I had a busy week on broadcast media last week. On Thursday I took part on a panel discussion hosted by the Religion News Service, which provides information on religious issues for the wider press (who might not fully understand all the issues). You can watch the one hour discussion on YouTube here.
On Saturday, I pre-recorded an exchange with Charlie Bell, who is a well-known social media campaigner for a change in the Church’s doctrine of marriage, and a new member of General Synod, for Radio 4’s Sunday programme. You can listen to it on Sounds here from 31 mins in.
Then on Sunday morning, I was live on air on BBC One’s Sunday Morning Live, the third time I have appeared—again with Charlie Bell. Someone else was due to appear, but this person refuses to engage with me and withdrew, so Charlie was a last-minute stand-in (though I was only approached on Wednesday—they do not plan things very far ahead!). I have captured the discussion and posted it on YouTube here, and the video is also embedded below.
I wanted to offer some reflections on our exchanges, as it seems to me to throw some light on where we have got to, and the nature of the debate.
Charlie is a very articulate spokesperson for those who want to see change in the Church’s doctrine on marriage, and has a lot of experience of speaking in the media, so the debate was going to be interesting. I felt that Holly, the host, was well briefed, and conducted the discussion very fairly.
Charlie’s opening comments were helpful. He acknowledged the seriousness of the division on the issue, and the depth of the disagreement, which was helpful—and then went on (prompted by the mention of Forward in Faith) to compare this with the disagreements we had on women’s ordination. He expressed a hope that we won’t split and that we can continued together on this—though he offered no plan for how this could happen.
Holly then turned to me, picking up on the previous disagreements on women’s ministry and divorce: ‘surely on this the Church has to evolve?’ I decided to avoid picking up on her term ‘evolve’, as dealing with that would be too complex for a general audience. Instead, I ignored her question (and for the moment Charlie’s comment) to say what I had prepared in advance what I thought were key issues: is the role of the Church to conform to changing culture, or is it to remain faithful to the teaching of Jesus; and if we are contemplating change, what is a good way to handle that? I wanted to locate this discussion in the wider context of questions that society has about sex and relationships—but quickly realised that we simply would not have time for that. Holly wanted to interrupt half-way through my comments—but I had started by saying ‘there are two issues…’ which made it harder for me to be cut off! I also took the chance to note that I agreed with Charlie on the depth of disagreement.
Charlie responded by saying that the figures in Synod did not necessarily represent the figures in the broader Church. I am not quite sure why he mentioned this; I suspect it is because he thinks that there is a clear majority amongst C of E congregations for change—but in fact I don’t think this is the case. He raised the question about the legal advice, and then went on essentially to say that the bishops have reassured us that it is all ok, so we should trust them. It was helpful that he re-emphasised that doctrine is not changing—but described concerns raised about what is being proposed as ‘being caught up in the weeds’. I think that is an odd way to describe the real possibility that what is being proposed is illegal and uncanonical! ‘To be honest, we need to just get on with it!’ sounded very much like ‘Just get Brexit done!’
Holly asked a challenging question: ‘Is it so important that someone’s faith should be defined by this?’ Again, this was too complex, so I didn’t answer her question, but picked up instead on the issue of its importance in terms responding to Charlie’s claims. The House of Bishops are not, in fact, of one mind, and even if legal technicalities seem obscure, trust and transparency in leadership are not. As I named the ways in which the House of Bishops were not being open and transparent, Charlie shook his head, which seemed to me to be an odd reaction.
I then responded to the claim in Charlie’s first comment: not a single church (ie denomination; ‘church’ is easier to say) debating this has found a settlement; and every church which has changed its doctrine of marriage has then declined. These are points that I made in both my Synod speeches, and no-one engaged with these issues on either occasion. Charlie didn’t respond to this point either.
Holly then raised the question that this will be voluntary and opt in, to which I responded that it is about what the Church of England actually believes, and the obligation of clergy in their ordination vows to uphold and teach that. When I mentioned ordination vows, Charlie rolled his eyes, which was interesting. But I immediately connected this to believing the teaching of Jesus.
Charlie then defended his upholding of the doctrine of the Church—but also that it was possible to argue for change. But I immediately responded that on the issues of divorce and women’s ministry, we first had an open discussion of the issues, and that there was a majority agreement that these did not represent a change in doctrine. Neither is true for this question of same-sex marriage; we either agree with the teaching of Jesus on marriage, or we think that is wrong.
What was then interesting is that Holly picked up the point that there really is no obvious compromise. Charlie responded that he wants people like me to remain, and that my objection to this is ‘essentially holding people hostage’, and that it is LGBTI people who pay the price. He is raising here the question of whether this subject is a ‘thing indifferent’, and that is another more complicated discussion for a general audience—and the discussion was coming to a close. But Charlie was also leaning heavily on the idea that all gay people agree with him—which is not the case. I managed to squeeze in at the end that there are more gay people in Synod who want to uphold the current teaching of the Church than there are gay people who want to see it change. As Laura Oliver expressed very eloquently in Synod, it is this group which is all too often squeezed out and ignored.
I think Charlie articulates the case for change very well, and I can see why he has a lot of support. We have always had disagreements in the Church. We appear to have changed in the past, why can’t we change now? The process is in place, and we should just get on with it. The bishops have reassured us, and we should trust them. It is LGB etc people who pay the price for delay. We want to include you; why can you just accept and include us too?
These arguments have a strong emotional appeal—as long as you don’t think too hard about each of them. Are the disagreements in the past of the same nature? Has our response to debates actually always been to change, or have we at times decided that change was not right? Were the key issues often cited actually changes in doctrine? What process did we follow then, and why are we not doing the same now? Is this process a good one, and has the House of Bishops been open and honest? Are they even agreed? Are LGB people in the C of E actually of one mind? What do they really think?
What I did find odd in social media comments from Charlie’s supporters was their adulation of how he debated. One even compared his manner to that of Jesus facing his critics in the gospels (!). I might be biased, but my intention was to be warm and open, and I addressed Charlie by name. In contrast, his body language looked negative and even angry, and he did appear to get cross with me on a couple of occasions. (You can feel this much more in person in the studio; the broadcast tends to flatten emotions out.)
More importantly, I felt that I offered some substantial points highlighting the difficulties with making progress. I was not sure that Charlie answered any of my serious questions, except to say ‘I am sure it will all work out’.
In terms of preparation, appearing on live TV is perhaps the most challenging of all media experiences. Unlike being on radio, you cannot have your notes in front of you. Unlike in a pre-recording, you cannot ask for you best bits only to be broadcast. You never know what either the interviewer or your interlocutor are going to say, so you have to listen carefully and choose what you want to respond to.
But you still have to have thought the issue through carefully. I had spent some hours simply reflecting on the issue, thinking and praying, and had decided the key messages that I wanted to communicate. What I then did was listen for the moments to express those, in short sound bites, or simply say them regardless—there is no rule that you have to answer the question that is put to you! But it is also important to avoid fillers (‘What I feel I need to say…’) and distractions. I would always also want to avoid inflammatory comments like Charlie’s ‘That is preposterous’.
Unlike the longer RMC debate, which lasted an hour, this was only just over nine minutes. With the introduction and questions, that probably left about seven minutes for us to speak. Split evenly, that is three-and-a-half minutes each, allowing for just over 300 words. That is not very much! So you have to pick and choose your most important points, and say them succinctly.
As I result, I missed out things I would dearly have loved to say. I had a comment prepared about how the teaching of Jesus is really good news to a world which is confused on issues of sex, gender, and marriage. I would also liked to have said something about how churches in England are in fact growing, and that more people attend church than go to football matches. But I could only have done that by missing out other things—and I am not sure what I would have wanted to omit.
(I have said more about appearing on media, both radio and TV, in this post here.)
What is interesting is that the issues are becoming clearer. It is significant that the BBC, on a non-religious social affairs programme, thought this was important enough to discuss. And the basic issues of trust and transparency in leadership are things everyone can relate to. Even those outside the Church can see that, the question ‘Should we follow cultural norms, or should we remain faithful to the teaching of Jesus?’ only has one sensible answer.
Dear Ian,
Thank you for sharing this and giving your time and energies to such a complex and difficult subject. I am sure that the LORD will honour your words and bless you as you continue to serve Him and His Church.
I would be very interested to see your notes and reflections if possible (Unless they are already on the site someplace?)
Every Blessing in Christ!
Mathew
Charlies was right to the extent that the PLF debates resemble the women priests and bishops’ debate. As with that debate there has to be accomodation for those who disagree, whether those in Forward in Faith who have an opt out from women priests and alternative episcopal oversight if a woman bishop. Same with PLF so evangelicals like Ian can also have an opt out from the prayers for same sex couples in their churches.
However unlike the women priests debate or the divorce debate doctrine has not changed, on that Charlies was also right. Marriage has been affirmed by the Bishops and Synod to be only between one man and woman for life, liberal churches in the C of E still cannot perform same sex marriages even if they want to, only have prayers for same sex couples married in English law.
By contrast, the women priests debate did lead to liberal churches getting female priests if they wished and ultimately being able to have a female bishop too. Just as the divorce debate also enabled liberal churches to remarry couples where one or both partners were divorced in church if they wished
‘Charlies was right to the extent that the PLF debates resemble the women priests and bishops’ debate.’
I wonder if you only listened to half the discussion?
They might do so superficially, but both the substance and the process of the three debates are not the same. In particular, on the others we have a clear and open discussion of theological issues first, and then the clear majority decision that these did not involve a change of doctrine—which is what allowed them to proceed.
None of that is true now.
No the substance is the same. Just some evangelicals are fine ignoring parts of scripture opposed to women priests or divorce but won’t ignore any part of scripture which opposes homosexuality. A clear majority of 2/3 would be needed for same sex marriage in church yes but same sex marriage is still rejected by Synod only prayers of blessing allowed
No, evangelicals are not ‘ignoring parts of Scripture’. Paul affirms women as leaders, church planters, teachers, prophets, deacons, and apostles. Jesus rejects ‘any reason’ divorce, but does not suggest that can never be any reason for divorce. What we do is read scripture carefully.
The Prayers of Blessing have been shown to indicate a departure from doctrine, so the House has proposed something impossible.
A caution here: Mark frames the whole thing as about divorce, with coherent flow of thought. Matthew frames the whole thing as about any-reason divorce, with coherent flow of thought. To prefer Matthew to Mark needs justification; to view them on a level with one another raises the question of how to harmonise them; to prefer Mark is just standard practice for good reason. Matthew’s version ‘introduces’ adultery as a deal-breaker, a concept he already finds in Mark.
Chris, Mark assumes a lot; Matthew makes it explicit. What both need is to be read in the context of the ‘any reason’ debate between Hillel and Shammai.
You cannot ignore that context with either text. A text without a context is a pretext.
That is why Reformed in Europe mostly were happy with the possibility of remarriage—indeed Cranmer wanted it included in the Prayer Book.
It is an (unbiblical) Catholic view of marriage as an indissoluble sacrament which causes the problem.
Paul is quite clear women must neither teach nor even speak in church.
‘”Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says.” First letter to the Corinthians.
“I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.” First letter to Timothy.
Jesus would certainly not have approved of adulterers getting a service in church, yet that is exactly what the King and Queen got when he was Prince of Wales ie a service of blessing in a C of E chapel after a civil ceremony despite the reasons for their divorce being their affair and the late Queen’s initial disapproval.
So it is fine for the C of E to not entirely follow all of scripture in terms of women priests or ordination but not for same sex couples, who must still be denied even a service of blessing adulterous divorcees can get
Only if you think that you can do theology by ripping individual texts out of their social, canonical, and cultural contexts.
No responsible reading of scripture thinks that is the case. If you do, you need to read some things on how to interpret and read the Bible well.
This would be a good start: https://grovebooks.co.uk/product/b-86-how-to-interpret-the-bible-four-essential-questions-2017/
The only legitimate reason Jesus appeared to give for divorce was adultery. Logically then if someone gets divorced but there was no adultery involved, then God still views them as married to their former spouse, and if they get remarried they are committing adultery with their new partner. If that is correct, and correct me if Im wrong, does the church not now accept divorce on various grounds, and remarries people largely regardless of the reason for their previous divorce, and welcomes divorcees with full membership of the church?
Interpret the Bible so that divorce is fine, even if after adultery, womens’ ordination is fine but homosexuality is not fine even if monogamous relationships. There can be recognition of the former by a service, you just have to interpret the circumstances Jesus said for it in the right way , women can be priests and bishops because of course Paul never really meant what he said but woe betide anything but condemnation of the latter. Yes I know exactly what your how to ‘interpret the bible well’ means, it is how to ideologically read it in line with your pre determined ideology that homosexuality must be condemned at all costs but other aspects are open to ‘interpretation’
Simon, this is a place for respectful debate.
I am not interested in your cheap insults. Please take them elsewhere.
‘If that is correct, and correct me if Im wrong, does the church not now accept divorce on various grounds, and remarries people largely regardless of the reason for their previous divorce, and welcomes divorcees with full membership of the church?’ Yes it does and while I have at least some respect for conservative evangelicals and Anglo Catholics who will reject remarriage of divorcees on broader grounds as well as rejecting services for same sex couples I have very little for those conservative evangelicals for whom remarriage of divorcees on various grounds is fine but not services for same sex couples
‘Yes it does’. No it doesn’t.
I think the context is the right one historically when it comes to the Pharisees’ question, but am less sure whether Jesus would have felt bound by it rather than reframing and reenvisioning the question in a more pertinent way, which is what he generally did (a ‘radical’ return to the roots of the matter). It is clear that Jesus acts thus in this pericope; because he sees the big picture
He is not concerned with grounds for divorce in Mark; he is putting divorce itself under the spotlight, deservedly; while his focus is on neither, but more positively on marriage itself.
It seems to me that Luke gets conveniently forgotten. He usually went into more details than the other synoptics; he had no idea that what he wrote would later betaken with the other synoptics; and he wrote (16:18) that Jesus said simply “Anyone who divorces his wife and [kai] marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”
Granted that ‘kai’ might mean ‘in order to’ marry another woman, but Luke’s final clause is unambiguous. The Catholics have this right (although not necessarily the correct exegesis toward that conclusion). I wouldn’t take Cranmer too seriously either: he was hand-picked by Henry VIII to give the king the conclusion he wanted.
Of course, this does not give ground for SSM. Because you ignore Jesus over one matter is no reason to ignore him over another.
Dear T1,
If women must be totally silent in church assemblies, 1 Corinthians 14:34 contradicts an earlier verse (1 Corinthians 11:5) about women praying and prophesying in gatherings that are obviously mixed. God does not contradict himself, so the dilemma must be resolved. Verse 34 goes on to state that women must not speak but “must be in submission, as the law says”. What law is that? It is not the Law of Moses written in the Pentateuch, which nowhere states that women may not speak in mixed gatherings. This prohibition seems to have existed in synagogues, for Jewish tradition or ‘oral law’, written down later in the Talmud, contains multiple statements against a woman’s voice. The key to Paul’s passage is that he immediately becomes sarcastic with the Corinthians (in verse 36): “Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached?… What I am writing to YOU is the Lord’s command.” This makes sense if verses 34 and 35 are words that the Corinthians have asserted – probably from Jewish converts – which Paul is quoting back at them in order to refute them. Verses 34 and 35 are not Paul’s directives, and they should be written inside quotation marks. Paul is refuting them in order to explain that women ARE free to speak.
What of the second passage you quote, 1 Timothy 2:11-14? It reads: Verse 11, when read with verse 12, means that a woman should not challenge the authority of the teacher. The Greek word for ‘quiet’ in these verses does not mean totally silent. A woman who disagrees with a teaching is free to say so provided that she maintains an attitude of respect to the (male) teacher. Next, verse 12 states that Paul, who was writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, does not permit a woman to teach, at least in mixed gatherings. In the apostolic church, ‘teach’ meant ‘teach scripture’. The reason Paul gives shows that this is a general prohibition, for Paul cites the situation between the first couple: in Genesis 3, Satan had gone after Eve, not Adam, to deceive, and Satan would have chosen the easier to deceive. Peter recognises the same principle when he says that a woman who comes to faith is not to win her husband to it by instruction but by showing him greater love, of which she becomes capable (1 Peter 3:1). Women are free, of course, to take part in the discussions of scripture that follow a teaching. But they should also not give topical Bible teaching to a mixed adult audience.
I hope this clarifies the situation.
So Paul clearly refuting a woman being able to teach in church is apparently a refutation of Corinthians.
While apparently Paul’s repetition in Timothy that women must not teach or speak in church is actually still allowing women to speak but even you admit still not to teach or to disrespect the authority of the male teacher. So even on your definition Paul was clear women could not teach or be ordained priests. So yes it is clear that on Paul’s interpretation the C of E has contradicted his teaching by having women priests, so again it seems some of scripture can be conveniently sidelined by some conservative evangelicals if they back women priests but oppose PLF
Simon/T1 your response here suggests that you both don’t know and are not willing to engage with issues around biblical interpretation.
If so, then you are not really in a place to tell people who do what they should be thinking.
Dear T1: You can win arguments here either by showing that an exegesis is incorrect or by convincing evangelicals that the Bible has no authority. You have done neither, and not even tried.
There is no winning argument here, many conservative evangelicals have made up their mind the established church can never bless same sex couples and will interpret scripture to interpret that above all accordingly and as their main focus now. Synod however has decided differently by majority and Synod and Synod and the Bishops alone set the course for the C of E
T1, if you consider that General Synod of the Church of England outranks the Lord Jesus Christ then you had better worship it.
General Synod of the C of E interprets the teachings of Christ for the C of E
‘General Synod of the C of E interprets the teachings of Christ for the C of E’. Simon/T1 that is complete nonsense. I have no idea where you get that from! When you make these sweeping claims, could you offer some support from eg the Article or canon law? The Articles in fact say ‘Councils do err’ and that includes Synod.
PC1 – it’s not so much that adultery is a ‘legitimate reason’ – it’s more that when adultery takes place, God Himself has severed the marriage bond – so that if a person continues in a marriage to someone who has committed adultery against them, then that person is committing a sin.
This is how the various accounts are easily reconciled; Matthew, Mark and Luke all have the same teaching on when it is permitted to divorce
– ideally no divorce – the exception in Matthew 5:32 is for the situation where God has already severed the marriage bond (and hence to continue with the marriage would be living in sin).
Article XX ‘THE Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority in Controversies of Faith.’
Canon B4 gives the Archbishops power to approve any new Service not contrary to doctrine. Canon B2 gives Synod power to approve any service by 2/3 majority which in its opinion is not contrary to C of E doctrine
‘Rites and ceremonies’ That does not mean ‘interpreting the meaning of scripture’
It does mean the Archbishops, Bishops and Synod deciding what services in church can be allowed and how scripture is interpreted within the C of E
Article XX is also clear ‘The Church hath authority in Controversies of Faith.’
Ian
Serious question, do you think the CofE was wrong to allow Harry and Meghan to marry, given Meghan had a no faults divorce from her previous marriage?
If there are circumstances that Jesus teaching on divorce can be widened on compassionate grounds, why not his (invisible) teaching on same sex marriage?
Why do straights get all the compassion?
Peter, Jesus’ teaching on marriage is not ‘invisible’. He taught that marriage is between one man and one woman, because of God’s creation of humanity as male and female.
Peter Jermey – I note that Ian Paul did not answer your question about Harry and Meghan. (I also note from your comment that you basically assumed that the answer was ‘yes – it was OK for the C. of E. to marry Harry and Meghan – and continued from there).
I personally would say that this was an utter travesty – of course the C. of E. should not have been involved with this – and the fact that they are demonstrates to me that their doctrine of marriage is pretty lousy. As well as Meghan being previously married, it’s also clear (from Harry’s own confession) that although he wasn’t previously married, he was a self-confessed fornicator. There is also nothing to suggest that either of them believe in God or any signs of repentance of past sins.
So I basically agree with you. The C. of E. ‘doctrine of marriage’ is so corrupt – and they seem happy to marry godless people, who live in defiance of the living God and who have broken every single rule in the book as far as sexuality goes (provided one of them is male and the other female).
And I basically agree with you that allowing SSM would be just one tiny additional ripple of corruption.
So if you re-read Scripture, and consequently change your mind about a teaching, that doesn’t actually constitute a change in doctrine and is fine and dandy.
But if I re-read Scripture, and consequently change my mind about a teaching, that is a change in doctrine and any clergyman who agreed with me would be in breach of their ordination vows.
Adam, not at all. There are two issues—interpreting Scripture, and the C of E’s position.
As I highlight, on both those other recent contentious issues, we followed a careful, open, due process, and came to a majority (but not unanimous) consensus that neither involved a change of doctrine. None of that has happened on this issue, and we need to ask what power dynamics have been brought to bear to prevent this.
On interpreting scripture, in a Reformed Protestant church like the C of E, we have doctrine we believed to be derived from scripture, but are committed to being semper reformanda, always open to being corrected by Scripture. But that does not mean everything is up for grabs, since the consensus has emerged of what is clear and indisputable in scripture. The vast majority of critical scholarship agrees with evangelicals that the doctrine of marriage is one of these.
This seems to be a real stumbling block though.
The Church used to teach that use of contraception was wrong. Then it said it was ok. But this was not a change in doctrine.
The Church used to teach that marriage was lifelong, so remarriage after divorce was not permissible. Then it said it was permissible. But this was not a change in doctrine.
The Church used to teach that only men could be ordained. Then it said women could be ordained as well. But this was not a change in doctrine.
You have to admit you can see where Bishop Croft gets it from. What is argument supposed to be, that allowing remarriage after divorce is not a change in an essential matter of the doctrine of marriage? Or that doctrine hasn’t really changed because we’ve just had the real doctrine revealed to us (or we’ve remembered it after forgetting for several centuries)? Or that these issues like remarriage, ordination, and contraception are not actually doctrinal? Or that it’s not a doctrinal change because the seemingly new position is satisfactorily dervied from Scripture?
Your argument is wonderful, T1. Evangelicals were wrong to ignore the Bible about remarriage while an ex is still living, so it is fine for them to ignore the Bible about man lying with man as if with woman, ie for sexual gratification? Do two biblical wrongs make a right?
If evangelicals were so concerned about remarriage while an ex was still living even with an opt out for them as with PLF then they should have left the C of E as soon as remarriage of divorcees in church was allowed
T1, I get rather tired of a non-evangelical telling evangelicals what they ‘should’ do. We’ll do what we like after due prayer and reflection, and whether you like it or not.
*You* could always quit the CoE for a denomination that is willing to put same-sex couples through wedding ceremonies.
I also get rather tired of some non Anglicans telling members of the C of E like me what to do. Synod has decided by clear majority what will happen and that is that.
I am an Anglican who believes in our established church, the King as my supreme governor and the BCP. I support prayers for same sex couples married in English law but have no especial desire for full same sex marriages in C of E churches. So will stay in the C of E thanks
‘Synod has decided by clear majority what will happen and that is that.’ No, it isn’t, if Synod has been misled or deceived or made a decision to do the impossible eg by saying that black is white. Synod is not our Pope.
If you believe in the BCP, then you will reject anything Synod has called for which is indicative of a departure from its doctrine.
It has not been deceived, it voted quite clearly by majority for prayers for same sex couples knowing full well what it was voting for. Just conservative evangelicals like Remainers over Brexit are trying their utmost to overturn a democratic vote. Synod and the Bishops define what C of E services should look like.
If you believe in the BCP you primarily believe in the King as Supreme Governor of our church and the nature of our church as a Catholic but Reformed church. That is what makes the C of E unique, what its position on homosexuality is has sod all to do with the BCP and any old Christian denomination could either oppose or support same sex marriage or prayers for same sex couples
T1, I totally agree with you on remarriage of divorcees (as opposed to deserted people) in church. It is one of the best illustrations of the slippery slope principle I know, and moreover that is far from being the only large thing wrong with it.
I personally don’t have a problem with remarriage of divorcees but yes I do support an opt out for clergy who disagree with it unless on strict spousal adultery grounds. As I also support an opt out for clergy and churches who disagree with PLF
‘I personally don’t have a problem with remarriage of divorcees’.
Just count the errors in that statement:
(1) ‘Have a problem with’ is an incoherent Americanism.
(2) It suggests, without giving any reasons, that the problem would lie with anyone who objected!
(3) This means that a massive problem would reside with and in Jesus, with whom this objection originates.
(4) So people are doing this weird thing of playing Christianity *without* reference to Jesus. And using their one life to do such an odd and pointless things.
(5) The whole thing is couched as though a relevant factor in this discussion is what T1 thinks about it. No, a relevant factor is *not* what T1 thinks about it.
You see the level of debate; if we can avail ourselves of a higher level of debate that avoids the problems listed, then why would we bother with such comments?
I have a recollection about the first vote to permit women bishops in 2012. I think there was a simple majority in all houses, but failed to reach the 2/3 majority in the house of laity.
If PLF and the issue of women in ministry are similar, then why is a 2/3 majority in all three houses needed for the introduction of standalone services for same-sex couples?
If full same sex marriage in C of E churches had been proposed a 2/3 majority would have been required but it wasn’t
Thank you, Ian, for being open about the way in which you prepared for the TV appearance and then navigated your way through it. Many clergy have had to engage with the media in the last small number of years, and to speak up for Christian orthodoxy. It was therefore very interesting to see how you approached the whole business and I’ve no doubt that your reflections will prove helpful to others who will find themselves similarly in front of the camera, trying to convey biblical truth winsomely, against the tide.
Thanks. Glad it was helpful. I have said more in this post, which I will link to in the post. https://www.psephizo.com/life-ministry/how-to-speak-on-radio-and-tv/
Yes,
Ian—you did a difficult job well!
I would certainly not have volunteered for it.
Thanks. Good job you didn’t!
Who was the person who did not want to engage with you and why?
That reminds me of Sally Magnusson interviewing Cliff Richard on Songs of Praise for 50 years in showbiz – ‘What are the things that you don’t like to reveal to anyone?’ – or words to that effect.
Quite. I have never minded being asked the most intimate questions, but often my reply is a courteous “I’m not going to answer that one.” If the questioner persists in asking the same question, it is important not to vary your answer but keep repeating it confidently, courteously and calmly.
I would rather not say in public. Those who have followed the debate in recent years will be able to work it out.
I thought this was a model of how a contentious discussion should be moderated, and how contending parties can take the opportunity to make their points; making it look easy under pressure is a mark of the exceptional skill that it is. However for those who might have known little of what’s been going on with LLF, Charlie Bell’s body language certainly left viewers with little doubt about the strength of feeling which lay just beneath the surface!
The conclusion that this is an issue over which compromise cannot happen, at least for a significant proportion of people in the C of E, must surely have been as inescapable for any disinterested viewer as it remains for many of us who have been forced to weather the whole wretched business for so long. I particularly applaud discussions on this issue where there is none of that sickly, virtue signalling, apologetic language which achieves nothing save detracting from the point being made; it has become a bad habit which needs to be avoided.
More generally I think the blatant (undisguised) dishonesty of the process which the bishops have chosen to follow is now a defining issue which casts a very dark cloud over the whole LLF project, past, present and future. How can something be of God if it necessitates handling in such an unacceptable way? So well done Ian for bringing this issue to a wider audience; it mustn’t be swept under the carpet. Unless it is genuinely admitted, repented and resolved, I believe the Church of England will be permanently (terminally?) damaged.
Thanks. Yes, I thought it was a good discussion actually. But I found it interesting that, whereas I did mostly respond to Charlie’s points, I don’t feel he really responded to most of mine.
But one thing we can agree on: there is no obvious compromise position. Curious he noted that and then said ‘But we will be fine…’!
Not really surprising he didnt respond, it seems he does that. Watched a bit of a youtube video where he’s talking about this issue in a small church. In the Q and A someone asks him where in the Bible does it positively comment on same sex sexual relations, and his answer was, well it doesnt really comment positively on straight sexual relationships. Ok then…
Surely the compromise position is to allow local differences, as they have done in the Methodist Church and Church of Scotland?
Peter, the Methodist Church has agreed two contradictory things. So they believe that God teaches that same-sex marraige is sinful, but also that God teaches that same-sex marraige is holy.
That is not a sustainable view of God.
It is not sustainable for a church either. Methodist attendance has collapsed, by almost 50% I think, in the last two years.
Peter, you have just posted 17 comments on a row. That is a breach of my comment guidelines.
Ian
I apologize if I have posted too my. In my defense, couple of days ago I was getting complaints that I had responded fast enough!
Other people seem to post more than I do and then complain if I don’t respond quickly enough to them.
The Methodist church has declined my entire life. It was in freefall decline when my the one I attended married my straight housemate (who didn’t attend), but would not have been allowed to preside over my own marriage.
Lots of people here post too much, and I have asked them not to. But I think you set a record.
Yes, Methodism has been in decline for a long time. Changing the doctrine of marriage has not reversed that as is often claimed it would. It would accelerate it. So do you think that is a price worth paying for any UK church?
Because when Charlie says there is no obvious compromise he means we’re not going to have an agreed position the whole Church adopts (e.g. sexless civil partnerships), so we’ll have a set-up of opt ins or opt outs.
But when you say there is no obvious compromise you mean there will nothing agreed for anyone, no opt in or opt outs accepted etc..
When Charlie says there is no obvious compromise so let’s have opt-ins, he is either proposing that the C of E holds two contradictory views, as per the Methodists, but which we cannot do by law, or he is proposing that sexual ethics is a ‘matter indifferent’. But he does that without offering any theological rationale for why, in contrast to Scripture and every Christian tradition, this should be so.
I think we can be more precise than that. We have quite prepared to see sexual ethics as a matter indifferent ever since we said allowing remarriage after divorce was something to be judged by the individual clergyman about the seriousness of the divorce circumstances. Whether you’re in an adulterous relationship or not would very much seem to be a question of sexual ethics.
So really, we’re just singling out homosexuality and saying that this specifically (rather than sexual ethics more generally) can’t be a “matter indifferent”.
‘We have quite prepared to see sexual ethics as a matter indifferent ever since we said allowing remarriage after divorce was something to be judged by the individual clergyman about the seriousness of the divorce circumstances.’
That is simply not true as a matter of fact. The doctrine of marriage has not changed; and the criteria for the possibility of marriage were set out very carefully.
Nowhere has the C of E every argued that our core understanding of marriage as a lifelong, exclusive union of one man and one woman, according to the teaching of Jesus, is a think indifferent as Charlie is claiming.
You’re arguing that the doctrine is unchanged that marriage must be lifelong, even though we now allow remarriage after divorce with the individual clergyman deciding whether the grounds for divorce were sufficiently serious?
Well, I keep telling you how it is, and you keep ignoring me. It is not simply down to the individual—there is careful guidance. And yes, the doctrine is unchanged.
What had changed is whether we regard the failure to be unforgivable.
Don’t tell me – it’s changed, but not in any essential matter!
No, it hasn’t changed. It is still a lifelong union. But when sin breaks that, is there a chance of restoration?
Forgiving sin is rather different from what is being proposed in SSM: condoning sin.
Hang on – was it the divorce that was a sin, or was it the remarriage (in effect an adulterous relationship)?
It’s interesting that the Church holds together over sharp disagreement about marriage after divorce, just about over women’s ministry, but a mild proposal to bless gay people threatens schism. Interesting too, that the ‘liberals’ are (mostly) quite prepared to compromise and live with difference and uncertainty, while the ‘conservatives’ are (hugely ironically) claiming hurt and distress if a few couples are blessed in churches they probably wouldn’t be seen dead in. I call that gaslighting.
Get Brexit done? It’s worse than that. It’s ‘Get with the programme.’.
TINA There Is No Alternative. Dictatorship. Not even contemplating that the end point could be any different from precisely what *they* (rather than anyone else) want/-s it to be.
From which it follows that evidence and analysis can go hang.
Ian,
I thought you handled that quite adroitly and kept a note of good humour in your voice and body language. Charlie’s body language and tone of voice sounded a little agitated from about 6’20”.
I looked at the website of St John the Divine’s, Kennington, where he’s an assistant curate, and a few things stood out. First, very Anglo-Catholic (pilgrimages to Rome and Spain) and a lot of paid clergy (three, I think).
Second, very big on choirs and music – as you would expect in A-C shrines.
Third, quite a big African element, both on staff and in the congregation.
Is Anglo-Catholicism a big thing in African Anglicanism? I thought maybe in Tanzania and southern Africa, but not in Uganda or West Africa. Africans generally are not keen on same-sex relations, but maybe High Churchers have a different view. Desmond Tutu took the South African Anglican Church in that direction.
As for the big question, what this is all about, we know it’s about creating facts on the ground and incrementally – or even suddenly – introducing same-sex marriage into the Church of England. It’s all about getting your foot in the door.
The Bishops are not honest about this and neither is Charlie Bell.
Yes. Africa was divided up into areas for evangelism between Protestant and Catholic mission organisations. So some parts of Africa have always looked very Catholic in their spirituality.
Just quickly to say a massive ‘well done’ Ian. Thank you.. and may the Lord continue to be with you.
On a wider scale, it is important to understand the motives behind gay marriage: it is based upon a commitment to civil rights, but simultaneously rejects the Bible’s clear teaching on marriage and sexuality. This means that its proponents are acting upon their conscience, and see in the acceptance of gay marriage a rejection of prejudice. Thus to argue that “there is a place within the church” for those who oppose Gay marriage is highly questionable.
This is very different to the debates of 60+ years ago when liberal theology within the Anglican church led to differing views of Jesus, where those who held the Biblical view of Jesus as God found themselves co-existing with those who rejected it. The liberal theologians and clergy who began to doubt the incarnation of Jesus were quite happy to coexist with their theological opponents because theirs was an intellectual difference and not based upon the emotions of civil rights. Granted, some felt that the situation needed action, as per the Stott-Lloyd Jones kerfuffle, but generally speaking many evangelicals felt that the Anglican church was worth saving and influencing.
Now, however, the split in the church has conscience on both sides. Evangelicals and “traditionalists” see the Bible as being very clear on the issue of marriage. Proponents of Gay marriage either see the Bible as wrong or in need of reinterpretation (and this is where Barthes and “Death of the Author” meets spiritualized subjectivity in order to create a meaning from the Biblical text that is outside of its original intent). The result is that proponents of Gay marriage in the church will not only continue to promote it, but will enforce it upon their opponents. They cannot do anything else, as their misaligned conscience forces them to do it. Similarly, opponents of Gay marriage will not only continue to promote the exclusion of gay couples from marriage (and, indeed, from any acceptable form of sexual expression) but will seek to enforce it upon their opponents. Why? Because of conscience.
The two sides of this debate are thus far more similar in their attitude towards what they see as right, despite the major difference of opinion on the issue.
Here in Australia, the Uniting Church has not only accepted Gay marriage and Gay ministers, but is now in the process of working out a formal “apology” to LGBTQIA+. The committee responsible for this process has come back to the church to say that they wish for a “living apology”, in which not only will there be a formal apology by the church towards the LGBTQIA+ community for past attitudes, but will also have changes in place to prevent such things from occurring again. One result of this will be strictures upon individual churches from refusing employment or membership in their churches based upon sexuality. This means that an individual church cannot refuse a minister or refuse to allow membership to a person based upon their sexuality. Thus churches that have evangelical or traditionalist members will be forced to accept that which their conscience says is wrong.
And again, the reason for this is very simple: the conscience of the pro-LGBTQIA+ members of the church forces them to impose this upon their opponents, just as the conscience of evangelicals and traditionalists will force them to impose upon their opponents. A church denomination cannot exist in such a state.
So, Ian, I suggest that you press Charlie on this matter. Is his commitment to gay marriage something based a commitment to civil rights and his conscience? If so, how can he say that there is a place in the church for those he disagrees with? Does he want you to change your mind on this? Does he want the evangelical & traditionalists to change their mind on this? If his side wins the ascendancy in church politics, will he not support efforts to enforce the reduction of prejudice? The only way he can ever accept those of differing opinions on this matter is to not follow his conscience.
(former Sydney Anglican, now Australian Presbyterian)
Thanks Neil. My friend Dave Piper has put this question repeatedly to revisionist on social media: if same-sex relationships are sin, how can we allow them? But if they are holy, how can we allow anyone to refuse them?
I tried to get close to this in my last full comment: what do we actually believe as a Church? We cannot avoid that question.
Ian, that is the question – and that’s how I framed it more than 20 years ago.
Everything else is just dancing around that question.
Charlie Bell confuses things when he tries to draw a comparison with women in ordained ministry. Why? Because nobody in the Church of England – or almost nobody – thinks that women in church ministry is *inherently wrong or sinful, even if some or many are unenthusiastic on pragmatic or social grounds (that is, how it may affect church dynamics). Even – or rather, especially – those who take a conservative view of women in church ministry strongly support the pastoral work of women in teaching the faith to other women and to their children and offering pastoral care and prayer, because this is exactly the model we find commended in the New Testament (Lydia, Lois etc).
The question of women’s ministry is to do with the precise shape of public ministry in the Church of England – and that is why I am unconvinced about the ordination of women (not seeing this clearly reflected in the New Testament) – but I have no problems at all with ‘lay presidency’ of Holy Communion (on which the NT says nothing at all) – but I suspect a cafeteria catholic like Charlie Bell would have conniptions over that.
The real harm is caused by the dishonesty – the pretense of supporting LGBT people (either because the leaders are embarrassed by their own policy or, worse, to lure them in) and then wallop them with talk of demons, hell or even, as we’ve heard lately, exorcism. That’s what’s harmful. That’s what is partly causing the rejection of the church in western cultures.
Peter, there is no sign that failing to embrace the LGBT agenda is driving people away from Church. In fact quite the opposite. The only denominations in the UK that I know of that are growing are ones who uphold Jesus’ teaching on marriage as between one man and one woman.
The real dishonesty has been amongst the liberal bishops, who have ordained gay partnered priests and sustained them in ministry, by telling them to lie about their situation. It is that which has done so much harm.
I watched the RMC discussion on YouTube and I really felt for Laura Oliver. Her pain was quite evident, yet she spoke calmly and with great honesty. She displayed great integrity and I admire her for being true to God’s word. She’s correct that people like her are being treated especially contemptuously as part of this process.
I am regularly surprised by the number of ordained ministers who seem to feel they don’t have to follow the established doctrine of the church. I understand that they wish to see change, but to my mind there already exist churches that have a more accommodating doctrine., so why join one that you disagree with? Just to cause trouble? I genuinely don’t understand the desire to join a club whose rules you fundamentally disagree with.
It also irks me that the people who are invited to leave are the ones who are upholding the existing doctrine – often at significant personal cost – when it should really be the other round.
I remember reading Richard Coles, after he retired, saying that of course he lied to the church about his relationship.
perhaps because they genuinely feel ‘called’ to that church, and/or a reasonable salary/house?
Thanks Vanessa. All true. Laura was outstanding there and in Synod. Did you read her speech in my article last week?
It seems odd that some parts of the Church now feel that lying is a virtue of some sort…
I genuinely don’t understand the desire to join a club whose rules you fundamentally disagree with.
Follow the money! You have to pay most clubs inorder to be a member. The Church of England pays you and gives you accommodation if you are ordained and run a parish.
The ones who should leave are those who refuse to accept the majority verdict of Synod and the Bishops for PLF. That can be liberals who wanted full same sex marriage as well as conservatives who refuse to accept it even with an opt out
Simon, strike two. The discussion here is not helped by you repeating these slogans.
Vanessa
I remember (although my memory is unhelpfully vague) being told by an ordinance that he was told he had to sign Issues in Human Sexuality, but did not have to sign it and being told by another who was having qualms about agreeing to ordination in a culture, frankly still homophobic institution, that change was coming.
I think priests are disagreeing because church teaching is so thin on this, obviously at odds with real lived experience and because they are encouraged that this is up for discussion in the church.
I would expect amongst regular churchgoers in the UK a majority do not agree that its sinful for gay people to be in some form of committed relationship and a vast majority do not believe it is a sin to be gay. I’d guess around half have a close friend or relative who is gay. And these are the people from whom ministers are drawn.
I’d also suggest that almost every minister who is 50+ has sat with a congregant trying to marry their orientation with their faith and so has some understanding that SSM etc is not some sort of weird temporary sexual urge
Why do you say ‘Church teaching is so thin on this’? What reports and discussions of sexuality and marriage have you read?
There’s no real teaching on gay people – as I have posted lots of times before – even conservatives cannot agree on fundamental questions such as what counts and what does not count as sinful sexual behavior, is it sinful merely to identify as gay and, although the church does teach that gay people may enter non sexual unions, this is not widely accepted.
“don’t have sex” is very thin to build a personal life on, especially when the church cannot define what counts and does not count as sex!
Quite.
“You can’t have a vocation of No” – Eve Tushnet
Really?
“Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me” Mark 8.34
For the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people. It teaches us to say “No” to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self–controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age. Titus 2.11–12
Titus 2 rather makes the point though, doesn’t it? You can’t just stop reading halfway through verse 12.
Who is suggesting stopping half way through?
But both these central scriptural teachings, including the heart of Jesus’ call to discipleship show that your quotation is flatly wrong.
You’re missing Eve’s point:
What we have currently is a vocation of No. As Peter puts it – build your life on “don’t have sex”. To introduce Titus 2, you can see an equivalence with “say ‘No’ to ungodliness and worldly passions”.
What is missing from current teaching is anything serious that’s related to the second half of the verse: “live self-controlled, upright and godly lives”. There’s a positive thing to do. The current teaching doesn’t go there. What we get is rushed last minute speculation, obfuscation, and avoidance, as people from Ed Shaw to Preston Sprinkle say it’s something we need to work on. Some say change your orientation, some say stay quiet, some say it’s a call to celibacy, some say it’s a command to singleness, some say you ought to live in community with families, some say you ought to live in community with other gay Christians, some say a gay Christian is an oxymoron, some say sexless committed partnerships are great, others than they are forbidden etc. etc..
As Andrew Goddard put it in his Grove booklet 20 year ago: “Will we establish a Church where…it is demonstrably no longer the case that gay Christians can legitimately say ‘you have offered me in my life no viable strategy for ordering my life’?”
Charlie Bell represents a ‘card carrying’ Liberal-Progressive tendency and with them the split has already happened although ‘the divergence’ is still emerging and it is going to accelerate. The more important issue are the liberal-progressive recidivist elements falsely using ‘evangelical language’ for the sole purpose of deception and defilement – there is no such ontological entity as an “inclusive evangelical” – Scripture is clear – Matthew 7:15; Jude 4 – they are not Evangelicals and no-one should be deceived by the language they use or the misrepresentations they make.
Generally such claimed ontological categories are to be explained (and are entirely predictable) as a result of mere cultural accommodation. One suspects and notes that most regional variations and indeed heresies have the same cultural-accommodation root. It would not be good analysis for Charlie Bell or anyone else to fail to be aware of that central consideration.
Christopher, sure. It comes down to haecceities.
Heisenberg01
When I was young almost everyone in middle road or evangelical or conservative catholic churches believed being gay in itself was sinful, never mind having same sex sex, but few would have mentioned it as any sort of primary teaching of their faith. Then as there has been more and more focus on homosexuality in the media, an explosion in the number of people living openly as gay people and more in the media church people have parted ways.
In conservative circles your strength of opposition to homosexuality now defines your strength of faith, but this has also left people stranded – people who previously were not on the liberal wings of the church, but don’t agree with conservatives on this issue
‘In conservative circles your strength of opposition to homosexuality now defines your strength of faith’
Sorry–that is nonsense.
On stilts.
Peter. I am not interested in arguments linking ontology to libidinal desire. As an Evangelical – and we will never give this up (Revelation 12:11) – I am committed to the reparative (Isaiah 53:5) and soteriological (Acts 4:12) nature of the Ministry of Reconciliation (2 Corinthians 5:18) and how it relates to the dynamic and coinherent agencies of (1) Radical Holiness (1 Peter 1:16), (2) Love (John 13:34) and (3) the Authority of Scripture (Psalm 119:89).
It is also why I consider Vaughan Roberts to be a Hagiorite, and a Holy Spirit Bearer – a man who has achieved a different level of Sanctification. Like Henri Nouwen, he is a wounded healer – he gave himself up for that Greater Love (John 15:13) – the man is numbered with the Evangelical Divines.
Hesienberg01
Lots of gay people give up having a partner or a family because of their faith – many of them still face abuse for being gay in the church.
Peter
All abuse is harmatiological or sinful in disposition, propensity and practice. I consider those “secret Evangelical appendices” to be the New Testament.
Heisenberg01
Well that’s part of the difficulty with coming to any conclusion all sides hold the Bible as vitally important, but everyone seems to be reading different Bibles
Peter, my approach from an Evangelical perspective in looking at the Reformation formulary of ‘Sola Scriptura’ (Scripture Alone) is that I will not accept anything that contradicts Scripture – but – I would include Sola Caritas (“Charitable-love alone”) and Sola Spiritus (In the “Spirit alone”). If I use the expression Prima Scriptura (in addition to Sola Scriptura) – that is not a mandate for the LLF which I consider to be a manual for syncretists and predicated on eisegesis and not exegesis – but it is a way for me to include charismatic gifts, mystical theology, angelic encounters, real disruptive energetic pneumatology, noetic- communicative forms of spiritual cognition and discernment. I think an interesting question is “in whose image are we”? Paul summed it up when he said this: 2 Corinthians 12;2.
The paramount need of all people everywhere is to hear, believe and obey two vital messages:
The terrible warnings, some from Christ’s own lips, to flee from the eternal retribution from God which the unsaved will face on the Day of Judgment; and the wonderful and sincere invitations and promises to all, some from Christ’s own lips, to repent and submit to Christ in his atoning death and life-giving resurrection, and to obey him for the rest of their lives.
This paramount need is surely more important than the same-sex disagreement, very important though that is!
I have studied the Alliance documents ‘A Theological Vision’, ‘about us’, ‘Dear Bishop Steven, ‘Letter 7’ and ‘The Purpose of the Alliance’.
Do any of them commit the Alliance to believing, preaching and teaching these two vital messages?
Perhaps they consider that
“The Alliance is part of the one holy, catholic and apostolic Church and is committed to our Anglican heritage with a faith revealed in the Holy Scriptures and set forth in the catholic creeds and to which the historic formularies of the Church of England bear witness.”
is sufficient to ensure that commitment?
I disagree. All the CofE Ministers have made the Declaration of Assent. Has this ensured that these two paramount messages have been believed and preached by the whole Church with the earnestness and urgency promised by those who have made the Declaration of Assent and their ordination vows?
The clear answer to that is “No”. The Alliance needs something much more specific to ensure such commitment, to avoid the danger that members will agree about the same-sex disagreement but not about this more important need.
Philip Almond
You posted this thread, if you won’t allow contrary views don’t post them.
PLF has been passed by the majority of Synod, opt outs still given for conservative evangelicals, if they even refuse to accept that then on your thread discussion of a potential split it should be those who disagree with the majority of Synod who should leave
Blimey, telling the blog owner what to do now! Don’t stop there, do tell Jesus where He was wrong…
Jesus never mentioned homosexuality once, he did mention not allowing divorce except for spousal adultery
Jesus never mentioned consensual incest either. So?
Incest is illegal in UK law, same sex relationships aren’t and the C of E is established church of England.
However if you want to follow everything Jesus said then you should oppose almost all remarriage of divorcees in C of E churches, except for spousal adultery
SO UK law, at one atypical and random point in history, trumps Jesus – even for Christians??
The argument against same sex marriage relies on outdated superstition about gay people from secular culture. There’s no strong scriptural or rational arguments against it.
‘You posted this thread, if you won’t allow contrary views don’t post them.’
I allow contrary views. I don’t allow trolling repetition of slogans.
The paramount need of all people everywhere is to hear, believe and obey two vital messages:
The terrible warnings, some from Christ’s own lips, to flee from the eternal retribution from God which the unsaved will face on the Day of Judgment; and the wonderful and sincere invitations and promises to all, some from Christ’s own lips, to repent and submit to Christ in his atoning death and life-giving resurrection, and to obey him for the rest of their lives.
This paramount need is surely more important than the same-sex disagreement, very important though that is!
There is a danger that members of the Alliancecofe.org will agree about the same-sex disagreement but not about the terrible warnings.
Philip Almond
What I find frustrating is that the so called “traditionalists” are leaning on doctrine that doesn’t actually exist.
Its reasonable to say that current doctrine forbids same sex sex (and therefore marriage). It’s an overreach to say it also forbids all same sex relationships or any form of blessing on gay individuals or couples. But there is no teaching about any gay person who isn’t in a sexually active relationship and that’s where the real disagreement lies.
From traditionalists I feel that there is some acknowledgement that gay people exist (not just straight people who engage in same sex sex or people with a temporary insanity) and that the church has misunderstood and mistreated this group, but then the conclusion is no change at all. And in recent years traditionalists have even stopped arguing that following church teaching will bring Gods blessings to gay people and are now more likely to say that obedience is the goal in itself, not love joy peace patience kindness gentleness goodness and self control. So now it doesn’t matter if we are desperately lonely, pushed into self harm or mentally or physically abused by priests because the goal is not the life in its fulness, but obedience to a dead doctrine
‘ It’s an overreach to say it also forbids all same sex relationships or any form of blessing on gay individuals or couples.’
If you think that, you don’t know or understand Church of England doctrine. That is precisely what it says, as previous statements by the bishops have made clear, and has been confirmed and clarified repeatedly in answers to Questions in Synod.
You appear to be ignoring gay traditionalists completely in your comment, who I think are a larger group in Synod than gay revisionists. The only obedience any of us are interested in is obedience to Jesus and his words of life given to all.
No it doesn’t, nowhere is homosexuality mentioned in C of E doctrine. Just marriage the doctrine of which remains unchanged.
Gay traditionalists and indeed traditionalists overall are not that big a group of Synod otherwise it would have rejected PLF by a majority
‘No it doesn’t, nowhere is homosexuality mentioned in C of E doctrine’.
That is like saying ‘Nowhere are monster trucks mentioned in the Highway Code, so it clearly doesn’t apply to them.’
It is not a very strong argument.
You honestly think people think things because they are ‘traditional’ (as though that helped…) as opposed to because they are coherent and supported by evidence, and in line with the founder and so on?
Those who are too innocent to think about e.g. transsexuality must therefore approve of everything about it. According to the ‘logic’ of your argument.
That’s not what it says in Issues.
Ian
I’m certain cofe doctrine does not forbid blessing gay people and I don’t think you really meant to say that it does
C of E doesn’t stop you blessing anyone. But it does prevent you blessing things which God calls sinful.
Fox hunts?
Ian
Do you think gay people are inherently sinful in a way that straight people are not or did you just mistype when you claimed that code doctrine forbid blessing of gay couples and individuals?
Sorry Ian, but that’s plainly not correct. Issues in Human Sexuality doesn’t forbid all same sex relationships when it talks about lay people acting in accordance with their conscience (and for every congregation to be welcoming to them). The current teaching that allows clergy to enter same-sex civil partnerships obviously doesn’t forbid all same sex relationships.
Adam, I am in lots of same-sex relationships—with my brother, my colleagues, my friends. It is worthless using this phrase unless you qualify whether these are sexual relationships. None of mine are.
Peter was fairly clear he was talking about same-sex relationships that weren’t sexually active. Issues plainly references relationships that are. The teaching for clergy in civil partnerships is adamant that they’re not.
You don’t seriously contend that a gay couple in a civil partnership, if they’re not having sex, have a relationship that is the same as your relationship with your friend who’s a vicar two parishes over, do you?
Peter
The point is that same-sex attraction and activity is a result of the Fall and just like other results of the Fall (we all have results of the Fall) should not be obeyed.
Phil Almond
Philip Almond
I must get a copy of the secret evangelical appendices to the Bible where it actually says all this stuff!
Genesis actually says the fall caused crop growing to be hard work and women to have severe pain when giving birth. It doesn’t say that the fall made people gay and nor does it prohibit crop growing or child birth
Ian mentions above a quation that friend of his would put to revisionists: is same-se relations are sinful, how can we allow them? And if they are holy, how can we refuse them?
That is indeed the question – and pretty much how I framed it more than 20 years ago.
Everything else is just dancing around that question.
Charlie Bell confuses things when he tries to draw a comparison with women in ordained ministry. Why? Because nobody in the Church of England – or almost nobody – thinks that women in church ministry is *inherently wrong or sinful, even if some or many are unenthusiastic on pragmatic or social grounds (that is, how it may affect church dynamics). Even – or rather, especially – those who take a conservative view of women in church ministry (that is, parish and diocesan leadership) strongly support the pastoral work of women in teaching the faith to other women and to their children and offering pastoral care and prayer, because this is exactly the model we find commended in the New Testament (Lydia, Lois etc).
The question of women’s ministry is to do with the precise shape of public ministry in the Church of England – and that is why I am unconvinced about the ordination of women (not seeing this clearly reflected in the New Testament) – but I have no problems at all with ‘lay presidency’ of Holy Communion (on which the NT says nothing at all) – but I suspect a cafeteria catholic like Charlie Bell would have conniptions over ‘lay people’ leading communion.
Is it not similar to the extent that some believe female priests/pastors is prohibited in the NT, and that it wasnt just a cultural issue?
I think it’s also that some are opposed to women also being priests and bishops on strictly theological grounds not simply pragmatic or cultural ones. In fact they’re more than ‘unenthusiastic’ they’re definitely opposed on grounds of conscience and that view is respected by others so that they can remain in a church which does recognise the fully equal ministry of women as deacons, priests and bishops. It’s far more deep seated than the precise shape of public ministry as some do hold that women in ordained public ministry is being disobedient to the clear teaching of Scripture because it is forbidden by both St Paul teaching and their overall understanding of the differences between men and women in authority and leadership. That’s a pretty big difference and it’s grounded in their understanding of God’s ordering of creation from the beginning. It’s not an add on or something cultural that can vary from place to place or from one era to another but is built into how God has ordered men and women relationships in creation. In this view women’s ordained ministry and leadership in a church which includes men is always wrong. So there is a very clear theological divide between the ‘complementarian’ and ‘egalitarian’ views (I don’t like either term, but they were used previously in this blog) so it’s a bit surprising to find them acting in concert by commissioning ‘overseers’ who include women when they disagree so fundamentally over central doctrines of the nature of men and women, ministry and authority as they all relate to Christ’s relationship to the church. In the Church of England’s understanding everyone celebrates equally, so the priest doesn’t celebrate more than anyone else, but they do preside.
Tim Evans: You are very much mistaken in what you say and I don’t know any evangelicals who would really agree with you. Being a woman is not sinful and teaching the Gospel as a woman is not sinful; rather it is a question of where the balance lies in a mixed congregation of men and women, and the spiritual responsibility that married men have for their wives and children – one that too many neglect. Ancient Israel had female judges like Deborah who had to encourage Barak to step up to the plate, and prophetesses like Huldah who declared God’s word to Josiah; and there are many examples in the New Testament of women having a spiritual ministry – but not heading local churches.
I am pretty much a complementarian and don’t agree with having women vicars and bishops. But I don’t have a problem with a woman leading the communion prayers or teaching spiritually under designated male leaders. Why this proviso? Because in the end, men must have male spiritual leaders, and under God, men are meant to be the spiritual guardians of their wives and families, as the New Testament teaches.
Tim, this is where your understanding and Charlie Bell’s attempted analogy between female ordination and same-sex sexual acts break down irretrievably. Priscilla (with her husband) helped to teach the faith to Apollos, so some kind of female ministry is clearly validated by the New Testament. The question is, under what terms? But homosexuality is never seen this way in the NT. The first is about right order, the second is about sin versus holiness. You have seriously confused the two issues and misunderstood how complementarians reason.
(You have also misunderstood traditional Catholic sacramental theology. For the traditional Catholic the eucharist is a sacrifice in which the bread and wine are changed into the veritable body and blood of Christ, and this sacrifice may only be offered by a validly ordained Catholic priest. Traditional Catholicism agrees with Pope St John Paul that women cannot be priests. )
The first Christian priest was Mary, who held the body and blood of Christ. So, despite RC teaching, female priesthood is not only possible, it’s ontologically necessary.
Mary was a priest and so is every Christian.
Penny, if you decide to make words mean whatever you want, then I guess you can prove anything.
Ian
To which word do you refer?
the body and blood refers to His death, and remembrance of it.
James, please read what I have actually written. Nowhere did I say that being female is sinful (what a bizarre idea) nor did I suggest that anyone else says that, and I cannot comprehend how you read my words in that way. We do disagree on how those who are complementarians interpret that word and indeed how they interpret St Paul and your version of complementarianism is one among a range, there are others who differ from you.
Nor did I mention any alleged analogy between this debate and that over SSM and I wasn’t suggesting there is one. I didn’t mention Charlie Bell either. In fact, I didn’t refer to SSM or the homosexuality debate at all so where did that come from? My comments were about a different but in some ways related topic which I think is genuinely puzzling: how those who espouse two incompatible evangelical understandings of men and women’s respective ministries (with all that implies for other aspects of theology) remain united in a church which has fully affirmed the ministry of women as priests and deacons .
I didn’t mention traditional (Roman) Catholic theology either, only the view of the Church of England that ‘Holy Communion is celebrated by the whole people of God gathered for worship’ presided over by a priest. ‘The president at Holy Communion (who, in accordance with the provisions of Canon B 12 ‘Of the Ministry of the Holy Communion’, must have been episcopally ordained priest.’ (Common Worship Holy Communion.) You may disagree with this understanding but it is what the Church of England believes, and it is distinct from the Roman Catholic position.
You’re absolutely free to disagree with me, we all have much to learn from one another, but please do me the courtesy of reading what I have written.
As put, holy or unholy?there is no Hegelian sythesis to be had.
And the question can not be determined by subjective emotions, desires alone. How now then is it to be objectively decided; how now then are we to live; how now then are we to be Holy as God is Holy?
The question of holiness has, as long as I have visited this site for some years, has steadfastly been ignored by the ssm/b revisionists.
It remains unanswered and scripturally unanswerable.
Neil Cameron above has it about right, I think. IF it is believed that “being gay is the same kind of thing as being black” or similar, then logically ‘gayness’ like ‘blackness’ is “made that way by God” and Christians must accept it. And if that is accepted but people still want to be Christian, to put Christianity forth as valid, then they will think Christianity has to be ‘adjusted’ to that newly accepted ‘truth’ about gayness. As Neil says, it would be a matter of civil rights….
However, if being gay is not the same kind of thing as being black, then that whole enterprise is faulty; and actually the civil rights issue would be completely the other way round, the gays imposing such a false or misunderstood idea (however sincerely) would be making an improper claim of right and actually attacking the civil rights of others; and furthermore this would not be an internal church issue, the gay community in general would also attacking the civil rights of society at large over this. And right now the gay community at large owes society at large a lot of apologies for bullying, intimidating and a massive overreach in false claims of ‘civil rights’. And any church leaders who have been colluding with the gay community’s false claim would also owe some mega apologies.
Yet under the Equality Act homosexuals have as much protection under the law as those of different races do. Indeed making homophobic statements can now get you arrested under the Public Order Act in UK law
Simon: so you supported the Nuremberg Laws?
Yes, I understand where you’re coming from – and where British society is going.
(But I don’t think that stuff will fly in Leeds.)
Every MP in Leeds is now Labour
James of course is thinking of certain events since they were elected….
T1
“Yet under the Equality Act homosexuals have as much protection under the law as those of different races do. ”
And if I’m right about the (actually glaringly obvious) differences between ‘being black’ and ‘being gay’ then homosexuals should not be equally protected and that is bad law – about which you should be protesting rather than supporting it…..
No, I support equality for all under the law as does most of the UK population now, otherwise Blair, Cameron and Starmer would never have got elected
All people or all activities?
T1
I myself support equality for all under the law; the problem is that if homosexuals make the untrue claim that being gay is like being black or similar, they are not claiming true equality but a privileged position.
Stephen:
Homosexuals have no special protection under the law. They have merely the same protection as heterosexuals have, and rightly so. In other words, ordinary human rights, which are a matter of natural justice, are not a privilege reserved to the heterosexual majority, but apply equally to the homosexual minority.
Arguments about whether “being gay” is like “being black” (it’s not; it’s more like “being straight”) are just a red herring.
William
In England straight people have the right to marry (at least first time around) in church. Gay people do not.
Straight people have the right not to be subjected to verbal or physical abuse, but the loophole of conversion therapy allows abuse of gay people.
I think, even in England, there’s still some evidence that police don’t take crimes as seriously when the victim is gay
In my lifetime I’ve seen gay sex decriminalized and then same sex marriage legalized. We’ve come a long way but we are still not equal under the law.
Gay people have the same rights as straight people—to marry someone of the opposite sex. Some of my gay friends have done so.
Marrying someone of the same sex is not the same right as marrying someone of the opposite sex, since the C of E does not recognise the union of two people of the same sex as marriage.
Everyone has the right to marry when they attain the age of majority. Marriage has only ever been set up to formalise and recognise the sacredness of what is already in nature. There is a male-female binary in reproduction, but instances of the binary in nature (i.e., in the world in which we live) stop there.
Ian
*your bisexual friends
Disabled people have the same rights to use the public library as abled bodied people – its on the fifth floor and there’s no lift
Christopher
If gay people didn’t occur in nature we wouldn’t be having this endless discourse
Peter, lots of things occur ‘in nature’. Does this make them good?
Ian
Naturally occurring things can be good or can be bad or neither.
Christopher is arguing that same sex relationships should be outlawed because only opposite sex relationships are natural. His argument depends on an untrue premise. Lots of people are naturally attracted to the same sex in exactly the same way that the majority of people are attracted to the opposite sex. Lambeth 1.10 accepts this, yet mistaken rejection of it still seems to be behind a lot of peoples opposition to improving treatment of LGBT people in the CofE
Stephen
The equality act also protects straight people, white people and Christians
Ephesians 5:1-8
Well, we’re all ignoring that, aren’t we?
Dear Ian
Thank you for your video discussion with Revd Charlie Bell. I would add one further thought.
Towards the end of the discussion Revd Bell expressed the desire that we all remain together in the CofE while being critical of the contrary position which “keeps people hostage” by suggesting some may need to leave. Revd Bell is being conciliatory while the other party threatens division.
I then note that Revd Bell signed a letter to Liz Truss when she was Secretary of State for Women and Equalities. The letter called for a ban on ‘Conversion Therapy’ (Christians Support the Ban, 1 March 2022). The term ‘ban’ will likely translate to prosecute, criminalise and even imprison some who are supposedly our brothers and sisters on matters where we disagree doctrinally and in pastoral practices.
In addition to quoting the usual MoU from the professional psychology bodies, the letter added its own rider that “conversion therapy is coercive, and that therefore informed consent is not possible”. This letter came out at the end of the LLF discussions where one of the persons in the accompanying LLF videos was Graham, now ordained, who told us about his move away from an early same-sex orientation to a happy heterosexual marriage with grown children.
The LLF material presumably included Graham because he represents others who need to be heard but will be left without the help they want if such legislation is introduced. What was the point of LLF’s mutually respectful discussions when threats of prosecution were hanging in the background?
It is surely obvious that the church’s unity cannot survive if the new government introduces badly drafted legislation leading to prosecutions which accomplish what Revd Bell and many others seem to want.
Best wishes, though less hopeful about the future.
Henk
Thanks Henk—how very interesting.
The Starmer government included a ban on conversion therapy in the King’s speech. Nothing the C of E can do about it either way if the UK government and Parliament makes conversion therapy illegal via the draft Conversion Practices Bill it has put forward
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/07/15/labour-ban-conversion-therapy-kings-speech-fears-parents/
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainer/2024-kings-speech
Tell me, T1, is it lawful under this legislation to pray by oneself that somebody’s sexual preference be changed?
It is probably not even lawful to think it, since who can distinguish prayer from thought legally?
Or even to be in a state where one is possibly thinking it and possibly not, or can’t remember.
Or even to be standing still, not moving a muscle, too petrified to think anything at all, only to be accused of doing the nothing that you are doing in the wrong place, even though it is a place where anyone is allowed to be.
Even then, no-one has made a definition of ‘conversion therapy’ (a carefully selected term that people enforce so that the agenda is set by this particular phrase and no other) that adds up.
It is probably not even lawful to think it, since who can distinguish prayer from thought legally?
It was brave, if foolhardy, of that woman who was asked by the policeman within yards of an abortion facility whether she was praying, and she said Yes. I’d have replied “Can’t you tell?” and absolutely refused to be drawn, there or in court. I want it clarified whether Caesar thinks he can come after us for praying in our heads.
Or one could retort: ‘Am I legally obliged to tell you whether or what I am thinking?’.
Wouldn’t it have been nice if an Archbishop or Bishop had turned up to pray before an abortion facility? Hell would freeze over first, of course.
You are exactly right, Anton. It is so simple, and they don’t even do it. It is contemptible. For the Catholics, Bp Alan Hopes was at the Bedford Square demo c2012, and Bp John Wilson at Parliament Square about 5 years ago. Even that is small beer. Neither was leading the whole thing, and in each case it was visibility every year or every few years.
If the bishops came out en masse, it would chance public perception greatly, and also it would not be difficult to do. Just turn up one day early for Synod or something, and plan a demo.
Michael Nazir Ali was occasionally to be seen outside Parliament.
It’s difficult to read Luke 18 and then go out to use the act of prayer as a performative weapon.
Soldiers pray before a battle. Christians face a spiritual battle against evil in the world.
Anton
Yes it will certainly be lawful to pray that God change your own orientation and for someone else as long as you’re not praying audibly in their presence. As someone who has spent decades praying to be straight, I can guarantee that it won’t work.
The only reason they cannot completely exclude prayer from the bans is there needs not to be the loophole within a loophole that ordinarily illegal activity is OK as long as you claim it’s “prayer”.
It’s right that conversion therapy is banned. A lot of gay people claim they have been harmed from it and I cannot think of any justification for it in a free society. It’s just vindictive barbarism.
So let’s get this straight… it’s now illegal to take part in a consensual activity that God permits, i.e. prayer to him of a particular sort, but lawfal for two men to take part in a consensual activity that God regards as toevah.
Can you see that you have been led to a position opposite to God’s? How did that happen?
Anton
Conversion therapy is still legal in England, but you won’t find it in scripture. Its a relatively modern phenomenon, mostly practiced between 1970 and 2000. The government has acknowledged it is wrong and has been promising to ban it since 2015. Now we have a new party of government it sounds like it will actually finally become illegal.
Same sex sex has been fully legal in England since 2001. The UK has freedom of religion so, in theory, one group of people holding a religious belief cannot impose that belief on others
A form of conversion therapy that we might agree is barbaric is what happened to Alan Turing in the 1950s.
The government is wrong to criminalise consensual conversion therapy via prayer and the better talking therapies. This ban is based on an unscriptural view of the human being, and on whatever pressure group has the government’s ear, i.e. on amoral political power. It’s disappointing that people who call themselves Christian support the ban, but Jesus knew what to say to and about people like that.
What have you to say to these people? “We are a community of friends who once identified as LGBTQ+. Today, we celebrate the love of Jesus and His freedom in our lives.”
https://changedmovement.com/
Anton
Jolly good for them. And jolly good for people who find their queer identity in Christ.
Penelope
Nobody will.
Anton
Nobody will what?
If you mean queer folk finding their identities in Christ, they already have.
Your inability to recognise that doesn’t change their holiness.
Odd that people wish to claim the biblical definition of righteousness yet deny what the bible says is right and wrong.
Anton
I’m still waiting for the evidence that the Bible says being queer is wrong.
Penelope,
The Bible states (in Leviticus 18) that God regards men giving one another sexual gratification as toevah. A further discussion is whether desire for that was part of God’s design for man or came about a a result of the intervention described (in the categories of the ancient world) in Genesis 3. What do you think?
Anton
Even talking can be abusive and can be mentally very damaging if carried out on vulnerable people. I don’t understand what the justification in not outlawing conversion therapy is?
As I understand it the government has already effectively outlawed puberty blockers, not because there’s evidence of harm or ineffectiveness, but because there isn’t enough evidence of lack of harm! Yet you are arguing to keep something we know doesn’t work and we have lots of people claiming it destroyed their mental health.
Peter,
A society that licenses genital mutilation of people, but forbids talking therapies, so as to change someone’s sexuality is a society that has gone mad. Committed Christians, who are called to be in the world but not of the world, are best able to see this.
Anton
I think it’s two verses proscribing anal sex. Nothing is implied in those verses about the sexual identities of either partner. We could assume that the men (and women are not mentioned) are what we would today call straight and that what is being proscribed is mixing of kinds as elsewhere in the Levitical Law. Nowhere is homosexuality implied in this text unless you read it with a prior (and modern) ideological commitment.
Penelope: it is an *act* which is described as toevah in God’s eyes and a capital crime in ancient Israel. If the Holy Spirit inspired these scriptures then they carry the authority of One who knows human beings inside out and are not limited by the knowledge of human psychology in the Ancient Near East.
The act in question is man “lying with man as with woman”. I have expended some effort at this blog in finding a summary phrase for what that means which Peter Jermey, AJ Bell etc have been unable to pick at. That phrase is “for sexual gratification”. If you believe that Leviticus refers *exclusively* to anal sex, take it up with them, as they contended with me.
Anton
Since the only sex recognised anciently was PIV sex what is being proscribed in Leviticus (though there is no evidence that anyone was ever put to death) is something which is a simulacrum of that, i.e. anal sex. Gratification is irrelevant.
Penelope,
Clearly you are ignorant of the ancient Greek practice of diamerizein, for a start. Have you never read Kenneth Dover’s book about Greek homosexuality?
Anton
I have
Then you have forgotten about diamerizein.
Anton
Intercrural sex is not penetrative.
T1
As homosexuality is not a medical problem, serious Christians will not be doing therapy; though there is some risk that the same people who can’t see the differences between being gay and being black may apply their Humpty-Dumptyish language skills to defining things that aren’t therapy as therapy so they can ban them….
I suppose it depends how you define ‘conversion therapy’. I think the last government concluded that praying for others would not constitute such therapy, but it will depend on the legislation and how the authorities interpret it.
Im not doubting Graham’s own experience, but the reality is the vast majority of gay people dont seem to see much change if any. That is why many of the so-called ex-gay ministries self-imploded. Their practices simply didnt ‘work’. Most of the leaders continued to have such attractions, and some ended up having sexual relationships with the same sex and did a 180 degree change in their views. I personally know of a leader in a local ministry, a woman, whose ministry ended (and her marriage) when she set up camp with another woman. Even Martin Hallett surprisingly has changed his mind on the matter, now believing God approves of same-sex sexual relationships. I found that personally disappointing as Id been in contact with Martin over a number of years.
I think there is much in the idea that an important factor of gay sexual development is the influence of the same-sex parent in the early years. People like Elizabeth Moberly thought this could be compensated as an adult, and such sexual feelings would dissipate. I think she was wrong, the damage (if that is how you perceive it) is too late to be rectified. Such is reality.
But others will have their own experiences and opinions!
Ian asks whether disagreements over this matter will split the Church of England. The Church of England is already split; the question is whether the split will be formalised.
Unfortunately the side of faith is still fighting with one hand behind its back, because of reluctance to call the archbishops and many bishops, who take a salary from the faithful to peddle heresy, what they are. Jesus had no such inhibitions with the religious hypocrites of His day – see Matthew 23.
It is not split among the only people whose opinion matters: the evidence-based.
The House of Clergy and House of Laity voted for PLF by majority too, not just the Bishops
T1
A bit trite perhaps but “one person with God is a majority” – and in contrast almost the whole church going against the Bible would be a minority, a very small minority….
Come to think of it, that applies to a lot of your positions….
Henk
Nobody is threatening to criminalize people for changing orientation, which genuinely seems to happen sometimes. That is not Conversion therapy.
Conversion therapy is any activity where a person tries to forcibly change the orientation of another person by creating trauma around sexuality. It’s the force and the trauma that are harmful, not natural change.
Maybe an analogy is it’s not illegal to cut yourself while chopping veg. It is illegal to forcibly stab someone
Peter Jermey:
Interesting that admit that some people at least can change their sexual orientation. Not really news to me – I know of at least three Christian men who once identified as gay who are now married and fathers.
I also know of three persons (two men, one a priest, and a mother) who left their marriages to enter same-sex relationships.
As for SOCE, all those horror stories of Skinnerian aversion therapy from the 1950s (ECT) hardly apply today. I cannot see how trying to ban conversion therapy will not fall foul of human rights laws, viz. the right of adults to choose what they think is best for themselves.
James
Marrying someone of the opposite sex doesn’t necessarily mean a change in orientation – there are lots of other more likely explanations. Nobody can choose to change their orientation, but a very small percentage of people experience shifts in it over their lifetime.
Peter
It’s not about ‘orientation’, it’s about behaviour, what people DO. And the very fact that ‘gay sex’ is something ‘done’ means that the current interpretation of ‘orientation’ is wrong.
Of course it’s about orientation. Queer folk have been coerced into ‘conversion therapy’ whether they are sexually active or not because being queer is regarded as ‘fallen’
If you were traumatised (or negatively formatively affected), that (among other things) would inevitably make you queer or skewed in some way. But do we want to say either (a) that it makes no difference whether there is trauma or no trauma; or (b) that trauma is not a bad thing, nor to be avoided as far as possible?
Christopher
Are you making the assumption that all queer people have suffered trauma which made them queer?
Penny, quite possibly yes. Research shows clearly that early years experience affects the development of sexuality to a high degree.
Ian
That may be true. But are you suggesting that all experiences which affect our sexual orientations are traumatic?
It is true. Why are you asking me a non-sequitur?
Ian
Why is it a non sequitur?
You are making the assumption that trauma affects sexual development and may lead to people identifying as queer. Why? Why doesn’t trauma lead to people identifying as straight?
Stephen
Conversion therapy is specifically an attempt to change peoples orientation. Therapy to help reduce “sex addiction” etc will remain legal
What about gay people who don’t have sex?
Peter, ‘forcibly’ is the key word here.
All the legislation so far tabled omits that word. To do something forcibly is already illegal. So why the need for legislation?
How can it be possible under human rights law to forbid an adult from freely seeking a change in his or her life through counselling?
What would the courts make of this?
Oh, good. It would be entertaining if that ended up in the ECHR.
James
That wouldn’t be outlawed. What would be outlawed is applying counseling (or prayer, exorcism, waterboarding, electrocution etc) designed to raise anxiety around sexuality. This is torture plain and simple. If it were happening to any other group you’d be appalled instead of defending it or pretending it has something to do with Christianity
One presumes the person who freely requests prayer is already anxious, which is why he or she has come. Do you not see that your comparison of a consensual talking session (at which no money changes hands) with electrocution or other physical torture makes your argument look ludicrous?
That’s an interesting take on medical ethics.
Ian
You keep saying that its already illegal, but its not! If it were the police would be arresting conversion therapists and religious leaders. There’s a recent report By Barnados on a case of this in Sheffield. The church leaders involved are not facing criminal sanctions.
The legislation you mentioned previously only covers domestic abuse so it *might* apply in the case where the therapist was married to the patient, but in the vast majority of cases it does not.
Peter, if coercive control was involved, it is already illegal. If it was free and consensual, you are wanting to make consensual behaviour illegal.
Ian
I looked this up. The coercive control law only applies to abuse within a relationship.
If conversion therapy was already illegal the leaders of Network Church Sheffield would be facing criminal charges. They are not.
From memory in Frank Lake’s ( evangelical psychotherapist) in Clinical Theology ..said he believed it was a very early experience with the mother ” before the child had been weaned” He also felt the birth trauma was very important. He was working on this when he died in 1980?
Frank Lake was an interesting man.
It is very interesting how evangelicals thought he was the real deal, when the bar they usually set for anything out of the ordinary is quite high. Certainly a remarkable man. And to be praised for cutting across artificially imposed discipline-barriers and taking a broader, fuller view.
That reference to Frank Lake rought back memories of some of the first teaching from a non stipendiary CoE minister who had a prayer and healing ministry.
Lake’s Dynamic Cycle was based on scripture on Jesus and was explained citing scripture where Jesus got his
1 Identity
2 Significance
3 Status
4 Acceptance/affirmation
5 Sustenance
(More could be added such as:
6 Life
7 Joy
8 Fulfillment
9 Inheritance)
As with Jesus, so with Christians.
Perry
But is there any evidence of this or is it just speculation?
If it is true why does that justify negative treatment towards gay people by Christians?
If it is true then how is allowing such “damaged” people to marry and support one another cause any problems for anyone else?
If its not true then it has the potential to cause family rift since gay children are encouraged by the theory to blame their parents for their orientation
And once again we are back to this insistence that gay is something people ‘are’ in thesame sense in which they are black African or blue-eyed. Stop thinking that way and put ‘gayness’ in its rightful category as being abour things people DO, CHOOSE to do, and have URGES AND DESIRES about (as they very precisely can’t about their ethnicity or eye colour!).
Who are the “we”here Stephen? Frank Lake? Any one who suggests there might be a psychodynamic origin for why some people are sexually attracted to their own sex? Of course those so inclined have freedom to choose whether they act on this attraction but are you suggesting homosexuality is something people choose instead of heterosexuality?
Perry, why on earth are you using a binary model choose/not-choose? There are many other options. If someone is highly circumscribed by early family conditions, or by formative things done to them, or by formative things done by them, then it becomes difficult to make free choices thereafter.
Perry
“We” here are I guess a bit rhetorical. Also I personally know almost nothing about Frank Lake.
I’m trying to draw attention to the wrongness of the claim that ‘being gay is like being black’ (or having blue eyes, ginger hair etc. And the wrongness is the simple fact that being gay is very much about what people do, the acts of sex, and which they choose to do (unless they’re mounting an insanity defence about it), and about which ta hey have urges and desires – all those things in exactly the way that black people don’t do, choose or have urges and desires about being black. Things that people do, choose and have urges and desires about are a different moral category to things they ‘just are’ like a different ethnicity.
The point of the claim is to suggest that if people ‘just are’ gay like they ‘just are’ black then it is a natural thing and must be OK. But the difficulty is that the category ogf things people do, choose and have urges about doesn’t work like that. Not least because that category actually goes all the way from the saintly (like people who go to be doctors in war zones) to the satanic like thieves and liars. And on the one hand there is no guarantee that urges and desires and the resultant deeds are automatically OK; while on another hand, there can legitimately be differing opinions on the rightness of the urges and desires. Indeed that aspect can be very complex.
Again the reason for the ‘like being black’ claim is to imply that therefore objections to ‘gayness’ are a sin/crime like racism. Whereas if ‘gay’ is in that wider category there can be many valid objections to/criticisms of homosexuality and by implication a claim to protection comparable to race issues is a decided ‘overreach’ especially if it leads to people being bullied, threatened or prosecuted/sued.
And since in that category legitimate differences in worldview/presuppositions would be a reason to object/criticise about things involving doing/choosing/urges and desires, the Church in particular can legitimately see homosexuality not as a racial-issues-like just being but a very different issue.
Stephen
Being gay isn’t just about urges though its your whole life. Its difficult to explain to a straight person because most straight people don’t notice how much their own orientation influences them. I’d say its almost as significant as gender.
Peter
You are somewhat missing the point here. Gay people for decades now have been loudly claiming that “being gay is like being black” (or similar things like being blue-eyed or ginger-haired). I recall a discussion on another forum where there was no real discussion at all, just a stream of in the end I think hundreds of people just repeating those and similar mantras. But that idea does not hold water because
well yes all those other things are just being and nobody can meaningfully do them, choose them, or have urges and desires about them; whereas both on the gay side and for the opponents it is rather the point of ‘gay’ that people are doing (or wanting/being tempted to do) specific actions, which ipso facto are chosen and people have urges/desires/temptations(?) to do those acts, in exactly the way which isn’t true of ethnicity or things like hair colour.
The point of the gay claim has been of course to kind of put themselves on a pedestal beyond criticism by implying that any objection to ‘gayness’ would be the same kind of evil as racism; and since being gay is NOT like being black etc that has been a false claim and in many ways an assault on the civil rights of others…..
So I’ll make some other points responding to another of your comments below, but for right here and now can we finally have it conceded that ‘gay’ is NOT like being black… And can we here all agree that the whole CofE should accept that point and its implications for the position of gays in areas like equality law….
Stephen
It depends what you mean by “like being black”.
Its like being black in some ways because its a minority personal characteristic that is unchosen and traditionally faces worse treatment by majority straight white societies.
Its not like being black in other ways – its not a race, you’re not gay because a biological parent was gay, probably at least half of gay people are not noticeably gay from initial appearance, but all Black people are noticeably Black immediately
Perry
“Any one who suggests there might be a psychodynamic origin for why some people are sexually attracted to their own sex? Of course those so inclined have freedom to choose whether they act on this attraction but are you suggesting homosexuality is something people choose instead of heterosexuality?”
As I pointed out in my other response to this, if atheism then hey, why not gay sex? But if the Christian God, it can’t work that way. It’s very glib and easy to say “God makes people gay” – but really??? What that would basically imply is that having created wonderful heterosexual sex, God would positively deprive many men of the ‘urges and desires’ of that sexuality, and gift them instead a desire to shove their male members up other men’s bums and down other men’s throats. Isn’t that imagining a rather weird God?? And in any case, the Christian God in the Bible has given a rather different and rather more credible explanation of what’s going on. The explanation, spelled out in Romans 1 &2 and hinted at elsewhere, that not just in sexuality but in other areas of life too, human urges and desires are ‘off kilter’ because of what we sum up as ‘original sin’.
As I have observed before, we all know what anal and oral sex involves.
Could you kindly stop pushing it down our throats!
You are clearly obsessed with these activities. I very much doubt that God is.
Penelope
I very much doubt I’m as harmfully obsessed with those practices as are the people who actually do them.
Stephen
You keep believing that honey.
Stephen
I have a problem with a part of my body that has never worked how I would wish it. I’m gearing up for my third surgery on it. I will likely need another after that.
Is that a consequence of the fall or did God make me like that? And what practical difference does it make either way? I’m choosing to have the surgery does that prove that this is just a chosen behavior and not a lifelong issue?
Does it mean that I’m more sinful than you are? Does it mean that I’m forever blacklisted from public ministry? Is it justification for preachers and politicians to spread lies about me?
Peter
You don’t specify the body part or its problem so I can’t answer very specifically either
However in general it is commonly agreed that while God is sovereign and anything that is done has at least his permission, there are things which God does not specifically do or make happen. God may permit liars and thieves, he doesn’t make them so. And there are quite a few things of which we can reasonably ask whether God really makes them so, or whether his role is only permissive.
The related issue of ‘transgender’ provides a case in point. Even those who extol trans and go on about the wonderful diversity of God’s creation find it hard to deny that being trans is a distressing
condition that requires ‘alleviation’; and when the alleviation is the massive mutilation and long term medical treatment of a so-called ‘sex change (which doesn’t truly change the sex anyway!!), it seems to me to be reasonable to say that a good (or even just a sane) God is vanishingly unlikely to deliberately directly afflict people with such distress. Can one really believe such distress could be a part of the original creation plan, something God could as Genesis put it ‘look and behold it was good’. Whereas if that condition arises as a consequence of the fall, different matter. It does not necessarily imply special sin on the part of those afflicted; see for a similar example the case of the man born blind.
On the other hand, when this distortion of human life by sin results in temptation to further sin, that should be seemn not as an excuse to do the sin anyway, but as a challenge to resist it and seek God’s help with it.
Stephen
Do you know any trans people? It doesn’t seem like it, since you don’t know about trans joy. Being denied affirmation in your gender is distressing. Transitioning, however that presents, is joyous.
THen why is this TJ experience not spoken of in other cultures and times? The fact that it is not means that your treatment of it as a general anthropological experience cannot be taken seriously.
Christopher
It’s spoken of in many cultures and times. Read some history and anthropology.
I don’r need to now that you already have.
So what are these cutures and times that speak of TJ? References, please.
(My point was anyway that most cultures and times never mention it. That point stants. But at least you are going to tell us about those that do.)
”Trans joy” among the Aztec? The Carolingians? Shoot.Your audience awaits with bated breath.
Christopher
First Nations people, many groups on the Indian sub continent, some Jews, examples in modern European history, shape-shifting in Greek and Roman mythology, the Far East, some Arabic cultures, Japan …
All acknowledged and uncontroversial until the trans panic started in the last few years.
“Most of the laws of any consequence arise from a moral vision and reflect the moral vision of the lawmaker…Law can not be separated from moral judgment.
(The case being decided) “at heart was moral, not primarily legal or even factual.” It was ultimately a conflict between conflicting visions of the human person” a disagreement (that) is one of philosophy morality and even religion.” Texas Supreme Court justice Jimmy Blacklock.
I’d add, this indeed is central even to the religion of secularism of lawmakers, let alone the CoE.
For a book review of from which the above is abstracted see:
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/reviews/crisis-civil-law/
The title of the linked piece is, “Think we can’t legislate morality? Think again.”
In the interview it is clear in way that Charles’ interacted with Ian for example by never naming “Ian”, and by his body language that Charles was never really interested in Ian as a person or in his argument, it was in fact a form of passive-aggressive cancelling.
The trajectory too is clear, not to simply let the trial period work its way through but to see it as in some way a progression towards a development or change of COE doctrine, the real end game. I question how one might remain within the COE if as an institution it permits an opt in/out which is really a de facto affirming position.
Although I am as it were on the outside looking I have an interest in this since my two supervisors are the authors of the Church Times Surveys, but more so as I agree with Burge in The Great De-Churching that the “church” will in the next generation need to become familiar with existing on the margin of society, the COE in some ways has been a covering for the rest of us in the UK church streams in terns of protections and permissions, I see these eroding and going if not in the next 10 years at least in the maturity of Gen Z and the Polars.
Much work needs to be done now to lay the groundwork for the UK church to re-emerge in the generation to come as a missional church to its own culture.
I agree. It looked to me from his body language that Charlie Bell positively despised Ian and his arguments.
From the amount that Charlie Bell has spoken and written, he has nevertheless
-interacted with (and shown ability to express or reproduce) a negligible amount of the arguments of Gagnon, Satinover, the Whiteheads, Schmidt, ML Brown, De Young;
-proceeded as though the end game was never in doubt, evidence be d***ed;
-often proceeded in an unstructured and discursive way;
-allowed vast generalisations and sweep-of-the-hand assessments;
-built much on uncritical (culture-derived) presuppositions;
-openly flaunted a mocking of the discipline that rules out quasi sexual behaviour with the same gender as oneself.
How many books of Charlie’s have you read?
One more substantial one from cover to cover.
One?
Does he say totally different things in all of them?
Does he write differentlhy?
The one I read purported to cover the main points.
You are very unusual in thinking that reading one substantial book by an author does not equip you to comment on that author? Can you find anyone who agrees with this? Or are you just trying to disagree with as many things as possible?
Christopher
Read your response to Pete.
Penelope
You replied to me above
“Do you know any trans people? It doesn’t seem like it, since you don’t know about trans joy. Being denied affirmation in your gender is distressing. Transitioning, however that presents, is joyous”.
Actually I get that one. I can see that if gender dysphoria, then settling the gender will be joyous. But that was not the point I was making, and you’ve completely missed that point – and a competent theologian should not have missed it. Which is a bit worrying….
The issue is of the origin of the trans condition; is it a good creation of God, or is it for some other reason? I don’t necessarily take a ‘dumb wooden literal’ approach to the creation story ; think perhaps more an approach like the way ‘Animal Farm’ is a history of the Russian Revolution, not a literal truth but very helpful in understanding it. In the symbolism there are moments when God creates and it is seen to be good. There are also things, which Paul elaborates on in a less symbolic way in Romans 1-2, where certain features of human life are explained in terms of distortions that result because “All have sinned and come short of the glory of God”. (Note that while a result of sin, the distortions may notrepresent special sinfulness of those who have the resulting problems) Does it seem a good creation of God – or even simply the creation of a sane God, that people would be made in a condition so distressing that it needs pretty horrendous mutilation of a perfectly good body for ‘alleviation’? Most people I know would agree with me that a God who gratuitously afflicts people with such distress and so drastic a ‘solution’ would be questionably good God. That conclusion requires a different way of looking at trans issues compared to an atheist view or your rather crass view.
Stephen
I don’t think a ‘competent theologian’ would claim that God afflicts anyone …
I would argue that the problem with your view (and you are not the only one holding it) is that it seems to regard queer bodies a particularly fallen, as especially afflicted. If we believe in a fallen world we must recognise that all our bodies and minds are fallen: cis and straight as well as gay, bi, trans, non binary etc. Our whole nature is fallen and we don’t get a get out of jail free card because our fallenness conforms to a particular norm, which the Church tends to regard as canonical.
Christopher
I’ve read some of what Gagnon and DeYoung have written and its nonsense, worse this type of teaching is boxing conservative Christians into more and more extreme social positions. I have no doubt, for example, that the new trend for rejecting IVF as sinful has come about because conservatives like Gagnon and DeYoung have claimed that gay families cannot be supported because they are unnatural and so then it naturally follows that fertility treatment for straight people must also be rejected.
That’s an odd logic. If they reject IVF it is more likely becuase of the ethical implications such as the destruction of unused embryos, or the screening out of certain embryos but not based on disease. Robert Winston, an expert in human fertility, has called the IVF ‘industry’ corrupt and greedy. That speaks volumes.
Have you read any of Preston Sprinkle’s books on the subject, such as ‘People to be loved’ ?
Read those and come back if you think he’s also writing ‘nonsense’.
Peter, forgive me if I do not debate with you in the future. To sum up multiple hundred page books in which each page is densely packed and each point is as precise and possible and footnoted – in a single word as nonsense with no details given and no arguments interacted with – that is too many intellectual levels below the normal standard for a debating platform like this.
By all means I will interact with you if you interact with the arguments of the sources you seek to criticise. If you don’t, you are not in a position to criticise and you forfeit the argument.
Yes I agree. But as long as the C of E retains its doctrine, I am not going anywhere!
Ian, if the Church of England was to formally change its doctrine on marriage would that be the cue for you to leave?
Ah, Red Lines and red mists, they are an individual phenomenon.
Some have decided that their red lines have already been broached
Others are perhaps like Obamas red lines, mere Paper Tigers.
Our red lines are being seriously examined and many will take action[s] in the coming days.
Some will prevaricate some will shrug their shoulders.
Some will say there never should be any Red Lines
God has clearly indicated His Red Lines and proclaimed them incessantly; if his nostrils should flare… head for the holes and the caves.
For those who need a basic introduction to the issue before reading Andrew Goddard’s excellent detailed analyses (here or elsewhere), this does a good job:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=639Ee_ivyOs