Thinking Anglicans

Marriage and Same Sex Relationships after the Shared Conversations – A Report from the House of Bishops

The House of Bishops has released Marriage and Same Sex Relationships after the Shared Conversations (GS 2055). It was the main item at this morning’s pre-General Synod press conference and there is this press release, copied below.

[There is a very brief mention of other topics to be discussed at General Synod in the press release. I have updated my list of online papers to include the remaining papers, published today.]

General Synod Press Conference
27 January 2017

The Church of England’s law and guidance on marriage should be interpreted to provide “maximum freedom” for gay and lesbian people without changing the Church’s doctrine of marriage itself, bishops are recommending.

A report from the House of Bishops to be discussed by the Church’s General Synod next month upholds the teaching, recognised by canon law, that marriage is the lifelong union of one man and one woman.

But it also concludes that the current advice on pastoral provision for same-sex couples – which allows clergy to provide informal prayers for those marrying or forming a civil partnership – is not clear enough and should be revisited.

It also calls for a “fresh tone and culture of welcome and support” for lesbian and gay people and those attracted to people of the same sex throughout the Church of England.

The paper recommends that bishops prepare a substantial new teaching document on marriage and relationships to replace or expand upon documents drawn up in the 1990s.

And it calls for new guidance to be prepared about the kind of questions put to candidates for ordination – irrespective of their sexual orientation – about their lifestyle.

It also speaks of the need for the Church to repent of the homophobic attitudes it has sometimes failed to rebuke and affirm the need to stand against homophobia wherever and whenever it is to be found.

The report from the House of Bishops attempts to sum up the Church’s position after a two-year process of shared conversations on the subject of human sexuality, involving clergy and laity.

It acknowledges that it represents the consensus of opinion among the bishops rather than a unanimous view and sets out a process rather than attempting a final resolution.

The General Synod will discuss the paper in a “Take Note” debate on the afternoon of Wednesday February 15.

Members will have an opportunity to consider it in small groups immediately before the debate.

In a foreword to the document, the bishops explain: “We recognise our deficiencies and offer this paper with humility.

“We know that this report may prove challenging or difficult reading.

“We are confident, however, that the commitment that has been shown to listening to one another, not least through the Shared Conversations, in dioceses and in the General Synod, will have helped prepare us all as members of Synod to address together the challenges we face as a part of the One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

“We would ask for it to be read as a whole.”

Presenting the paper at a press conference this morning the Bishop of Norwich, the Rt Rev Graham James said:

“This isn’t the end of a process but we are somewhere in the middle of it.

“We are sharing where we have reached in order to be as transparent as possible, and open to other voices.

“We hope that the tone and register of this report will help to commend it, though we recognise it will be challenging reading for some.

“This is no last word on this subject. For there are very different views on same sex relationships within the Church, and within the House of Bishops, mainly based on different understandings of how to read scripture.”

The Bishop of Willesden, the Rt Rev Pete Broadbent, said: “The report will be the subject of a ‘take note’ debate. Such a debate is a neutral motion.

“It allows Synod to discuss the content and recommendations contained in the report, but a vote in favour of the motion does not commit the Synod to the acceptance of any matter in the report.

“The House of Bishops will listen carefully to the debate, and to any subsequent matters raised by members in correspondence, to inform their further work.”

The report is contained among papers circulated to members of the Church of England’s General Synod which meets in Westminster next month.

Other newly released papers include background papers ahead of debates on the reading of banns of marriage and fixed odds betting terminals.

Papers sent out in an earlier circulation last week included further updates on the process of simplification of Church regulations as well as material on the 500th anniversary of the Reformation and a background document on clergy risk assessment regulations which will be debated on Thursday February 16.

The General Synod will meet at the Assembly Hall, Church House, 27 Great Smith Street, Westminster, London from 3pm on Monday February 13 to 5.15pm on Thursday 16 February.

Notes to editors:

The full agenda and papers can be found here:

The comments from the Bishop of Norwich and Bishop of Willesden are below.

A Statement from the Bishop of Norwich:

When reports to the General Synod are launched at a press briefing they are often published at the end of a process and contain recommendations. This report on marriage and same sex relationships from the House of Bishops isn’t that sort of report. It describes where the bishops have reached in their reflections. It goes on to provide a framework identifying areas where we believe present advice, policies or practice need further consideration, and invites members of General Synod and the wider Church, to contribute. So this isn’t the end of a process but we are somewhere in the middle of it. We are sharing where we have reached in order to be as transparent as possible, and open to other voices.

We hope that the tone and register of this report will help to commend it, though we recognise it will be challenging reading for some. This is no last word on this subject. For there are very different views on same sex relationships within the Church, and within the House of Bishops, mainly based on different understandings of how to read scripture. The House is agreed, however, that our present teaching documents do not address some elements of the contemporary situation regarding marriage and relationships in our culture. I refer to the current teaching document on marriage, issued by the House of Bishops in 1999, and an earlier document on same sex relationships, Issues in Human Sexuality. Neither discusses nor even anticipates same sex marriage, a reminder of just how quickly things have changed. Issues, published in 1991, was written when Clause 28 of the Local Government Act 1988 was in force. It prohibited the promotion of homosexuality in schools and prevented local councils from spending money on lesbian and gay projects including anything which suggested support of what it called “pretended family relationships”. The temper of the time in which Issues was written was a very different one from ours. The later teaching document from 1999 simply assumes marriage is the union of one man with one woman. Hence, the House of Bishops believes it needs to commission a new teaching document which articulates such an understanding of marriage within a theology of relationships for our changed times. This report isn’t that document but it indicates why it is needed.

The House of Bishops believes that the Church of England’s teaching on marriage, which it holds in common with the Roman Catholic Church, the Orthodox Churches, and the majority of the churches of the Reformation, should continue to be expressed in the terms found in Canon B30, namely that “the Church of England affirms, according to our Lord’s teaching, that marriage is a union permanent and life-long, of one man with one woman…” But there is a great deal more than marriage alone to be considered in relation to same sex relationships. The report affirms the place of lesbian and gay people within the Church. Even in 1991 Issues in Human Sexuality said that those in same sex partnerships should be included within the life and fellowship of the Church. We reaffirm that gladly and decisively, recognising that for Christians our identity in Christ is primary, and of greater significance than gender, sexuality, age, nationality or any other characteristic. So no change in doctrine is proposed but it is often pastoral practice – how we treat people – which matters most. This means – as the report suggests – establishing across the Church of England a fresh tone and culture of welcome and support for lesbian and gay people, for those who experience same sex attraction, and for their families, and continuing to work toward mutual love and understanding on these issues across the Church. And so we speak in the report about re-examining the existing framework of our pastoral practice to permit maximum freedom within it. We recognise two areas in particular where advice in relation to the pastoral care and support of lesbian and gay people needs fresh thought.

At present clergy are advised that they may offer “informal prayer” to those registering civil partnerships or entering same sex marriage. The parameters of such pastoral support are unclear. The House proposes that there should be more guidance for clergy about appropriate pastoral provision for same sex couples.

The House of Bishops also believes present arrangements for asking ordinands and clergy about their relationships and lifestyle are not working well. It’s felt that there’s too much concentration on whether ordinands or clergy are in sexually active same sex relationships rather than framing questions about sexual morality within a much wider examination of the way in which all ordinands and clergy order their lives. The Church of England has always been suspicious of intrusive interrogation of its members, preferring to trust clergy and lay people in their Christian discipleship. However, all clergy are asked at their ordination whether they will fashion their lives “after the way of Christ”. We believe we should revisit how this is explored beforehand so that the same questions are addressed to all.

At the General Synod next month I will give an address exploring why we believe some of our formulations on pastoral practice do not now seem adequate. The Bishop of Willesden, as Vice Chair of the Bishops’ Reflection Group, will introduce some case studies which members of Synod will examine in groups so that we consider the lived experience of people within our Church. Later there will be a take note debate on the report. We hope that in the groups and in the debate much will be offered to the House of Bishops for its further work in this area. I will now pass over to the Bishop of Willesden who will speak about the process in the House of Bishops over the past few months, and the Synodical process which lies before us.

A statement on process from the Bishop of Willesden:

This report evolved though discussion, study and reflection at meetings of both the House of Bishops (the Bishops who are members of General Synod) and the College of Bishops (all the currently serving Bishops of the Church of England). The Reflections Group took the raw material from those discussions to produce the document that is going to Synod. Some of the most useful and fruitful reflection came from our own group work as we discussed real life case studies, and, as the Bishop of Norwich has indicated, we shall be offering group work based on similar case studies to members of General Synod in February. We anticipate that the groups will enable further good listening and thoughtful reflection across the Synod between people of a diversity of viewpoints.

The report will then be the subject of a “take note” debate. Such a debate is a neutral motion. It allows Synod to discuss the content and recommendations contained in the report, but a vote in favour of the motion does not commit the Synod to the acceptance of any matter in the report. The House of Bishops will listen carefully to the debate, and to any subsequent matters raised by members in correspondence, to inform their further work.

This may well include matters such as the teaching document and the guidance to clergy on pastoral provision.

42
Leave a Reply

avatar
3000
42 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
23 Comment authors
CynthiacseitzFr AndrewTobias HallerFather David Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest
Notify of
Simon Dawson
Guest
Simon Dawson

There seems to be a conflict here between paragraph one and three of the Bishop of Norwich’s statement. In paragraph one he states that the bishop’s report is a working document describing the current situation. It is not a normal synod paper which would be published at the end of a discernment process and which would “contain recommendations”. Instead the church is in the middle of a long process of reflection, the bishops want to be “open to other voices”, and the process and outcomes are undecided and flexible. Yet in para three it is said that “The House of… Read more »

sjh
Guest
sjh

There’s a surprise. The bishops are recommending another report

Fr Andrew
Guest
Fr Andrew

Par 44 “while lay people might choose in conscience to enter a faithful, stable, sexual relationship with someone of the same gender, the same choice should not be open to ordained ministers who wished to continue exercising their ministry.” Translation: ‘while lay people can do something we think is wrong and get away with it, clergy cannot, because Canon law allows us to punish them’. How on earth does that square with the avowed intent of para of “establishing across the Church of England a fresh tone and culture of welcome and support for lesbian and gay people”? How can… Read more »

Fr Keith
Guest
Fr Keith

What a wordy waste of time and space and a totally unworthy response to the whole ‘Conversations’ process. Perhaps that was inevitable given that the group of bishops appointed was never likely to agree on anything! Really we’re no further forward, and weasel words are not going to help lesbian and gay people feel the church welcomes them. The only good thing I can see is that the Church of England is still talking about same gender relations. I hope and pray we get somewhere soon.

Fr William
Guest

TA had become unusually quiet. This’ll liven things up a bit. So all would-be clergy are to be asked what they do, and have done, with their genitalia. Given that every action begins as a thought, what about asking them what they think as well as what they do? Our Lord was fairly clear about this: Matthew 5:28. How far back will these questions delve? Adolescence? Childhood? One at least, of my infant sons was forever enjoying himself in the bath. And what about computer history pages—are they to be inspected too? The inquisitors will have an interesting time, to… Read more »

Jeremy
Guest
Jeremy

The problem with a “take note” resolution is that it will still be presented, in some quarters, as approval or acceptance of the report and its conclusions.

Were I a member of Synod, I would vote no. Because this report continues to deny marriage to LGBTI+ people. This report continues to enshrine, in the official teaching of the Church of England, open and blatant discrimination.

Such a report does not deserve to be taken any note of. Synod should reject discrimination–even, or especially, when it emanates from the House of Bishops.

Fr Andrew
Guest
Fr Andrew

In future, wouldn’t it be best if, instead of instigating Shared Conversations etc. the Bishops just asked Reform to write a report? It would save us all a lot of time and the result would be exactly the same.

Jeremy Fagan
Guest
Jeremy Fagan

It feels to me like a statement that is driven by anxiety, what Daniel Kahnemann calls System 1 thinking – defining hard boundaries, needing clarity and simple solutions. What are we actually so frightened of?

Kate
Guest
Kate

It appears to be regressive in that doctrine will be interpreted and imposed more strictly and clergy might now be disciplined if they bless a same sex marriage.

Spirit of Vatican II
Guest
Spirit of Vatican II

Such a pity we did not have ecumenism back in 1600. Then the Anglicans could have expressed solidarity with the Vatican about Galileo.

Erika Baker
Guest
Erika Baker

Are there synodical experts here who can explain to me what status this document has?
What happens if Synod now votes for or against it?

Could anyone in GS introduce a different debate or is this a Yes or No question?

What happens next?

Susannah Clark
Guest

Seriously, what did you expect? Instead of being patronised and ‘tolerated’, you take, you insist on your conscience. That is the nature of resistance, when your conscience is being trampled on. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: people are being played. The can is once again kicked down the path. Non-Christians in England will continue to be repelled. BUT… If local priests, local PCCs, local church communities are not willing to network and take a stand, and ACT on their consciences… then the conservative enforcers across the Anglican Communion will continue to devalue gay and lesbian sexual… Read more »

Kate
Guest
Kate

“Can anybody explain to me how this works? How it’s ok for laity but not clergy? I can understand the ‘exemplar’ role of clergy: but if exemplary behaviour is not to be in a SS relationship- presumably because that is wrong or against church teaching- why does it cease to be wrong or contrary to teaching when laity do it? Who would have though puritans could so wholeheartedly embrace clericalism. If it’s wrong, it’s wrong for lay and ordained: if it’s right for laity, it’s right for clergy.” The bishops believe same sex relationships are wrong for everyone. The only… Read more »

Susannah Clark
Guest

There is no mention whatsoever of the possibility of ‘Unity in Diversity’, allowing different church communities to exercise conscience at a local level on issues of human sexuality. What we have instead is from the same ‘song book’ as the voted-down Anglican Covenant and the Primates’ threats of consequences for those who breach uniformity: namely, top-down authoritarianism, demanding uniformity where – in reality – there is NO uniformity of belief. It is the project to IMPOSE one group’s conscience on the consciences of another group. As the report says: they seek to “maintain an unambiguous position on doctrine in this… Read more »

Froghole
Guest
Froghole

Although the Church is exempt from FOIA I hope that someone in Synod asks the authorities how much has been spent (dissipated?) on Shared Conversations. A lot of time and resource has presumably been expended on an ‘exchange’ that has yielded practically nothing, absent a few of the customary bromides which we have heard many times before. It it hard to resist the conclusion that the whole exercise was a species of window dressing. Yet it seems obvious from the communiques that have been released that the bishops were always going to come to this conclusion. So the exercise will… Read more »

dr.primrose
Guest
dr.primrose

Matthew 23:1-7.

James Byron
Guest
James Byron

More English fudge from the bishops. Since this is a political process first and foremost, it was always gonna be served up.

Susannah points the way forward: push through change via direct action on the ground, as TEC did, first in ordaining women, then in combating homophobia. Cowed by the demands of the majority of provinces, and by the implacable force of the majority of CoE evangelicals, England’s bishops are never gonna move until they’re forced.

NJ
Guest
NJ

Fr Andrew,
I can assure you Reform will not be happy with this statement. It goes way too far for conservatives, nowhere near far enough for liberals. From a conservative view, the Bishop of Norwich’s statement that this is “somewhere in the middle” of a process is deeply worrying. As others have said it’s typical Anglican fudge, appeasing conservatives by holding the line on marriage, and appeasing liberals on everything else. I guess they hope that if everyone is equally unhappy then the creaking ship holds together for a bit longer.

Kieran Crichton
Guest
Kieran Crichton

The timing of this report with the announcement of the Kenneth Leach conference is very instructive. Here’s something Leech said that has a bit of a prescient flavour. “Only…on the matter of homosexuality is a sharp moral division made between being and doing. What we seem to be saying is that God has created a community of people whose psychosexual identities are such that they can have no physical outward manifestation, a community for whom orientation and practice last for ever remain divided. The tragic feature of this approach is that, while promiscuous and irresponsible relationships can always be forgiven,… Read more »

cseitz
Guest
cseitz

“push through change via direct action on the ground” — what exactly does this look like, given the major polity differences between TEC and the CoE? 1. One conducts a marriage, using a rite that has been drawn up by the officiant? What status would it have as a CofE marriage? 2. I find it impossible to believe the Bishops haven’t considered this already and know how they will respond. 3. If the answer to question one is, “who cares if it isn’t a CofE marriage, We will go ahead regardless” is the downside that one would be disciplined and/or… Read more »

Susannah Clark
Guest

Pete Broadbent: “The report will then be the subject of a ‘take note’ debate. Such a debate is a neutral motion.” However, I do have to question the ‘neutrality’ of the Bishops’ Working Group that has resulted in this report. There were no LGBT members of the Working Group. This was a group of heterosexual bishops deciding that only heterosexual sex was legitimate. That’s not neutral. Furthermore, the bishops involved are on record as repudiating gay sex. Pete himself, for example: “I have reservations about it (gay marriage) because I don’t think that’s what we find revealed in scripture.” [5th… Read more »

T Pott
Guest
T Pott

“The same choices should not be open to ordained ministers”

In this quincentennial year of celebration, we might wonder what Luther would have said. The Church of England’s doctrine is clearly expressed in article 32 of the 39.

“it is lawful for them (bishops, priests and deacons), as for all other Christian men to marry at their own discretion”.

Doesn’t an Article trumps a canon as a source of doctrine?

Tobias Haller
Guest

Once again the English Bishops produce an exercise in “alternative facts” : “The House of Bishops believes that the Church of England’s teaching on marriage, which it holds in common with the Roman Catholic Church, the Orthodox Churches, and the majority of the churches of the Reformation, should continue to be expressed in the terms found in Canon B30, namely that “the Church of England affirms, according to our Lord’s teaching, that marriage is a union permanent and life-long, of one man with one woman…” This fails to recognize that this is a shared understanding of all of the listed… Read more »

ExRevd
Guest
ExRevd

If events in the wider world have shown nothing in the past eight days, it’s that, while there are many conservatives who will defend their point of view with humility and in peace, there is another kind of conservative who will stop at nothing to impose their will, misusing instruments of polity as means of duress.

And:

Making an idol of one’s orthodoxy is as much a heresy as any, and more deadly than most.

Tobias Haller
Guest

“Same-sex attraction” would appear to indicate attraction to “a sex” and, speaking for myself, I am attracted to a specific person. In fact I’ve been so attracted for over 36 years. I do not think I am the only person to find this phrase terribly reductionist and inhumane. Are couples currently married under the Church of England rules to be considered “mixed-sex attracted” as a definition of their relationship?

Kate
Guest
Kate

“In this quincentennial year of celebration, we might wonder what Luther would have said. The Church of England’s doctrine is clearly expressed in article 32 of the 39.”

Giles Fraser wrote about that a couple of years ago if you are interested:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2014/mar/11/gay-clergy-marriage-anglican-communion

Interested Observer
Guest
Interested Observer

When I was at university the first time, I knew a guy (Chemistry PhD student) whose hobby was the collecting of bus timetables. He knew a thing or two about buses, and a lot about timetables. Sweet man, with a charming wife. We lost touch, but I remember him with a great deal of affection. It would appear that the bishops of the Church of England have taken up the same hobby. My friend simply had an interest in service patterns and the typography and formatting of routes. But Pete Broadbent and his merry crew have an interest for quite… Read more »

James Byron
Guest
James Byron

You’re right, Susannah, this isn’t neutral.

I’d hope that, at the least, Pete Broadbent has offered a personal apology to Jeffrey John for his conduct in 2003, which, given that Broadbent fought for gay rights in the ’80s, I remain baffled by.

This is absolutely about imposing conservative conscience on everyone else. If traditionalists expect tolerance for themselves, they must start showing it to others.

cseitz
Guest
cseitz

“Stop pretending to share a common doctrine when you don’t.”

The difference in the marriage rites of the churches mentioned is virtually non-existent.

Most liberals get that.

Interested Observer
Guest
Interested Observer

“Are couples currently married under the Church of England rules to be considered “mixed-sex attracted” as a definition of their relationship?”

You’re missing the vital point that heterosexual relationships are monogomous, faithful and long lived (as witnessed by the rarity of divorce in our society) while same-sex relationships are transient, promiscuous and sordid. Or at least, that’s what the bishops appear to believe.

Cynthia
Guest
Cynthia

Thank you, Tobias, for picking up on the offensive language “same sex attracted.” It is dehumanizing. It smacks of sophistry. It doesn’t recognize actual relationships.

Typically, it is best to use the language that people use for themselves, LGBTQI.

The Crown Nominations Committee seems quite virtuosic at selecting leaders who are heartless and/or spineless, and lack a moral compass that points to the vulnerable. Losers. Worse bishops, ever. Build that wall between God and gays…

Tobias Haller
Guest

The Roman Catholic Church in particular has some very specific doctrines (and disciplines) about marriage, quite different to those in the Anglican Communion. The same is true of the Eastern Orthodox. That these doctrines may not be stated as part of the rites is neither here nor there, as the rite will not be celebrated if the couple do not meet the standards set forth in the doctrines.

I should have thought that most conservatives would know that.

James Byron
Guest
James Byron

Cynthia’s right about the caliber of English bishops, yet another reminder of the urgent need for England to abolish the CNC and elect her bishops, as other provinces do. Not one of the English bishops has a mandate, and it shows.

Due to the Communion-wide consequences of the mother church’s position, this isn’t simply an English concern.

Father David
Guest
Father David

The Bishop of Norwich seems to have a strong and keen interest to remain in solidarity with the Roman Catholics, the Orthodox and the majority of the Churches of the Reformation when it comes to marriage discipline. I don’t recall a similar interest to remain in solidarity with the two great Churches of East and West when it came to the question of gender and who is eligible to be ordained into the historic three fold Orders of Ministry. Why this difference in approach to these two highly significant issues?

cseitz
Guest
cseitz

Sophistry. When Anglicans Mr. And Mrs. Smith become Roman Catholics or Orthodox they don’t get remarried any more than they would be re-baptized. That is what is being said here. A ‘marriage’ of Mr. and Mr. Smith has no standing in these churches. And it has no standing as Holy Matrimony in the Church of England. The Orthodox Church, Roman Catholic Church and Church of England have the same understanding of marriage as a lifelong covenant between one man and one woman. They may have different ways of thinking about the character of the union and its dissolubility etc., but… Read more »

Tobias Haller
Guest

Dr. Seitz, my comments are not addressed to the obvious fact that many of the churches listed do not allow marriage between persons of the same sex; although perhaps most of the “churches of the Reformation” with which member churches of the Anglican Communion have communion relationships do so. I was careful to note in my original comment that the issue of the purported uniformity of doctrine on marriage doesn’t go beyond the minimalism of “a man and a woman, for life.” (With the allowance of marriage after divorce most Anglican churches no longer actually hold to the latter part… Read more »

cseitz
Guest
cseitz

“The “issue under discussion” is not simply “same-sex marriage”” I think this is where liberals quite rightly disagree with you. And I suspect you know that. The issue under discussion is indeed “same sex marriage.” Patently. Your interest in explaining putative differences amongst various churches who otherwise agree on this topic, now under discussion, is sophistry. I don’t know why you think anyone is interested in rebaptism for converts to Orthodoxy — a practice that is extremely rare there and unknown amongst RCs — but you can spar away on this coal face as you wish. How this addresses same… Read more »

Fr Andrew
Guest
Fr Andrew

I see that the Church of Norway has approved a liturgy for same-sex marriage today.

Oh, and the Church of England is in full communion with the C o N through Porvoo (unlike of courser status as out of communion with the Romans and Orthodox so precious to conservatives when it suit them, 39 articles notwithstanding).

I wonder why our archbishops are not calling for an emergency Porvoo meeting so Norway can reap the ‘consequences’ of its action? Or why conservatives are not calling for us to leave the Porvoo Communion?

Cynthia
Guest
Cynthia

“How this addresses same sex marriage I haven’t a clue!” Christopher, Tobias is showing dramatic inconsistency when Anglicans use RC’s and the Orthodox to support homophobic exclusion (not the words Tobias would use) but are inconsistent in other major areas. After all, Baptism is a sacrament of the church. Anglicanism is not consistent with them in divorce and re-marriage, either. So using the “church universal” only against gays is not really intellectually honest. I, for one, have had it with CoE bishops. Since a friends gay, teen nephew committed suicide after being raped and trafficked by a neighbor (in a… Read more »

cseitz
Guest
cseitz

“I, for one, have had it with CoE bishops.” That makes sense to me. Of course you do. Cof E Bishops and Anglican Bishops and Provinces which declare common cause with other Christian bodies as stated, who have the same ground assumptions about what constitutes a Christian marriage, are on the same page. “After all, Baptism is a sacrament of the church.” That is of course correct (unless wants to folow the logic of T Haller as stated above re: Orthodoxy). ‘Marrying’ members of the same sex would move the CofE, Roman Catholics and Orthodox outside of shared assumptions about… Read more »

cseitz
Guest
cseitz

A good example of anglican evangelical and Roman Catholic convergence re: marriage. Just out.

http://www.eauk.org/church/tag/upload/Evangelical-Alliance-Reformation-Anniversary-Statement.pdf

Cynthia
Guest
Cynthia

I think Christopher, that since the majority of CoE members support LGBT inclusion, that it’s the CoE bishops who need to change. Given that the REAL Anglican Communion is composed of the folks who showed up in Lusaka, the primates are the ones that need a different tone. “I’ve had it” means I’ve had it with dreadful theology that lifts up the powerful at the expense of the vulnerable. So the right thing for Anglicans to do is to Witness to the Christ of the vulnerable people and ignore the leadership until they get a clue, grow a heart or… Read more »