Just wondering whether this is an opportunity for the bishops also to hear from those in their dioceses who took part in the diocesan Shared Conversations - as not all GS reps did this, and the model was significantly different from the GS version of the SCs?
Bold words from the Archbishops, but they have their work cut out. The BBC news yesterday, referring to the Bishop of Coventry's grovel abut pressing the wrong button at the vote in Synod, said "Dr Cocksworth added that the report was a 'valuable road map' and he was 'disappointed' by the vote's outcome", so there's at least one of their episcopal colleagues who is STILL incapable of understanding what has happened and why. How many others are there?
I have been in touch with several bishops - one of the bishops of a more evangelical slant said he did not see the unity in diversity model as practical because this was not the same 'order of issue' as the issue of female priests and bishops. At the same time, I am sure there is a range of opinion among the bishops, just as there is among the clergy and laity.
I think the problem is the problem: that the Church itself is divided down the middle, and at either extreme will not accept any solution that gives ground to the opposing conscience and viewpoint.
So far as the bishops are concerned, the failure to take note was the perfect outcome. Now they produce the same teaching document but do not have to worry about the bothersome business of offering 'maximum flexibility'. Meanwhile, the bishops canvas Synod reps to count votes.
The one thing which will change is the tone and language.
A total own goal by liberals and so many cannot see it.
Kate - the 'own goal' would have been to accept the 'neutral' nature of a vote to 'take note' and hand ++Justin Welby the opportunity of saying that the HoB's basic premise was ratified and accepted by Synod. As you'll read elsewhere on this site, he was already presenting this report as authoritative even before it was presented to Synod. If and when the new teaching document appears, Gereral Synod members need to ask (or demand) that it comes before Synod for debate and discussion, since it was part of the HoB's plan for a way 'forward'.
The trouble with attempts to improve the language of any HoB document on marriage etc, and the feelings experienced by lesbian and gay people, is that it isn't really that language or the "feel" of the document that is hurtful - it is the doctrine.
Or can anyone more intelligent than me think of an acceptable way of saying that: "...according to our Lord’s teaching, marriage is in its nature a union, permanent and lifelong, for better or worse, till death do us part, of one man with one woman... "?.
Kate, this wasn't spearheaded by liberals: Jayne Ozanne, who took a lead on it, is an affirming evangelical. As I said a while back, change is most likely to come to England when that camp takes the lead, since politics and organization are areas evangelicals of any stripe excel in.
Regardless of technicalities, political reality's that, if English diocesans try and use this to do an end-run around LGBT people, they'll not only get another defeat in General Synod, there'll be serious questions asked about their positions.
"Maximum flexibility" isn't near ambitious enough. We're long past the point where toleration's acceptable. Full equality, by all lawful means, and that won't be achieved by asking for crumbs from the bishops' high table.
As I understand it the bishops don't need to pass a teaching document via Synod.
The Archbishop of Canterbury already showed his feelings for Synodical authority by announcing the report as authority in his letter to Anglican Primates. That is unlikely to change: he will just now say the bishops voted unanimously for the report and that doctrine and teaching are the preserve of the episcopate.
Remember, liberals need a change in doctrine and canon: the bishops are content with the status quo, especially since they can interpret the status quo. Delay works for the bishops.
I take a different view to Kate.
The apparently innocuous 'Take Note' motion was intended by the HOB to be a formality, which it normally is. However what happened very quickly was that it morphed into what was tantamount to a confidence motion, with so much opposition and criticism of both the report and the HOB itself, from which the ABC himself was not exempted. That was why Church House campaigned so vigorously for the apparently neutral angle of taking note. However, even this backfired, because the ABC had form in interpreting a neutral take note motion at the ACC as expressing active support. (Sorry for all these acronyms!)
It was for this reason that there was such an impact from the voting when the take note motion was rejected. Look at the numbers. Church House spin draws attention to the absolute majority for the Take Note. However, discount the HOB because they were never going to do anything other than support their report. Those voting in the clergy and laity amounted to only 51% for, against 47%. Even in the laity it was only 55% for and 43% against (clergy 48% for, 51% against). Quite apart from the technicality of the vote being lost by houses, the HOB and the archbishops in particular could not withstand a situation where the majority of their clergy and a substantial section of the laity had in effect voted against their recommendation to trust them on this issue. A watershed or tipping point had been reached and could no longer be ignored.
The challenge now of course is to maintain that pressure, given the track record of a closed HOB, to ensure all voices continue to be heard.
I realise that the HoB takes note of itself as holding the teaching office. That too can be challenged because whatever teaching document they produce can, if members of GS get their act together, come to the Synod to be discussed. GS has to take hold of the power and authority that it may and can possess. Ordinary members need to hold to account those on procedural committees and challenge their decisions. It is time to MAKE the HoB hear what God is saying to, in, and through his People and his world.
I very much agree that the impact as a no confidence motion is substantial. Kelvin Holdsworth's writing on the topic is linked on a different thread and I think Kelvin is spot on: the lack of confidence expressed is more general than the particular issue. It is why the selection of bishops is an issue now being raised rather more openly.
However the impact of that is likely to be that the House of Bishops will now be reluctant to put anything before Synod on the subject of same sex marriage for fear of another bloody nose. Against that backdrop, it is hard to see how progress can be made.
Reality is that conservatives voted against too... that's why the result is what it is ... bishops unencumbered
Kate: progress can be made by building a consensus in the houses of Clergy and Laity, and (I think it all hinges on this) reassuring the bishops that change won't lead to a mass-exodus of evangelicals bankrupting the English church.
Progress can also be helped along by a healthy dose of pressure, as equal consecration was. If the bishops dig in their heels, they'll be confronted with a choice between giving way, and being pushed aside. Behind the cracked mask of faux-unanimity and bluster are a lot of weak people without the courage of their convictions. People like that fold.
I suppose it's too much to expect there to be a theologian or two in the room when this so-called Teaching Document is being drawn up? Or are the bishops still persisting with the fantasy that they are all theologians? If so, we're back to square one. And the point of the C of E Doctrine Commission is what?
My starter for ten would be to have Sarah Coakley, Simon Oliver, Sam Wells and Nigel Biggar in there to cut through the pap and get these boys and girls thinking outside their institutional survival box.
"Or can anyone more intelligent than me think of an acceptable way of saying that: "...according to our Lord’s teaching, marriage is in its nature a union, permanent and lifelong, for better or worse, till death do us part, of one man with one woman... "?."
Here's a crack at it:
According to our Lord's teaching, we are called to love God with all our hearts and minds, which means loving God's Creation, including God's gay creation. We are called to love all of our neighbors as ourselves, without exception. The Incarnation came to bring the Good News to all people everywhere. This same Incarnation commands us not to judge others. Thus, since some LGBTQI sisters and brothers are called to the sacrament of marriage, err on the side of love and generosity and leave the rest to God.
Somehow that statement seems more intelligent than setting oneself up to be a gatekeeper for God.
"Or are the bishops still persisting with the fantasy that they are all theologians?" Says it all, Michael.
Given that English bishops tend to be ex-public schoolboys, arrogance and entitlement's been drummed into them since birth. Some transcend it, many don't. Deep down, by virtue of their class, diocesans know that they're experts at anything they turn their hand to. Born to rule, effortlessly.
That Flashman, play up! play up! and play the game! ethos actively despises learning for its own sake: if only subconciously, bet plenty diocesans get a kick from having the power to over-rule those jumped-up theologians. Teaches 'em to know their place, and defer to their betters.
Play up! play up! and play the game!
"and (I think it all hinges on this) reassuring the bishops that change won't lead to a mass-exodus of evangelicals bankrupting the English church."
Any change which involves blessing or allowing same sex marriage will prompt an exodus of traditionalists. The bishops know that. So they won't - can't - offer any change which is meaningful to LGBT+ people. It is deadlock unless liberals offer a third way.
It is also desirable that when the Teaching Document is drawn up, the bishops should have the benefit of advice from people with expertise in biology and psychology, who could explain to them that operating with the simple categories 'male' and 'female' will not do.
"It is also desirable that when the Teaching Document is drawn up, the bishops should have the benefit of advice from people with expertise in biology and psychology, who could explain to them that operating with the simple categories 'male' and 'female' will not do."
So true. Certainly the teaching document can have no credibility unless it can define "man" and "woman" in terms which are biologically accurate and in terms which are also consistent with Canon Law. Personally I think that is impossible to do.
And if a teaching document is to rely on parts of the Scripture but not others there needs to be a robust and convincing theological justification.
I think that one of the problems with the Church of England is still the fact that its Bishops are considered to be academic theologians. This would seem to be no longer the principal requirement of a bishop - where management capability looks to take over as the primary function of the episcopate. Management can never sort of problems of innate injustice in the Church. We need theologians for that task. Where are they?
Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.
Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to
the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill
the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select
'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No
third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical,
advertising, or other purposes.