Andrew Watson, the Bishop of Guildford, has published this paper: Living in Love and Faith: Discerning the Mind of the Church.
Tim Wyatt comments on the paper in his weekly newsletter: B2 or not B2, that is the question.
Sam Wells and Lucy Winkett Church Times Separate structures put the Church of England in danger
“To support same-sex relationships or women’s leadership is not to depart from orthodoxy”
There are some really interesting links here today. I’ll start off with what I think is the least interesting article namely the one in the Church Times. The problem is that they are preaching to the converted. We’re aware that theological liberals assert the Bible isn’t clear on sexuality or marriage. The reality is that evangelicals are unconvinced by this argument. There are several good arguments for example to conclude that Christ defined marriage as being a man and a woman and that when he condemned sexual immorality to a Jewish audience he would have leaned on a Jewish understanding… Read more »
“I understand many are torn thinking about what would happen if parishes were without an evangelical ministry”.
I’m not. Bring it on! I’ve waited years for this.
I find Andrew Watson’s article more coherent than the Church Times one. In particular he makes a clear distnction between male headship issues (with which I understand he disagrees as an open evangelical) and same-sex marriage issues, whereas the Church Time article conflates the two, at least at the start. I also like the way Watson described the illiberality of liberals towards conservatives, and vice versa. He also condemns homophobic attitudes by some evangelicals. i see moving forward slowly as being the right way on all sides. Havng adressed the male headship travesty, a pause is necessary before automatically moving… Read more »
“We seem to be wasting a lot of air discussing sexuality when we’re convinced Scripture is clear instead of focussing on evangelism and reaching the lost.”
Surely, in this day and age, sexuality is one of the first issues that the “lost” are going to grill you on when you attempt to reach them with the gospel.
It’s interesting that you put lost in inverted commas when Christ Himself uses this language in Scripture. There’s a difference between graciously explaining Christian beliefs on sexual ethics to unbelievers and repeatedly arguing the same point in Synod with those who have no interest in listening. Christ tells us that His sheep know His voice. That should give us confidence in evangelism. People will come to know Him if we faithfully share Him with others. Churches are seeing growth as people (particularly in younger generations) question the secular narratives that they’ve been told. That’s good news. You can see this… Read more »
“The reality is that evangelicals are unconvinced by this argument”
In fact evangelicals disagree over this and there is a growing body of evangelicals who do think the Bible is not as clear as we used to think it is. The group Inclusive Evangelicals is thriving.
I don’t really understand why women priests and SSM are put together as they are different issues entirely but the lack of clear theology on both is clearly a big mistake. The Alliance is against SSM that’s all. It is regrettable that bishops can not be trusted having said the introduction of limited prayers would be experimental, they turned out to be permanent. Having said these are modest changes, it turns out blessing gay marriage would be in effect no different from holy matrimony. It’s difficult to see how measures introduced on a trial basis would be acceptable when there… Read more »
Full inclusion at all levels for both women and LGBTQ+ people is inextricably linked to patriarchy. One can address them separately, but the controlling issue is the same: some support straight male supremacy (and gay men who pass) as God’s will, and either issue poses a challenge to that supremacy.
What do you mean by inclusion? I think this needs real definition as I think it is often used here in a way that it isn’t in Scripture. As far as I’m aware all Christians (including evangelicals) would agree that Christ calls everyone to come to Him and pick up their cross and follow Him. The difference between us is about what it means to follow Christ and what the cost to be counted involves (see end of Luke 14 for example). Evangelicals believe that we need to believe in Christ and repent of our sins. We long for everyone… Read more »
I definitely mean full inclusion, as in all the sacraments for all the baptized and in every level of the church from lay person to archbishop. It is a ridiculous and cruel HUMAN invention to define the “cost of following Christ” as living in the closet and denying things vital to our wellbeing.
The cost of following Christ is much more related to the rich young ruler that you give as an example. The “cost” is loving all of your neighbors so that all can thrive, or at least not be in want or suffer indignity.
The question isn’t about inclusion or exclusion. We’re all agreed that we want to include as many people as possible in the life of the church. Where we disagree is on the cost of discipleship. For traditionalists there can’t be inclusion if people aren’t willing to accept the cost of following Christ. Following Christ also means following a Christian sexual ethic and honouring marriage as the union between a man and a woman as it is laid out in Scripture for us. Counting the cost involves considering where we’re not living in accordance with what God calls us to. Any… Read more »
We all want people to repent of their sins. We just differ on what behaviours are sinful. Conservatives have adopted a “purity” model; those of us who disagree with them tend to look to Christ’s teaching as to his priorities – how we treat those in need, how we love his people. The “purity” preoccupations have a long history in the church too, particularly when the church has retreated from challenging the powers of this world. That’s why the “purity” culture tends to go hand-in-hand with acquiescence on economic and political injustice.
No it isnt. Do the numbers.
“Is it prophetic to speak as though we knew the law better than the Supreme Court, or as though we are more competent paediatricians than Hilary Cass?”
LGB Christians have just responded to Christians decrying the recent Supreme Court ruling on the definition of a woman. It seems that many Christian groups focussed on inclusivity are unable to balance the interests of those they seek to represent.
https://lgbchristians.org.uk/2025/05/10/a-response-to-christians-decrying-the-supreme-court-ruling/
That’s it. If material like this is acceptable on Thinking Anglicians then, for the sake of my wellbeing, it is no longer the place for me.
Watson mentioned illiberality by liberals towards conservatives. What do you think ?
Kate, before you leave, could you tell us what is unacceptable? Because short of a recognition of yourself as a woman everywhere, in all walks of society, this is not going to happen. That kind of dogmatic conformity was not even achieved in 16th century Spain under torture. Not everyone believes in ‘gender identity’.
Re: the Watson article: I’d really love to hear specific instances of how lesbians feel harmed by trans inclusion in the UK. No one seems to feel that way here in the US; I haven’t seen any writings from aggrieved lesbians here. The main activity here is that the US administration has made scapegoats of trans people, especially kids, and it’s raining down unspeakable cruelty upon them and their families — this is the logical result of exclusion and “othering” people. Credible biologists have spoken up about the complexity of gender and the variations that occur. Gender may be “binary”… Read more »
I read the watson article fairly carefully but do not recall him saying anything about lesbians feeling harmed by trans inclusion. Can you point me to where he addresses this ? I will also re read.
I think I had the wrong tab open and it was another link. I’ll look for it and retract/amend as needed later today.
Polling suggests most cis lesbians have no issue with trans women. There is a small group of cis lesbians (particularly but not exclusively political lesbians) who are anti-trans and in some cases seem to think that someone, somewhere, is pushing young lesbians to transition. There is (apparently) also a handful of trans lesbians that have got angry with being rejected for being trans in lesbian spaces and have (allegedly) given the impression that they can demand cis lesbians have sex with them. The latter situation is talked about extensively but it’s not at all clear how common an occurrence it… Read more »
Andrew Watson isn’t the first Conservative Evangelical to suggest that the LLF process has not had a proper theological foundation. But I have always been confused by that claim. It’s an accessible document, but the LLF book is shot through with theology. Conservatives often write as if there were some clear cut theological case, and if only we did the theology then the way forward would be clear. But the presumption is that it will be clear in their favour. Bishops are theologians. That’s why they have been expensively trained. The fact that bishops disagree theologically about this matter tells… Read more »
Yes, but Andrew Watson’s essay isn’t mainly about theology but about processes. And I still haven’t heard a good argument as to why it is deemed appropriate to bypass Canon B2 when introducing standalone services.
Bishops only have to have the minimum of theological training like Welby – 2 years diploma, not even degree level, so the bar is very low. The cynic in me wonders if LLF process has been crafted to produce a certain outcome, regardless of the theology, which goes beyond Jesus loves everyone (he does).
I think there is much to be said for the next Archbishop of Canterbury to be someone who was beaten by Smyth, and replaces the previous Archbishop who got beaten by Smyth and Makin.
I’m not making a joke. There seems to be something redemptive possible, with closure. I also think Watson’s article is thoughtful and shows some leadership, even if you disagree.
Aha – I am 1000% behind Watson as the next archbishop, he went to my college (Corpus Christi Cambridge) and is an accomplished musician.
He can hardly be against ordination of women as his wife is ordained.
I found this
https://www.corpus.cam.ac.uk/sites/default/files/The_Letter_97.pdf
page 21
which is certainly on of the more readable Mere sermons, and seems, again, to be sensible.
Maybe…
But not sure that our bishops are all that brilliant at theology. Martyn Snow’s plea for us to live together/ bid for Lambeth has been roundly dismantled as a work of theology. I wonder if episcopal training/formation is rather more about management than theology these days.
The many and growing numbers of evangelicals who hold inclusive views on human sexuality (who Gareth still appears not to have not heard yet) will welcome the open letter from Lucy Winkett and Sam Wells and agree with their critique of the familiar claims by conservative voices about the bible, marriage, church growth etc – including +Andrew whose views here have not moved at all through the long LLF process despite his working closely alongside theologically articulate evangelicals expressing more open views. The mind of the church was expressed in the feedback that was sought and gathered from all those… Read more »