual cannibalism for sexual gratification, as in the Rotenburg case, is wrong? If so why, and why wouldn’t the same apply to other sadomasochism?
Setting aside the issue of sado-masochism, let me ask another question, arising from the frequent condemnations I hear against gay men because they perform anal sex. ‘S’ complained that if ‘they’ [no gender, by request] had to run a church weekend, they would be put in an impossible position if a gay couple attended, because there would be an assumption that the couple might be carrying out gay sex in the bedroom.
However, plenty of heterosexual couples include anal sex as one way of expressing sexual closeness and intimacy. On that basis ‘S@ would have to ban heterosexual couples from the weekend as well, if anal sex is a problem and sinful, because unless webcams were set up, ‘S’ cannot police the heterosexual couples either, and they might be carrying out that practice.
I don’t have any personal experience in this practice, but if anal sex is acceptable, then why is it used as a reason for condemning gay men? And if it is unacceptable, then any heterosexual couple might be at it as well. It can’t be right for one, and wrong for another.
Personally, I don’t thing it’s wrong. I just think it’s a matter of choice, and I’d say the same about caring and tender Sado-masochism. The key issue as far as I’m concerned is: is it done with consent, and with love towards the other person? I enjoy a very conventional and loving, standard lesbian relationship that involves neither of these practices.
But of course, that’s condemned as well.
I’m just making the point that heterosexual sex can be varied as well. It’s not all just ‘missionary’ position.
Gay people are not perverts. Heterosexual people also like to ‘spice up’ their sex lives sometimes.
And don’t get me started on ‘self-pleasure’ which based on Jesus’s terms would constitute lust and adultery if any of you heterosexual guys have ever fantasised about a woman in a film or magazine or photograph online. I’m willing to bet that plenty of you have. In some cases it may even be habitual. People in glass houses etc.
Truth is: we are sexual creatures. We are made that way. That doesn’t make everything alright. And it doesn’t make us all the same. But sexuality is something most of us are well aware of in ourselves. Anal sex? Not for me thanks. But for someone else, with a loving partner? Do I really care, and is it any of my business.
Is anal sex between consensual heterosexual partners immoral? Or to return to Penelope’s serious question, S/M sex. Do you even understand it? Again, it’s not for me, because too close to my history of self-harm before I transitioned, so it could trigger. But you could say it involves trust, intelligence, and givenness of a submissive to their dominant, and givenness of a dominant to their submissive, in intimacy, care, and devotion.
Questions like Penelope’s should be treated with respect.
‘S’ complained that if ‘they’ [no gender, by request] had to run a church weekend, they would be put in an impossible position if a gay couple attended, because there would be an assumption that the couple might be carrying out gay sex in the bedroom.
That is not at all what I wrote. I pointed out that someone who holds to the traditional sexual ethic would find it inappropriate from any unmarried couple to share a room, whether they were of the same sex or both sexes.
Nothing to do with ‘carrying out gay sex’. The issue wouldn’t be ‘gay sex’. It would be sex of any kind, outside the context of a valid marriage.
Of course not all sex is okay within the context of a marriage; but all sex outside the context of a marriage is wrong.
There is no distinction here between ‘gay sex’ or any other kind of sex. If it’s not within a valid marriage, it’s wrong.
You are correct ‘S’. What you were saying was that the only qualification for the double bedroom is marriage according to the Church of England’s rules, or you might prefer to say God’s rules, so then for the time being only married heterosexual couples would get through passport control in a Church of England weekend away, supervised by you.
Precision matters, and I got that one wrong.
But how would you know whether the heterosexual couples were only doing the kinds of sex you approved of? And what if the gay couple said, well we know you don’t approve of gay sex, so we’ll just stay in the room, but we won’t have sex?
How does any kind of policing work, when none of us know what people get up to in the privacy of bedrooms? Can your hetero guests have anal sex if they wish to, or oral, or are hetero couples just trusted and gay couples not? Couples who’ve been previously divorced?
I hope we will see the Church of England accommodating the view that gay sex is sin, and also the view that gay sex in marriage, and then I think you will need to abdicate and hand in your police officer’s badge. Or you just hold your own view of how you yourself will conduct your sexual life (if any), and wave couples through… because really and truly, that will be up to them.
“and also the view that gay sex in marriage”
didn’t end the phrase
“and also the view that gay sex in marriage is affirmed”
But how would you know whether the heterosexual couples were only doing the kinds of sex you approved of?
Because the couples in the room next door would hear the whips and the screams, of course.
And what if the gay couple said, well we know you don’t approve of gay sex, so we’ll just stay in the room, but we won’t have sex?
If they’re not going to have sex then they won’t mind staying in ghe dormitories with the other singles, will they? So they can do that and everyone’s happy.
I hope we will see the Church of England accommodating the view that gay sex is sin, and also the view that gay sex in marriage, and then I think you will need to abdicate and hand in your police officer’s badge.
So then only one view (ie, yours) will be accommodated, won’t it? Which is the whole point: it is simply impossible to accommodate both points of view.
Susannah
‘Caring and tender sado-masochism’. Is this not a contradiction?
‘Gay people are not perverts’. Agreed. But gay sex is a perversion according to Scripture.
All of us are sexual sinners. It is one reason why we must hold each other to account. Left to ourselves we will always gravitate to what debases.
There is sin which is against our own bodies. 1 cor 6. The body is for the lord. It is the temple of the Holy Spirit therefore we should glorify God with our bodies. We will have our bodies forever, changed to be sure, but with continuity. Body and Spirit are indivisibly linked which is why Paul can say how can you be one body with a prostitute and one spirit with the Lord. The body is for the Lord. I am not at all clear on what basis if any Penelope would condemn copulating with a prostitute.
NT Christianity does not function like OT law. It does not give case laws to cover eventualities. Instead the principles of creation, the OT and NT Scriptures interpreted and urged by the Spirit upon our conscience and heart guide us into holiness. The Spirit teaches us to hate sin and love godliness. He warns us to flee youthful lusts that war against the soul. He invites us to think about things hat are good and true and wholesome, pure and lovely (Phil 4). We are to yield our members as instruments of righteousness (Rooms 6).
Christians, even when they fall in these areas, have always agreed that sexual morality is right. There has been no sense that anything pretty much goes between consenting adults. That is not the Spirit of Christ and those who urge this will not inherit the kingdom of God. From such an approach we have been washed and sanctified if believers and if we fall back into them, if we get entangled once more in the corruption of the world like a dog returning to its vomit our final state is worse than our first. (1 Per 2).
I find the Bible standards of living on all fronts rigorous which is why I regard the pushing of boundaries in the opposite direction so contrary to faith.
I hope that I did treat Penelope’s question with respect. We are all sinners.
Modern society has moved strongly and rapidly towards a near ‘anything goes’ morality on sexual practices, but it is an area in which Christians must not be taken in, and should give careful thought to boundaries. I’m not pretending to be a saint myself . . .
In the ‘Church Weekend’ context, I would be uncomfortable including a (heterosexual) couple who the community believed to be fairly mature Christians, but who made it obvious that they were a bit ‘extreme’ in the bedroom.
Did you like my suggestion of having a liturgy for blessing the charity-love of same-sex couples ? Or is it not enough for you ?
Yes Susannah, Penelope asks a question that is worth engaging with, and I mean this as a non-polemical reply. Have you noticed that there is no ban on getting drunk in the written laws of Moses, yet consistently throughout Old and New Testaments the tone is against drunkenness (although alcohol is not condemned)? Evidently the hangover is its own penalty. I suggest the same of anal sex, S/M sex within marriage between man and woman: the pain is the penalty.
In which case, why is this not the case for two men – why the LeviticaL prohibition? First, if they have been through a State-recognised wedding ceremony then does God consider them married? Second, breaking God’s law gives somebody an appetite to move on to greater lawbreaking, the ultimate example being Adam and Eve. Celibate same-sex-attracted men like Vaughan Roberts who have not indulged themselves will not know very much about what their path might lead to. Men like Joseph Sciambra who come to Christ from the secular gay lifestyle can inform them.
I should like to thank you, John, for what you wrote, which is a reminder to us all. I would expect nothing less from you. You write of sexual love as such a pure and lovely thing. I should like to assure you that my wife is a sweet person with great purity of heart, and our private and personal life is involved in none of the practices I mentioned. Our love is simply and gently expressed, in what I treasure as expression of our wider life and tenderness, at home in the mundane day to day life, and socially. I pretty much suspect the same is true of Penelope but that is her business.
Of course, though my wife is deeply caring, sweet, and pure of heart, our relationship will still be condemned by some, even though our actual sexual life is as gentle and standard in expression as anyone here I expect. Our life is far wider than sex alone, of course.
Anyway, as ever, God bless you. If I ever returned to Arran – unlikely in my present ill health – I should so love to meet you. I know the love and grace of God is upon you. Susannah
Dear John (Douglas),
Thank you for your honest and serious response. I should like to get across, that I am myself repelled by sexual excess in society, and casual sexual profligacy. I also hate the way television seems so sexualised, in a cheap and shallow way. I have the very highest respect for marriage, which I believe is a wonderful platform for fidelity, for covenant commitment, and journey with God.
With respect for your proposal, I don’t really embrace your proposal of a liturgy for charity-love for gay and lesbian couples, though it could work for those couples who decide to live in celibacy. In that case it could be really lovely, and would be a signal to critics that your church is not homophobic, and recognises same-sex attraction.
For a couple like my wife and I, that liturgy would I’m afraid be quite insufficient. Besides, we have already celebrated our marriage in church with an affirming priest. But the thing is that one would not limit the liturgy to only charity-love with heterosexual couples, because they are sexual as well, and the same is true with gay and lesbian couples. As with heterosexual couples, intimate sexual expression in a committed relationship is part of the gift, the treasure, and the wholeness of their givenness to each other.
But I appreciate the direction you are willing to suggest, and your honesty about yourself. We all come before God dressed in rags. We all sin.
Thank you for serious response and engagement.
Susannah
Thank you Susannah. One of the reasons I asked the question was because I suspect that many men, both secular and religious, are revolted by the idea of men having sex with men. I wondered if the same reaction was obtaining in the condemnation of S/M sex. I don’t think finding something icky is theological jsutification for its proscription. For the record, I find the idea of S/M repellent, but I dont think it’s necessarily ungodly becuase of my disgust.
Thanks Anton
(By the way, I completely agreed with you in the ‘Big Bang’ discussion elsewhere)
What you suggest, about a kind of slippery slope, makes a lot of sense to me and I think it’s a significant risk… particularly when it comes to sexuality. As a Prison Governor long ago, I ran one of the national centres for 110 sex offenders, and I saw that all too clearly, in the way their precons often started with minor offences, and then escalated. Same I suspect for people generally.
One of the reductive things in our national life is the way sex has been cheapened, and dulled, so it’s commodified, objectifying people, and anaesthetising people through repeat familiarity on television etc until it just ends up coming across as detached from all the sacrifice of devoted relationships.
The point I was mainly trying to make is that ‘socially conservative’ Christians major on condemning gay people, but that actually, heterosexual sex is far from perfect itself. People blast gay people for ‘disgusting’ anal sex (I admit I find that practice a little ‘icky’ myself and have never gone down that road… but for gay men, I recognise it is a way of expressing intimacy, givenness, love)… but my point was that a lot of heterosexual men see that practice as normative, and they and their partners also find intimacy and expression of givenness in it.
You know my position on gay and lesbian sexual intimacy (and marriage) so I won’t repeat myself. I believe it can be pure and holy and lovely, and blessed by God. I believe that, not in rebellion against the Bible, but because I believe in covenanted, committed relationships as the ‘locus’ for sexual intimacy, and I believe the very great blessing of marriage should be afforded to gay and lesbian couples as well as heterosexual ones.
I deeply treasure the Bible, but I read it less literally, and more contextually, when it comes to what it says. I do accept the deep basis for heterosexual marriage – for family, and as an image of the Divine love for the Church. I believe that deeply. It’s lovely.
I also believe the Bible writers were not okay about man-man sex. But they were writing ‘inside’ the context of their own religious cultures.
Anyway, thank you for a serious answer. I appreciate that. The whole business of the sexuality debate is SO painful and distressing for so many people, and I recognise sincerely that applies to people on both sides of these arguments.
Now, I’ve got to log off. Church.
Susannah
‘Plenty of heterosexual couples include anal sex..’ Im not sure that’s true (evidence please) and even less so in Christian marriages.
What there is plenty of is evidence why anal sex is not ‘good’, whether male on male or male on female.
Hello Peter
Re straight anal sex, it’s a statistic which Alan Wilson cited, perhaps in his book on Equal Marriage.
Exactly. But he did not explain, nor seem to care, why those getting diseased thereby were so disproportionately men who have sex with men. How gross that we should have to point out the danger to precious lives. It shows how far so much has sunk.
I don’t think anyone thinks disgust is the reason for the ungodliness, but if anything is distant from God, some such things certainly naturally will rightly cause disgust.
Something Bishop Croft doesn’t even seem to consider is children. The stable raising of children is one of, if not the primary reason for the social institution of marriage. Years ago gay marriage was championed with the promise of a fringe benefit – loving homosexual couples as the adoptive saviours of children in care. Who could object?
In fact what we’ve seen (entirely predictably) is a surge in use of gamete donors, artificial insemination and surrogacy – often in coldly capitalist and frankly exploitative arrangements, as wealthy homosexual couples buy babies from poor women. There can be no doubt that SSM has led to an increase in children being raised by adults other than their biological mother and father. Children who will grow up without a home example of healthy, respectful male-female relationships, and in some cases will have to grapple with the reality that their biological mother carried birthed them in order to give away or sell them. At very least, these children are deliberately denied the influence of and relationship with either a mother or a father. To say that doesn’t matter is to join the postmodern worldview completely, to say God was wrong to “make them – male and female”, that it wasn’t good.
But apparently “the fruits of SSM are many and manifold” – as he perceives them.
Yes indeed.
Many thanks Mat. for the Tom Wright link. Clear, concise scripture exposition. Have yet to look at the full linked article.
I wonder if queen Esther were alive today, doing speaking tours, would she get a chance to preach? Teach? Would her morality come into question? What did the chief eunuch teach her about bedroom manners? Was she okay being a second wife? Did she have good friends who were eunuchs? I’m sure you can think up a few more questions. I’m just thinking, here we have someone who is a type for the church. She is a bit ambiguous, beautiful, brave. Jesus amongst the stars/lamp stands alludes to Esther’s year long preparation amongst her seven maids. Likewise, as different gatherings, we are not squeaky clean.
I like the bit in Esther’s story when she says, ‘Look, they don’t know I’m a Jew. Do I have to tell them? Can’t I just keep quiet, go along, ride it out? Pretend that I’m just one of them, not like those Jews they hate?’
And her cousin tells her, ‘Do you really think you are safe, when no other Jew is? I mean, you can try that, go ahead. Keep your head down and see if they won’t turn on you. But if you do, God will still save His people; He just won’t do it through you. And you, and your father’s family, will perish.’
Hm, Church of England, Hm.
Best not take each other to court said Paul.
One sword is enough- and kept sheathed.
Is politics the best recourse?
If you had the wisdom of Ahithophel would you succeed?
Anyways. I’ve got vacuuming to do.
Don’t do it. Nature abhors vaccums.. It’s ungodly…
lol. There we have it. That’s where I am going wrong. I’m sure Esther could teach me a thing or two about domestic science.
Cleanliness is next to godliness.
Best not take each other to court said Paul.
Yes, Christians should sort out disputes among themselves.
So ‘if you don’t go along with this, then the government / courts will force you to’ us not really a line of argument that Christians should use.
good point.
Haman’s manipulations, machinations to usurp and extinguish God’s covenant people didn’t end in Good noose for him.
Though our Saviour’s hanging from a tree defeats our, his covenant people’s, deadliest enemy- death.
Is it any coincidence that tomorrow’s epistle is from 2 Thessalonians 2 ? Although the Lectionary kind of Bowdlerises it by skipping this bit : 9 The coming of the lawless one is apparent in the working of Satan, who uses all power, signs, lying wonders, 10 and every kind of wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11 For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion, leading them to believe what is false, 12 so that all who have not believed the truth but took pleasure in unrighteousness will be condemned.
Let the Bishop of Oxford take note !
O I think every facet of this whole disruptive diversion from the real business of the church has the Devil’s fingerprints all over it. Anyone who fails to see the price the Church of England is paying (and the ongoing spread of damage over into the Anglican Communion) and the resultant damage to the church’s witness is failing dismally to connect up the dots. But blinding people to the truth is his whole business and we all need to be awake to how that can happen to any one of us at any time. The temptation to concentrate on the failures of others at the expense of focusing on what we ourselves must be about in the Lord’s service is something we must all beware. Our job is to discern, to warn, and to rescue if we can; God alone will condemn or show mercy as he judges in his own time.
Which Anglican vicar will dare in hiss ermon to link the reading form Thesssalonians to the week’s events?
I think Paul was probably referring to Nero, but I take your point.
Six Anglican bishops have now stated their support for SSM:
https: //www. theguardian. com/world/2022/nov/04/five-more-anglican-bishops-back-same-sex-marriages-in-church
Oxford is not a lone wolf; this wolf pack clearly orchestrated these statements at the 3-day meeting earlier this week.
Also the Bishop of Portsmouth:
https://twitter.com/JonathanHFrost/status/1588928557551849474?s=20&t=kmHcOaLmPYrVmZIRVY-XZA
Oxford
Reading
Dorchester
Buckingham
Worcester
Dudley
Portsmouth
The pre-planned media grid continues. Clearly the aim is to intimidate any remaining episcopal holdouts. We must pray they can find the courage to stand firm.
Sure, this isn’t a trashing of due process, is it? Irony alert. I don’t find much integrity. And Bishops are to be trusted?
Is it a convocation or cabal of Bishops?
Is it a convocation or cabal of Bishops?
A paramillinery group
A cringe?
Geoff
My comment wasn’t in support of your position, but to observe that the grace Vaughan Roberts hopes for is absent in most of the comments here about Bishops and their motivation.
Conformity… corruption… contamination… corrosion… canker… coven
The last I hope is extreme. I remember how Paul spoke of he Jewish synagogue as a synagogue of Satan. And Jude writes of false teachers in the church advocating sexual behaviour forbidden by God,
These are hidden reefs at your love feasts, as they feast with you without fear, shepherds feeding themselves; waterless clouds, swept along by winds; fruitless trees in late autumn, twice dead, uprooted; 13 wild waves of the sea, casting up the foam of their own shame; wandering stars, for whom the gloom of utter darkness has been reserved forever.
Perhaps the ‘c’ list is not so unacceptable.
The thing is when you think something is acceptable then strong criticism is considered out of place. If you believe something to be seriously destructive and blasphemous then stronger language (while still temperate) is acceptable , even demanded.
‘Convocation’ is good; I have also heard ‘bevy’. ‘Ostentation’ and ‘pride’ are collective nouns for peacocks, I hear (for those not keen on full ceremonial dress).
Let us hope that we do not get a Synod of Satan in February.
“We encourage our members to engage with this debate with the same spirit of grace that Bishop Steven has himself exhibited.” Oxford Diocese Evangelical Fellowship.
Stable door. Horse.
“There is much we disagree about, but we are united in recognising the integrity of the other, as one who is seeking to be faithful to Christ.”
(Vaughan Roberts to Steven Croft)
Susannah,
I do not recognise in this that those Bishops have shown integrity here, respect for the due process, to which presumably arranged and signed up to. indeed, just the opposite; flouted. Treated as fools (so disrespected) even as David R with an inside track seeks to defend. To me, it is to make a shabby pretense of the whole process. I do not respect it at all.
And I am not Vaughan Roberts who comes under the jurisdiction of Croft.
Penelope has expressed it well.
Geoff It’s up to you but you are disagreeing with your own leaders here including Vaughan Roberts.
And to me, a example of integrity in application from the Bishops would be something like Court pleadings, where there would be point And counterpoint, but set out in one document, perhaps in parallel. Putting both sides with equal rigor. But no. It ais advocacy, pure and simple.
And David R. Vaughan Roberts is not my leader. You expressed it as his personal response.
Keep digging.
It seem to me that you have an inability to admit what is plain to see.
So Geoff you think Vaughan Roberts has no integrity ?
Susannah
If V Robert’s said this and the context confirms his apparent meaning then I’m disappointed. Perhaps it is part of the Anglican Way – always be inoffensive but it won’t do to say that approving same sex marriage is ‘seeking to be faithful to Christ’. Of course, Croft and his ilk may persuade themselves this is their intention however at best they are being useful idiots of Satan and at worst or alongside they are wolves in sheep’s clothing.
Yes, I know that sounds, hard etc. There are times when hard things need to be said and in plain language so that those who hear may pause to consider.
The OT prophets were full of language intended to shock Israel out of a stupor of sin. They had closed their eyes and put their hands over their ears. Only graphic descriptions of coming judgement could hope to penetrate. But it didn’t and judgement came. The harsh words came out of hearts that loved but this passed the people by.
T1 above.
Jesus wasn’t a CoE disciple of Marcion. Not one jot or tittle.
Julian Mann has some interesting observations on Bishops, “insider information”, here on Anglican link referring to Church Times editor Paul Hanley’s:
https://anglican.ink/2022/11/03/is-the-beast-coming-out-of-the-gate-for-the-coe/
It seems that revisionists are seeking to overturn the burden of proof:
“During the bishops’ discussions at the High Leigh Conference Centre, in Hertfordshire, largely in small groups, it is said to have been clear that many bishops recognise that a change of policy is needed — whether a national shift or some form of pastoral accommodation is not yet clear. Even those who wish to see no change in the C of E’s policy, which also bans clergy from marrying same-sex partners, accept that the case would need to be freshly argued.’
Let that last sentence sink in.
Not only is the *burden of proof being shifted*, what unsaid *standard of proof * would be required? The case for change of doctrine has to be made and passed through the legal church processes. Change is ultra vires the Bishops alone.
The Church of England is in the last chance saloon. It is of course God’s church, but it is required to cooperate with the Holy Spirit. What is He saying to the Church? I have played a part in the nomination of seventeen diocesan bishops over the years, eleven since 2017. Quite properly they all say they are creedally orthodox and subscribe to the doctrines of the Church of England. But hardly any of them believe that the status quo on this issue can prevail and many would therefore embrace change, in my opinion. There a lot of other +Oxfords out there. George Carey said in 1997, when Issues was eventually debated, that ‘we are discussing irreconcilable opinions.’ Nothing has changed. +Oxford’s paper (my copy has just arrived) is akin to a leak from the College of Bishops, a major hint that change is in the air. It is clear evidence that proposals will be brought in February 2023 which will presage significant change, and not just fresh authorised liturgy. Whether proposed changes will command a 2/3 majority in General Synod is not relevant at this stage, until we know the mind of the bishops. What is clear is that conservative evangelicals are wasting their time in expressing further shock and surprise. They have already articulated proposals for differentiation. They should concentrate on them, as well as being honest with their congregations. Some priests will need to wake up to the reality that their congregations might well, by a majority, actually want to opt in. Few have had proper debate (they have participated in LLF on their own terms). Leaders have assumed their flocks share their conservative views without exception. No-one wants another fight as with that over women. Should that happen, Parliament will do more than nudge. The quadruple lock will be challenged. Further delay will simply imperil the right of clergy to solemnise marriages of opposite-gendered couples. Until there is a level playing field, the right to act as registrar will be suspended. A dose of reality is required.
What a strange and unconvincing comment Anthony.
‘Last chance saloon’. So how come *all* the churches which have changed are now in even more rapid decline? How come those orthodox on marriage in the UK are the only ones showing real growth?
If all those bishops are orthodox on doctrine, including marriage, what is the reason for change?
If the differences are indeed ‘irreconcilable’, why should is be the orthodox who move, rather than you? Why don’t you join TEC Europe where you would be quite at home? And if we knew all that time ago that this was the case, whose idea was it to waste all this time and energy?
The idea that Steven’s paper is a ‘leak’ is completely unconvincing. It smacks more of desperation, that he won’t get what he want from the process.
No-one is assuming that ‘flocks’ are uniform. But what is certain is that they have not been taught.
It is not within the power of Parliament to force the Church’s hand; they gave that away in 1925. Churches that are told what to believe by their Governments occur in totalitarian states.
So we lose the right to solemnise marriage? So what?
How do you propose to change the doctrine Anthony? Revise liturgy? Change Canon B30? Delete Canon A5? What will be left of the ‘Church of England’? And how will any of that get through Synod?
I don’t think Anthony’s comment is strange, Ian. Anthony has his ear close to the ground. You need to take seriously the fact of establishment. The technical transfer of power may have occurred in 1925, but when the women bishops measure failed it was the parliamentarians that told the C of E to get its act together and get it through GS – no doubt about it. Those parliamentarians – or their successors – are getting restive about the time LLF is taking, and unless the bishops come up with something they think will wash, church and state will be very much at loggerheads.
As for +Stephen leaking, I note that he has not been slapped down by either archbishop, either for speaking as he has, or for saying what he has. Considering that he has taken a year to write this essay it can hardly have been a secret to his colleagues in the HOB. So while ‘leak’ is perhaps not quite the word, it does look to me as if it is part of a choreographed opening up of episcopal opinion. I see that +Portmouth joined the chorus of support this morning. I expect more.
Thank you Jeremy,
Frankly, if the bishops do decide there’s got to be change, there’s going to be change.
And the country, and Parliament, would be behind them.
And meanwhile, if (say) 34% -45% in Synod decide to hold the Church of England to ransom, and block any change to the status quo, then the bishops can (of course) just *allow* the public affirmation of gay sexual relationships, and services to bless civil marriages, etc by declining to sanction churches which follow the bishops’ own advice.
Realpolitik says change will happen.
What remains after the bishops come to a decision is working (as far as possible) together to agree on the settlement/basis on which the theological beliefs of both groups will be protected.
the bishops can (of course) just *allow* the public affirmation of gay sexual relationships, and services to bless civil marriages, etc by declining to sanction churches which follow the bishops’ own advice.
To do that Parliament would have to repeal the quadruple lock, wouldn’t it?
At which point a provocateur couple would surely rock up to a church known to hold to the traditional ethic and demand to get married there. When refused, they would sue the church, minister and all, for discrimination.
So this is effectively a threat to haul traditionalists before the courts —something which, incidentally, Saint Paul said Christians were not to do, so not a very Christian way to behave.
Presumably, then, the judgement would go against the church. At which point the bishops would claim that the law requires them to make a church wedding available to any same-sex couple who desires it in the church of their choice, regardless of the wishes of the minister or congregation.
So ‘decline to sanction’ would quickly turn into ‘force to perform’.
This is basically holding the church to ransom. ‘Change, or suffer.’
Not v. Christian.
2 Kings 18:26
Your realpolitik rings a bell.
There is much realpolitik in all this. The lawyers are working on every eventuality. But while the bishops might, for example, introduce commended liturgy themselves (and will introduce the other changes outlined by +Steven, short of equal marriage) the quadruple lock cannot be removed unless and until the Church of England changes its canons, and that is because the quadruple lock is actually in place to prevent Parliamentary legislation (i.e. SSM is legal) being in conflict with Canon law (also the law of the land). Parliament would not move to force the Church, but as I have said before, I think there is a real risk of removing the right of clergy to act as registrars. That won’t bother the ConEvos, but would have a major reaction in the community.
Anthony, any commended liturgy cannot contradict the Church’s doctrine, else it will be thrown out. So a service that looks like the blessing of something that looks like anything other than a non-exclusive, non-sexual friendship will fail.
Why would loss of right of clergy to act as registrars have a ‘major reaction in the community’? That is the situation with the churches that 3/4 of Christians attend in the UK, and of course in all of Europe.
Btw, I am happy to hospitably host your comments, and you are clearly happy to take advantage of this. By contrast, you have blocked me on social media, and so talk about me behind my back whilst excluding me from the conversation.
Double standards perchance?
I think there is a real risk of removing the right of clergy to act as registrars. That won’t bother the ConEvos, but would have a major reaction in the community.
Which is where, as I wrote somewhere else, the side which cares least about the established status of the Church of England has a distinct advantage in this fight, because it has less to lose.
Why would loss of right of clergy to act as registrars have a ‘major reaction in the community’? That is the situation with the churches that 3/4 of Christians attend in the UK, and of course in all of Europe.
And in fact the clergy would not lose their ‘right to act as registrars’ at all. All they would lose is their automatic ex officio recognition as registrars. There would be nothing to stop them then registering as an ‘authorised person’; it would just be a small extra step and, given Church of England churches will all have been registered premises for marriages for many years, and Church of England ministers will already know all the required duties, would just be a rubber-stamping exercise.
Couples wanting to get married would notice absolutely no difference, so if that’s what’s meant by ‘the community’ then there would be absolutely no reaction at all.
Unless, I suppose, the government were to require all Church of England buildings to re-register and go through the one-year waiting period without any grandfathering. But that would be so obviously petty and vindictive that even a Labour government wouldn’t do it, surely.
It would have a major reaction among those whose identity is bound up with being ‘the national church’ — you know, the kind of people who call all other denominations ‘sects’. But that’s where the different weights the two sides put on that comes in.
Incidentally Jeremy, thank you and thanks to your husband, for everything you have suffered, as this debate churned on. People often forget how offensive the Church can seem to the partner of a sanctioned priest, with years of experience helping sick patients, being told he must stop. As a nurse, I felt deeply sad about that.
Most people in the Church of England (I believe) just want to move on. Yes there are activists who feel alarmed at all this (on both wings of the debate) but the de facto reality is that the Church is deeply divided on these issues, and it’s no longer pastorally sustainable to impose just one teaching on everyone else. There may need to be (as Justin pointed out in the Intro to the Human Dignity session at the Lambeth Conference) an ‘accommodation’ of both ‘theologically serious views’.
It doesn’t mean we have to stop loving one another, or visiting the sick (which you used to do until you were stopped – good grief), or comforting the bereaved, or helping the lonely, the abandoned, the trouble etc. 60 years of logjam on this issue is nearing its end, and now the real test is the grace and love to co-exist.
If people are not willing to do that then I fear they won’t be comfortable in the future Church of England, but that’s for them to decide. Most evangelicals will want to remain and they will be most welcome, because they are a precious part of the broad church we belong to. We have never, however, been a Puritan sect.
Expanding marriage to *all* and not just *some* is nothing to do with a loss of orthodoxy. It’s an expansion of orthodoxy, and decency. Marriage is a blessed institution, offering recognition (already recognised for LGBT people in the UK) as a covenant commitment for people devoting their lives to each other. Bishops unanimously recognise the blessing of marriage. But there is nothing in the creeds that limits that precious provision to just some people. It’s marriage itself which is the orthodoxy. The expansion will just consolidate it. If Jesus was alive today he would surely bless gay marriages. He only referenced ‘man and a woman’ because that was the only cultural option open to the religious establishment at that time. He was using the language relevant to his listeners at the time. God also speaks to God-given conscience through the Holy Spirit, in all kinds of contexts. The primary imperative of love poses a question: should the blessing of marriage be extended to all people now we recognise gay partnerships can be gift and blessing to couples *and* to their communities. More and more people in the UK say ‘Yes’. They see what is good.
There may need to be (as Justin pointed out in the Intro to the Human Dignity session at the Lambeth Conference) an ‘accommodation’ of both ‘theologically serious views’.
Which is, as I keep pointing out, and in practice would turn into ‘one view officially endorsed, the other grudgingly tolerated as long as you don’t ever act on it.’
If Jesus was alive today he would surely bless gay marriages. He only referenced ‘man and a woman’ because that was the only cultural option open to the religious establishment at that time.
None of that is true. He referenced ‘man and woman’ because that’s what is in Genesis, which he quoted, just to make the point unambiguously clear.
Nothing to do with ‘cultural options’; everything to do with what’s in scripture.
Man plus woman is not cultural, it is biological. As a nurse, you know.
Establishment is hardly about gay members of Parliament telling the C of E to approve gay marriage.
I pointed out the errors in Anthony’s claims. The fact that the ABs haven’t said anything public tells us nothing.
I’m confused: all the MPs in Parliament are gay?
And those who are, and elected… does their sexual orientation matter? It’s perfectly legal to be gay.
Isn’t it their position as elected representatives of the people that gives them the right to listen to the bishops, and weigh up what they are allowed to pass or rescind, and whether they should?
It’s not about “telling the bishops”. They will hopefully listen to what the bishops tell them. The bishops who are our leaders.
Susannah ‘I’m confused: all the MPs in Parliament are gay?’
Yes, you are confused. I mention that Ben is a gay member of Parliament, and you go off on a series of weird tangents. It is quite hard to engage with.
They will hopefully listen to what the bishops tell them. The bishops who are our leaders.
But you won’t commit to listen to what the bishops tell you, if it’s not what you want to hear.
So you can hardly hope that others will do so.
That would be massively hypocritical, wouldn’t it?
The bishops who are our leaders.
When I asked the question about what body had the authority to set doctrine in the Church of England I was told one one body had that authority, General Synod.
Was I misinformed or has that changed, because you here seem to be saying that bishops, as ‘leaders’ have the authority to set doctrine and the rest should ‘follow’?
And that Ben is gay is relevant how?
Penny, what an odd question!! As a gay man, he is offended by the C of E’s position, and like other gay individuals in Parliament he has been highly active in pushing these questions.
unless the bishops come up with something they think will wash, church and state will be very much at loggerheads.
Isn’t ‘at loggerheads’ very much the natural position of church and state throughout history?
“Few have had proper debate (they have participated in LLF on their own terms). Leaders have assumed their flocks share their conservative views without exception.”
That certainly seems to be the case at the Church where we both once worshipped, Anthony.
A teaching day, led by a spokesman of one ‘side’ only.
But I suspect that in the end, far more parishioners will just want to carry on with parish life, within the Church of England, and the Bishop of Oxford’s very balanced proposal of accommodation of both views will be an acceptable ‘settlement’ to most people.
The Church of England is a broad Church, divided on this one issue, where tide of opinion has been flowing in support of gay and lesbian relationships more and more.
We are, in realpolitik terms, at the stage where everyone should work together on a settlement, because there’s going to be change, by whatever means it takes.
Susannah
You’re probably right, tragically. I hope your wrong. The C of S lost a lot of churches but it’s Presbyterian and compromise is hard for evangelical Presbyterians (though some manage it). I hope evangelicals in the C of E find a more fruitful way forward than accommodation.
Dr Paul, I had a pastoral emergency to deal with locally. The note I wrote said it was being moderated. I return to see no note. Could you kindly explain?
I would say that, in general, I am not interested in being harassed by people on this site due to the work of ACI. I should have always used a different name. Like so many others. It helps focus the topic.
Kind regards, in Christ
I’ve been busy on a teaching weekend, and comments with new names need approval.
Vaughan Roberts has published a personal response to the Bishop of Oxford’s booklet. And by some distance it offers the most helpful and careful response to Bishop Steven I have read so far. It is a model of Christian debate and disagreement. They clearly respect each other. Bishop Steven sought his engagement with his booklet in its preparation. There is honesty and truth speaking. There are string areas of disagreement. I will take more time but I recognise where he sees gaps in Bishop Steven’s agreement and approach. Some I disagree with, and others there is certainly more to be said on both sides. That is helpful. Most of all he recognises Bishop Steven’s integrity of intent and does not mock or disparage views he strongly disagrees with. I am grateful.
‘strong’ – sorry.
That David, does not deny a reversal of the burden of proof, nor answer the question of by what standard it the proof to be measured.
I have read some of Vaughan Roberts. He includes references to Glynn Harrison and David Bennet’s books which Croft doesn’t address.
While I don’t know whether Roberts mentions it, but I’d contend, that a book central to male and female only marriage, a book that opens up more fully Genesis and Revelation. It is Song of Songs.
It opens up, Adam’s exclamation of delight at woman; “bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh.” Soung of Songs is expansive in that delight in bride of youth( exclusively male and female) and Revelation is the expansive consummation of the marriage of the bride of Christ, the last Adam.
Add to Vaughan Roberts and David Bennet the books by Rev’d Sam Allberry, another celibate same-sex attracted evangelical vicar.
To them, add the secular gay movement in understanding the Bible better than church liberals!
Indeed Anton. None of it is new and was well known before LLF!
And, of course, male female marriage forms a good part of the Wisdom literature, Proverbs particularly.
Yet, yet again and again, Holiness is completely avoided as is the whole question of sin.
I have responded above. Vaughan is critiquing your position, not affirming it.
Give anyone with a reading age of twelve and above a bible, show them the relevant passages and ask them to tell you what it is saying. There’s your answer.
The Bible books weren’t written those with a high IQ. They we’re written to and for ordinary people. When we read Paul’s criticism of homosexuality its as plain as the nose on your face what he says and what he means. The only people who cant see what it says are those who won’t see what it says and by means of serious argument attempt to evade the truth.
Jude writes
But you must remember, beloved, the predictions of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ. 18 They said to you, “In the last time there will be scoffers, following their own ungodly passions.” 19 It is these who cause divisions, worldly people, devoid of the Spirit.
He was speaking of people who perverted the grace of God by encouraging illicit sensuality. For a bishop to teach same sex marriage no among of faux winsomeness, cultured voice, religious garb or church position stops the shining through of a worldliness that is devoid of the Spirit. The theology reveals the heart.
This is wildly over simplified. Evangelical scholars continue to disagree on interpretation and meaning of the scriptures. Even St Peter found some of what Paul wrote hard to understand .
No they do not, David. For every given scripture there is anything from complete agreement to complete befuddlement – and that spectrum is not an evenly spread one. For all scriptures, the possible meanings are infinitesimally fewer than the impossible ones. How can you possibly say that every scripture is the same as every other scripture in this respect of perspicuity? Generalisations at that level are highly inaccurate and meaningless.
No its not David. Unfortunately it seems that you are wildly compromised. The bible is quite clear on homosexual relationships – they are wrong, seriously wrong. Ergo same sex marriage is wrong. The attempt to make the issue complicated is subterfuge to avoid facing the undeniable reality.
I have much more respect for those who simply say the Bible is wrong and go on to push their hell-fueled agenda. This is not an issue which is indifferent or even secondary. This is an issue at the heart of the gospel. To encourage same sex marriage makes you a heretic and probably apostate. It makes you an enemy of the cross of Christ. There is no neutral ground here.
And don’t think that ‘niceness’ or a gracious attitude cuts any ice with the Lord on this. Jesus and Paul and others do not mince their words in the face of false teaching from within the church.
Has this not been an ongoing ‘discussion’ for years? Why should ‘dialogue’ with Croft open now.? The time for dialogue is past. From Ian’s summary i hear nothing that comes near to a telling point. His arguments seem to be weak and laughable if they weren’t so serious.
I don’t know where you come from David. You generally seem to support a more liberal perspective. This may be a seminal moment for you. Are you on the Lord’s side or not. The Lord’s side is the side that has clear biblical support.
David Of course they continue to disagree on exegesis;ther is however a greater unanimity than you allow. The core issue, nevertheless, is whether they disageee on matters of *authority* and this is at the very forefront of the ongoing debate re SSM and related issues.
As you have made your point of view abundantly clear in this context, exactly how do you justify your own pick-in- mix interptetation to the Scriptures? How do distinguish between the “wheat and the tares”?
Colin all Christian people sit quite lightly to the scriptures in certain areas. Being a fundamentalist in practice is quite different to being one in principle. The plain meaning of scripture is not always plain.
But the principle discussion here is about how Anglicans relate to scripture. The answer to that question is in a broad rather than a narrow way. Scripture is our principle guide but it must be explored through the lenses of tradition, reason and human experience. Each of those things, in the Anglican tradition, communicate the word of God to us.
Scripture is our principle guide but it must be explored through the lenses of tradition, reason and human experience.
That’s not what it says in the 39 Articles.
Now, you claim that the Articles no longer define Church of England doctrine. But they certainly did at one point: the Act of Uniformity 1662 is not the mark of a ‘broad church’.
So for you to be right at some point in time between 1662 or so and now, Church of England doctrine must have changed.
(I accept that de facto you’re correct and the Church of England has, in practice, tolerated lots of stuff it shouldn’t have. But this discussion is about changing de jure doctrine)
Now, when I asked you who had the authority to set Church of England doctrine, you said that authority rests solely with the General Synod.
So: given that at one point in time what you lay out above was definitely not the de jure doctrine of the Church of England, and you claim that now it is, then at some point it must have changed, right?
And — according to you — the only body with authority to do that is General Synod.
So: if you’re correct, there must have been a decision of General Synod to change the doctrine, right? From what it was four hundred years ago to what you say it is now.
And this being General Synod, there must be a public record of that decision, right?
So my question to you is: where’s the record?
Because if there isn’t such a record then — again, according to you — the de jure doctrine of the Church of England vis-a-vis the nature and authority of scripture cannot have changed, regardless of what nonsense has been de facto tolerated.
So, where’s the record?
(I know you’re going to say ‘But the archbishops council published this which says …’ but according to you the archbishops council doesn’t have the authority to set doctrine, so it doesn’t matter what the archonships council says, if there isn’t a General Synod decision to back it up. That is what you told me, right? Only General Synod has that authority?)
All of those things communicate the Word of God to us in the Anglican tradition – it is said.
But not a single reason has been proffered for preferring the Anglican tradition to any other! Is it mere random preference?
The mantra is repeated of the 3fold stool, and that is where thinking stops. So all the c10 points below are never addressed.
Thank God reason is part of it. (Of course, reason will not tell us about what happened in history since human actions can be irrational.)
How about scripture in the context of a knowledge of history as against scripture in the context of no knowledge of history?
And how about realising that scripture is not dogmatic or primordial? There is not one single truth in scripture that was not already true in reality before it was written down. So it is to reality that we should be looking over and above scripture.
‘Experience’ is a highly ambiguous term. Does it mean ‘my world’, ‘my truth’? If so, bad. Does it mean ‘things as they are discovered to be not pronounced to be’? If so, good. Are the 2 not distinguished from one another? Not at all good.
Tradition? That overlaps with scripture. More than that, scripture is usually the oldest and main tradition.
Things can be accepted by tradition because that tradition is pushed by the powerful.
If a tradition has never been refuted over many years, that is a good sign.
How about the mindset that comes from familiarity with scriptural texts? Those who do a lot of Bible reading have it. Those who don’t don’t. It is what enables us to be speaking in the same terms as the Biblical writers and characters, to understand them more adequately.
“How about the mindset that comes from familiarity with scriptural texts? “
Yes that’s extremely important. I find Jonathan Tallon’s work and website extremely good for that reason.
http://www.bibleandhomosexuality.org/
S: ” the de jure doctrine of the Church of England vis-a-vis the nature and authority of scripture cannot have changed, regardless of what nonsense has been de facto tolerated.”
Sometimes ‘de facto’ heralds ‘de jure’.
We are in a situation where the ‘de facto’ beliefs of very many in the Church of England are affirming of gay relationships.
That’s ‘de facto’. It’s on the ground reality. We all know that. We have deeply divided views on sexuality.
So what was ‘de jure’ yesterday – or 400 years ago – may not be ‘de jure’ tomorrow.
What we are witnessing are honest attempts to address the deficit between an old status quo, and what many people actually believe.
Change may be a pastoral necessity. We shall see.
I was married in church, by my priest, lovingly supported by my PCC and church community. Sure, I had to get a piece of paper first and did, but we all knew this service was us coming before God and the people, to join out lives, to covenant our love, to devote ourselves to God, to our community, and to each other. To all appearances (wedding dress, bridesmaids, oaths, blessing, reception, communal joy of 100+ people) it was a wedding… not the civil thing… the religious wedding.
De facto.
Up and down the land, more and more people, priests, even bishops are acknowledging a ‘de facto’ change going on in the Church of England.
One way or another, change is coming. And expanded ‘de jure’. And it’s fantasy to ignore the situation in the C of E. A settlement is needed, because the ‘de facto’ truth is there are two different theological views in the one Church of England, and the ‘de jure’ status quo can’t hold.
Therefore we need to try to explore a settlement that in some ways accommodates both groups. Absolutists at either wing of the debate will not be happy. And there’s a lot of pain on all sides. But just insisting the old ‘de jure’ must stay… will be… ‘uncomfortable’ for people who refuse to allow space inside the Church of England for those with opposite views. ‘De facto’ is leading the way to ‘de jure’.
Susannah, ‘Up and down the land, more and more people, priests, even bishops are acknowledging a ‘de facto’ change going on in the Church of England.’
Yet another assertion without much evidence. 5% of licensed clergy say they will conduct SSM, and a small group of bishops have spoken up.
You need to find another argument.
So what was ‘de jure’ yesterday – or 400 years ago – may not be ‘de jure’ tomorrow.
That depends on General Synod, doesn’t it? And so far there’s still no strong reason to believe that General Synod is minded to change doctrine, is there?
To all appearances (wedding dress, bridesmaids, oaths, blessing, reception, communal joy of 100+ people) it was a wedding… not the civil thing… the religious wedding.
In appearance but not in reality, correct?
A settlement is needed, because the ‘de facto’ truth is there are two different theological views in the one Church of England, and the ‘de jure’ status quo can’t hold.
That’s true. One side will have to leave. What’s not clear yet is which side it will be, and whether the Church of England will have been disestablished as part of the change.
Sometimes ‘de facto’ heralds ‘de jure’.
But my point is that here Andrew Godsall isn’t claiming that de jure change is coming, he’s claiming that de jure change in the Church of England’s doctrine of the Bible has already occurred .
And if he’s right about that then there should be a record of General Synod taking the decision to change it.
So where’s the record?
S I will not be entering discussion with you for reasons I have stated before and will not be drawn into any lengthy comment following this.
To make a general point: Doctrine, like the bible, is necessarily something that has to be interpreted. I have explained, with reference to agreed developments concerning the belief that it is necessary to proclaim in the 39 Articles, and how our approach to the Articles has changed since they were written at a time of such civil and ecclesiastical turmoil.
A further recent publication is helpful and instructive alongside other direction that has come from the Doctrine Commission. You can read it here:
https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2022-06/PROCLAIMtextWEB.pdf
The CofE and the Anglican Communion have never been limited by a sola scriptura approach to doctrine.
A further recent publication is helpful and instructive alongside other direction that has come from the Doctrine Commission.
Interestingly view of scripture set out in that publication is totally incompatible with the one you claim is held by the Church of England; I quote:
“ The faith which the Church of England professes is ’uniquely revealed’ in the Holy Scriptures. […] Of all the texts mentioned in the Preface, the Bible is given primary authority for the Church of England. […] As Canon A 5 states: ‘The doctrine of the Church of England is grounded in the Holy Scriptures, and in such teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church as are agreeable to the said Scriptures.’”
So anyway, as well as being unable to point to any official change of doctrine, you have managed to point to a publication which actually disproves your claim!
Thank you, I could hardly have demolished your claims better than you have yourself.
The de facto is whatever people perceive to be the majority trend, since they are terrified of being in a minority (how could they face their peers?). Research does not come into it. All it takes is a concerted push by the media class, and the 1% can create a de facto for the 99%. But I do wish more of the 99% realised they were being duped or ‘jammed’.
Oh dear S this is a good case of why it isn’t worth discussing with you. You are unable to follow the argument.
As I have always said, the scriptures present us with a unique revelation. And as I have always said, our doctrine is grounded in scripture. But as the documents I have pointed to make clear, doctrine has to be interpreted and there has always been a broad interpretation allowed.
That’s the point. With broad interpretation allowed about the authority of scripture, there doesn’t directly have to be any change agreed. The latitude is built in.
Doctrine is grounded in scripture. Nowhere does it say that tradition, reason and experience are not allowed. And successive statements by the doctrine commission and the most recent publications make it clear that they are allowed.
With broad interpretation allowed about the authority of scripture, there doesn’t directly have to be any change agreed.
But the publication you pointed to doesn’t allow broad interpretation of the authority of scripture. It says scripture is of primary authority, and doesn’t allow for any other interpretation. It doesn’t say, ‘some people think scripture is the primary authority, and some people think that scripture is an important authority but other authorities like reason, tradition and experience are equally important, and both of these views are okay’, which is what allowing a broad interpretation of the authority of scripture would look like.
Instead, the publication only allows a very narrow interpretation of the authority of scripture: the interpretation that scripture is the primary authority. Other interpretations, like that scripture is one authority among several, are not allowed by the very publication you referred to.
Nowhere does it say that tradition, reason and experience are not allowed. And successive statements by the doctrine commission and the most recent publications make it clear that they are allowed.
Indeed they are allowed; no one ever said they weren’t. But what the publication says is that scripture is the primary authority; ie, if there is ever any conflict between scripture and any or all of the other authorities, the Bible wins. That’s what ‘primary authority’ means, and that’s the only interpretation allowed by that publication, as you can see from the section I quoted.
It’s why I carefully said “And successive statements by the doctrine commission and the most recent publications (note, plural) make it clear that they are allowed.” Doctrine can be open to interpretation. And in the case of the C of E doctrine about scripture, there is considerable latitude.
“if there is ever any conflict between scripture and any or all of the other authorities, the Bible wins…”
So Noah and his ark, with every single species of animal on the planet, and a worldwide flood higher than the high mountains *really happened* and only a single-digit number of humans survived… all during the period that humans have been around? Yes Genesis states that. Yes, Jesus alluded to the days of Noah.
Really? The Bible always ‘wins’, so though that narrative contradicts scientific knowledge and common sense, no, the Bible’s claim must prevail?
Or if you claim that narrative was myth, then there you are… you’re picking and choosing… recognising that not all the Bible can be taken at face value. What if someone said the resurrection of Jesus was also myth (I don’t)? Or the virgin birth (I don’t)?
Good sense says we need to exercise a combination of what we read in scripture, what the Holy Spirit tells us here and now in our own lives and culture, how we exercise our God-given consciences, how we discern with reason between fact and a contemporary attempt to make sense of the mysteries of encounter with the mysterious God. And of course prayer.
The Bible is hugely inspiring, but we are not all fundamentalists in the Church of England. We are very varied. But to ‘receive’ scripture in our hearts we need reason, feelings, openness, conscience, sharing with everyone in our community for their wisdom, awareness of tradition, scientific awareness, awareness of literary types, insights of psychology.
We are not made to be Robots. We are made to be conscience-exercising people, open to love, to change, to expansion of what people once knew.
Or else, yes, the Bible having to win, we might still think we never evolved for primates, or that geology and cosmology is rubbish, or that indeed, Noah collected all those species in that boat… polar bears, penguins, tree frogs in deepest amazonia, galapagos tortoises, elephants, llamas, you name it… they all jumped on board!
We have God-given brains, consciences, and yes, we may well come to different conclusions on some things, but one thing we still all have, and that is capacity to open more and more love.
It’s why I carefully said “And successive statements by the doctrine commission and the most recent publications (note, plural) make it clear that they are allowed.”
And yet the publication you actually referred to directly contradicts your claim.
And in the case of the C of E doctrine about scripture, there is considerable latitude.
You say that, but you can’t point to any record of a decision of an autoritative body that supports that claim, and the one document you did point to allows absolutely zero latitude whatsoever.
I think you’re just wrong on this. If you disagree, prove me wrong by pointing to an authoritative source (ie, one from a body with authority to set doctrine) that supports your claim.
If you can’t do that then everyone can see that you are wrong.
Really? The Bible always ‘wins’,
That’s what the document Andrew Godsall linked to says is the Church of England position, is it not?
(In matters of faith and morals, not cosmology)
I think Andrew Godsall has mistaken the fact that the Church of England has tolerated within it those who teach the opposite of its doctrine, for evidence that its doctrine has changed.
He is like unto a motorist who claims that the fact the Peelers rarely bother to prosecute those who do 79 on the motorway means that the speed limit is really 80, not 70.
But when the police decide to crack down and he finds himself before the beak, he will find out exactly much water his claim holds.
S you keep missing the point. There doesn’t need to be any change in doctrine concerning scripture. The C of E has always, since it was founded, had a very broad approach to scripture. It has never been part of the sola scriptura churches. That is why you will find such a range of approaches to scripture from its clergy and members. And it is why publications like LLF explicitly point out the range of different approaches.
It is worth noting that approach to the 39 Articles and the declarations and oaths since the 1960s has been characterised by the following things:
– It must recognize that the Articles are a historic document and should be interpreted only within their historical context.
– It must leave room for an appeal to the Articles as a norm within Anglican theology.
– It must not tie down the person using it to acceptance of every one of the Articles of 1571.
– It must preserve the comprehensiveness characteristic of the Church of England.
– It must not put the Articles in isolation, but must acknowledge that Bible, Creeds, Prayer Book, Ordinal and the developing consensus of Anglican thought also have their own contribution to make to the doctrine of the Church of England. It must also indicate that these possess different degrees of authority.
– It must not only declare in what ways the Church of England is distinctive, but must indicate the doctrines it shares with all Christians.
– The possibility of fresh understandings of Christian truth must be explicitly left open.
These things note how the approach to doctrine is a comprehensive one and a dynamic one. It references a developing consensus. The last point is especially important for the current debate. We must all wait to see just how far this developing consensus can go and that is what the bishops are no doubt concerning themselves with in this phase of the LLF debate.
S you keep missing the point
And you keep ascribing to me views and arguments that I have never expressed, and then arguing against the straw men of your own creation.
Case in point:
The C of E […] has never been part of the sola scriptura churches
And I have never claimed it was. Sola scriptura (‘only scripture’) means the the Bible is held to be the only source of doctrine; if it doesn’t come from the Bible, you are not to believe it.
And indeed, the Chruch of England has never taken that position.
The position taken by the Church of England might instead be described as prima scriptura (‘scripture first’). This means that membere of the Church of England, unlike members of a sola scriptura church, are not prohibited from believing something that is not in the Bible.
However, it means that are prohibited form believing things that contradict the Bible. Because the Bible, in this view, while not being the only (sola) source of doctrine, is the primary source of doctrine (and not simply one source of doctrine among others).
That the Church of England held this view in the past can be seen in, for example, Articles XXII and XXVIII. Whereas for a sola scriptura church the mere fact that these doctrines are not derived from in the Bible would be enough to prohibit members from believing them. but because the Church of England doesn’t hold to the sola scriptura principle but to the prima scriptura principle, they are prohibited not simply because they are not founded in scripture but because they are contradicted by the Bible (or in the words of the Articles, ‘repugnant to the plain words of Scripture’).
Note that even if you’re correct that members of the Church of England are no longer required to assent to the Articles, they were once — hence the Acts of Uniformity — and so the Articles can be taken as historical evidence of what the Church of England did believe at that time, and why it believed it. So that even if the Articles are no longer required to be believed, that doesn’t mean that the principles underlying them are no longer the foundation of Church of England doctrine. It’s the distinctin between, say, a particulaar Act of Parliament, and the doctrine of Parliamentary supremacy. Just because a particular Act has been repealled, doesn’t mean that the doctrine has been abandoned. Just because the Ariticles themselves are no longer required, doesn’t mean that the principles underlying them no longer apply.
And indeed we do see the current documents of the Church of England still holding to the same prima scriptura view; first explicitly in the bit I quoted above from the publication that you pointed to, and also in Canon A5 of the Church of England which reads:
‘The doctrine of the Church of England is grounded in the Holy Scriptures’.
This rules out your claim that the Bible can be seen as just one source of doctrine among several, to be considered alongside other sources. For that to be admitted it would have to say somethng like:
‘The doctrine of the Church of England is based on the Holy Scriptures’
or:
‘The doctrine of the Church of England is inspired by in the Holy Scriptures’
or:
‘The doctrine of the Church of England has regard for the Holy Scriptures’.
It doesn’t say any of those, so in summary:
The Church of England’s official doctrine on scruiptural authority is that the bible is not the only source of doctrine but it is the primary source, and that while members are permitted to believe things which are derived from sources other than the Bible, they are not permitted to believe things which directly contradict or are contrdicted by the Bible.
And therefore your claim that the Bible is simply one source of doctrine among several, to be tested and judged against other sources and which can be overruled by those other sources, is not compatible with Chruch of England doctrine, either past or current.
And you keep ascribing to me views and arguments that I have never expressed, and then arguing against the straw men of your own creation.
And you keep ascribing to me views and arguments that I have never expressed, and then arguing against the straw men of your own creation.
So you agree, then, that the Church of England position on Biblical authority is as I have described: that the Bible is the singular and unique primary source of doctrine, that other sources may supplement but never usurp it, and that nothing is to be believed that contradicts the Bible?
I’m so glad to discover that I have misunderstood you and that actually you do agree.
Most of the Hebrew Bible was written for an educated elite.
I don’t know the IQ of the gospel writers – Christopher Shell may be able to comment; but Paul was certainly educated and highly intelligent.
Acts 4:13
Paul, was radically converted, had been with Jesus, with a life transformative encounter. His education, training was then employed in the Kingdom of God, theologically and experientially, in preaching teaching and whole life lived, spreading the Good News of Jesus.
You may have noted that I was writing about writers of the Hebrew Bible and Paul.
I did not mention gospel writers, though I doubt that John wrote John.
Exactly. I appreciate your comments here Geoff.
I can’t comment with expertise. It is an intriguing question.
Matthew is well trained and careful.
Mark is a lot cleverer than seems on first glance. A lot.
Luke seems absent minded but it is generally for a higher purpose. He has a broader sweep and vision than most and can perhaps hold a lot of things in his mind synoptically. He is the least likely to be classified as ‘religious’. Good.
John is a genius. But (as with Bach) careful planning will make you seem all the more a genius.
Thank you
Really? The Pentateuch was simply the law of the land and was supposed to be read out to the people every 7 years.
Is there evidence that it was? I don’t know.
Paul’s Letters were probably read out by a lector.
But who was Paul writing to? And who were the prophets preaching to – every strata of society was aggressed. In any case the prophets were not all from the elite. The first canonical prophet, Amos, had an ordinary background. in neither the OT nor the NT was the intended audience an elite.
No but these, especially those of the HB, were elite texts written by an elite and certainly not accessible to all.
The Gospels and Letters were probably widely distributed.
So Geoff you think Vaughan Roberts has no integrity ?
Are you being deliberately dull here David or seeking to misrepresent? Roberts was responding (what you described as a personal response) to Bishop Croft 58 pages of advocacy, which had no rigorous balance, point and counter-point. It is the Bishops in their role I was referring to as you well know.
Geoff. One last go. Conservative evangelical leaders, led by Vaughan Roberts, who share all your concerns, are calling for an engagement here that recognises the graciousness and integrity of Bishop Steven. You are perfectly free to ignore that call – as you so far have. It has been markedly missing from many contributions this long thread. I am genuinely challenged by them and continue to aspire to such responses myself. I have no more to add. Enjoy the rest of your weekend. I need to get the roast on.
David Runcorn – well, if there is to be engagement, then it should (of course) be gracious engagement and should play the ball, not the man. My respect to Vaughan Roberts for having the patience to do this.
I, for one, find the whole discussion verging on the pornographic and distasteful – even when reading contributions that reflect my own view.
David,
You’ve really no idea how gracious I am being, from where I was pre conversion to Christ. Does plain speaking form part of your concept of grace. or is it merely clever obfuscation and none admission avoidances?
And this in no way impugns the integrity of Roberts: his boss is Croft is it not?
It seems clear that Croft has not even addressed the position of Roberts, Bennett Allberry and others, has avoided. ignored disregarded them even though you yourself thought Roberts response carried some weight (my words.) Is Croft being gracious to Roberts by totally overlooking him and his prominent ministry down the years. Is he unaware of him. Yes Roberts was certainly being gracious, which hasn’t had any * advance reciprocation* by Croft in his essay, it seems to me. Maybe he will apologise to Roberts for not putting forward his position, life and ministry with approval. Maybe other more strident less gracious voices in Oxford carry even greater weight with the Bishop.
I may return with more to say once my copy of the Bishop of Oxford’s pamphlet has arrived, but in the meantime two things kept out from your critique:
1. “And why does sex need to be part of such a partnership, when such qualities are often present in committed celibate friendships?”
This raises an important question. Are you suggesting that committed celibate friendships is the acceptable or recommended practice for gay Christians? Are these in essence sexless marriages or something else? i.e. have you in mind what the CofE currently asks of gay clergy (you can be in civil partnership as long as it’s celibate) or are you thinking of your own good friendships with other men as an example?
2. The “love test”
Helpful or unhelpful, it seems pretty central to how we ought to understand the law. St Paul wrote in Romans 13 that love is the fulfilling of the law and this is why the law could be summarised as “You shall love your neighbour as yourself”. “Love does no wrong to a neighbour therefore love is the fulfilling of the law”
Oh how annoying – autocorrect turned “leapt out from your critique” into “kept out from your critique”
Today’s church is like a stall selling fish. All free.
What if things changed, the sign still read ‘free fish’ but on arrival the shoppers were told, “to get free fish you will have to walk down to the end of the pier.”
At the end of the pier the dwindled crowd of free fish believers was told, ” you’ll have fish if you come fishing; climb aboard.”
Then before the boat weighs anchor, “the trip will last three days. Get off now if you don’t want fish.”
I’m not brave. I’d go back to a stall selling stale fish and poke around in the hope of finding something edible.
If UK churches were like that I’d probably be like the Acts populace of Jerusalem; I’d speak well of them but keep out of their way.
‘Fish stalls’ today are manned by people unaquainted with the sea.
I’m not brave either Steve. I trust the Lord tat if persecution arises he will give me the bravery needed to witness a good confession. Without the Spirit of courage I will cave in. Yet the crown of life is only for those who continue unto death. Perhaps the more we die now the easier it will be to die then. After all for those our age perhaps martyrdom is preferable to lingering old age and frailty. Ive seen it and it’s not pretty.
Sometimes I kid myself that speaking out would be throwing pearls. Sometimes, Like Jesus, I think one has to let people turn around and walk away. I’m conflicted. There must come a point when one’s efforts should be redirected. Still, shouting to Hezekiah that he was doomed and should get real is a red rag.
Thank you for this very helpful post Ian.
How can we distinguish between a Christian and a non Christian? There are many pointers. Here is one. A non-Christian sits over the word and appoints himself its judge: a Christian sits under the word and allows it to judge him.
The Creed is where we draw the distinction.
The Creed is where we draw the distinction.
Any particular creed?
Not, really, that it should be any of them. The creeds may be useful summaries, but they are not the Word of God, and they are no substitute for the Bible.
The Bible — the source — has priority over the creeds — the summaries. We follow the Bible, not the creeds.
We follow Christ.
And Nicene Creed is the standard I would hold to.
Ian, I must say that I find this sentence of yours – in the above protest against your friend, Bishop Steven – to be ingenuous at least: –
” I do find it remarkable that he is writing this hot on the heels of the Lambeth Conference, where it was abundantly clear that the move of some Western provinces to do what Steven is proposing has divided the Communion, perhaps terminally.”
In the light of the fact of your own obvious (published) support of the schismatically-arranged ordination of 3 bishops for the ongoing ministry of GAFCON within the U.K. and Europe; how can you continue to insist that the admission of his own rejection of his prejudice by Bishop Steven and those who have followed him could actually cause ‘further’ (perhaps even terminal) separation within the Anglican Communion. Your own action in supporting a schismatic movement has already achieved that end!
What an odd comment. I published a discussion of the issues around those ordination. I said nothing on whether it was a good or bad thing. I didn’t even write the article.
I have no idea how that compares with a bishop proposing unbiblical teaching which by his own admission will create division.
I think that there has been enormous pressure to have a protracted series of enquiries. Or, at least, always to have an enquiry on the go, even if most wished the whole process to be less protracted.
The more protracted it is, the more absurd and pointless it will seem if there is no change at the end.
So maybe that was the tactic.
So maybe that was the tactic.
Suspect it was simpler that that — just an attempt to wear down and outlast the other side.
When I was at university in the 1970s it quickly became obvious that the political agitators of that era were prepared to spend endless time and every possible method to wear down the normal students who actually had a life and didn’t intend to spend all of it fighting over the obsessions of their unbalanced fellow students. I’ve since noticed that phenomenon being repeated regularly in every sphere of human activity, and now of course in the Church of England.
Apart from whatever the issue involved happens to be, I think there are 3 easily recognisable tactics involved. Firstly is the dedication of excessive time by campaigners (as just mentioned); then there’s subtle use of language to paint an issue in a certain light which confuses the mind and diverts it from concentrating on the hard reality of the issue under discussion; thirdly there are dirty tricks (gamesmanship) which skew the process or give unfair weight of influence to one side. Of course, as you have regularly pointed out, the evidence of honestly collected data and scholastic research is something to be avoided at all costs – perhaps that should figure as tactic number 4!
I think we’ve seen all of that – and more besides – in the campaign to change the C of E’s doctrine on sexual ethics. Regarding the ‘gamesmanship’, I’d say that skewed appointments to important positions of influence in the church have been blatant in their intention and highly significant in their effect.
And if the comment of Jeremy Pemberton at 6:59 on 6th is correct the realpolitik drivers of LLF and doctrinal change are secular/ cultural, (a key influence in Croft’s essay) along with the politics of the appointments system.
And if the comment of Jeremy Pemberton at 6:59 on 6th is correct the realpolitik drivers of LLF and doctrinal change are secular/ cultural,
The thing about the Long March through the Institutions that made it so effective a way of destroying Western society — and I don’t know if this was intended or discovered by accident — was that by performing entryist attacks on all the institutions at once— education, the public sector, the courts, charities and, of course, the Church — the fronts became mutually reinforcing, such that any success in one could be leveraged against those areas where the forces of civilisation still put up resistance.
Only the unmarried have that much campaigning time.
Those who identify as homosexual are more likely than any other group to be unmarried.
QED.
Evidence and science avoidance – yes, yes, yes.
If you read the classic book “The Nazi Seizure of Power: The experience of a single German town” by William Allen, you find that the Nazis simply worked harder to win hearts and minds, and gave more practical help, than the others.
Hello Ian
I haven’t managed to read through all the comments and questions in this strand so I don’t know if this perspective has been raised …. about absolute adherence to ALL the teachings spelt out in the Bible. I am not a theologian, but a Christian who seeks God’s wisdom and what it means in the socio-cultural location where I’m placed; trying to follow The Way as God would have in the current context.
There are many things that have evolved in society and in human understanding over centuries – other aspects besides gender, marriage and sexual behaviour – that have unsensationally been incorporated into life without apparently compromising the first Two Commandments or the Fruits of the Spirit.
A current example is that everyone uses communication devices, tv, radio – seven days a week. People also go shopping, refuel vehicles, go to restaurants, pubs, leisure centres on Sundays. This involves others having to work on the Sabbath.
Is there some reason why this falls outside the requirement to adhere to scriptural teaching? I note that when Jesus broke this rule, it was explicitly to aid people in difficulty – it wasn’t about getting things for himself. How does today’s social approach to Sunday fit with your understanding of keeping the Sabbath holy?
(For me, the Fruits of the Spirit are a primary guide in Christian living. And in matters sexual, decency and faithfulness are core to sacred values; it is promiscuity, exploitation or abuse that are wrong.)
Gill
I don’t think it does. I keep Sabbath as part of my spiritual discipline, and I would encourage others to do the same.
Gill Poole – may I add my half-penny’s worth to this?
It’s all part of the same thing – we are against things that we believe (from our own Spirit-guided intuition, backed up by Holy Scripture) which we think are harmful to others and ourselves. SSM is a coded message for acceptance of SS carnal activities.
For the Sabbath – I am in two minds. I do try my best to ensure that my Sunday activities don’t cause work for others – and that Sunday is a day of Spiritual rest. I have done some shopping on a Sunday. This was when my son was born, my wife was discharged from the hospital on a Sunday and I was given a list of things that really had to be bought right now (essentials for mother and child) – and told that I would find them in the Carrefour Express shop around the corner. It’s a pity I hadn’t been given the shopping list the day before. I therefore ask myself – what if there had been a law prohibiting Sunday trading and the shops had been closed? That is why I am in two minds. But, one the whole, setting aside Sunday as a day of rest for myself – and making sure that if other people don’t follow suit they don’t benefit from me – is very important and I think it is very beneficial.
This should be the basic motive for the church when it refuses to accept SSM – it considers same sex carnal activities to be harmful for those involved – and takes the view that it is an act of kindness to direct people away from this.
The point is this is a blatant contradiction of clear biblical texts. Media involvement is an ambiguous activity. The lines are not clear cut. Personally, I believe that Christians should be much more careful than they are. I take the view that most TV, films, and many many books, mags etc should be avoided by Christians.
The fruit of the Spirit is of course a core source of Christian ethics, however, it is not the only source. Creation is an important source of ethical direction as is the example of Christ. In the letters we are given may examples of how these work out in everyday situations. It is why we must make ourselves familiar with all of Scripture.
“[I]t is not licit to impart a blessing on relationships, or partnerships, even stable, that involve sexual activity outside of marriage (i.e., outside the indissoluble union of a man and a woman open in itself to the transmission of life), as is the case of the unions between persons of the same sex. The presence in such relationships of positive elements, which are in themselves to be valued and appreciated, cannot justify these relationships and render them legitimate objects of an ecclesial blessing, since the positive elements exist within the context of a union not ordered to the Creator’s plan ….
[Such blessings] constitute a certain imitation or analogue of the nuptial blessing invoked on the man and woman united in the sacrament of Matrimony, while in fact “there are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family” ….
The Christian community and its Pastors are called to welcome with respect and sensitivity persons with homosexual inclinations, and will know how to find the most appropriate ways, consistent with Church teaching, to proclaim to them the Gospel in its fullness. At the same time, they should recognize the genuine nearness of the Church – which prays for them, accompanies them and shares their journey of Christian faith – and receive the teachings with sincere openness.”
(March 2021 – Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith)
1. It is genuinely disappointing to me that your name and comment here is not accompanied by a smiley face in a hat.
2. That is wonderful, sensitive advice from the (ahem) Inquisition.
Mat
I tell you, with all these not-so-veiled threats of ‘something better get done soon or the government will have to get involved’, it’s pretty disturbing to those of us who know our Church of England history to see what looks for all the world like a bunch of priests and bishops cosying up to the state, wiggling their eyebrows suggestively and dropping hints like, ‘Will no one rid us of these troublesome lay people, wink wink nudge nudge?’
One thing that does occur to me though is that the pro-progressive side seem to place a much higher value on the prestige that comes with being the established church than do the traditionalists, and that in this fight the side which cares less about that status has a distinct advantage; because the big threat the government has is to come to General Synod and say, ‘If you don’t play ball we’ll disestablish you’, so being able to respond, ‘go ahead, we care much about the truth than we do about worldly baubles’ renders that pretty toothless.
Yes, I agree. I think the issue for God’s faithful people in the Church of England has little to do with our own futures. We are God’s and wherever he leads, through circumstances or personal calling, we will go. But we do have concern for the lost people of England who desperately need to hear God’s voice for themselves. Inasmuch as the Church of England has played a huge (though not always perfect) part over the centuries in witnessing to him in most of the parishes of England, it will be tragic to see our church become heretical – a place which God may allow to become unavailable as a base for our witness to him. And that’s why I have always thought we should put up the mother of all fights to stop that from happening. Why should we be forced out of our own church? Why should we take that lying down?
But if it should come about, there will of course be huge personal sadness for many of us, and particularly challenging times for clergy faced with losing their incomes and their homes. It will be a big test of faith and a real lesson to each of us regarding our personal walk with God through both good and bad times. I think it’s probably going to happen but I’m well capable of being wrong about almost everything! Whatever happens, we Christians are essentially travellers and our security comes from God himself and not reliance on a human institution which has gone bad. And that’s disturbing and daunting but also exciting all at the same time.
And that’s disturbing and daunting but also exciting all at the same time.
It’s also just possible that seeing people who have the courage to stand up for what they believe, and who are willing to make a real sacrifice for it, will attract people to the church, in a way that nothing else has for a while. Integrity is — to some people, anyway — at least intriguing, if not attractive.
Not many people, of course. Definitely a minority. But then why would you expect anything different? Didn’t someone once say that the way to destruction was wide and inviting and many travel that way, but the gate that leads to life is narrow, and very few enter through it? Wish I could remember who that was. They sound like they know what they’re talking about. Should probably listen to them.
What the Bishop Didn’t Say.
That was not the title, but could well have been, of a marvellous lecture by Rev Dr Matthew Roberts.
Fast paced but deeply scriptural and pastoral.
While I didn’t take notes, some key points were.
1 Human nature. The central purpose is worship. We are worshipping creatures.
To worship God.
2 But we created an idol to worship, to worship self. We created, out of our desire, idol worship of self.
Genesis
2 Our desires continued that worship. Here he moved to contrast Augustine’s Confessions and touching on the City of God, with Rousseau’s deliberate counter, of his own Confessions which centred on the pursuit of untrammelled desires and feelings.
3 Freud, moved on the emphasis, that our primary identy, core humanity, core selfhood, was sexual identity.
4 From that grew LGB as key human identifiers. Then added to that mix was the T, following through with Rousseau’s doctrine on feelings. Your key identity is who you feel you are. This clashed with LGB identities.
5 Significantly, Christians buy into this philosophy when H is added as an Identifier- heterosexual. It merely reinforces the ideology that cor human nature is sexual.
6 The radical Gospel is death to self, to idolatry, cross carrying to worship of our one true Triune God.
7 Just as there was fierce push back in scripture when idols and identity with them was threatened by the Gospel, so it will be when our very self identity idol is threatened by the Gospel where true identity and human purpose is to be found.
Clearly there was far more in an hour’s lecture, far more fluid, than this older brain and memory can relate, but it is hoped that while it does not do the lecture full justice, it will not be diminished by this comment.
The lecture had been arranged well in advance of Croft’s essay, not as a response.
Carl Trueman’s book was one of the books recommended.
It’s all rather summed up in Satan’s seduction of Eve – “Did God really say . . . ” The tactic doesn’t change does it. Nor when the self-justification reverts to Eve’s personal discernment as to what’s good and what’s not. As St. John put it: the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life.
Problem: what happens when our bishop turns up for confirmation service – we’re here in Oxford; each of the other three have supported Steven Croft.
Problem: what happens when our bishop turns up for confirmation service – we’re here in Oxford; each of the other three have supported Steven Croft.
Fortunately it’s not the bishop who confirms, it’s God (and to think otherwise is Donatism).
But I would hope you would give them a good grilling! Specifically ask them exactly what their views are on scriptural authority, the fallenness of human nature, and universalism! And don’t let them get away with evading the questions! Make them commit, or make it obvious that they are refusing to answer straight questions!
I am now well through, though not finished, V Robert’s response to S Croft. On the whole I find his response excellent even irrefutable. But I do take a step back from his insistence that we treat S Croft with the curtesy of being a brother in Christ. At the beginning of the article he writes,
‘As will be clear, there is much we disagree about, but we are united in recognising the integrity of the other, as one who is seeking to be faithful to Christ. This is a debate between Christians and we have both sought to engage in it Christianly. That is what I understand to be ‘good disagreement’, even if the differences go very deep and are found in the end to be irreconcilable.’
He repeats this sentiment later in the article. Now, Paul does encourage Timothy to be gracious towards those he opposes, however, often in the NT we find Paul and others speaking very sharply to and about those he deems false teachers. If SC persists in his (presumably premeditated) views then I think he should be called out as a heretic and apostate. I would not give him the label of Christian far less someone who is being faithful to Christ. He is deliberately turning his back on what the Bible teaches and since he approves of Brueggemann’s recent essay on this topic, no doubt thinks the Bible is wrong.
People like this do not deserve a charm offensive they need to be exposed for the poison they are and all the more so given his position.
Now I know I probably come across as a belligerent and bellicose old man. I’m really not. I am mind tempered and temperate but when I see the church being destroyed by its leaders I have no tolerance. The church should not tolerate serious sin but it has learned to do so and is ready to extend its beneficence to sexual behaviour the Bible unambiguously opposes.
The issue is one of justifying idolatry. The human body is a C21 idol. We must worship its pleasures and obey its whims quite irrespective of what God says. Strangely it is a form of Gnosticism. We think we can do what we will with our bodies without it affecting our soul or spirit. It is a mistake. Paul expressly says of homosexuality that those who engage receive in themselves the penalty for their deeds. Actions have consequences.
None of this means I dislike or hate people who are homosexual. Far from it. As a young man I used to go into the city of Glasgow alone to a well known gay venue. My purpose was to give out tracks and speak about the transforming power of the gospel. This was over 40 years ago. It was not however very wise though when some were about to set upon me others defended me.
People’s identity lies in the image of God. Everything else is an add on. The trouble with identity politics is it places identity in the wrong place.
I have very good neighbours who are gay. But, for me their gayness doesn’t identify them it is their reflection of the divine image that gives them value and worth just as it does me. My desire is to see them saved and I say this knowing the cost would be great – it would cost them a very long relationship.
But church leaders knowingly promoting sexual freedom that the bible expressly forbids have love withdrawn. However, angelic they may look in cassocks and robes they resemble fallen angels rather than the heavenly choir.
I am Scottish, and from Lanarkshire my history is in free churches. In that neck of the woods you couldn’t say what you liked and expect affirmation. How the C of E reacts to S Croft and hiss coterie of bishops will determine whether in a years time it is a Bible believing church or an apostate church.
I think we have to leave the final say on who is or is not a Christian to God alone. Only he can look on the heart; I’m pretty sure if we were able to see the future, as God who lives outside of our time limitation can, we would be surprised at what was revealed. For all of us our greatest nightmare would be finding we were not there among God’s redeemed people; and I think that’s something which should always cause us to examine ourselves honestly and in humility.
But that doesn’t mean we should be slow to contend against others for the truth. In fact it should make us all the more ready to do so. In facing down other Christians who we suspect may be in a perilous state before God, I think you’re right that we shouldn’t pretend all’s well and good if we don’t think it is. In the current instance I choose to say that people who are campaigning for a plainly unbiblical doctrine on sexual ethics have had their minds captured by the atheistic ideology of cultural Marxism. This is not just a fanciful notion; it’s a well understood, historically traceable ideology, documented by people (including Christians) who are not fools; and the effects on people who have been captured are now all around us and readily observable. It’s demonic and deadly in its subtlety. It’s now widely spread in churches, including the Church of England. To pretend (as V Roberts apparently does) that the division between him and Steven Croft is a simple difference of equal validity between two Christians means either that Roberts is woefully unaware of the real spiritual battle going on, or that he is being economical with the truth (to put it politely).
As it happens, it seems plain to me that this kind of mealy-mouthed social politeness (ambiguous to the point of dishonesty) on the part of evangelicals as a group has been a big factor in explaining why they’ve so conspicuously ended up on the back foot. (There are honourable exceptions, among whom Ian Paul stands proud.) Given what the loss of the Church of England means for the people in our parishes and the whole English nation, it will be more than distressing if it turns out to happen because of a simple, socially driven inhibition to speak the unvarnished truth in defence of God’s commands and his boundaries. In any case all those misled prisoners of cultural Marxist dogma desperately need rescuing; I doubt that social niceties will jerk their minds back to the seriousness of what’s at stake.