Not everything was bad at the session of General Synod last weekend. When someone asked me how I was, I replied ‘I feel like the violinist in the orchestra on the Titanic. The music is going very well!’
There was an important discussion about ‘rest periods for office holders’ (C of E language for vicars taking their days off), a very important debate about the human dignity of disabled children, during which Justin Welby shared that his wife had felt pressured to abort their child, and debates about food banks and the persecuted church. Surprisingly, two potentially incendiary issues—how the inquiry into Mike Pilavachi at Soul Survivor has been handled, and response to the Jay report into our safeguarding strategy—went off more smoothly than they might have done.
But there were three moments that made this session of Synod the most dispiriting that I have experienced in my nearly 15 years attending.
The first was the very clear and thorough presentation by Carl Hughes on national finances and apportionment. (You can watch his presentation by means of the YouTube feed here.)
After presenting the detail of the apportionment (the contributions to be paid by dioceses to central funds), he then set the situation in the context of the wider challenges faced by the Church. This began with the data on attendance, showing that we have halved in size in the last 14 years, and the consequent impact on finances.
Average weekly attendance in every diocese since 2015 is down by between 25% and 40%. More than 20% of our 15,000 churches have weekly attendance of less than 20. In some dioceses parish share is down by over a third since 2019. The number of regular givers has fallen by 30% over the last decade…
And so it continued. Carl also highlighted the decline in the number of ordinands, which as David Goodhew has pointed out has a potentially catastrophic long-term impact.
There are some things to be encouraged about. The Parish Giving Scheme is working well and being used more widely. Important analysis is being completed about diocesan finance. But the overall picture is increasingly unsustainable. The consolidated deficit across the dioceses in 2024 is doubling from last year to a total of £60m.
On the other hand, we have substantial assets in some dioceses and in many churches—though they are very unevenly distributed. There continues to be massive duplication of administrative functions.
Replicating administrative, training, and other functions 42 times is simply an anachronism. Everyone seems to agree with that, but no-one wants to give up the way they do it.
But perhaps the most important thing that Carl said was that ‘Our principal crisis is missional’.
We need to refocus on mission and evangelism, underpinned by prayer for our nation to return to Christ. We need to be teaching that giving is part of Christian discipleship. And we need to work towards a time when today’s ministry is funded by today’s giving.
The second challenging moment was the very insightful report on trust within the Church of England. Curiously, this appears to have been driven by one person, Martin Seeley, the bishop of St Edmondsbury and Ipswich, but assisted by the theologian Professor David Ford, and Professor Veronica Hope Hailey, who presented the report with Martin.
The report was very helpful in being well grounded in theology, and particularly the New Testament. It drew on the work of Teresa Morgan (an Anglican priest, who was a Professor of Classics at the University of Oxford and is now a Professor of Early Christianity at Yale University) on the meaning of pistis in the NT, usually translated ‘faith’, but in the first century having a sense very close to the meaning of our word ‘trust’. (Her work has been influential in academic NT studies—and she happens to be the daughter of my external PhD examiner, Robert Morgan.)
It helpfully highlighted how trust is earned and expressed in organisations.
41. Trust is “the intention to accept vulnerability based on positive expectations of the intentions or behaviours of another” (Rousseau, 1998). People judge the trustworthiness of leaders by four criteria:
• Ability: Have they got the right competencies and abilities to do their job?
• Benevolence: Are they bothered about others or entirely self-interested?
• Integrity: Are they guided in their decisions and actions by a moral code?
• Predictability: Can people see a consistency in their approach?
(Mayer et al, 1995; Dietz and Den Hartog, 2006)
And it was frank about the situation we find ourselves in the Church of England.
8. However, the major and traumatising breaches of trust that have been of deep concern to the General Synod and many, inside and outside the Church, have brought profound and sustained breakdowns of trust into the life of the Church. It is in these areas that distrust is most profoundly evident. Racism, sexual abuse and issues relating to Living in Love and Faith all deeply affect the life and witness of the Church. The major breaches that have occurred have different dynamics but compound people’s suffering through the incidents themselves, and the way the Church may inadequately or inappropriately handle and respond to them.
As I listened to the presentation on Friday afternoon, I was taken by surprise by my unexpected visceral reaction to it. I felt what I could only describe as a sense of grieving in my spirit at the very, very bad situation we find ourselves in the Church of England, where trust is such a rare commodity at so many levels.
This, of course, led to the third challenging ‘moment‘—the various discussions about the Living in Love and Faith process, our debate about sexuality and marriage.
This was not one moment, but several. Apart from the main debate on the Monday afternoon, there was a presentation with questions on Saturday evening, and a fringe meeting on Sunday evening. Each of them was highly revealing of where we are in the discussion. The Trust report set the context perfectly.
42. Research shows that lapses in ability can be forgiven. Each one of us is fallible and human. Most of us in senior leadership roles have made mistakes of competence in our career at some point. Someone has forgiven us that lapse to allow us to continue in our vocation or work. But betrayals of integrity and benevolence can destroy trust, and fast, at both an individual and institutional level (Lewicki, 2017). As an old Dutch proverb puts it: “Trust comes on foot but leaves on horseback.” In other words, trust is hard to gain but all too easy to lose.
The formal proposal before us included the introduction of stand-alone services of blessing of same-sex sexual relationships. It was claimed that this had ’emerged’ from the meetings of the discussion groups convened in Leicester in May—but the paper summarising those discussions for the bishops was not shown to participants, raising suspicions that something was afoot. In answer to Questions, it was claimed that this was an ‘oversight’—yet when I asked Martyn Snow why that paper cannot now be published, he said ‘I don’t see the need.’ Off gallops trust on horseback.
This proposal has been made despite the strong hints from previous legal advice that this would not be possible without a change of doctrine. GS 2328 presented in November 2023 included in Annex A, para 17, the comment that:
it would be difficult to say that making the PLF available for same-sex couples without there being an assumption as to their sexual relationships was not indicative of any departure from the Church’s doctrine.
The reason for this is that, as Questions have confirmed, the legal position remains what it was in 2017. In the paper tabled by the House of Bishops, which by the narrowest of margins was not ‘taken note of’ in the House of Laity, the legal advice was published and was unambiguous. Any stand-alone service would have to include clear explanation of the Church of England’s doctrine of marriage, would need to make it clear that what was happening in such a service was not marriage, and in fact was contrary to the Church’s teaching. Such a service would be unusable. (You can read the paper here, including the legal advice in the appendix, and explore all the debates about legal advice here.)
Can we see the legal advice? Martyn Snow was asked again. ‘No, I don’t see the need’. Another horse gallops away.
In Questions, it was asked whether the new approach to openness and transparency that Martyn had promised would mean the House of Bishops publishing minutes of past meetings. No, this will only affect future meetings. The stable is now beginning to look pretty empty.
The presentation and questions session on LLF did actually offer some greater honesty. The group of three bishops were asked: if the stand-alone services of blessing were to be made available for a ‘trial period’, if it was decided that they should not continue, what mechanism was there for withdrawing them. (None exists in canon law.) ‘To be honest, I don’t see them ever being withdrawn’. So now we know: this ‘trial’ would actually be a permanent change.
And Sam Corley, bishop of Stockport, helpfully added further clarity. If clergy are blessing a relationship, then there is a ‘theological gap to be closed’ if they are blessing something they themselves cannot enjoy. In other words, you cannot sustainably offer stand-alone blessings without then allowing clergy to enter same-sex sexual relationships with the ‘blessing’ of the Church. At last we have some clarity—but what happened to the emphatic claims made in February 2023 that any prayer ‘was not blessing the relationship but only the people’? I am now hearing the very distant sound of hoofbeats.
All this provoked Michael Beasley, the normally calm and reasonable Bishop of Bath and Wells, to ask Martyn: ‘When did we as a House ever discuss whether stand-alone services would not be indicative of a change of doctrine?’ I understand that he also asked this of his fellow bishops by message—but answer came there none.
Perhaps the stable of trust has been empty for a long time. The horses seem to have disappeared over the horizon.
Even in the debate we could not trust what was being said. Justin Welby claimed that ‘he could not imagine a Church without the members of the Alliance being part of it.’ And yet those very people had just told him that passing this motion would exclude them, as it was setting out a plan to introduce a de facto change in doctrine—as the question session had made clear. How do you respond when you tell someone ‘Voting for this will exclude me’ and the person responds ‘I don’t want to exclude you, but I am still going to vote for it’?
The reason why this question of trust, and the clear dishonesty of the bishops pressing for change, is so important was set out starkly in the Trust paper. Quite apart from the disaster this is in any organisation, trust, or faith, pistis is absolutely at the heart of the Christian life. It is by the pistis of Christ that we are saved. And trusting him, having been reconciled to him, we trust and are reconciled to others. When this is absent amongst the leaders of God’s people it raises the most basic question of where we stand before God.
The problem here was most eloquently expressed in speeches by two lay women.
Helen Lamb has joined Synod after a by-election in Oxford Diocese, ironically filling the vacancy left by the departure of campaigner Jayne Ozanne. Without appearing to refer to notes, she talked of the LLF bus running over those who did not agree with the direction of travel.
…one of the most dismaying things was to hear the lead Bishop for LLF say he hopes that there will be space in the Church of England. Synod, I believe and continue to believe the current teaching and doctrine of the Church of England in common with anglicans around the world and the Church of England down history. And the bishops hope that there will be space.
The destination has been made clear. The bus is traveling, the route stops are mapped out—but it is going in one direction. That has been made explicitly clear. And right now it feels like some of us are being run over by that bus.
I also hear that for some people it is going far too slowly. I believe you when you say that that the paper talks of respecting our integrities. I take it that doesn’t mean we’re going to pretend that we’re all really right, even though some of us believe mutually exclusive things. I take it it means that we believe when we say something that we mean what we say. So I hear people say this is too slow. I believe you. I believe that’s what you think and I know this is a matter of justice and of love and of inclusion for you.
Please believe me when I say it is a matter of obedience to God, of conviction that that is teaching that marriage is given to teach us something about Jesus and his bride. So please take us at our word that we’re not obstructing or delaying or playing games. We are seeking to obey God above all. And so our disagreements are profound and they matter profoundly to all of us.
It is heartening therefore to hear talk of we want to listen and this is where I declare is it an interest. I signed the Alliance letter. I didn’t do it because I was coerced and I certainly didn’t coerce anyone else. I signed it with a heavy heart and in deep lament. We are in a grievous situation. But I signed it because I am hopeful that there can be a space where we can all flourish and I am pleading with the bishops to work with us. I signed it to be part of creating a space.
And to hear that the power that the Bishops hold as ordinaries is non-negotiable whereas the doctrine of the Church is negotiable is a hard thing to hear from our bishops. We know there’s a trust deficit. That debate on Friday was in some ways interesting and helpful in diagnosing the problem. But it hasn’t offered much of a plan.
So thank you for words of wanting to listen, of wanting to engage. I recognize you’re asking that of all of us no matter which side our convictions are coming from. But I’m afraid I’ll believe it when I see it.
And in the meantime we will continue to work to do what we believe we have to do to obey God to trust him to take him at his word to be in fellowship with one another wherever we can. We want to stay on the bus; please don’t run us over the church is the Bride of Christ.
I love this church. It has been my spiritual home, and I’m part of the Church of England. So please let’s find a space where we can all flourish. Don’t run us over.
This isn’t an abstract theological debate for me; this is my life. I am gay and I firmly believe that for me to flourish I must live an obedient life that denies my desire for relationship and I firmly believe that for me to flourish I must live an obedient life that denies my desire for relationship with a woman and to live a single celibate life. This is what God says is best for me and that is therefore a good thing. He made me he knows my innermost being. He therefore has the right to tell me what is good for me.
Bishop Martin you said in your opening that we are all welcomed at the table of this church. But it was commented on Saturday that there is a fear that some do not feel that there is a place for them within the Church of England or that others do not want them within the church. That is exactly how I feel. I am not wanted. My experience, my viewpoint, my theological understanding of my sexuality are not wanted. My life is not wanted. So often this debate and this discussion refers to the LGBT group—and yet my voice and the voices of those like me are not heard. We seem to be completely ignored or it is assumed that we are somehow less LGBT because of the way we choose to live our lives.
But I know that the Lord Jesus accepts me completely—that my worth, my purpose, my contentment are found only in him. And so that is what I hold on to when I’m feeling most disheartened by the things that are said in this chamber. But that does not take away from the grief and sadness that I feel when I look at this motion. I’m being told that I must share a space with those with with whom I fundamentally disagree whilst I’m here trying to tell you that I’m not sure that I can because our beliefs are so fundamentally incongruent.
And so, Bishops, in trying to keep us together I fear that you are actually forcing us apart. I do not see a space for me in these proposals. This motion offers me and those like me nothing. I do not want to leave the Church of England; it is my church and I want to continue to worship within it. But this motion continues along a path that may well force me to leave because it does not support me, encourage me, or allow me to flourish. So I ask therefore Synod that you reject this.
And here is my speech, given after two amendments were discussed and voted on (and so limited to three minutes):
This is not a debate between love and legalities. Those who oppose this motion do so because we want to be true to the love of Christ for all—‘if you love me, keep my commandments. Remain in my love’. Love rejoices with the truth, and the truth is that, if this motion is passed, three things will certainly happen.
First, trust—already at a low—will be finally broken. There has been no adequate theology, no adequate process, no transparency, no coherence. LLF has failed all four tests of trust.
Secondly, the Church will split. Not in formal structures—I cannot see how that could work. But it will in practice. Nowhere in scripture, nowhere in the history of the church catholic, nowhere in the Church’s own doctrine—nowhere in past statements by the bishops until very recently, has this been a ‘thing indifferent’ on which we can agree to disagree. And we do not.
Thirdly, the Church will continue in serious decline. In fourteen years, we have halved in size. In one diocese, the number of children has dropped by 50% in four years. There are no real signs that this is slowing, yet alone reversing. After the Scottish Episcopal Church changed its doctrine it declined by 40% in six years. The Church of Scotland will be extinct by around 2038—just fourteen years from now. No Western denomination has changed its doctrine of marriage without then accelerating in decline. We will be no different. This is not ‘catastrophising’; this is not a power play. This is honesty; this is reality.
So if you do vote for this proposal, please do it with your eyes wide open—knowing it will destroy trust, knowing it will divide the Church, and knowing it will lead to greater decline. I don’t feel any of that is a demonstration of the love of God. Vote for this—only if you think that distrust, disunity, and decline is a price worth paying. If not, vote against and let us think again together.
What I found fascinating is that, the speeches that followed, not a single person really engaged with any of the points made in these three speeches.
So, what next? What do we do in a church where there has been such dishonest, failure to follow due process, and lack of transparency? I think it is worth noting in passing that this is what has happened in every denomination which has changed its doctrine of marriage. In the Methodist Church, a group at the centre ruled that marriage was not a doctrine of the church, and so could be changed without proper debate. Due process was also set aside in Wales. It is fascinating to see that there is a consistent dishonesty involved in driving through this change. The right response to this widespread dishonesty is to refuse to repay like with like, but ‘continue his faithful soldiers and servants to the end of our lives.’
So, first—and this might sound odd—we need to note that, still, nothing has changed. The doctrine of the Church of England has not changed—and because of Canon A5, which roots our doctrine not only in Scripture but also in the Formularies of the Book of Common Prayer and the Thirty-Nine Articles, there really is no way that it can change. This is quite different from other denominations. This whole disastrous, trust-corroding exercise is actually for nothing.
Secondly, we need to be encouraged by the exciting signs of growth within the Church of England and outside it. Almost all of those are in churches which continue to uphold the teaching of Jesus on marriage being between one man and one woman.
Thirdly, we need to hold our leaders to account. The truth will out, and it is gradually being made clear. As a result, episcopal support is beginning to waiver. Whilst 22 bishops voted for the motion this time around, 17 either abstained or voted against.
Fourthly, I cannot see any workable way in which a formal separate province will be set up. But what will happen (as I said in my speech) is that there will be growing lack of cooperation and communication between those committed to the doctrine of the Church and teaching of Jesus, and those bishops who reject it. (Again: how do we have bishops leading our Church who do not believe the doctrine they promised to uphold and teach?) We need to be honest, and say we are in impaired communion with those who will not teach the truth.
Fifthly, we need to be bold. The lessons from other churches on this are clear: unless we step up and say ‘enough is enough’, the Church of England will wither and die, to all intents and purposes, as others have done.
Sixthly, we need to be kind and gracious. As Laura Oliver said, we believe that the teaching of Jesus is given in love, since he knows us, loves us, and wants our best. We need to make that claim credible in our dealings with all.
Seventhly, pray and remain steadfast. This, too, will pass.
Buy me a Coffee
Thanks Ian,
An extremely tangential point here: are you absolutely sure that Robert Morgan is now “the late Robert Morgan”?
oh I had better check!
No–he is not! Not sure why I thought that…!! Corrected.
Not only living but honoured as the only known holder of the correct take on the Synoptic Problem. (Apart from myself, of course….)
I made a similar mistake a couple of weeks ago – it is easily done. Those amused by this sort of thing can google Mark Twain; Rex Alston; and David Ford on Nicholas Lash who was sitting in the talk at the time.
The only instance in our family, a confusion of identity between two elderly Irenes, led us to blurt out, when the supposedly deceased telephoned us: ‘But where exactly are you calling *from*?’.
I’m essentially ‘progressive’ on the substantive question, but more and more appalled by the process. Sadly the HoB seems locked in to what I call (following McGilchrist) ‘left hemisphere capture’ – they cannot (literally cannot) step outside the framework within which they understand things. It needs divine intervention to change that.
Sam, thank you so much for that comment. I think there are many people in your situation—but will they speak up and object?
I am wondering whether ‘corruption’ is too strong a word…?
I don’t think it’s corruption, I think it’s a structural problem – one which prevents prayer from taking place… (of course, that depends on a certain understanding of what prayer IS!)
Is it not corruption when the bishops distort processes (eg keeping their meetings secret), ignore legal processes, refuse to publish legal advice which should be available to all, claim things are ‘trial’ knowing they cannot be reversed…and so on.
What would you call it?
Business as usual- this is how bishops tackle pretty well every issue
I think corruption requires the person doing the wrong action to know that they are doing an action that is wrong (as opposed to thinking that it is the right action)
(Do you know of others who feel the same?)
Hello Ian
A lot of clergy are just hanging on and simply don’t want to raise heads above the parapet at this time
It sticks in the craw for most of us, but the downward spiral for the C of E accelerated with women’s ordination in 1992. The conservative (and sexually orthodox) catholic element basically disappeared (hundreds into the Ordinariate), and there was an influx into the ordained Anglican ministry of middle aged women, many changing careers. While a good number of these were conservative-minded (some nurtured in the evangelical and charismatic subcultures and organisations like New Wine), many others were liberal and feminist-minded, with a sympathy for people seen as excluded by a male heterosexual hierarchy. Naturally this means people with SSA.
And so the feminisation of the ministry of the Church of England accelerated, and before long, a significant number of women with liberal views were elected to the House of Clergy, and then to the House of Bishops. Fewer traditional-minded men offered for ordination – and the parishes themselves became notably older and more female, in the countryside as well. On a recent holiday to the southwest of England, I was struck by how few men, if any, there were on PCCs in country parishes. Faithful elderly women were serving as church wardens as no men were interested. A quick glance at the age profile indicated these churches will be leaderless in five years.
But it does not need to be so. There are orthodox, growing churches with women leaders in Britain.
Thanks for making that point! And thank you for this whole article: in spite of our heinous state, it clarifies the issues and gives me grounds for hope
Oh I am glad to hear that. In some ways, I think the disaster of this Synod is a very good thing. I think it is becoming more and more clear how deceptive are bing the bishops pressing for change.
Ian – I hope there are – but I haven’t really seen them. Where are they?
The impression I’ve had for years is that a feminised church is one that men will leave to their wives.
Is my analysis of the past thirty years correct or not?
There are plenty eg in the New Wine network. But also look at Vineyard and the black-led churches.
In the C of E? I don’t know of any, myself. Maybe other readers have details to share here?
So you’ve never attended a New Wine event?
There may be confusion because Vineyard mentioned above is a denomination, and it might be easy to therefore assume that the New Wine network is also a denomination, as it’s referred to in a similar way. I don’t think “network” helps this much, and I’m not really sure how to describe the organisation. In any case, many churches that are part of the Church of England are also part of New Wine, and one of New Wine’s trustees is the Right Reverend Dr Jill Duff, a Church of England bishop.
Are there any figures that have been collected over the voting patterns, throughout LLF between male and female across the house of bishops and house of clergy,in fact across all synods and working groups?
Putting oneself up for election to General Synod is a niche and murky pastime in the extreme, Geoff! In my experience those who do it are the best kept secret in any local church. As for canvassing the views or seeking the wisdom of those in the pews, you must be joking. Democracy in action it is not. On the other hand I’m struggling to understand why democratic votes – even if the process were genuinely democratic – are the appropriate way to decide on matters of doctrine. Analysing which way this peculiar group of men or women vote might tell you very little about the instinctive biases of the two sexes in general.
More generally it’s my observation that men tend to be a lot more interested in doctrine than women who tend to be more interested in the underlying human psychology they perceive in the Bible narrative. It hardly needs saying that I’m speaking in generalities: we can all point to people who would demonstrate the complete opposite of that observation.
Yes, that would be my impression too though I’d add that often men seem to be more willing to argue over doctrine and form pressure groups than women. And of course in the Alliance letter a large majority of signatories are men in larger evangelical churches which only rarely have women vicars. The Together letter seemed to have more of a balance of men and women but I didn’t do an exact count. There could be all sorts of complex historical and cultural factors at work here and, as you so rightly say, we can all think of people who don’t fit what is a huge generalisation. I wonder if the increased number of women in the House of Commons will change the culture there?
Female members of the House of Clergy are by far more likely to be voting in favour of PLF than any other group in Synod. The few that are not often feel very isolated.
That’s fascinating. Any idea why they vote that way? Sorry to hear that you (or anyone) feels isolated in Synod over any issue. There’s no excuse for that since we are all sisters and brothers and kneel at the same communion rail.
Please do not blame ordained women! Several of us (myself included) are more biblically orthodox than most of our male priest colleagues.
Yes I agree. However, it is a fact that more women are liberal overall than men. But praise God for your faithfulness!
Thank you for that Ian. But if we’re going to cast ‘blame’ for this in any direction, perhaps the selection panels and bishops who put people forward for ordination have a lot to answer for. I know of biblically orthodox women (as well as some men) who’ve been ‘rejected’ because they don’t tick the liberal boxes…
Yes, I would agree that that is important. We need to ask some hard questions here.
Without women priests and bishops the Church of England would have even fewer clergy as fewer heterosexual men want to be priests now than did 50 to 100 years ago. In the 18th century the Vicar or Rector would often have the biggest house in the Parish after the squire in his Manor but those days are long gone and the large grade listed Rectories and Vicarages have largely been sold off. Most Vicarages now are 20th century buildings, which while usually 4 bed are not as grand and the salary for a C of E priest is only average. Women church wardens also do a valiant job keeping especially rural churches going
Such a shame we do not have all this wealth to offer people to induce them into ministry.
All we can rely on nowadays is the call of God and people’s heart to serve. Such a pity.
Yes but the reality is unless you are very devout if a highly qualified graduate who could get a highly paid job as lawyer, surgeon or banker or in business you will take that over becoming a priest. Even if you are religious you can still attend weekly church services and give some of your wealth to the church, maybe even in retirement become a lay preacher but you aren’t going to make your career full time ministry.
At least in the 18th and 19th centuries until they sold most of them off in the 20th century the wonderful vast Georgian rectories with large gardens and fireplaces and huge dining tables to entertain you got a beautiful and large house for you and your family to live in, maybe with some staff, even if not a huge wage. Most of those rectories and vicarages are now in private hands and to be found in Savills or Country Life unfortunately now
Those vast Georgian rectories were a liability by the end. Much like with other country houses the financial assumptions that existed when they were built (that the rents and incomes from the rector’s estate would pay for them) no longer held.
Perhaps, the end of tithes may well have made their upkeep more difficult. Mind you plenty of Rectors in those days were sons of the landed gentry, wealthy merchants or even aristocracy who had plenty of private income to sustain their upkeep
‘unless you are very devout.’
Heaven forbid that we should have devout clergy! (sarcasm alert…)
Is being ‘feminist-minded’ wrong in some way? Many men are feminist-minded as well as women, it’s better than being misogynist, I suggest. And what’s wrong with middle aged women as priests? Many delay or pause their careers because child care and the care of elderly relatives is still, even in 2024, seen as a predominantly female role. Many have served faithfully and sacrificially in self-supporting roles in parishes while men have continued to occupy most stipendiary posts. They bring huge life skills to ministry that younger clergy do not have in their 20s, as do middle aged men. Many GPs, teachers, solicitors, et al are female and middle aged and there are no complaints about them. The changing demographic of the Churches is a very complex and long-term development and to focus on middle aged, ‘liberal’ women is extraordinary.
Indeed, more women have degrees than men now and women do better on average at GCSE and A Level than men too.
Hardly surprising then that more women now hold professional jobs as lawyers, doctors, MPs and Ministers, senior civil servants, GPs, academics and yes even priests and bishops than did before
You reduce it to a binary analysis.
There has quite obviously been a feminisation of the church leadership as of much else of public life.
The voting records at GS show that women have been decisive in the drive towards a progressive position on SSM
We should be willing to recognise that
One obvious issue here. People are using opinions, ideas and personal views. God has not changed, Jesus has not changed. A church is not a building, such as those where greed and sin reside. Jesus tells us to go in our rooms in private to pray. Do not follow men but Jesus only. The Bible is clear. In fact look how the Church of England were founded. In fact the term Church of England is Bizare. Jesus is our Church, keep clear of those who hide and decide in secret votes, as money or self interest are driving forces to Evil.
James
Partly this is just that women live longer, but I think another factor is the shift away from clergy having as much interest in the lives of anyone who isn’t in ministry, education or healthcare
There is a reason for this: according to St Paul, overseers (ie leaders of congregations, in whatever structure there is), must be male: they are to be “men of one woman” (1 Timothy 3). Therefore female congregation leaders will be liberal rather than evangelical – otherwise they would not transgress holy scripture. In the 2002 ‘Mind of Anglicans’ survey, 2/3 of Church of England women priests who replied to a questionnaire did not believe without question in Christ’s virgin birth. (For men it was an only slightly less embarrassing 42%.)
A survey by (Rev Prof) Leslie Francis of the first tranche of female Anglican ordinands found that they typically had masculine personality traits, and male ones had female traits (in the journal Personality and Individual Differences, vol. 12, pp. 1133-40; 1991). Nothing I have seen since convinces me otherwise.
Since St Paul didn’t write 1 Tim. he said no such thing. Paul clearly recognised and accepted female leaders. It just took the church nearly 2000 years to catch up.
Anything else you dislike in the New Testament and declare illegitimate? The virgin birth and resurrection of Jesus, perhaps?
I suggest you do some work on hermeneutics and learn the difference between core and contingent. Ian must have written something.
Trouble is, the letter opens with the statement that it is by Paul. So, if it isn’t, that means God tolerates deliberate lies in his scriptures, distinct from exaggeration for literary effect (the whole world came to see Solomon in his finery etc). In which case the sky is the limit.
You are placing the line between literal truth and literary effect according to secular prejudices that are in denial of Christian faith.
What is your argument that someone other than Paul wrote 1 Timothy and how then did it get written; would that reduce its authority given that it’s in the NT; if so, how do you decide which bits to accept?
Are you suggesting that the author started the epistle with a massive lie, or that it was later changed?
1 Timothy 1:1 NIVUK
[1] Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the command of God our Saviour and of Christ Jesus our hope,
https://bible.com/bible/113/1ti.1.1.NIVUK
Hi
I have spent a bit of time studying this issue,
and my essay came up with a similar truth,
that it is almost beyond imagination that the CofE
can delete doctrines that it remains inextricably bound to.
It is cemented, superglued, mixed,
permeated within and surrounded by its foundational documents,
formularies etc.
For this movement to deny any of its Canon/Doctrine etc will be extremely hard, without the logical pulling down of the whole structure. How do the Bishops think that they can chip away at the cornerstones and believe the structure will remain intact?
IT seems to me that the reason this issue is taking many decades is not simply because it is a sensitive or emotive matter, but because it requires the complete rejection of portions of Scripture.
The progressive/liberals know that Doctrines are established on Biblical Truth and Principals and therefore, spent this time trying to find a “way out”, a “clause”, “a word” a contextual parchment – anything – that could support their own truth. Sadly, the magic bullet or the smoking gun has not been discovered, and in utter dismay and perhaps anger, they want to go supersonic through the motions in order to get it passed.
Ironically, we now have the Orthodox talking about leaving the church!? But, I am not convinced this is correct?
Why? Because the Orthodox are not seeking the change the doctrine of the CofE. We are not trying to deny – absolutely – what is plain in the Bible! The bishops, priests and lay-folk that want to get married to their same sex, transgender, non-binary partners – it is these people who want to deny Scripture, they reject its Truth, This is the sin that sets them apart, not their lifestyles and other choices to do it their own way, but the greater sin is the rejection of God’s word.
So, let them have it their way, sure, they can have anything they want… but the condition is that they have to be the ones to leave. That is logical and historical as well as scriptural. The apostates leave. Those bishops and priests et al. who deny the Scriptures and the Sovereign Lord, they are the ones who should be packing their bags… I will even offer to help!
It is not I, you or anyone who seeks to defend the doctrines and Scriptures, the truth that has been handed down to us over the last 2000years by those who paid for it in their own blood. We, like they, are not the ones to be thinking “where will we go”?
It seems to be incredulous that we should be even considering the idea that we are to be vacating our posts, the cure of souls or a pastorate because wicked and cunning blasphemers have infiltrated the Church and are now wreaking havoc upon our lives and distorting God’s word.
We talk about being Loving, and that is great, but Jesus Himself knew when enough was enough…. there was a line, and for them it is now the horizon… they have gone so far beyond what is written, truth has passed the vanishing point, so far out of sight that they are blinded. Love – to be truly loving – requires discipline… “expel the immoral brother from you”… the scriptures do not say: …and now, because wickedness has entered the church, you all need to allow the wicked occupy your ministries!? I do not read anywhere where church leaders are – as a result of others sin in the church – to uproot themselves and move so that those who deny the Truth can set up shop!?
Why then are we going to depart from our posts, and leave the institution to those who will destroy it and themselves??
If the archbishops are denying the truth, then they should be removed. If a priest will not repent of their sin, they should be removed…
Moreover, it is precisely because this has not been done for the last 100 years, that we are in the predicament we are now in. No discipline, no discernment, no abiding to the Truth… this is the fault of those who have been at the helm over the last 100years… slowly allowing people who practice particular sins and live certain lifestyles into positions and posts in the CofE, the gradual erosion of truth and doctrines over the years. This has now led to this point and did not happen in a vacuum, it was not an accident, it is not the sole cause of culture either. But it is now an epidemic, but it started off by the slow… and ….gradual …addition of those who are not orthodox and this is the mess we are in now….
So, for me, it is those who deny the Biblical truths that our Church has stood upon for hundreds of years and the Christian Church has taught since its inception, they should be asked to leave.
But I can see it happening that we are going to capitulate and submit to this tyranny … and that is perhaps more tragic and more of an indictment against us than the fact that it happened in the first place. And looking back at it, it is not, I suppose, at all surprising!?
May God Have Mercy Upon Us All.
‘Why then are we going to depart from our posts, and leave the institution to those who will destroy it and themselves??’
Absolutely spot on. I am not going anywhere!
Amen!
you read that fast!
I have to…
Ian: then we have to declare the errant bishops deposed and appoint orthodox ones.
No confirmations, no money, nothing.
Appoint new orthodox bishops now.
There is not an obvious mechanism with the canons of the C of E.
Just stop paying them. Put confirmations on hold or invite in a faithful bishop. That’s a start.
That is a relatively painless policy. I think it is already happening.
Really?
We’re not talking about a teaching that has been handed down for 2000 years. The current “conservative/traditional” teaching on homosexuality (roughly, having a gay sexual orientation is not itself sinful only acting on it, the Church needs to avoid homophobia and should welcome gay people in, and because gay people cannot act on their sexual orientation they should be celibate) is, at best, only 30-40 years old. And even this is in reality disputed amongst conservatives and traditionalists – e.g. questions about whether sexual orientation can be changed, are the desires actually sinful or not, should gay people be encouraged into straight marriages or not, are romantic relationships allowed if there’s no actual sex etc., not to mention new questions like whether a gay couple coming to faith ought to be told to get divorced.
It may be comforting but it is a fiction to say one side follows Scripture and the other ignores it. You might look to Leviticus 18, Romans 1, and 1 Corinthians 6. I look to Ecclesiastes 4, 1 Corinthians 7, 1 Timothy 5, Romans 13, and Mark 2 (amongst others). The current “conservative/traditional” view, insofar as it is coherent, has problems with Scripture – Jesus and St Paul are pretty clear in Matthew 19 and 1 Corinthians 7 that you cannot prescribe celibacy for people (and indeed the Bishops when they wrote Issues in Human Sexuality back in the early 90s echoed that).
Adam, questions about whether we should repent of homophobia, and whether ‘orientation’ can change are not part of the ‘unchanging doctrine’.
What is unchanging in all of Christian history, for every church tradition, in every branch of the church, in every culture, in every age, is that marriage is between a man and a woman.
The fact that 22 of our bishops think they can just change this (against canon law, and without due process) is stunning both in its arrogance and its ignorance.
Except what’s being proposed isn’t same-sex marriage is it? If it was, Jayne Ozanne wouldn’t have left would she?
Jayne Ozanne is a pretty unstable character who has been through several crises in her life. I remember when she was an outspoken fundamentalist charismatic lionised by George Carey because she was a Christian businesswoman of sorts. She very publicly resigned from his council, warning apocalyptically that “dark times” were coming on the C of E. Then she came out as lesbian and began a crusade against the fundamentalist homophobes of the C of E, assisted by Bishop Paul Bayes of Liverpool who created a PR front called “the Jayne Ozanne Foundation”, complete with awards. Maybe she has got bored with all this, as time’s winged chariot draws near.
Yes, it became clear this Synod that is exactly what is being proposed—but by covert not overt means.
PLF in services. Well it is not much different to have PLF stand alone. Well, we cannot allow clergy to bless people in a relationship that they cannot enter. So SSM for clergy. Ah look, doctrine must have changed somewhere—without anyone changing it!
James
I think she just gets fed up with being lied to over and over by people in power
It’s not a change proposed by 22 bishops. It was a vote in General Synod.
This is a response to some comments above not to Penelope. Can we please stop these nasty personal attacks on people such as Jayne Ozanne (whom I’ve never met and know very little about) and our bishops. They, too, are our brothers and sisters in Christ whether we agree with them or not. It’s easy to denigrate those we have come to see as our opponents or even, the opposition, but it does us no good.
Tim, read what Paul says about those distorting the Gospel. Jayne Ozanne, assisted by Paul Bayes, has never been shy of attacking those she disagrees with. If you don’t know about Jayne Ozanne, you haven’t been paying much attention the past 5 years or so.
Vitriol.
James, you miss my point.Even if she has been critical of others it does us no good to behave in the same way. And it is pretty unpleasant to come across personal attacks here. However much I, you or anyone else knows about a person, being mean spirited about them has an impact on us all. We seem to have created a world of discourse in which rather judgemental language is acceptable if we disagree with the person we speak of.
Tim, I have observed her doings for many years now and am surprised you seem to know nothing about her and her very public behaviour, and her growingly intemperate attacks on orthodox Christianity – which she used to espouse until she decided to live as a lesbian. She has been very open about her life, including claiming that a priest she wanted to marry ‘raped’ her. You can verify all this by reading her website. And Justin Welby took her to see the Pope!
Tim, there’s a war going on! Read what St Paul said about his opponents and how they distorted the gospel. Would you castigate the Apostle for being “mean spirited”?
James, I didn’t say I knew nothing about her, but in my first post I did want to make it clear I wasn’t speaking for her or defending her views. My point was that such continuing personal criticism in a public forum is unhelpful and unedifying for the rest of us. As for the war, what I increasingly hear is ever-louder blame-games in which fingers are pointed at others, but rarely do we take our share of responsibility for the situation. The tone of many comments usually comes across as, ‘they’ are wholly to blame, but we are wholly innocent, pure, upholding the truth and victims of others evil intent/ ignorance/ disobedience/duplicity. It’s all too easy to position ourselves as the correct ones, the ‘speaking for God’ ones and Girard would have a field day, were he still around to see it all.
I suggest we now cease from this particular exchange which is probably not encouraging either of us.
At some point, the adulterer, pleaded with by his virtuous wife, grows tired of both her words and piety. The question is not about whether she is right but whether he can stand her rebuke and obstruction in his profligacy. He, rather than she, separates, moving in with his lover. Perhaps he brings his lover into his own house even, moving his wife into the guest bedroom.
Questions of trust in the relationship do not even arise: the trust has long been broken. He may not want a divorce if she is the main breadwinner, but he finds no love for her. If she persists in trying to pursue her relationship with him as her husband, he eventually has no choice but to remove her. If she returns or follows him about his business, he takes out a restraining order. He cannot have her weeping outside the window of the house where he plays his sexual blessing games with his paramour, who parades about the house in the wife’s wedding gown. When the divorce comes, it brings no headlines: everyone else knew it was the reality for years. Some criticise her more than him for a devotion that kept her from living a life that would allow her to thrive and that kept her in a contentious relationship with an adulterer.
Spot on. Or indeed, equally, the adulteress and virtuous husband.
These reports remind me of the Abraham – Lot – Sodom saga,
Gen. 18.
Lot was a righteous man according to 2 Peter 2: 7&8
“And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;
2:7 And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked:
2:8 (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds;)
His wife’s heart seemed to be in Sodom, perhaps she did not want to leave her home;Or her sons who refused Lot’s plea to leave.
Abraham on hearing of God’s intentions of Judgement, pleaded for Justice rather than Judgement.
In the end God exercised both Justice and Judgement by saving Lot and his step-sons who responded to his plea.
As Peter goes on to say 2:9 “The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:
2:10 But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government….
Justice or Judgement?
For justice we would and can plead and to spare judgement.
But who can say if God will rescue, destroy or do both.
Where else does the bus go – Martyn Snow seemed to accept polyamory…
He also seemed content that if people did not like it they could leave
Dear Ian
Thank you for another illuminating blog…
Now England has ceased to be even a “culturally Christian” country, is it not time for its church to be disestablished?
I wonder if the bishops – all effectively appointed by the prime minister of the day – seem determined to lead us into Pride because they fear the prospect of the C of E losing its place and power at the constitutional heart of the country (reference the coronation)…
In the wake of last week’s election, political pressure to move further and faster in the DEI direction seems bound to increase exponentially…
What do you think?
I think Keir Starmer’s commitment to no ideology is opposed to the DEI agenda, so they will need to choose which way to go.
I think that just as a fish doesn’t know what water is labour do not recognise that DEI is ideology. It just is – it’s the arc of justice that history bends towards. It is the things that oppose it that are “ideologies”
Firstly, there has been no change in doctrine. Synod affirmed that marriage remained between one man and one woman ideally for life which is partly why liberals like Ozanne were so disappointed and she has now left the C of E to become a Methodist given Methodists do now allow same sex marriages in their churches. Second, conservative evangelicals have had yet further concessions by having an opt out from the services of prayers for same sex couples as those who disagree with women priests and bishops have an opt out.
However the Church of England is established church of a nation where same sex marriage has been legal for a decade. It is simply not viable for it to continue to deny any service within its churches for those of its parishioners who are same sex couples married in English civil law. Hence Synod voted by majority for PLF. If even the opt outs are not enough for evangelicals then there are plenty of conservative Baptist, Pentecostal or independent evangelical churches they can join instead which offer neither same sex marriages nor even prayers of blessing for same sex couples in their churches.
As for the so called ‘death’ of churches which do anything other than condemn homosexuality, across the West the evidence is Christianity is declining overall and secularism is rising. Even those conservative evangelical churches which are growing tend to still have fewer overall numbers than the Roman Catholic church, where Pope Francis has also considered allowing blessings, or fewer than the established Anglican or Lutheran church in the minority of western nations where the main Protestant church is bigger than the RC church like the UK.
Growing deficits are a concern within the C of E but it will just have to accept it will have fewer priests still if its congregation declines further as there will be less demand for them. What is also needed is to reduce the number of bishops further, certainly suffragen bishops and the size of administrators in dioceses and at Lambeth to also reflect the fact the C of E will be smaller so resources it does have are focused on Parish level. The billions in investments and rental income the C of E has can also be used to pay off diocesan deficits where needed too and the wealthiest dioceses like London and Oxford should do more to assist the poorer dioceses
‘Firstly, there has been no change in doctrine. Synod affirmed that marriage remained between one man and one woman.’
No, but it has been claimed that
a. stand-alone services are only a trial, when Martyn admitted that they would be permanent
b. they would not lead to clergy in SSM, when Sam Corley has admitted you cannot have one without the other.
c. that doctrine will not change, when we now know in public that many of the bishops think it should, and this will be the way.
You cannot run such a process by such dishonesty and deceit. Do you think people who mislead and hide their plans should be bishops?
Yes but even the stand-alone services are only services of prayer for same sex couples, not marriage services. Clergy married in civil law to a same sex partner will also therefore still not be able to get married in a C of E church.
But the legal advice in 2017 said that would not work, as it would be ‘indicative of a departure from doctrine.
In 2024, it was confirmed that advice has not changed.
Was it? Where is there anything in the C of E canons saying prayers for same sex couples are not lawful? There is no legal advice that can say that because there is absolutely nothing in the C of E canons or articles saying services of prayer for same sex couples are prohibited.
Marriage may be reserved for opposite sex couples under C of E doctrine but PLF does not change the definition of marriage
T1
You wrote
“However the Church of England is established church of a nation where same sex marriage has been legal for a decade. It is simply not viable for it to continue to deny any service within its churches for those of its parishioners who are same sex couples married in English civil law”.
I don’t often agree with you; and on this one I’m still I admit wavering as to whar would be the best option. But it is very hard to deny your basic logic there. By being ‘established’ the CofE has been very much trying throughout its existence to ‘serve two masters’, and it looks as if the crunch point has now come. A nominally national church attended by barely two per cent of the population is not likely to be allowed to carry on in a position opposed to a major plank in the state’s laws. I think you’re going to get what you want….
But, as they say, be careful what you wish for. An established church is as I’ve pointed out elsewhere already defying what the scripture teaches, and if they accept same-sex marriage they will be even more telling God that they know better than Him. Yet ultimately the Church is only meaningful insofar as it is faithful to God, and cannot expect God to support unfaithfulness, abandoning the light of God for the darkness of the world. It isn’t going to go well; and as it will rather force evangelicals to leave, it will take out the most successful part of the church.
Glad we largely agree, though I think the opt out and the fact it is only services of prayer for same sex couples approved in C of E churches not marriage should keep most evangelicals in it
T1
I don’t think we ‘largely agree’ – just at the narrow point of the anomaly of the ‘national church’ being out of tune with the nation. I had been hoping that other recent trends would result in the CofE finally seeing the error of their ‘established’ ways and freeing itself from the misguided ‘serving of two masters’; instead sadly they have gone even further from biblical teaching and it seems clear that the pressures/temptation of the unbiblical place in the state have played a major role in this further unfaithfulness….
It may be convenient for some people to pretend that the House of Bishops has eroded or broken trust, and everyone else in and around Synod are merely sad bystanders, but it’s not true. Have we all forgotten CEEC’s “Beautiful Story” attempt to shortcircuit the discussion of LLF? Has anyone wondered why, when people like Charlie Skrine and Helen Lamb make speeches trying to reach out and gain support from those inclined to be pro-PLF they’re not meeting with any notable success? And this is when PLF is so disappointing to people like Jayne Ozanne that she’s left Synod (and the CofE apparently).
It is somewhat disingenuous to suggest that the Bishops haven’t considered or done anything for celibate gay Christians. The House of Bishops original response introducing PLF said they wanted to do more work on singleness and celibacy. It’s everyone else in Synod who’s completely ignored that. The Bishops drafting of PLF for covenanted partnerships is heavily based on the ideas of celibate partnership. Again, it’s the rest of Synod that seems to insist on ignoring this.
Well, the testimony of celibate gay Christians (aka orthodox Anglicans) is that they feel excluded and that no provision has been made for them.
Shouldn’t we take them at their word…?
Not to the point of just ignoring the actual content of the proposals put forward.
I’d agree with them, that they’ve been ignored in the debate. But they’re not alone in that. The debate ignores a lot. As far as I can tell, no one in Synod has yet mentioned the prayers for covenanted friendship (in favour or against), let alone the revisions in those prayers and the guidance around them.
‘When did we as a House (of Bishops) ever discuss whether stand-alone services would not be indicative of a change of doctrine?’
“I don’t see the need” (x2)
” ‘To be honest, I don’t see them ever being withdrawn’.
All rather” disappointing”… to put it mildly. And the “To be honest” response is beyond verbal response. I’m plodding on as a PTO in my local church but joy in the “higher” CofE is pretty much exhausted. It’s shooting itself in the foot more and more.
It’s quite striking to listen to Laura Oliver’s synod speech and then the speech following – it proves her main point.
Yes indeed—the person who followed her was simply not listening.
Isn’t that the nature of Synod debates though? They’re in a quasi-Parliamentary style and not conversational (except for the occasional apologetic “I wasn’t planning to speak in this debate…”)
Well, if you are planning to say something and the person ahead of you has anticipated your point, it is common sense to engage.
You would Ian, because you’re one of the most experienced speakers in Synod and sit on the Archbishops Council. I’d venture most Synod members would not.
How could I disagree with such flattery?
The Church of Scotland has not seen anything like the degree of division over same-sex marriage as the Church of England, largely because it is at the point of choosing a minister, congregations decide whether or not to accept someone who is or is not in favour of Sam. The cause of the Kirk’s decline are factors such as congregational closures, the selling off of church buildings (the CoS website looks like an estate agent’s) and the increasing size of church units.
Thanks. But the idea that the issue of marriage has not been a factor is hard to credit. In England, plenty of churches (denominations) are growing, and I would be very surprised if it was not also the case in Scotland.
The Free Church of Scotland opposes same sex marriage certainly
When the General Assembly made its decision on SSM, a number of evangelical ministers left the Kirk, Some moved to the United Free Church (a kind of half-way house to the ‘Wee Frees’) and others, often with their congregations, formed independent churches. It is in these independent churches, based on ‘Bible truth’, opposed to SSM, and supporting complementarianism, that have seen some growth in membership. However, this is against the background of the recently-published 2022 Scottish Census report that 51.1% of Scots have ‘No Religion’
Time for a legal challenge to force the publication of the bishops’ legal advice during all of this. And time for the biblically faithful to use direct and blunt language about – and wherever possible, to – the bishops and archbishops about their deceit, hypocrisy and heresy.
Exactly how would a legal challenge be made to make the Bishops reveal their legal advice? Who would do it and what would be the procedure?
Chris,
In court cases, there are processes to seek disclosure and production of documents. However, it could be foreseen that it could be argued that legal advice given to a party to proceedings is confidential. But, I’d say that argument may be difficult to maintain, in light of the Bishops legal duties, not only the synod, but to individual incumbents and diocese.
Nevertheless, this whole LLF has proceeded on the basis that the opposition is not cohesive, and that court proceedings, judicial review is not going to happen.
I think Ian Paul’s article above particularly in mentioning bishop Martyns responses to him, is but one more piece in the weight of evidence as set out in Andrew Goddard’s many pieces, all points duly ignored.
Far more could be drawn out, and has been. The strategy of intransigence of revisionists through the whole LLF process has been clear from the outset and this is not just a view through the rear view mirror.
I don’t know, Chris, but I do know that Nicky Gumbel (a trained lawyer) threatened this months ago. Time to trigger it.
St Paul says that Christians should not take each other to court. But first I think this is an ecclesiastical court not a civil one, and second I don’t consider the unrepentant who have been warned and had the scriptures explained to them to be Christians.
Agreed. We must see the legal advice which the Church of England paid for.
No need the majority of Synod has consistently voted in favour of PLF and stand alone services and against further need to disclose legal advice. It is Synod and Synod alone which decides the position of the C of E.
As prayers of blessing for same sex couples only have been approved and Synod rejected allowing marriages for same sex couples there has been no change in doctrine in the C of E that marriage is reserved to heterosexual couples, so again no need to disclose further legal advice
Simon, Synod has voted to ignore due process, and to collude with deceit leading to what will certainly be illegal actions.
What status does such a vote have?
If Synod voted that black was white, would it make it so?
There is a very silly idea abroad that ‘law’ trumps reality when obviously the reverse is true.
Law is an alternative more convenient but always potentially-false reality/system set up by the powerful in their own interests. (And the same goes for voting, since that is how laws come into being.) I cannot believe how many people are duped by this.
Christopher, you’re right about law: of itself it proves nothing because laws are no more nor less than the opinion at one point in time of legislators (every one of whom is a fallible human being), and judgements are no more nor less than the opinion of a judge, group of judges, or a jury (all of whom are fallible human beings).
However, appealing to the law in the case of the present dispute offers the possibility that a skilled and objective legal mind might add significant weight and elucidation to the opinion many of us hold that the bishops of the Church of England have signally failed in their duty to act honestly, openly, and coherently in respect of the LLF/PLF innovations which they have tried to drive through against justifiable opposition within the church.
Of course there’s a risk in going to law but in this case there’s little to lose except possibly a lot of money…
It hasn’t, Archbishops are quite entitled to propose new services under canon B4 as long as they don’t change doctrine, including services of prayer for same sex couples.
If they had proposed same sex marriage in church then that would have been a change in the doctrine of the church that marriage is between a man and woman for life requiring a 2/3 majority of Synod to approve but they didn’t
‘It hasn’t, Archbishops are quite entitled to propose new services under canon B4 as long as they don’t change doctrine, including services of prayer for same sex couples.’
The problem is that what is proposed is indeed ‘indicative of a change of doctrine’, according to their own legal advice, published in GS2055, which they have confirmed remains unchanged.
It isn’t, otherwise the Bishops would have proposed full same sex marriage in the C of E which would have really been a change of doctrine. Instead the likes of Jayne Ozanne left the C of E for the Methodists precisely as they did not propose such a change
Para 26 GS2055 makes clear that there is to be no change to “the Church of England’s existing doctrinal position on marriage and sexual relationships”
Indeed. So why are the bishops claiming that they can introduce something which the legal advice, attached to that document, says clearly would indicate a departure from doctrine?
Where? Where does it say it is a change to the doctrine. NOWHERE, other than in your ideological desire to overrule the majority of Bishops and Synod and impose your hardline conservative evangelical agenda of no recognition at all in our established church of same sex couples married in English law. A change in doctrine would be full same sex marriage which many liberal Catholics and liberal evangelicals wanted but have been denied. Instead they had to accept a compromise of prayers only for same sex couples which passed by clear majority in all 3 houses. Yet still you refuse to compromise, despise no same sex marriage, despite your opt outs nothing will do except no recognition at all for same sex couples in the established church. Well sorry, it has passed, the Bishops back it, Synod has backed it and if the compromises are not enough there is the door and you are welcome to walk through it to your nearest conservative Baptist or Pentecostal church
Would that be the Gumbel who has ignored alleged sexual abuse at Soul Survivor while lauding another alleged sexual abuser on Twitter?
Link the tweet, please, and was he in authority at Soul Survivor?
Anton
You can find it quite easily. Look up Russell Brand.
I’m not registered on Twitter/X as I’ve better things to do with my time. Do I take it you are unable to find the tweet in question? And please would you state whether Nicky Gumbel was in any authority at Soul Survivor, ‘ignoring’ Pilavachi’s actions?
Anton
So have I. If you don’t believe me that’s your problem.
You could try Google. Or you could trust me. I’d hardly lie about something which could so easily be disproved.
Or, you could ask a fellow traveler on here – some are quite keen on monitoring my twitter feed.
And read carefully. I didn’t claim that Gumbel was responsible for SS, I said that he hadn’t commented on the Pilavachi abuse.
You made the claim; it is up to you to back it up. I don’t mind if you publicly appear unable to.
The news about the shrinking size of the church and the failure to recruit ordinands is troubling, but not a surprise. All the trends have suggested that this decline, which started as long ago as the early 1970s, was set to continue.
What is surprising to me is that hardly anyone has thought that there might be, at the very least, contributory reasons for this disaster connected with the dominant theological and ecclesiological modes of response to decline. We have surrendered our heritage carelessly, we have thrown away common prayer, we have despised a classic pastoral ministry in and for our communities, and for what? We have been told, time and again, that we should be in the business of reinvention – and at every turn those reinventions have failed. We have surrendered the profoundly scriptural nourishment of a whole liturgy for the thin gruel of cafe church, for example, and we end up surprised that no one knows their Bibles. We don’t sing psalms, we don’t even read them most of the time, nor the hymnody inspired by them and other Scriptural passages, and we have capitulated to modernity’s obsession with me and my feelings, expressed in jejeune doggerel. The Christian year helps us face joys and sorrows and teaches us the gospel – there are too many places where it is mostly ignored.
When I was young nobody thought the tag “a visiting vicar makes a churchgoing people” stupid, but who even attempts pastoral visiting these days? The gulf between church and community has, in all too many places, widened to a chasm
I know there are heroic counter examples to all this, but the energy, money, and encouragement that has been put, and is still being put, into a failed polity is appalling. We were told, time and again, and it was a sequence of trends strongly pushed by evangelicals, that the reason for the overturning of the past was for mission and growth – but the consequence has been in organisational terms and utter and very destructive failure.
I look forward to the day when this starts to be properly examined – until it does, there will be no prospect of emerging from this life-threatening mess.
“modernity’s obsession with me and my feelings” – a harsh but not unfair assessment of the LGBT movement.
A bit of a simplification if I may say so. All shades of sexuality have been obsessed with ‘me and my feelings ‘ for a long time. I don’t think LGBTQ relationships are different in that respect. And over the past 60 years the church has given more weight to the ‘turn to the subject ‘ as Linda Woodhead has demonstrated. It’s reflected in our music: from Youth Praise, to Sounds of Living Water, to Songs of Fellowship to modern worship songs. The affective aspects of worship are now very prominent. It was sometimes known as ‘enthusiasm’ in C18th.. It’s the church following modern culture and, curiously, it’s often those churches which are strongly of this style which are against any giving in to cultural change in areas such as gender and sexuality. Just an observation.
I was pointing to the unreflective irony of Jeremy’s comment. Christianity is about dying to ourselves.
I don’t need convincing on the lyrical inadequacy of modern worship songs – I bore people to death on the subject.
But don’t sell short the need for interiority of praise that expresses the love between the Christian and his Lord. Otherwise worship becomes joyless.
Just a small point, Tim. What the hell is an “LGBTQ relationship”, when it’s at home?
Tim, I think you are right. Our current situation is shaped by individualism, consumerism, and the focus on my own feelings often known as ‘expressive individualism.’.
Our affirmation of gay relationships in culture is one sign of that, but not the only one.
‘Expressive individualism’ is a very grand and technical and modern sounding phrase for something that is as old as the hills: doing whatever one wants.
James
The Pride movement is a movement for equal treatment under the law. It was birthed from restrictions like it being illegal for LGBT people to be served in bars and same sex sex being a criminal act, but also police officers arrested or beating LGBT people without purpose.
These days things have improved, but often crimes against LGBT people still are not treated as seriously by the police, forced SOCE is still legal and a lead contender for the Conservative party leadership called the movement for LGBT equality “monstrous” a few days ago in a speech.
Indeed and in some churches such as St Bartholomew’s in central London there has been a revival in traditional high Anglican worship without any dumbing down. There is room for all worship styles in the C of E
The discussion of trust, Mike Pilavachi, handling of abuse allegations and LGBT people are all the same issue – that the CofE has not cared for the flock, but repeatedly sacrificed the flock and now wonders why it doesn’t seem to have any sheep left
Well, Peter, the TEC has followed a different trajectory is very close to death. What did they do wrong?
On Mike Pilavachi, if you are saying single men with (unknown or unclear) homoerotic attractions probably shouldn’t be in youth work, I would agree. Youth workers should be men married to their wives. It’s biblical wisdom.
TEC is unlikely to ever die though. The Episcopal Trinity Church in Manhattan alone has an investment portfolio of $6 billion and is one of the largest landowners in New York city
‘In Money We Trust’ – yes, that’s the American national motto, isn’t it?
I remember also that Russia has a Ministry of Justice.
Ah yes, Simon, because Jesus said ‘By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, that you will have a billion dollar investment portfolio.’ Great.
James
I don’t know what the TEC has or has not done on trust or abuse and I know very little about their inclusion practices.
I dont think there is anything wrong with gay people being youth leaders. The issue with Mike Pillivachi isnt that he’s gay. It’s that he abused young men and young women and the CofE leadership not only ignored the abuse, but actively encouraged young people to attend his events. My generation of Christians trusted that he was a decent safe and holy man because our church leaders told us that he was. We now know X number of senior leaders in the CofE knew otherwise.
Now that he’s been found out, they still aren’t taking the issue seriously. Mike Pillivachi has been given a quiet retirement, but not even a CDM. None of the other people involved have faced any discipline. As I understand it there isnt even going to be an investigation into the cover up. There’s been no attempt to improve practices for when abuse is reported to stop future leaders being able to cover it up
You only have to look at the various recent scandals of heterosexual ministers whereby they were in inappropriate and sinful relationships with women, or in some instances abusing girls, often stemming from a time when they were young, whether single or married at the time, to understand that this is NOT a gay issue.
I know it’s hard to believe for people with your mindset, but gay people are often able to control themselves and behave appropriately, especially iro young people, unlike some of their heterosexual equivalents.
Think on.
Can you give a comparable name to the Pivlachi, Ball, or Fletcher of a non-gay man?
I genuinely cannot.
The claim that not all gay men are abusers is true, but not relevant to the issue. Not everyone alone with a child in a windowless room is an auser, but we’re still sensible in our safeguarding.
One other thing that at least the first two of these have in common is their closeness to the Bishops. Pivalachi with chief LLF advocate Croft. Ball was a Bishop, and the brother of a Bishop.
I wonder if the support of powerful and influential people provides a context in which people feel they will be protected and so can be careless.
Kyle: that is correct. I can’t think of any heterosexual sex scandal in the C of E which hasn’t been dealt with by a CDM or criminal action.
I think Peter Jermey is just making this up.
James
Information is (deliberately?) hard to find on this, and so I am happy to be corrected, but Mike Pilavachi has not been given a CDM and there is no investigation into who helped cover up his abuse
Ian
The fear of being outed as gay can make young gay people very vulnerable to abusers because they use that fear to control their victims. This is one reason why there is so much sexual abuse in churches because there is so much fear of being outed
Smyth
It’s interesting that those who seem to be appalled by any idea why of same-sex sexual activity are quite willing to overlook Pilavachi wrestling with and massaging (nearly) naked young men.
Which they blithely assume is non sexual.
Ian
Like King Charles?
Peter, the sheep that it does have left are broadly in the same sector as Mike Pilavachi, whereas the sector he decried is haemorrhaging. You know this.
Pilavachi’s behaviour was clearly wrong – any teacher would have been sacked for it – but probably not criminal, to judge by the police’s response.
The clear message from this case – which Peter Jermey won’t like – is that men with homoerotic tendencies should not do youth work with boys, and that includes the Scouts.
When I worked as a teacher, I would never be alone with a girl or at least in close proximity, without an open door. That was just common sense.
It was that bad that if Billy Graham had not had a constant bodyguard (women in his room even of the most innocent description were out of the question) the press could have turned up at the door together with a floozie who could have jumped into his arms: cue flashlight snaps.
His great singer George Beverly Shea was in the earliest days victim of a false press report that the young lady singer Beverley Shea had been found drunk in the gutter. They did not realise that this could not be true since the singer in question was a man.
Christopher/James
Anyone who has so little self control that they cannot be alone with someone they are attracted to without assaulting them should not be in ministry at all.
James
Mike Pilavachi was a youth worker for women/girls too and also abused them.
Abuse has nothing to do with orientation.
In this case the orientation is significant because Mike Pilavachi was teaching young people that same sex marriage/partnerships were sin, while he himself was forcing young men to wrestle with him and massage him in his underwear.
Peter Jermey: I have heard nothing about Pilavachi allegedly abusing women and girls. All I have heard is the wrestling in underwear with boys.
What have you heard about women and girls? Please elaborate.
Peter Jermey writes: “Anyone who has so little self control that they cannot be alone with someone they are attracted to without assaulting them should not be in ministry at all.”
Again, you miss the point.
1. There have been no allegations at all that Pilavachi sexually assaulted anyone. If he had, the police would have arrested him. You should withdraw that unworthy comment.
2. But an adult wrestling with teenage boys is borderline behaviour. Teenage boys wrestle with each other all the time and nobody thinks anything of it – play fights and trials of strength are normal adolescent behaviour. But adults shouldn’t ger involved in it.
3. If an adult is potentially sexually atttacted to a young person, he shouldn’t be alone with them. That is why homosexual men should not be scout leaders. Quite simple – what don’t you understand?
@James
The woman stuff is fairly different from the boy stuff. But, for example he would be very cold to the girlfriends or wives of his former wrestlees. One other example I remember from Premier’s podcast is a woman told him she was leaving the worship team and he was very curt with her – more of an emotional thing of being very hot at first, but then going utterly cold.
Kyle – being rude and cold to people is hardly ‘abuse’, otherwise a lot of bishops would be up for it.
James
His abuse of women is firmly in the bullying category. Beth Redman is one of the women claiming he abused her.
James
1. It doesn’t necessarily count as a crime, but wrestling and massage are certainly sexual in the context. Im not a lawyer, but I do think that his victims would have a good case to sue him even if criminal law can do nothing
3. If an adult is attracted to a child then they shouldn’t be in church leadership at all. If a church leader is attracted to an adult then they should have enough self control to cope with being alone with them. How can you pastor a congregation if you are too dangerous to be alone with any of them?!
You can say they are the same issue as often as you like, just as I can declare that pi is equal to 3.
I genuinely appreciate good and faithful women leaders and teachers in churches, but I repeat and amplify my unwelcome point that the feminisation of the ministry of the Church of England has been one of the significant causes of accelerating decline.
The reasons are rooted in human psychology and nature. The ministry as Paul describes it in the Pastoral Epistles is spiritual fatherhood (a point that Catholics and the Orthodox have always understood). Women cannot model Christian manhood to men and boys; only a spiritual father can do this.
In a society with an pandemic of broken homes, the broken state of so many boys and young men is no surprise. That is why Jordan Peterson came to have such a following. Fathers are meant to model to boys how to become a good man and how to relate properly (including protectively) toward girls and women, respecting the natural differences between men and women. Boys without fathers are at a desperate disadvantage here, and it is little wonder if some end up with terrible role models of abuse, or wander into the fantasy world of pornography. Or the weird trans obsession that has suddenly swept across the post-Christian world. These things are no accident.
In the Church, the pastor is meant to model to men how to be Christian men: as husbands, fathers and men among other men. With the best will in the world, a woman pastor can’t really do this, any more than a single father could model womanhood to his daughter.
Churches led by women overwhelmingly reflect feminine interests and sensibilities, which are fine in themselves but of little interest to men and their life experiences.
When fathers attend church, their families usually do. There is a natural truth embodied in this fact.
By the same token, a male leader cannot model what it is to be a Christian woman. From this, one extends the need for leadership to be plural – as it was in the NT church – to having both male and female members.
Interestingly, the Salvation Army explicitly accepts married couples (man and woman!) in a joint ministry.
I agree – as the Pastoral Epistles say, godly Christian women model womanhood to women. The idea that being male or female is indifferent to our identity is seriously mistaken. Sometimes in God’s economy women rise up and do the job men should be doing, but this is never ideal.
I take it you havent read Andrew Bartlett’s book. I suggest you should. It might open your eyes to the truth.
‘Overwhelmingly reflect feminine interests and sensibilities… of little interest to men.’ Well perhaps more men need to learn about these interests and sensibilities then. And what does this kind of language mean anyway? Maybe the challenge is to men.
No, the problem is not that men are insufficiently feminised and “need to learn (to become more like women)” – that is the implication of your words. That has been done for 40 years or more and it has only emptied the churches to the point of death, while in schools it has disaffected further the fatherless boys from broken homes, constantly berated about “toxic masculinity”.
Do you wonder why nobody goes to church in Sweden when you have a lesbian Archbishop who has a cross removed from a seafarers’ chapel?
And all the while an aggressive Islam continues to grow in Malmo – as in Leicester and Birmingham, as Ashworth and Jess Philips discovered last week.
James. The present Archbishop of Uppsala is a man.
The previous Archbishop was a married woman with two children.
Best get your facts right
Perry – mea maxima culpa. I should have said ‘Bishop’, not ‘Archbishop’. I was referring to the Bishop of Stockholm, Eva Brunne.
Do you agree with Bishop Brunne?
Do you think bishops should be in lesbian partnerships?
Do you agree with trying to remove crosses from seafarers’ chapels?
Do you have any opinion why almost nobody goes to church in Sweden but the mosques are growing?
James
Nobody goes to church in England either and we have a homophobic straight white male archbishop from Eton!
What has race to do with it? Most people in England are white. I don’t get the point of your comment.
You have preciously been sexist and racist. Now you are reinforcing and affirming that existing sexism and racism.
Discrimination according to primary and unavoidable (and in any case neutral) characteristics, which so many have fought so hard to stamp out, is not dead.
Peter would, on the same logic, have to complain if an African bishop was black. Totally unbelievable.
‘Nobody goes to church in England either and we have a homophobic straight white male archbishop from Eton!’
What a strange comment. Many evangelical churches are growing; most liberal and middle of the road ones are dying.
How odd to call Justin ‘homophobic’, since he is the one pushing for change.
“since he is the one pushing for change.”
You have made that claim a few times before but without any evidence.
James
I dont know James, you tell me … you seem to think personal demographics of church leaders are what is causing people to stop going to church
Andrew: as has been stated here before, Welby said on 3rd November 2023d to a group of LGBT Christians, in a meeting chaired by David Porter, that he was “totally and unequivocally committed to the goal of a radical new Christian inclusion that embraced LBTQIA+ people”:
https://anglican.ink/2023/11/04/the-archbishop-of-canterbury-meets-thirty-four-representatives-of-progressive-organisations/
Ian
If Justin Welby has been pushing for change then I’d hate to see what an archbishop opposing gay inclusion looks like!
If you dont think the CofE is in decline then maybe you should read the above article, which you yourself claim to have written!
My comment was in response to James implication that people have stopped going to church in Sweden because they have a lesbian bishop. In England we have the most traditional demographics imaginable for an archbishop and people have also stopped going to church so maybe its not about the leaders race, gender or orientation?
Anton: I think you need to read the whole report of that meeting.
“There was no acknowledgment of the shock and distress in the room and no response to the heartfelt, personal stories and experiences that many had recounted. It was like being addressed by an automaton. The Archbishop defended and justified himself, setting out to persuade us that there was no alternative to the various timelines that accorded with Synod process and with likely the outcomes were the process to be delayed.”
Justin is known to say different things to different groupings.
Andrew,
When Justin Welby went to Canterbury in 2013 he inherited a clear statement of the Anglican Communion’s view that sexual activity is acceptable only in marriage, between man and woman, as set out at the 1998 Lambeth Conference. BUT:
On 9th November 2012 at a news conference in Canterbury (before he took up office), he said: “I know I need to listen very attentively to the LGBT communities, and examine my own thinking prayerfully and carefully.”
On 21st March 2013 he told the BBC: “You see gay relationships that are just stunning in the quality of the relationship.”
On 20th April 2014 he was reported in a Daily Telegraph interview as saying the Church had caused ‘great harm’ to gay and lesbian groups.
On 15th February 2017 he issued a statement on his website, saying: “… we need a radical new Christian inclusion in the Church. This must be founded in scripture, in reason, in tradition, in theology; it must be based on good, healthy, flourishing relationships, and in a proper 21st century understanding of being human and of being sexual.”
In autumn 2017 he explicitly refused to answer the question “Is gay sex sinful?” when asked it as part of an interview by Alastair Campbell in GQ magazine, and went on: “I am having to struggle to be faithful to the tradition, faithful to the scripture, to understand what the call and will of God is in the 21st century and to respond appropriately with an answer for all people – not condemning them, whether I agree with them or not – that covers both sides of the argument.”
In November 2019 he chose to take Jayne Ozanne, a militant campaigner for the promotion of LGBT views in the church, to Rome with him to meet Pope Francis.
He has appointed two bishops who, at the time at least, were in same-sex relationships, one male and one female. (Most of us know who they are.)
In January 2022, by which time a pro-LGBT Archbishop was in place at York (Stephen Cottrell), Welby announced that a gay man, Stephen Knott, who had been through a state-recognised wedding ceremony with another man, had been appointed as the new Archbishops’ Secretary for Appointments. That position is highly influential in determining who will be appointed to vacant bishoprics.
On 1st February 2022 Welby issued a statement on his website advertising ‘LGBT History month’ and saying “… As we work together to discover what it means to be a diverse church receiving the gift of everyone, our prayer is that this would be a time of truly valuing each other as God’s precious and beloved children.”
At the 2022 Lambeth Conference (held in July-August), Welby gave up on attempts to forge a single position over LGBT issues within the worldwide Anglican Communion, with the result that Anglican churches in each nation might do as they please and still be welcome within the Communion.
In October 2022 Welby permitted the appointment of David Monteith, who is in a civil partnership with another man, as Dean of Canterbury.
In December 2022, in an interview in The Times newspaper, Welby made clear that he would not state his views on same-sex marriage publicly as his role was to be a focus for unity. His actions were speaking more eloquently.
In January 2023 Welby explicitly affirmed, in a comment concerning the case of Christian parents Nigel and Sally Rowe (who had won a legal victory against the Department of Education concerning transgender policies), the Church of England’s document “Valuing all God’s children”. This document contains guidance for the Church’s 4700 primary schools, and states that children as young as five “should be supported to accept their own gender identity”.
On 3rd November 2023, as linked above, Welby said to a group of LGBT Christians, in a meeting chaired by David Porter, that he was “totally and unequivocally committed to the goal of a radical new Christian inclusion that embraced LBTQIA+ people”.
Anton, that is quite a long list…
Anton: thank you for summarising what we all knew but what Andrew Godsall and others have been denying. Welby’s trajectory has been obvious to anyone with a modicum of vision.
There is a meme going around of Churchill saying: ‘I no longer judge people by their words but by their actions.’
Whether or not Churchill actually said this doesn’t matter, it is obviously true.
EVERYTHING Welby has done makes it plain where he is headed.
That is why no evangelicals in his diocese and beyond trust him or his deputy Rose.
Errr Archbishop Welby inherited the teaching that clergy are able to enter same-sex civil partnerships, that lay people in same-sex civil partnerships ought not be asked to give reassurances about their sex lives (or lack of), and that clergy are fully entitled to argue for a change in teaching. It’s all there in the 2005 Civil Partnerships Pastoral Statement.
What he inherited was a mess, a contradiction, and an error. At the time many people observed that CPs were just gay marriage by another name. The idea that clergy could enter a CP and remain celibate was absurd, as many gay clergy said and still say.
How can clergy take a vow saying they believe the doctrine of the Church, but then make an argument which shows that they don’t?
Anton
Welby has also said some quite horrific things about gay people! Pretty much all of the LGBT campaigners in the cofe consider him dishonest, at best and opposed to LGBT inclusion, whatever thin words he puts about
Anton
A radical new Christian inclusion butters no parsnips. Welby is sometimes quite good at rhetoric. At other times he is risible. Praising the stunning quality of some queer relationships was one such statement – the valorisation of ‘deserving queers’.
If his words had been underpinned by action or not contradicted by other unsympathetic and harsh words, then ‘liberals’ would trust him. Which they don’t.
Perhaps the ideal model is to have a group of male and female elders as the recognised leaders of a church, rather than all the authority and teaching residing with a single individual of any given sex.
Sexuality is not the problem in the CoE. It is deeper and wider than that. It may be a presenting issue, but it is not the causative source, not the roots.
Agreed – the problem is unfaithfulness, accommodation to the secular world and its secular interests – even its good things. Seduction begins with reduction.
James
“… accommodation to the secular world….”
= establishment. Time to stop serving two masters and serve only Jesus…..
Except that is not what ‘establishment’ means. It means a structured opportunity to take the gospel to the whole nation.
That is what leaders in the past have done.
Ian
Back in the time of Henry VIII ‘establishment’ meant that Christians like me were burned at the stake. Later good Christians like John Bunyan were imprisoned. Yes that has fortunately changed, but as of now establishment still means, as I’ve pointed out, a decided ‘serving two masters’ situation with undesirable pressures on the church.
The phrase is I believe “by law established”. IF the evangelicals succeed in stopping the SSM movement in the CofE, how long do you think it will be before those who establish the law, of almost all parties, descend on the CofE like the proverbial ‘ton of bricks’ and either disestablish the church or ‘establish’ new laws to force the CofE to ‘get with the programme’??
I note I’m still waiting for you to produce the NT texts that would justify even the limited current establishment (and to be blunt, they don’t exist – the NT portrays a very different way to do state/church relations, or indeed church/world relations).
I’m also still waiting to see a coherent effort by the evangelicals of the CofE to deal with the wider issue for the whole of society of making the point that homosexuality is not like ‘being black’ or similar, but a very different kind of issue involving DEEDS, CHOICES, and issues of underlying ‘urges and desires’ which are nowhere near as simple as things like eye colour which the gay lobby use as examples.
If the Church of England was not established church offering weddings and funerals and baptisms to all in its Parishes what would be the point of it? If you want a conservative evangelical church that does not perform services for same sex couples then there are Baptist, Pentecostal or Independent churches that do that.
If you want a Catholic church that does not have women priests or bishops and does not remarry divorcees except with rare annulments then the Roman Catholic Church offers that. If you want a liberal evangelical church that does offer same sex marriages in church then the Methodists or Quakers or Lutherans or Church of Scotland offers that. If you want a liberal Catholic church that offers same sex marriages then the Scottish Episcopal church offers that as does the US Episcopal Church
‘If the Church of England was not established church offering weddings and funerals and baptisms to all in its Parishes what would be the point of it?’
Simon, can I note that you have a very odd view of the Church of England, which bears little relation to what it says about itself. I really don’t know where your views come from.
The ‘point’ of the church of Christ is to proclaim the good news, invite people to receive the gift of life, and to teach them everything Jesus taught us. In the Articles, the Church is the place where the pure word is taught and the sacraments rightly administered as part of that.
surely one problem is that the established church is headed by a king who clearly believes all roads lead to God, it doesnt matter what you believe or who you follow. Not to mention bishops being recommended by a PM who is often atheist!
The Church of England was founded by a King and indeed the entire Anglican communion descends from Henry VIII’s decision to create a new Catholic but Reformed church with him as its Supreme Governor not the Pope. Sunak was Hindu, May and Truss and Cameron C of E, Boris and Blair RC and Brown Church of Scotland. Starmer is the first atheist PM we have had since Callaghan I believe. Since Brown bishops appointments have been recommended by a No 10 aide anyway on the advice of the C of E to the King (RC PMs can’t appoint)
They come from what the C of E is, an established church headed by the King founded on the Book of Common Prayer. What you list could be done in any Christian church, ‘proclaim the good news?’ Could be done in a Baptist church. ‘Invite people to receive the gift of life, and to teach them everything Jesus taught us.’ Could be done in a Pentecostal church.
Yes, I have no doubt that Satan is behind the Church’s ready embrace of secular values. Neoliberal aspirations promoting growth, prosperity, resilience, and success have captured the soul of the church. It is certainly no longer counter cultural, at least in the global North.
Sadly some church people seem to believe that opposing faithful conservative same-sex relationships is counter cultural.
Penelope
“Sadly some church people seem to believe that opposing faithful conservative same-sex relationships is counter cultural”.
You omitted the word ‘sexual’ – obviously non-sexual same-sex relationships are no problem. Opposing the sexual relationships is both counter-cultural and biblical.
Obviously no problem?
Far from being a problem, they are one of life’s greatest blessings. But it is weird to have to make such an obvious point.
SSRs that is, not SSSRs.
The church was not counter-cultural in the Anglosphere from Constantine to the 1960s. It is now – which is why street preachers get asked questions about LGBT by gay militants who not infrequently lie to police about what was said and get them persecuted.
Christianity as properly understood* has often been counter-cultural in this place. Wilberforce took abuse. Tyndale was killed. Bloody Mary. And those are just the big examples. The simple Christian being thought of as a prig, or sanctimonious or a fanatic or prude has been a regular presence.
I think we might have a particularly tough situation in Bishops, but I think in cultural popularity we’re just in an ordinary trough.
* And an improperly understood Christianity is essentially inoffensive even today. Maybe more inoffensive than a decade ago.
Those who argue that whoever remains loyal to the past agreed doctrines of ‘the church’ get to stay and those who depart from those doctrines are the ones who should be required to leave are the first to deny doctrine – since they think of the church as a set of agreements and commitments – instead of as God’s people gathered.
If the church is instead whatever is agreed in the past then why worry about making your case at Synod – why argue against changes in practice – since by your church own beliefs how people behave now is irrelevant.
“Those who argue that whoever remains loyal to the past agreed doctrines of ‘the church’ get to stay and those who depart from those doctrines are the ones who should be required to leave are the first to deny doctrine”
Have you not noticed that T1 constantly “suggests” that all who want no change in doctrine should leave… Don’t know what he’d do, probably explode, if the king actually turned out to want no change…
There has been no change in doctrine, that is precisely the point. Jayne Ozanne left for the Methodists precisely because they allow same sex marriages in their churches while the Bishops and Synod refused to support same sex marriages in C of E churches.
The King has many homosexual friends like Stephen Fry so I am sure has no problem with what the C of E decides either way
T1
There are many people who I have as good friends despite disagreements on all kinds of issues. But if I agreed with them on some issues it would be inappropriate for me to carry on being a member of my church. If Charles actually agrees with his homosexual friends that their conduct is right, he would be disagreeing with Christianity and it would be inappropriate for him to remain ‘supreme governor’ of a Christian church. (ignoring for the moment that the CofE shouldn’t be a national church anyway so he shouldn’t have such a position in the first place….)
No it wouldn’t, as he is King of a nation where same sex marriage is legal. He is also Supreme Governor of an established church whose Bishops and Synod have voted to approve prayers of blessing for same sex couples.
Comments such as yours are exactly why some conservative evangelicals should never have been in the C of E in the first place. They are similar to those of nonconformists who Charles II and his government had to remove from the C of E after the Restoration and introduce laws to control after Cromwell tried to turn the C of E into a Presbyterian or Baptist church
T1
If I were PM (and probably of a Liberal party), or indeed if I were king, same-sex marriage would be legal. Way before the CofE grudgingly conceded it, Anabaptists like myself recognised that Christianity is voluntary and we have no mandate to legally enforce it, only to persuade people to voluntarily join us.
Cromwell and the Puritans of the 1662 ‘Great Ejection’ tried quite reasonably to have the Church conform to the actual teaching of the actual apostles who wrote or effectively authorised the actual Christian scriptures, the ‘New Testament’. Really can’t understand why you would have a problem with that…. It would surely have to be the first principle of ‘successors to the apostles’ to follow the apostles’ teaching.
Unfortunately at that point there had been around 1000 years of the state/church link introduced after Constantine, and many of the Reformers, especially when the anti-RC forces were various kings and governments, continued to take that state/church link for granted and set up various slightly different forms of ‘established’ churches, Anglicanism being one of them. Cromwell and the 1662 ejected group also followed a form of ‘establishment’. They and Charles II were both biblically wrong. And therefore unapostolic too.
I’m not interested in the “Chinese Whispers” of people millennia after Jesus and the apostles basically making things up to suit themselves, whether about church government or about sexuality – like I said, the actual teaching of actual real-life apostles is good enough for me.
Cromwell and his Puritans essentially tried to destroy the C of E, executed the King, removed the BCP and removed the great art and high altars in our churches. They had no interest in Anglicanism anymore than you do. Cromwell wanted the C of E to be a Baptist or Presbyterian church as you do.
As for the teaching of Jesus I would focus a little more on his message of love not just a message of condemnation
Dear T1: Cromwell neither tried nor wished to destroy the Church of England. He simply wished to remove its privileges relative to other protestant denominations – all of which he tolerated.
In contrast, the Church of England was intolerant of other protestants either side of Cromwell’s rule.
If the CoE licensed gay marriage and other non-Established protestant denominations refused, would you use the law of the land to persecute them? Please include a Yes or No in any answer.
Many of us now wrestle with a painful question: is it time to depart from a Church of England which appears to have fallen into the hands of a leadership for whom ‘the end justifies the means’? How can you possibly do business with people who act in that way?
Knowing when it’s time to walk away should be recognised as a life skill which everybody needs to understand. It might be walking away from a job because it’s corrupting you, making you ill, or destroying your home life; it might be from a deal because your due diligence or an instinctive inner voice is warning you it’s not going to deliver or that the facts as presented don’t add up; it might be walking away from a person you no longer trust, who is abusive, or who is transmitting unhealthy attitudes which are bringing you down.
Some people, particularly amongst the clergy, will continue to believe their local situation in the C of E remains a good and worthy place in which to serve God because it remains possible there to uphold the church’s unchanged official doctrine and, more importantly, continue in faithful obedience to scripture. Realism must surely warn that this is a time limited deal unless there is a radical change of mind by the church’s hierarchy.
Others of us, mostly lay people, may have no such choice: it’s only clergy (if their PCCs will go along with it) who may have some leeway to choose which way their church will jump. Laity in one of the new style ‘minster’ groups, for example, could very well be offered no choice of C of E church under orthodox leadership for miles around – a disastrous reality in an arrangement which amounts to destruction of the parish system as the only possible response to the Church of England’s rapid decline (as Ian rightly mentioned in the above piece). I speak from personal experience.
So it’s pretty disheartening to read the ‘Alliance’ response to Monday’s vote: legal action not mentioned, but hope there may be further negotiations with the PTB in the autumn. They also intend to pursue their idea for a ‘de facto Parallel Province’. I read this as the end of any serious fight to challenge and reverse Monday’s ridiculous blank cheque vote in favour of undefined future plans. They expect that the big evangelical churches can cling on, but ‘every man for himself’ seems to apply far as the rest of the clergy and laity are concerned. It’s probably the best they can offer if their legal threat has been given the Grand old Duke of York treatment. It’s all been predictable over a decade during which no united and well led opposition to Welby and co materialised. But, in fairness, the seeds of this go back for decades; and circular firing squads over the past will get us nowhere. It’s making wise, realistic decisions for the future which should occupy us now.
I see all this in the context of our Western world destroying itself more generally. It’s hardly news to report that many ordinary folk sense something evil is going on but feel powerless to stop it. They’re right, but it’s we Christians who should be best placed to comprehend the true nature of the fight; we know the battle is not ours but God’s. And that should spur us on to follow wherever he is leading – even if it turns out to mean departing from a church we once assumed would still exist long after we ourselves have gone to glory.
Thanks Don—but I don’t think that is quite fair. The Alliance leaders have made it very clear in person that they oppose what is happening.
‘is it time to depart from a Church of England which appears to have fallen into the hands of a leadership for whom ‘the end justifies the means’?’
Why? Why would I leave this Protestant and Reformed church despite its failing leaders? Why surrender both the church’s assets and its people to such unfaithful ones? I am not going anywhere.
Ian, I’m certainly not saying you should leave; that’s a matter between you and God. Your argument is perfectly fair; it is regularly echoed by George Conger who remains in TEC down in Florida! You’ve played an outstanding role throughout this saga and your conviction that you should stay on may well be exactly what God is asking of you.
I’m also sure you’re right about how the Alliance members personally feel, which is why I’m genuinely puzzled (and frustrated) as to why the Alliance as a group seems no longer interested in pursuing the defence of the church’s definition of marriage by obtaining a clear legal judgement. Despite the ambiguity of being an established church in a nation that has mostly given up its Christian heritage, it miraculously retains this USP of an amazing orthodox body of doctrine which is defensible in law. Surely this is exactly the moment to make use of that facility? Even if it achieved a perverse judgement from a less than perfect judge, at least there would be certainty about where things stand in the legal sense.
For what it’s worth, I remain at my local C of E church (now with an oversight minister in charge of thirteen churches and Sunday services at my church reduced from four to one a month); my above comment was as much a case of debating with myself by thinking allowed rather than telling anyone else what to do!
Christianity says that what ultimately determines the direction of our lives is the leadership to which we submit. If we submit to the leadership of Jesus we will be transformed – and united with him for eternity. If instead we remain submitted (knowingly or unknowingly) to the devil we will end up in hell.
Those who instead argue that submission to leadership doesn’t define our direction are denying ALL of Christianity. They are double minded – and therefore should not expect to receive anything from the Lord (James 1:6-8). At one moment they act as if the church IS what its leaders DID – and then the next moment the church is what its leaders DO. Which is it?
A word to the wise: Give it a week and see how the land looks.
The voting record at General Synod is a matter of public record.
It is simply a statement of fact that if no women clergy had voted at General Synod from February 2023 – the Church of England would remain liturgically orthodox.
Whatever you may make of it, women have made the decisive impact on the decisions taken to abandon orthodoxy
Peter
Anecdotally women make up a sizeable majority of church members. Whats even the point in synod if there is no representation of church members?
Your comment has no connection to what I said. Please read my comment again.
Women have been decisive in setting the direction of travel of GS away from orthodoxy.
If you think that is a good thing, you will be glad that women have played that role.
If you think the move away from orthodoxy is a bad thing, then if you have any integrity you will accept that decisions about the role of women are one of the reasons we are where we are
It is just a matter of honesty and integrity
In case it passed you by women now have the vote, women now have degrees and we have even had a woman monarch and woman PM. So if women are more influential in Synod too that is a good thing
What a silly comment. You knew before you wrote it that he already knew these things about votes etc..
As for influence being a good thing, that is a second silly comment. Good influence is a good thing, and bad influence is a bad thing.
Unless your remark is sexist, implying that everything female (as opposed to male) is always good.
Who are these blessings for?
As you point out Jayne Ozanne quit synod in protest over these being offered in place of any action on abuse of LGBT people, Laura Oliver says they will make her feel unwelcome in church – I dont understand this, but it’s clear the gay people who believe God wants them to remain single dont want them either and conservatives dont want them.
They just seem to being pushed so the bishops can claim to address the “gay” problem, when they haven’t actually done anything at all to make the church safer for LGBT people.
Well the blessings are a lot more than LGBT couples would get in Baptist or Pentecostal churches and a big step forward.
T1
“a big step forward”
Neither forwards nor backwards – a step sideways to stand outside God’s people. This is ‘choosing the darkness’ as a verse in John 3 puts it.
Why is it a step anywhere?
Do you think straight couples are somehow more godly and worthy of prayers than gay couples?
They are in line with the miracle world we were allowed to live in gratis, of which we cannot even ourselves create one atom. Gratitude not hubris is in order, and in fact to a very high degree.
In that world, female-male coupling is not only part of the system, but is the entire point of the evolution of the system, and the only reason for ‘female’ and ‘male’ in the first place.
Christopher
Are you a Christian or a wierd sub-Darwin cultist? The point of life is surely not male-female relationships – else you have a huge problem with Jesus and Paul!
I note you didnt even attempt to answer either of my questions!
I was about to post here that ANY free, knowing, and wilful sin in which we persist – no matter how SEEMINGLY minor – will determine our eternal destiny. But that’s wrong – any free, knowing, and wilful sin in which we persist is a sign of our having chosen our eternal destiny.
I’m actually repeating myself. I’ve already said elsewhere on this page that Christianity IS who we submit to.
Free, knowing, and wilful sin in which we persist is NOT something ‘naughty’ we chose to do – it is PROOF of our having chosen not to turn to God in faith.
EVERYONE who behaves as if they will out do – or reform – the leaders they submit to (everyone who attends Synod submits to the leadership of Synod) HAS chosen to become like those to whom they submit – even if while submitting to them they spend every single minute ‘disagreeing’ with them.
Getting dangerously close to suggesting Christians should expect to live sinless lives – why do you think we have prayers of confession at every eucharist?
Hello,
Thank you for your reply.
I was very careful to limit my comments about sin in two ways:
1. I referred to free, knowing, and wilful sin (to distinguish from sin which is due to weakness (Matt 26:41) and sin which is due to ignorance (1 TIm 1:13).
2. Each time I mentioned free, knowing, and wilful sin I referred only to those who PERSIST in free, knowing, and wilful sin.
Since you raise this I leave you with a related issue for consideration. Does God’s grace persist in the face of free, knowing, and wilful sin? I believe that when we consider scenarios the answer must be no. Here’s a scenario – does God’s grace persist in the face of free, knowing, and wilful sin committed twice? Or forty-seven times? Or four thousand and nine times? When we ask such questions it becomes clear that if God’s character is unchanging that the answer is going to have to be that God’s grace either covers ALL free, knowing, and wilful sin – or NO free, knowing, and wilful sin. If the answer is that his grace covers ALL free, knowing, and wilful sin then that would have to mean that even if Christ died for that sin – that God tolerates evil doing – evil doing being free, knowing, and wilful sin).
So then my conclusions from scripture are that in the case of sin due to weakness we only need to confess our sin – and the same with sin due to ignorance – however in the case of free, knowing, and wilful sin we must repent for God’s grace to continue to cover us. This leads to the question of what happens when people who commit free, knowing, and wilful sin die without their having repented for such sin. My answer is that I believe that a sovereign God either provides an opportunity to repent for such sin before someone’s life is complete – or he knows that given the opportunity a person would have repented of that sin.
I should have proved my beliefs from scripture. If you require me to do that (because you believe the bible presents a different picture to this) I will do so (I am trying to keep my posts as short as possible).
This is getting well off topic, but a couple of thoughts:
You’re dividing sins into those that need to be repented and those that only need to be confessed. The idea that Christians confess but don’t repent is, unexpected.
I’d also strongly question the suggestion that some sins are beyond God’s grace and forgiveness. If nothing else, the point of the Parable of the Prodigal Son looks like it refutes it.
I was about to post here that ANY free, knowing, and wilful sin in which we persist – no matter how SEEMINGLY minor – will determine our eternal destiny. But that’s wrong – any free, knowing, and wilful sin in which we persist is a sign of our HAVING CHOSEN our eternal destiny.
I’m actually repeating myself. I’ve already said elsewhere on this page that Christianity IS who we submit to. I’m trying to make sure people fully understand their circumstances.
Free, knowing, and wilful sin in which we persist is NOT something ‘naughty’ we chose to do – it is PROOF of our having chosen not to turn to God in faith.
EVERYONE who behaves as if they will out do – or reform – the leaders they submit to (everyone who attends Synod submits to the leadership of Synod) HAS chosen to become like those to whom they submit – even if while submitting to them they spend every single minute ‘disagreeing’ with them.
Is Anglicanism an invention of the state?
Does it matter?
Yes and no.
No because God sovereignly oversees the state. As I write this I have had a change in my thinking. I used to think that it was a big deal that the state appoints senior C of E leaders – but I have just realised that I should have understood this practice as like an arranged marriage. A Christian who has truly aligned themselves with God through faith is able to submit to his family’s cultural practice of choosing his bride – or her groom – knowing that God is sovereign over it. Can we similarly trust that God can make the monarch an appropriate head of the Church of England? A non-pastor/teacher head yes – a king or queen leader – of prophet – instead of a priest. I don’t see why not – but this freedom can only be enjoyed by the church of God – not the church of man.
That was the no case to whether it matters that the C of E is an invention of the state. Now the yes case.
It matters that the C of E is an invention of the state IF those who are part of the C of E BEHAVE as if the C of E is the invention of the state and wish to preserve it for that reason. To those people we need to say “No – to be an Anglican is unrelated to the state. Anglicanism is NOT the institution”. Every good thing that has ever existed within the C of E came from God – from a SOVEREIGN God.
Is God therefore asking anyone currently part of the C of E to give up Anglicanism? No (to the extent to which Anglicanism aligns with his word – I don’t believe every article in the 39 Articles aligns with scripture). God is asking Anglicans to believe that Anglicanism IS THEM not the institution – at least that if is so when they truly obey God.
Why might we not be able to believe that? We might not be able to do so because we refuse to sufficiently burden ourselves. Before Paul is informed of his ignorance on the Damascus Road he is going out of his way to defeat followers of the Way. Did anyone give him this job? No – he chose to take it on. Paul was already CHOOSING to behave like an apostle – it was therefore no surprise that after his being enlightened that he WAS an apostle to the Gentiles.
So this is my message to ALL Anglicans. If you have trouble believing that YOU are Anglicanism instead of the institution choose to be like Paul – choose to believe that God seeks ONLY whole of life sacrifice – people who CHOOSE to be WIDELY burdened – widely enough for not just healthy multi country Anglicanism – but much much more than anything yet seen – to be birthed and sustained. Do not be sad my fellow Anglicans – because to the extent to which you choose for it to be so – Anglicanism LIVES IN YOU.