on Tuesday, 18 November 2025 at 1.01 pm by Peter Owen
categorised as Church of England, News
The Bishop of Oxford, the Rt Revd Dr Steven Croft, has announced he will retire next July. Details are on the diocesan website.
Subscribe
18 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Ruairidh
19 days ago
Bishop Steven Croft’s retirement notice is another opportunity to look at how thoughtful people within the church have changed their mind on issues of sexuality over time. In Croft’s case his stated reasons for so doing are mapped out, Together in love and Faith. A previous thread adverted to notions of doctrinal development, Aquinas and Newman and all that. What Croft reminds in his essay is the other half of the equation. It is not just doctrine that evolves. Our understanding of phenomena develops and grows: consequently so must our theological perspectives and pastoral practices evolve. Of particular interest in… Read more »
It is worth saying there are other “thoughtful people” who havent changed their mind on issues of sexuality over time. I know there are those who are unhappy about that but many of those who continue to oppose PLF and stand alone services have given their position a lot of thought.
“It is worth saying there are other “thoughtful people” who haven’t changed their mind on issues of sexuality over time.” In my lifetime, nearly all Conservative Christians have changed their attitudes towards divorce (& subsequent remarriage), which was very strongly disapproved of and preached against when I was a child. George Carey is a good case in point of someone who came round to a very liberal attitude on that issue of sexuality (because of experience of his own family members?), yet remained, illogically and thus unkindly, immune to softening his line when it came to gay people. It’s not… Read more »
The deeper problem isn’t differing opinions on sexuality but differing opinions on whether we respect the opinions of others. LLF sought to allow freedom of conscience on sexuality.
I can’t comment on the details or politics of LLF, but there can be a problem with the notion in your first sentence. The problem is that in a situation of continuing systemic injustice it is an instance of “Peace, peace, when there is no peace.” ( Jeremiah). I offer that as a literary allusion, not a proof text.
Reading Andrew Goddard’s piece above the deeper issue is the breakdown in trust under LLF and that ‘freedom of conscience’ requires legal protection in order to be guaranteed.
“nearly all Conservative Christians”, based on what extensive survey? As someone who has spent 30 years either a member or leader of conservative Christian churches, that’s not a view I recognise. I would guess 60-70% of my colleagues would still oppose any divorce or remarriage. The remainder would allow remarriage for the innocent party in cases of adultery, neglect, abuse or abandonment (which probably accounts for about 20% of most divorces in the UK). If you are including the HTB constituency in “conservative Christians” (which I would not), then the figures may look different. TA readers may disagree but I… Read more »
I’m interested in this comment: ‘I would guess 60-70% of my colleagues would still oppose any divorce’ Do you mean they would not allow / approve of divorce in cases of domestic abuse? This is pretty much the view of some American conservatives but do you think that’s true of C of E conservatives in any number?
Good question Charles. Ironically, I think they hold more of a Catholic view on this question, so supporting a victim to live apart from the abuser and securing necessary legal protection, (hopefully leaving the abuser in prison too) but believing a couple once married can only truly be separated in God’s eyes by death.
Yes I am sure there are thoughtful folks , in the generic sense of the term ‘thoughtful’, across the spectrum of opinion. I’m using the term ‘thoughtful’ as an alternative to the usual conveniently political taxonomy i.e. person X was ‘conservative’ but now person X is ‘liberal’. I’m using it as a shorthand for a kind of intellectual and moral conversion (Lonergan) that is the result getting to know others better, more deeply, and in their existential situation, which seems to be central to Croft’s position outlined in his essay. However, like ‘Mark’ in his rejoinder to your comment, his… Read more »
For this to happen there would need to be an acceptance that the ‘othering’ of sexual minorities is a serious safeguarding issue – I am beginning to think this underlies why the Church steadfastly refuses to accept any proper independent scrutiny of safeguarding.
So on the topic of safeguarding there will be victims and survivors out there who will view Bishop Croft’s record as partial at best
Hugh MacLennan titled one of his novels, Two Solitudes. The title references a particular cultural and political divide in Canada; but it is a metaphor applicable to any number of entrenchments. With regard to the othering of sexual minorities, two solitudes is what we have in the church. It is not just the C of E, not just global Anglicanism. It is the church entire–an institution that is historically and systemically homophobic, one adept at fooling itself with religious self justification. So moments of insight, when they do occur, instance Steven Croft’s evolution of thought, they at least shine a… Read more »
Ruairidh, you are right that the church has always been institutionally intolerant and institutionally homophobic. But rather than accept that as a natural state of being, is it worth asking why that is the case? When and how did the church develop these characteristics? I would argue that at the time of Christ religious heterodoxy was a natural state of being. Within Judaism one had a duty to support one’s family and community but a wide choice of which teacher or teaching you would follow to achieve that aim. In pagan Rome one was expected to give allegiance to the… Read more »
Thanks Simon, “When and how did the church develop these characteristics?” This week, in the lectionary I’m following, we are reading Maccabees, so I’m tempted to say, perhaps flippantly, it is the nature of imperialism. Such is the nature of the church as an accomplice of imperialism from antiquity right down to churches supporting British Empire Steel and Coal Co. ( BESCO) against striking coal miners in my patch last century, and continuing on to the present in many regards. Instance middle class western Christianity/academia in its opposition to liberation theology. A look at what western churches will do the… Read more »
There are also people, brought up in and damaged by sexually pluriform and permissive modernity, who have embraced traditional Christian sexual ethics and practise as a life-giving place of Good News. Are they ‘thoughtful’ people, or just ‘reactionary’?
They are obviously thoughtful. Thoughtful does not mean conformist. Indeed, thoughtfulness may lead to non-conformity – or rather conformity to a varied and diverse non-conformist views.
[Can one be a member of a group ‘conformist’, each of whose members are a member of a group ‘non-conformist’. I fear a logical fallacy lurks. But I don’t care.]
I think the true fallacy is that all Christians should conform to the same views on non-essential matters, or even essential matters. That is the reality, throughout the ages.
Firmness in loyalty to a principle – in this case ‘the Bible forbids: no more to be said’ – has its value but I see little of thoughtful reflection apart from that in the condemnation of gay sex that we now encounter. Sixty years ago I shared it, as it seemed everyone did, a lot of gay people included. I remember a discussion in our College chapel in which I said very conformist things – why, apart from the influence of others, did I think like that? Forty years ago I had moved on, at snail’s pace. I was kindly… Read more »
Bishop Steven Croft’s retirement notice is another opportunity to look at how thoughtful people within the church have changed their mind on issues of sexuality over time. In Croft’s case his stated reasons for so doing are mapped out, Together in love and Faith. A previous thread adverted to notions of doctrinal development, Aquinas and Newman and all that. What Croft reminds in his essay is the other half of the equation. It is not just doctrine that evolves. Our understanding of phenomena develops and grows: consequently so must our theological perspectives and pastoral practices evolve. Of particular interest in… Read more »
It is worth saying there are other “thoughtful people” who havent changed their mind on issues of sexuality over time. I know there are those who are unhappy about that but many of those who continue to oppose PLF and stand alone services have given their position a lot of thought.
“It is worth saying there are other “thoughtful people” who haven’t changed their mind on issues of sexuality over time.” In my lifetime, nearly all Conservative Christians have changed their attitudes towards divorce (& subsequent remarriage), which was very strongly disapproved of and preached against when I was a child. George Carey is a good case in point of someone who came round to a very liberal attitude on that issue of sexuality (because of experience of his own family members?), yet remained, illogically and thus unkindly, immune to softening his line when it came to gay people. It’s not… Read more »
My point was thoughtfulness doesn’t only lie on one side of our current differences.
The deeper problem isn’t differing opinions on sexuality but differing opinions on whether we respect the opinions of others. LLF sought to allow freedom of conscience on sexuality.
I can’t comment on the details or politics of LLF, but there can be a problem with the notion in your first sentence. The problem is that in a situation of continuing systemic injustice it is an instance of “Peace, peace, when there is no peace.” ( Jeremiah). I offer that as a literary allusion, not a proof text.
Reading Andrew Goddard’s piece above the deeper issue is the breakdown in trust under LLF and that ‘freedom of conscience’ requires legal protection in order to be guaranteed.
“nearly all Conservative Christians”, based on what extensive survey? As someone who has spent 30 years either a member or leader of conservative Christian churches, that’s not a view I recognise. I would guess 60-70% of my colleagues would still oppose any divorce or remarriage. The remainder would allow remarriage for the innocent party in cases of adultery, neglect, abuse or abandonment (which probably accounts for about 20% of most divorces in the UK). If you are including the HTB constituency in “conservative Christians” (which I would not), then the figures may look different. TA readers may disagree but I… Read more »
I’m interested in this comment:
‘I would guess 60-70% of my colleagues would still oppose any divorce’
Do you mean they would not allow / approve of divorce in cases of domestic abuse? This is pretty much the view of some American conservatives but do you think that’s true of C of E conservatives in any number?
Good question Charles. Ironically, I think they hold more of a Catholic view on this question, so supporting a victim to live apart from the abuser and securing necessary legal protection, (hopefully leaving the abuser in prison too) but believing a couple once married can only truly be separated in God’s eyes by death.
Yes I am sure there are thoughtful folks , in the generic sense of the term ‘thoughtful’, across the spectrum of opinion. I’m using the term ‘thoughtful’ as an alternative to the usual conveniently political taxonomy i.e. person X was ‘conservative’ but now person X is ‘liberal’. I’m using it as a shorthand for a kind of intellectual and moral conversion (Lonergan) that is the result getting to know others better, more deeply, and in their existential situation, which seems to be central to Croft’s position outlined in his essay. However, like ‘Mark’ in his rejoinder to your comment, his… Read more »
For this to happen there would need to be an acceptance that the ‘othering’ of sexual minorities is a serious safeguarding issue – I am beginning to think this underlies why the Church steadfastly refuses to accept any proper independent scrutiny of safeguarding.
So on the topic of safeguarding there will be victims and survivors out there who will view Bishop Croft’s record as partial at best
Hugh MacLennan titled one of his novels, Two Solitudes. The title references a particular cultural and political divide in Canada; but it is a metaphor applicable to any number of entrenchments. With regard to the othering of sexual minorities, two solitudes is what we have in the church. It is not just the C of E, not just global Anglicanism. It is the church entire–an institution that is historically and systemically homophobic, one adept at fooling itself with religious self justification. So moments of insight, when they do occur, instance Steven Croft’s evolution of thought, they at least shine a… Read more »
Ruairidh, you are right that the church has always been institutionally intolerant and institutionally homophobic. But rather than accept that as a natural state of being, is it worth asking why that is the case? When and how did the church develop these characteristics? I would argue that at the time of Christ religious heterodoxy was a natural state of being. Within Judaism one had a duty to support one’s family and community but a wide choice of which teacher or teaching you would follow to achieve that aim. In pagan Rome one was expected to give allegiance to the… Read more »
Thanks Simon, “When and how did the church develop these characteristics?” This week, in the lectionary I’m following, we are reading Maccabees, so I’m tempted to say, perhaps flippantly, it is the nature of imperialism. Such is the nature of the church as an accomplice of imperialism from antiquity right down to churches supporting British Empire Steel and Coal Co. ( BESCO) against striking coal miners in my patch last century, and continuing on to the present in many regards. Instance middle class western Christianity/academia in its opposition to liberation theology. A look at what western churches will do the… Read more »
There are also people, brought up in and damaged by sexually pluriform and permissive modernity, who have embraced traditional Christian sexual ethics and practise as a life-giving place of Good News. Are they ‘thoughtful’ people, or just ‘reactionary’?
They are obviously thoughtful. Thoughtful does not mean conformist. Indeed, thoughtfulness may lead to non-conformity – or rather conformity to a varied and diverse non-conformist views.
[Can one be a member of a group ‘conformist’, each of whose members are a member of a group ‘non-conformist’. I fear a logical fallacy lurks. But I don’t care.]
I think the true fallacy is that all Christians should conform to the same views on non-essential matters, or even essential matters. That is the reality, throughout the ages.
Firmness in loyalty to a principle – in this case ‘the Bible forbids: no more to be said’ – has its value but I see little of thoughtful reflection apart from that in the condemnation of gay sex that we now encounter. Sixty years ago I shared it, as it seemed everyone did, a lot of gay people included. I remember a discussion in our College chapel in which I said very conformist things – why, apart from the influence of others, did I think like that? Forty years ago I had moved on, at snail’s pace. I was kindly… Read more »