The electronic voting results from this month’s meeting of General Synod are now available online. These contain the names of voting members and how they voted.
Gratitude to these 12 bishops who voted in favour of Helen King’s amendment, effectively endorsing Standalone services for same-sex partners, and full inclusion of clergy in same-sex civil marriages:
Guli Francis-Dehqani,
Libby Lane,
Mike Harrison
Stephen Conway,
Helen-Ann Hartley
Steven Croft
Joanne Grenfell
Christopher Chessun
Anne Hollinghurst
Robert Springett
Karen Gorham
Arun Arora
It will be interesting to see what position will be taken by the future bishops of Oxford, Southwark and (one day or another) Lincoln. My guess is that it will become harder and harder to appoint dyed-in-the-wool ‘progressives’, or ‘conservatives’ and that the bench will coalesce increasingly around a ‘soft middle’.
ABY asked specifically for the HOB to support his “next steps”. On virtually all votes the HOB voted as one ( in line with ABY request). On this Helen King amendment it is noted that “the usual culprits “ decided to break unity on this. Why?
You and I know that is nonsense. These so called shepherds of the flock broke ranks and made a clear statement of their unorthodox theological position. ABY asked specifically that his motion was not amended. They chose to disregard his request. So much for unity. If their votes were supposed to show unity they had a strange way of showing it by deliberately going against ABY request not to vote for amendments.
Geoff. Only you think that is nonsense. I do not. You are trying to make an issue out of nothing. The bishops voted for the original motion 34-0. Sounds like unity to me. Amendments are a very important way of testing the content and purpose of a motion before it is voted on. That amendment would have given teeth and further resolve to the motion, not undermined it. So I would argue those bishops who voted for it were expressing their support for the motion by seeking its strengthening, As it is the Synod expressed its mind by voting with… Read more »
Geoff, the ABY said he would not vote for any of the amendments. And he didn’t. You reserve your anger for those who voted on the amendment which I tabled. You don’t seem as exercised by e.g. +Rob Saner-Haigh and +Martyn Snow, who voted for the previous amendment.
I don’t think anyone ten years ago would have expected to see Steven Croft on this list. So while LLF didn’t transform the institution as a whole, it did change some individuals.
In my life I have had three bishops – Roy Williamson in Southwark, John Gladwin in Chelmsford and Stephen Croft in Oxford who were all evangelicals who changed their view/practice after careful and serious thought. In my experience none of these was a pushover who caved in to pressure. I have taken a similar journey myself. I was asked a while back why I had changed my mind – my answer was “I read the Bible”. Those changes of mind are seen as a betrayal by some – and some of those who now see a betrayal will change their… Read more »
Please don’t make the assumption that many will “ change their minds”. I, and many thousands of a like mind, would rather walk away if the Church we have been part of for many years decides to become just another part of Woke society. I have personally taken a great deal of abuse for my strong Christian beliefs. Something I found painful but I endured because my faith was unshakable following my conversion in my mid twenties. Since my life changing encounter I am resolved not to just concede all that I hold to be precious to satisfy those that… Read more »
I deliberately avoided the assumption that many would change in what I wrote, and I hope that is clear. In fact I wrote as I did because it is hard to see any human dynamic in which “many” do change. But some people who once said they would walk away do now think differently: that is a fact.
Geoff, suffering abuse is never pleasant and I am sad this has happened to you. However , as we are now in Lent maybe it is worth considering whether some of your responses may feel rather abusive towards those you disagree with?
I shall pray for you to be able to consider this
Do you not see just the tiniest touch of irony in proclaiming that you have taken abuse for your faith, and found it painful, while at the same time dishing out abuse to others for their faith?
We often hear the accusation that those who are liberal on this issue hold their beliefs in order to fit in with the prevailing culture. Ironic! There’s nothing more conforming to modern society than polarisation, i.e. seeing the opinions of those with whom you disagree as threatening or evil. We can be countercultural by listening to and respecting the opinions of others and admitting the possibility that we may be wrong. I cannot speak for anyone else but I didn’t change my mind on this issue in order to fit in with society but because I concluded that the conservative… Read more »
Thanks Mark. I agree. I recently heard of a diocese where the Inclusive network, back in the autumn, invited clergy to sign a letter of support to send to their bishop urging support for LGBT+ clergy, communities and allies in the diocese. Over 50 clergy signed (in a smallish diocese) and the organiser, a long term priest in that diocese, commented how many of those signing had changed their minds on this issue over the years.
May I add to what you have written, Mark? Anyone who doesn’t change their minds on something important as they age and develop must have had a perfect understanding of every subject they had originally studied. I suppose this can happen, but I’ve never seen it. I’m in my mid-eighties and have found that so many advances have made over the years that I’ve had to adjust on many subjects, even to reverse my position on some of them. But there’s a more subtle influence, that of realising that some things that had seemed so important are actually of much less importance… Read more »
If you changed your mind because of a friendship then it really wasn’t because “you read the Bible”. It was because the friendship was of primary importance to you – and in much of the world, that kind of loyalty would be applauded, especially the world that valorises personal friendships above all other things (short of romantic love, perhaps). By the same token, in much of the world, fidelity to family (or tribal or national) ties is considered the highest social good that humans can aspire to. But oddly, it conflicts with what Jesus said about loving parents or children… Read more »
In my experience there is no such thing as a “pure” reading of scripture on sexuality, everyone interprets the text bringing their personal experience and understanding to bear. Some choose a conservative line influenced by longstanding cultural distaste of gay people combined with denominational groupthink that gay relationships are just wrong. To disapprove of gay relationships is practically a membership test in many evangelical churches, the acid test of whether someone is “sound”. Others take a more liberal line from experience of loving, faithful, stable gay relationships in which the quality of love and commitment is beyond question. I’ve never… Read more »
i commend an essay in The Torah.com, a very useful source of Jewish scholarship, by Martti Nissinen, 10 May 2024, ‘It’s about Masculinity’.
We have to be careful about interpreting the Bible – or other, non-sacred ancient texts, in the light of experience which, because it is so characteristic of our time, cannot have been characteristic of theirs. Nissinen tries to interpret the text in the light of what the writers of the time would have read or heard
I would deny this interpretation of my journey. The topic of homosexuality had not been one I had studied. It was not one which impinged personally, so I had not particularly noted it. When it impinged on my life, I decided I had to do the work that I had not previously done. I read the Bible. I read the work of people who had drawn their own conclusions from reading the Bible. I stopped short-cutting the argument by making easy assumptions and wanted to test everything. I read Michael Vasey’s book, as I noted. Stephen Croft’s paper came much… Read more »
The main answer is “more than the ‘obvious’ texts”. I also read all the commentary and argument I could find on the subject. My main conclusion was that there was a strand of interpretation which essentially assumed ab initio that certain texts were ‘obvious’. In my view, the weight being put on the conclusions drawn meant that that assumption was dangerous. Being trained in pure mathematics I was alert to where assumptions were brought to bear in arguments. There was very little I could find written where the writer had no stake in the conclusion. (This was late 1980s/early 1990s).
It was a long time ago and in my youth I read the whole Bible several times through for different purposes. I did not document my reflections at the time. My main conclusion (stated in another response) was that I didn’t think the “obvious” passages were clear enough to bear the weight they were being asked to carry.
I still don’t see how your reading of the Bible explains anything relevant if you never say what it was in the Bible that you read or have come to find problematic
I cannot see how ‘I have read certain books and I think x’ is an argument for the truth of x if resolutely accompanied by refusal to specify anything at all about the books in question that makes x credible
If you want a concrete example, how about Jesus saying that the sabbath was made for man and not the other way round? i.e. the law may be found to be too narrow when some real life human situations are considered. However the danger of giving one example is that it’s not a question of one verse versus another, but of discerning the overall teaching of scripture, for which you need to take a step back and reflect deeply. Another factor is the underlying reliability we believe scripture to have. Related to this is whether the teaching of Jesus is… Read more »
If you say that you oppose certain rigorous sabbath observances because of that remark by Jesus I would follow your argument. I would welcome a similar argument about the sexual strictures in or apparently in the Bible. But being told with no amplification at all that a certain view is prompted by reading the Bible doesn’t help me. Does it you?
I take the view that , when history records the demise of the Church of England, Steven Croft will indeed be seen as a pivotal player. For those of us that uphold the teaching of scripture ( not wanting to make it fit in with 21st century humanist revision of accepted biblical doctrine) , this bishop has been an immense disappointment. I guess he ,at least, has his place in history.
This is the same Steven Croft who lead Fresh Expressions, co-wrote two pioneering nurture courses, lead a growing church, led a thriving theological college – and took a ‘conservative’ line of LLF matters until his own study of the scriptures persuaded him otherwise? Do you think you might also find ways of disagreeing with someone while expressing that politely? Even I can do that…
… and who also carefully engaged with all sides of the evangelical tradition in his diocese as he worked out his theological and biblical understanding of human sexuality – earning the respect of conservatives even as they strongly disagreed with his conclusions. Good examples set on all sides there.
I think that Steven Croft’s question in the scriptural part of his ‘Together in Love and Faith’ – ‘what other commandments from Leviticus do we preach now?’ – does amount to a reduction in the primacy of scripture as guide to life. A very necessary question, though to some, including me, quite painful
I don’t think that is a reductive question though I do think it is a necessary one. To say that all scripture is authoritative and inspired is fine – and I would say that quite happily. But you have to then go on to say how does it work and what does that mean? John Goldingay in his book models for scripture points out that to label every bit of the Bible as inspired will not help you to engage with a good deal of it because it will not help you answer the question ‘ how does God speak… Read more »
yes, it is a different one. trying to find a copy of David Watson’s Discipleship, where he sets out his views on scripture. He was, of course, a bit of a disruptor, particularly in his ecumenism
I don;t think I have a copy, but I have just read some parts of David Watson’s Discipleship. In his section on the Word of God, he explains that understanding scripture requires understanding what it meant to the audience of the time, and what it means to us today. He also says cultural context is important. He gives specific examples, such as woman wearing something on their heads.
I was there. ‘Hermeneutics’ was a completely new word at the time. It sounded technical and academic – but what Thistleton was urging in the way we read and interpreted scripture was anything but. David Watson offered no critique have been in the position to. It was not his style. He made a joke that Hermen Neutic was a German theologian. I think that is the gentle mocking Charles is alluding to – that strange new academic word, not its content.
Thanks, very useful. I was merely pushing back on the potential stereotype that all evangelicals are non-thinkers!
I also reads in David Watson’s book that he considered some parts of the bible more authoritative than others.
He did pickup on cultural issues to do with women’s dress, in particular being naked from the waist up. He indicated that being dressed above the waist was a sign of immorality (in some cultures).
However, he also indicated that sexual morality was less changing, which is not surprising.
These public school boys do have a funny sense of humour!
So if we are not to label every word as inspired then those words for which the label is inappropriate must be of less authority than those which are. That is in many ways the heart of the matter when it comes to the radical inclusion of those whose way of life seems contrary to Biblical teachings
I think Charles was saying that all the words are inspired, but some nevertheless have more weight than others. Then it’s important to correctly identify (and be able to explain) the hierarchy of interpretation (which passages are to be interpreted in the context of which others), since otherwise you can justify virtually any teaching by selecting the bits you like and disregarding those you don’t – the process Geoff describes as woke revisionism. It should’t be difficult to explain a hierarchy, and evangelicals are right to ask what hierarchy is being used when someone advocates a new interpretation of scripture.… Read more »
Putting things in context isn’t putting them into a hierarchy though. I think that ‘equally inspired but not equally weighty’ needs a lot of interpretation. It may be what Steven C is getting at. I would be pleased if he expanded on the point. For my own part I find his question about Leviticus quite painful, though entirely apt. That is despite my long years thinking of the Bible as having a certain quality of enigma. Perhaps enigma goes with inspiration some way
Yes, I’d be interested to hear his thoughts, as I had misgivings about the not equal weight bit, and so weakened ‘more authority’ to ‘more weight’ when writing the comment. I think there’s something to it, though: in this blog’s discussions of equal marriage there’s a long-standing disagreement between those who take their lead from apparently clearly stated texts which are apparently directly associated with the topic, and those guided by wider teaching (eg Jesus’ discouragement of judgmentalism; His observation that rules are are made for man, not man for rules; and His commandment to love one another). That leads… Read more »
The Methodist OT scholar, Stephen Dawes, was good on this – as suggested by the title of his Why Bible-Believing Methodists shouldn’t eat Black Pudding. Stephen, who easily straddled the worlds of Primitive Methodism and Anglicanism, would tease conservative Evangelicals by referring to the NT as “the appendix”.
You can paint yourself into quite a corner here. Having been where you are myself for some years, for any conservatives who want to be able to breathe freely again, I’d recommend stopping arguing and taking some time “in the wilderness” to ponder the consequences of admitting to yourself even the tiniest possibility that you may be wrong. It takes humility but that sounds like a Christian virtue to me. The journey takes literally years, but it’s ok: being on the journey is the important thing.
Simon Eyre
18 days ago
I was very sad to see Helen Kings amendment on the order paper on Thursday afternoon. There was already lack of clarity about how any future working group would be established. In answer to my supplementary to question 111 asking whether the members of the group were to be elected or coopted the closest there was to clarity was that the group would be constituted along the lines of the Leicester LLF working groups. Helens amendment seeking to preload the working group with those already committed to introduction of standalone services, freedom for clergy in same sex relationships and ultimately… Read more »
There was a sense in Helen’s amendment that if Synod were creating a group to follow through a decision the steering committee would be made up of people in favour of enacting the decision, and that is a dynamic that helps our synod decisions to get realised. Here the dynamics are undoubtedly different and Synod had handed to the House of Bishops the responsibility for taking the next steps. The way I came to see it, Helen was trying to recover something of Synod ownership of a direction Synod had voted for – albeit by a narrow majority. If Synod… Read more »
Francis James
18 days ago
I have to wonder how far back the C of E clock should be wound to make it genuinely pure & ‘Un-Woke’.
Might I suggest that 1903 is a suitable year, as that was when first female Churchwarden was recorded, & its been downhill all the way since then.
Read Philemon and you will see that abolishing slavery is the outworking of the implications of the Biblical Gospel in a radical challenge to the societal status quo. That’s why slavery – a previously universal social institution, seen by many as natural, normative and permanent – came to be challenged and removed in Christian culture.
A very long while. There were no Christians in ancient times playing the part of the Quakers in slave-era America. Perhaps complete liberation was something that just could not have been done. Hannah Basta’s prize-winning essay ‘Slaves, Coloni and Status Confusion in Late Antiquity’ (2016) is very good, I think
Abolition of slavery also occurred in non-Christian cultures.
The influence of Philemon is more pertinent to Christian states prohibiting enslaving of fellow Christians, and banning sale of Christians as slaves to non-Christians. In Britain the anti-slavery movement is generally considered to have started with the Quakers, but it was the general ‘woke’ horror at the conditions in slave ships, and incidents such as the almost unbelievable ‘Zong Massacre’ insurance scam, that won over the public.
Gratitude to these 12 bishops who voted in favour of Helen King’s amendment, effectively endorsing Standalone services for same-sex partners, and full inclusion of clergy in same-sex civil marriages:
Guli Francis-Dehqani,
Libby Lane,
Mike Harrison
Stephen Conway,
Helen-Ann Hartley
Steven Croft
Joanne Grenfell
Christopher Chessun
Anne Hollinghurst
Robert Springett
Karen Gorham
Arun Arora
It will be interesting to see what position will be taken by the future bishops of Oxford, Southwark and (one day or another) Lincoln. My guess is that it will become harder and harder to appoint dyed-in-the-wool ‘progressives’, or ‘conservatives’ and that the bench will coalesce increasingly around a ‘soft middle’.
Perhaps the ” soft middle” is where a lot of the laity are??
ABY asked specifically for the HOB to support his “next steps”. On virtually all votes the HOB voted as one ( in line with ABY request). On this Helen King amendment it is noted that “the usual culprits “ decided to break unity on this. Why?
In what way is this breaking unity? The amendment was an attempt to strengthen the move forward the ABY wants.
You and I know that is nonsense. These so called shepherds of the flock broke ranks and made a clear statement of their unorthodox theological position. ABY asked specifically that his motion was not amended. They chose to disregard his request. So much for unity. If their votes were supposed to show unity they had a strange way of showing it by deliberately going against ABY request not to vote for amendments.
Geoff. Only you think that is nonsense. I do not. You are trying to make an issue out of nothing. The bishops voted for the original motion 34-0. Sounds like unity to me. Amendments are a very important way of testing the content and purpose of a motion before it is voted on. That amendment would have given teeth and further resolve to the motion, not undermined it. So I would argue those bishops who voted for it were expressing their support for the motion by seeking its strengthening, As it is the Synod expressed its mind by voting with… Read more »
Geoff, the ABY said he would not vote for any of the amendments. And he didn’t. You reserve your anger for those who voted on the amendment which I tabled. You don’t seem as exercised by e.g. +Rob Saner-Haigh and +Martyn Snow, who voted for the previous amendment.
So there really is no point giving bishops individual votes, they should just be a block vote controlled by ABY.
I don’t think anyone ten years ago would have expected to see Steven Croft on this list. So while LLF didn’t transform the institution as a whole, it did change some individuals.
In my life I have had three bishops – Roy Williamson in Southwark, John Gladwin in Chelmsford and Stephen Croft in Oxford who were all evangelicals who changed their view/practice after careful and serious thought. In my experience none of these was a pushover who caved in to pressure. I have taken a similar journey myself. I was asked a while back why I had changed my mind – my answer was “I read the Bible”. Those changes of mind are seen as a betrayal by some – and some of those who now see a betrayal will change their… Read more »
Please don’t make the assumption that many will “ change their minds”. I, and many thousands of a like mind, would rather walk away if the Church we have been part of for many years decides to become just another part of Woke society. I have personally taken a great deal of abuse for my strong Christian beliefs. Something I found painful but I endured because my faith was unshakable following my conversion in my mid twenties. Since my life changing encounter I am resolved not to just concede all that I hold to be precious to satisfy those that… Read more »
I deliberately avoided the assumption that many would change in what I wrote, and I hope that is clear. In fact I wrote as I did because it is hard to see any human dynamic in which “many” do change. But some people who once said they would walk away do now think differently: that is a fact.
And now you are in your late twenties? Or early thirties? There is still plenty of time to become woke.
I have just realised I had made unfounded assumptions on Geoff’s age, but now realise I don’t have any idea!
What do you mean by ‘woke’ and indeed ‘woke society’? And why do you use them (I assume) pejoratively?
Geoff, suffering abuse is never pleasant and I am sad this has happened to you. However , as we are now in Lent maybe it is worth considering whether some of your responses may feel rather abusive towards those you disagree with?
I shall pray for you to be able to consider this
Do you not see just the tiniest touch of irony in proclaiming that you have taken abuse for your faith, and found it painful, while at the same time dishing out abuse to others for their faith?
We often hear the accusation that those who are liberal on this issue hold their beliefs in order to fit in with the prevailing culture. Ironic! There’s nothing more conforming to modern society than polarisation, i.e. seeing the opinions of those with whom you disagree as threatening or evil. We can be countercultural by listening to and respecting the opinions of others and admitting the possibility that we may be wrong. I cannot speak for anyone else but I didn’t change my mind on this issue in order to fit in with society but because I concluded that the conservative… Read more »
Thanks Mark. I agree. I recently heard of a diocese where the Inclusive network, back in the autumn, invited clergy to sign a letter of support to send to their bishop urging support for LGBT+ clergy, communities and allies in the diocese. Over 50 clergy signed (in a smallish diocese) and the organiser, a long term priest in that diocese, commented how many of those signing had changed their minds on this issue over the years.
May I add to what you have written, Mark? Anyone who doesn’t change their minds on something important as they age and develop must have had a perfect understanding of every subject they had originally studied. I suppose this can happen, but I’ve never seen it. I’m in my mid-eighties and have found that so many advances have made over the years that I’ve had to adjust on many subjects, even to reverse my position on some of them. But there’s a more subtle influence, that of realising that some things that had seemed so important are actually of much less importance… Read more »
If you changed your mind because of a friendship then it really wasn’t because “you read the Bible”. It was because the friendship was of primary importance to you – and in much of the world, that kind of loyalty would be applauded, especially the world that valorises personal friendships above all other things (short of romantic love, perhaps). By the same token, in much of the world, fidelity to family (or tribal or national) ties is considered the highest social good that humans can aspire to. But oddly, it conflicts with what Jesus said about loving parents or children… Read more »
In my experience there is no such thing as a “pure” reading of scripture on sexuality, everyone interprets the text bringing their personal experience and understanding to bear. Some choose a conservative line influenced by longstanding cultural distaste of gay people combined with denominational groupthink that gay relationships are just wrong. To disapprove of gay relationships is practically a membership test in many evangelical churches, the acid test of whether someone is “sound”. Others take a more liberal line from experience of loving, faithful, stable gay relationships in which the quality of love and commitment is beyond question. I’ve never… Read more »
i commend an essay in The Torah.com, a very useful source of Jewish scholarship, by Martti Nissinen, 10 May 2024, ‘It’s about Masculinity’.
We have to be careful about interpreting the Bible – or other, non-sacred ancient texts, in the light of experience which, because it is so characteristic of our time, cannot have been characteristic of theirs. Nissinen tries to interpret the text in the light of what the writers of the time would have read or heard
I would deny this interpretation of my journey. The topic of homosexuality had not been one I had studied. It was not one which impinged personally, so I had not particularly noted it. When it impinged on my life, I decided I had to do the work that I had not previously done. I read the Bible. I read the work of people who had drawn their own conclusions from reading the Bible. I stopped short-cutting the argument by making easy assumptions and wanted to test everything. I read Michael Vasey’s book, as I noted. Stephen Croft’s paper came much… Read more »
So you hate your parents and children and siblings, do you James? At least you’re faithful to what Jesus is recorded as saying! Good job.
I don’t think James was saying that.
What did you read in the Bible that made the difference?
The main answer is “more than the ‘obvious’ texts”. I also read all the commentary and argument I could find on the subject. My main conclusion was that there was a strand of interpretation which essentially assumed ab initio that certain texts were ‘obvious’. In my view, the weight being put on the conclusions drawn meant that that assumption was dangerous. Being trained in pure mathematics I was alert to where assumptions were brought to bear in arguments. There was very little I could find written where the writer had no stake in the conclusion. (This was late 1980s/early 1990s).
More specific references would be helpful and welcome
It was a long time ago and in my youth I read the whole Bible several times through for different purposes. I did not document my reflections at the time. My main conclusion (stated in another response) was that I didn’t think the “obvious” passages were clear enough to bear the weight they were being asked to carry.
I still don’t see how your reading of the Bible explains anything relevant if you never say what it was in the Bible that you read or have come to find problematic
I have told you the conclusion I arrived at. I arrived at it by reading the whole Bible, commentaries and apologetic literature, as I have indicated.
I cannot see how ‘I have read certain books and I think x’ is an argument for the truth of x if resolutely accompanied by refusal to specify anything at all about the books in question that makes x credible
If you want a concrete example, how about Jesus saying that the sabbath was made for man and not the other way round? i.e. the law may be found to be too narrow when some real life human situations are considered. However the danger of giving one example is that it’s not a question of one verse versus another, but of discerning the overall teaching of scripture, for which you need to take a step back and reflect deeply. Another factor is the underlying reliability we believe scripture to have. Related to this is whether the teaching of Jesus is… Read more »
If you say that you oppose certain rigorous sabbath observances because of that remark by Jesus I would follow your argument. I would welcome a similar argument about the sexual strictures in or apparently in the Bible. But being told with no amplification at all that a certain view is prompted by reading the Bible doesn’t help me. Does it you?
I take the view that , when history records the demise of the Church of England, Steven Croft will indeed be seen as a pivotal player. For those of us that uphold the teaching of scripture ( not wanting to make it fit in with 21st century humanist revision of accepted biblical doctrine) , this bishop has been an immense disappointment. I guess he ,at least, has his place in history.
What is ‘the teaching of scripture’?
And don’t just tell me to ask my local vicar. I’m asking you what you think it is.
This is the same Steven Croft who lead Fresh Expressions, co-wrote two pioneering nurture courses, lead a growing church, led a thriving theological college – and took a ‘conservative’ line of LLF matters until his own study of the scriptures persuaded him otherwise? Do you think you might also find ways of disagreeing with someone while expressing that politely? Even I can do that…
… and who also carefully engaged with all sides of the evangelical tradition in his diocese as he worked out his theological and biblical understanding of human sexuality – earning the respect of conservatives even as they strongly disagreed with his conclusions. Good examples set on all sides there.
I think that Steven Croft’s question in the scriptural part of his ‘Together in Love and Faith’ – ‘what other commandments from Leviticus do we preach now?’ – does amount to a reduction in the primacy of scripture as guide to life. A very necessary question, though to some, including me, quite painful
I don’t think that is a reductive question though I do think it is a necessary one. To say that all scripture is authoritative and inspired is fine – and I would say that quite happily. But you have to then go on to say how does it work and what does that mean? John Goldingay in his book models for scripture points out that to label every bit of the Bible as inspired will not help you to engage with a good deal of it because it will not help you answer the question ‘ how does God speak… Read more »
I think David Watson’s views were much more nuanced. See his article
https://davidfwatson.me/2019/10/01/reading-scripture-skepticism-suspicion-and-trust/
where he talks about a hermeneutics of trust.
On the other hand, maybe it is a different David Watson?
yes, it is a different one. trying to find a copy of David Watson’s Discipleship, where he sets out his views on scripture. He was, of course, a bit of a disruptor, particularly in his ecumenism
I don;t think I have a copy, but I have just read some parts of David Watson’s Discipleship. In his section on the Word of God, he explains that understanding scripture requires understanding what it meant to the audience of the time, and what it means to us today. He also says cultural context is important. He gives specific examples, such as woman wearing something on their heads.
Sounds a bit like hermeneutics to me.
On further investigation, I think David Watson was objecting to a certain form of hermeneutics when he ‘gently mocked’ Thisteleton.
Who knows. I wasn’t there. I simply want to break down misconceptions about what evangelicals think, and the diversity of that thought.
I was there. ‘Hermeneutics’ was a completely new word at the time. It sounded technical and academic – but what Thistleton was urging in the way we read and interpreted scripture was anything but. David Watson offered no critique have been in the position to. It was not his style. He made a joke that Hermen Neutic was a German theologian. I think that is the gentle mocking Charles is alluding to – that strange new academic word, not its content.
Thanks, very useful. I was merely pushing back on the potential stereotype that all evangelicals are non-thinkers!
I also reads in David Watson’s book that he considered some parts of the bible more authoritative than others.
He did pickup on cultural issues to do with women’s dress, in particular being naked from the waist up. He indicated that being dressed above the waist was a sign of immorality (in some cultures).
However, he also indicated that sexual morality was less changing, which is not surprising.
These public school boys do have a funny sense of humour!
So if we are not to label every word as inspired then those words for which the label is inappropriate must be of less authority than those which are. That is in many ways the heart of the matter when it comes to the radical inclusion of those whose way of life seems contrary to Biblical teachings
I think Charles was saying that all the words are inspired, but some nevertheless have more weight than others. Then it’s important to correctly identify (and be able to explain) the hierarchy of interpretation (which passages are to be interpreted in the context of which others), since otherwise you can justify virtually any teaching by selecting the bits you like and disregarding those you don’t – the process Geoff describes as woke revisionism. It should’t be difficult to explain a hierarchy, and evangelicals are right to ask what hierarchy is being used when someone advocates a new interpretation of scripture.… Read more »
Putting things in context isn’t putting them into a hierarchy though. I think that ‘equally inspired but not equally weighty’ needs a lot of interpretation. It may be what Steven C is getting at. I would be pleased if he expanded on the point. For my own part I find his question about Leviticus quite painful, though entirely apt. That is despite my long years thinking of the Bible as having a certain quality of enigma. Perhaps enigma goes with inspiration some way
Yes, I’d be interested to hear his thoughts, as I had misgivings about the not equal weight bit, and so weakened ‘more authority’ to ‘more weight’ when writing the comment. I think there’s something to it, though: in this blog’s discussions of equal marriage there’s a long-standing disagreement between those who take their lead from apparently clearly stated texts which are apparently directly associated with the topic, and those guided by wider teaching (eg Jesus’ discouragement of judgmentalism; His observation that rules are are made for man, not man for rules; and His commandment to love one another). That leads… Read more »
The Methodist OT scholar, Stephen Dawes, was good on this – as suggested by the title of his Why Bible-Believing Methodists shouldn’t eat Black Pudding. Stephen, who easily straddled the worlds of Primitive Methodism and Anglicanism, would tease conservative Evangelicals by referring to the NT as “the appendix”.
The NT refers to the OT pervasively, indeed
You can paint yourself into quite a corner here. Having been where you are myself for some years, for any conservatives who want to be able to breathe freely again, I’d recommend stopping arguing and taking some time “in the wilderness” to ponder the consequences of admitting to yourself even the tiniest possibility that you may be wrong. It takes humility but that sounds like a Christian virtue to me. The journey takes literally years, but it’s ok: being on the journey is the important thing.
I was very sad to see Helen Kings amendment on the order paper on Thursday afternoon. There was already lack of clarity about how any future working group would be established. In answer to my supplementary to question 111 asking whether the members of the group were to be elected or coopted the closest there was to clarity was that the group would be constituted along the lines of the Leicester LLF working groups. Helens amendment seeking to preload the working group with those already committed to introduction of standalone services, freedom for clergy in same sex relationships and ultimately… Read more »
There was a sense in Helen’s amendment that if Synod were creating a group to follow through a decision the steering committee would be made up of people in favour of enacting the decision, and that is a dynamic that helps our synod decisions to get realised. Here the dynamics are undoubtedly different and Synod had handed to the House of Bishops the responsibility for taking the next steps. The way I came to see it, Helen was trying to recover something of Synod ownership of a direction Synod had voted for – albeit by a narrow majority. If Synod… Read more »
I have to wonder how far back the C of E clock should be wound to make it genuinely pure & ‘Un-Woke’.
Might I suggest that 1903 is a suitable year, as that was when first female Churchwarden was recorded, & its been downhill all the way since then.
Francis, is this comment meant to be satirical or serious?
Either way, it does not seem to be considered or genuinely enabling of respectful discussion.
Apologies if I am missing more constructive nuances.
Abolition of slavery? Unbiblical wokery.
Read Philemon and you will see that abolishing slavery is the outworking of the implications of the Biblical Gospel in a radical challenge to the societal status quo. That’s why slavery – a previously universal social institution, seen by many as natural, normative and permanent – came to be challenged and removed in Christian culture.
It took a while.
A very long while. There were no Christians in ancient times playing the part of the Quakers in slave-era America. Perhaps complete liberation was something that just could not have been done. Hannah Basta’s prize-winning essay ‘Slaves, Coloni and Status Confusion in Late Antiquity’ (2016) is very good, I think
Abolition of slavery also occurred in non-Christian cultures.
The influence of Philemon is more pertinent to Christian states prohibiting enslaving of fellow Christians, and banning sale of Christians as slaves to non-Christians. In Britain the anti-slavery movement is generally considered to have started with the Quakers, but it was the general ‘woke’ horror at the conditions in slave ships, and incidents such as the almost unbelievable ‘Zong Massacre’ insurance scam, that won over the public.
But don’t go back too far, otherwise you might come up against that decidedly woke character Jesus of Nazareth.