As most readers will be aware General Synod debated a private member’s motion on same-sex relationships on Monday. After amendment it was put to the vote in the following form
That this Synod
a) affirm that all baptised, believing and faithful persons regardless of sexual orientation are full members of the Body of Christ;
b) delight in the lives and ministries of LGBTQIA+ people in the Church of England;
c) recognise a legitimate range of theological perspectives, held in good conscience, across the Church of England, on the right ordering of committed, faithful, intimate same-sex relationships, and;
d) recognise that this includes views that affirm and views that reject the position that there are no fundamental objections to being in such a relationship and that such a relationship can be entirely compatible with Christian discipleship and ministry.
It was lost following a counted vote by houses. The voting was as follows:
For Against Recorded Abstentions Bishops 11 14 4 Clergy 93 79 0 Laity 101 83 0
In a vote by houses there has to be majority in favour in each house for the motion to be passed. As the majority of bishops voted against, the motion was lost even though the total votes were 205 in favour and 176 against.
The motion was originally proposed by Helen King, but illness meant that she was unable to attend Synod in person and the motion was proposed by Muriel Robinson. Synod members were provided with papers by Professor King and by the Secretary General.
Helen King attended remotely and has written about the debate here: Synod At Home (3) – Long Monday.
There is a Church Times report here: Motion affirming no fundamental objections to ‘committed, intimate, same-sex’ relationships falls in House of Bishops, and Colin Coward has blogged here: The House of Bishops does not control our intimate, sexual lives.
Is there a list of which bishops voted for or against, or any speeches pointing to why they might have voted against?
The voting lists will be provided in due course (usually in a few weeks from recollection). The most obvious speech from a Bishop raising concerns was the Bishop of Birmingham (starting 3:57:40 or so https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlxqmhhC5Y8)
Cannot help but be struck by high rate of abstention in house of bishops on all three motions, particularly in the last & most important motion where there were Zero abstentions in both the other houses. Reminded of the comment on long dead politician to the effect that ‘he had sat on the fence for so long that the iron had entered into his soul’.
I am more worried about the apparent absence of about ten bishops who didn’t vote at all.
Indeed. While the House of Lords rota is a possible reason for absence on a weekday, and we’re all allowed to be off sick, there is the Lumi/Zoom method of attending General Synod – which I used myself for the first time – and this does seem like a large number of absences
Glad you mentioned the total absentees. I can only presume that they had not even decided whether to sit on the fence, or not.
I think two are suspended or similar and at least one is sick ufn. Newcastle said prayers in the Lords, Manchester and Leicester made contributions. Any intelligence on the whereabouts of the remaining four?
Having said prayers could +Newcastle not have joined remotely though?
Lincoln is currently suspended. Others are in vacancy. In those sorts of situations a proxy vote is not available/allowed, I have been lead to understand
St Albans is in vacancy as are some other sees (I’m sure Simon or some other commentator will supply the answer)
St Albans – No longer. See my other comment.
Here is the list of new HoB members and the list of vacant sees and their acting but non-voting representatives, copied from the official synod record of “business done”. The ARCHBISHOP OF YORK introduced the following new members: The Rt Revd Rick Simpson, Bishop of Durham, replacing the Rt Revd Paul Butler; The Rt Revd Sarah Clark, Bishop of Ely, replacing the Rt Revd Stephen Conway; The Rt Revd Dr Andrew Rumsey, Bishop of St Albans, replacing the Rt Revd Alan Smith. The ARCHBISHOP OF YORK welcomed the following bishops attending during a vacancy in see under Standing Order 123: The Bishop of… Read more »
The House of Bishops of the General Synod consists of 53 members: 42 diocesan bishops; nine elected suffragan bishops, and two ex-officio bishops, the Bishop of Dover, and the Bishop to the Armed Forces. This latter bishop is now the Bishop of Worcester, so that reduces the tally to 52. Vacant diocesan sees,including for this purpose Lincoln and Salisbury, amount to nine (the substantive ones being Bristol, Chichester, Guildford, Leeds, Liverpool, London, and Oxford). I cannot determine, but I think there might be a vacancy in the northern suffragans. My maths suggests 52 minus 9 minus possibly one = 42. Based on… Read more »
Are the suffragan bishops permitted to vote?
Second reply: I have found the answer! The nine elected members can: others cannot.
The only suffragans on General Synod are the elected ones, elected by their own number, five from the province of Canterbury and four from the province of York. The controversy is whether suffragans representing their dioceses in a vacancy be allowed to vote (ones that are not members of the House of Bishops in their own right (e.g. +Sherborne at the recent group of sessions)). Think I am agnostic on the point, but there are rather a lot these days!
As a gay member of my PCC I might welcome this motion but PLEASE can we stop pretending that there is such a thing as the LGBTQIA+ “community”.
Just stop it.
PS I hope the CofE is opposing efforts to outlaw “conversion therapy” if that would include outlawing efforts to persuade gay boys that they are NOT in fact girls.
I’d also like a ban on the use of the word ‘lifestyle’ in this context
Seriously Helen. You want to ban vocabulary ?
Oh come on. Of course not. But saying ‘gay lifestyle’ is meaningless.
Throwing trans people under the bus will not win you the favour of homophobes.
Since trans rights are now practically zero I suspect that a large part of the anti-trans community will move against either LGB rights or abortion next.
You are right, Kate, apart from those members of the anti trans community who are themselves gay or lesbian, and that is not an insignificant number. But in principle that’s what happens – anti trans first, anti gay next. That’s the persistent pattern. It’s what happened in Nazi Germany. It also seems to be what happened in Rome in the Christian suppression 3-600CE. And in the USA currently that also seems to be the pattern. There is a vicious anti trans campaign at present, which the Lembick institute has said has hallmarks of genocide, but the anti-gay stuff is beginning… Read more »
We thought that rights for GRC holders were secure but the Supreme Court reinterpreted a 15 year old law to remove them. I no longer see same sex marriage as secure and, based on the trans experience, it might not even require primary legislation to undo it.
Agreed, Kate.
That’s why it is so sad to members of the various different groupings (gay, lesbian, transgender, women) fighting amongst each other, when in the bigger picture all these squabbles count for nothing compared to what could be coming down the road towards us all from an overbearing patriarchy.
Perhaps then Chris Carter might then learn the meaning of community.
This gay bloke believes we are LGBTQIA+ communities. What is your problem with community? Please don’t not tell me Thatcher was right about “society”. Do you understand how difficult it has been over the last 60 years?
As Helen King has pointed out, our bishops did not want to affirm that, “all baptised, believing and faithful persons regardless of sexual orientation are full members of the Body of Christ”
The question on the exam paper is this: To be a Christian it is necessary to be heterosexual. Discuss.
A two word answer comes to mind.
Our bishops have struck another wound into the hearts of gay Christians.
Since there were four parts to the motion it is incorrect to state that “ our bishops did not want to affirm that, “all baptised, believing and faithful persons regardless of sexual orientation are full members of the Body of Christ”. They may believe that but voted against another part of the motion.
Our bishops have struck another wound into the hearts of gay Christians.
What does it mean to be faithful?
It means to repent from sin and trust in Christ for our salvation.
The reality is any Christian holding to the historic definition of marriage or a traditional Christian sexual ethic couldn’t have voted for this motion.
For example, we don’t believe an affirming view is “legitimate” or that disobedience to God should be delighted in.
And what if the consensus of the church by clear majority, after long prayer snd study, is that affirming position is ‘faithful’ and ‘legitimate’?
Not if God has clearly declared otherwise in Scripture.
It’s about God and what He’s spoken not about how we want to dispute His Word or what contrary things we fill our heads with.
Surely it’s time to accept there’s a clear impasse here instead of trying clever tricks to pretend it isn’t there.
Good thing God hasn’t “declared otherwise in scripture”, then. You have chosen to interpret scripture that way and then pretended that (1) that’s the only way scripture could be interpreted and (2) that all scripture is directly from God, rather than human understanding of God. It’s intellectual and theological dishonesty.
It clearly does in both testaments, something that was pretty much undisputed throughout history until people wanted to change it probably to hear teaching that suits our own desires as Paul tells Timothy about in 2 Timothy 4:3. And Christ tells us clearly that sexual immorality defiles our hearts without qualification to a Jewish audience in Mark 7. All Scripture is God breathed and written for our instruction and inspired by God the Holy Spirit. The Apostle Peter by inspiration of the same Spirit tells us this in the opening chapter of his second letter (1:16-21). I don’t buy the… Read more »
One of the joys of being an Anglican is that we have a confederation of traditions, ways of worshipping, ways of expressing faith whilst still holding to the essence of the Gospel. We have extreme biblical fundamentalists and we have the brethren of Forward in Faith. Both extremes are unattractive, if not abhorrent to some of us, but we manage to live with them, to a point. The Church seems to be in a kamikaze stance over certain issues which make it highly toxic to many intelligent under 50 year olds. Gareth’s fundamentalism and the disgrace of the episcopal vote… Read more »
When you say you are ‘saddened at what the Church of England seems to be becoming‘, can you explain why if it was so great in the past, you are demanding change?
Hard to answer your challenge specifically.
I did not say it was great in the past however it now seems to be polarising in an unhealthy way.
Various ecclesial and biblical ‘fundamentalisms’ are gaining traction at the expense of theological learning and honesty as well as social justice etc etc etc
Things improve in one area but opportunities are lost in another.
Complex….but on the slide.
Not a good answer but an honest one.
That’s a very straightforward answer. The point behind my question perhaps being that Gareth’s views are not as outrageously fundamentalist as they seem to be viewed. He isn’t saying anything different from the catholic church, or the CofE in the 1960s, and it’s not unreasonable for him to want a compelling case for revising a centuries-old interpretation of scripture.
I agree, my equally challenged knees friend! We need to keep the inclusivness of a Broad Church. I am a liberal (very) Anglo-Catholic, but I have evangelical friends whose position I respect as part of our tradition and they respect my position in return. Woe to those who want the C of E to become a monochrome boring church! The apostles were anything but monochrome or boring and I’m not sure how well they got on with each other. We know the stresses about the ambitious James and John, pushed by Mum! But what about the others? Some seem to… Read more »
Does that mean God thinks it is pleasant to smash babies’ heads on rocks?
Treating condemnation of sexual immorality as forbidding gay sex is simply question-begging.
Do you support abortion? If so, you agree with killing unborn children. Have you thought this one through?
Do you think it is all right to kill unborn children if that is what the mother (or grandmother or boyfriend) wants?
I don’t “support” abortion, no. I’m also, however, not a prohibitionist and I don’t think treating an embryo at 6 weeks gestation as equivalent to a newborn baby makes legal or moral sense. Neither do I think it is our job to “tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear” and lay them on people who find themselves pregnant. Nor do I think it’s up to either church or state to be forcing people to continue a pregnancy, with all the medical consequences of that, unwillingly. In any case the situations are not equivalent. Whatever you think about abortion, it’s rarely… Read more »
Most points raised on this thread are not new: everyone interprets scripture according to its face-value meaning, its harmony with other scripture, historic understanding, reason and prophetic insight. Differences arise from weighting these criteria differently, and from the varying knowledge of individual Christians. These synod votes add little. One side aims to get a vote over the line which edges its view towards being ‘official’, de-legitimizing the other view. A more fruitful approach will be to carefully develop the case for equal marriage and full inclusion of gay people in the church – building awareness of how it stands alongside… Read more »
I think you underestimate the impact of disgust reactions and bog-standard fear of human difference in rejections of LGBT+ lives. The case exists; the opponents aren’t interested.
All Scripture is self authenticating.
Paul did not expect his writings to become a part of holy Scripture any more than the late Jilly Cooper did.
Just out of curiosity, how do you know that, and what difference does it actually make? The Letter of Peter indicates that people twist the truth of Paul’s writings, “as they do the other scriptures.”
In general, the idea that scripture is self-authenticating is not one I’d expect from you, but it is consonant with what the NT itself says — including the writings of Paul a la Peter.
So if someone disagrees with your view of what scripture teaches on any issue they are simply wrong. I’m out.
You need an external source of authority, David, not your own private reading of Scripture. This kind of Anabaptist thinking never works out well.
‘You need an external source of authority’. Kind of you to offer James, but I’ll pass on that one.
Nobody seems to mention the matter of scholarship when referring to biblical material.
It is not a matter of ‘what does this say to me?’ but what did the writer mean by this in this particular context?
Sitz im Leben…..never gets a mention.
Exactly. Like all progress this requires careful, thoughtful work.
Neither, historically, has giving authority to human institutions.
Who is your external source of authority who tells you how to interpret scripture?
Anabaptists explicitly don‘t believe in ‘private readings of scripture’. Anabaptists believe that the primary interpreter of scripture is the gathered community of disciples. For further information on this point see Stuart Murray’s excellent book ‘Biblical Interpretation in the Anabaptist Tradition.’
Other things clearly condemned in scripture:
I think I agree with all these points bar number 4. Jesus and indeed the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 challenges us on greed or indeed the love of money. That’s why Jesus challenges the rich young ruler in a firmer way to how he challenged Zacchaeus in Luke 19. The love of money and greed is the issue. That aside though, why are you making this list? Surely we should repent of all sin and turn to Christ? Our greed, our careless words and our sexual immorality? The problem in respect to the issue we’re discussing is that… Read more »
11.Getting baptised twice – be careful when you quote Anabaptised ideas, Tim, it didn’t work out well in Munster.
Not all Anabaptists interpreted the Bible in the same way as the extremists that took over Munster. Others successfully set up a ran their own communities.
Thank you, Adrian. I currently belong to one such community.
James, name me one contemporary Anabaptist theologian who thinks Munster was a good idea. I’ll wait.
David, the Church of England is not ‘the church’, it is a tiny local department. The majority of Christians are Catholic and Orthodox. Do you abide by their historical judgment? Or are you a sectarian?
Holy false dichotomy, Batman!
I am not sure what this motion set out to achieve, unless to introduce further ambiguity as to the CofE’s continuing commitment to canon law. I am disturbed that such ambiguity may cause people to claim that God not only accepts us – which is 100% true – but affirms us in whatever behavioural choices we make, which is grossly to misrepresent Him. Saying that there is no choice in matters of love is at odds with Scripture, which distinguishes agape from philia, eros and storge. Godly love is more a matter of the will than of the emotions, but… Read more »
Disheartening though the outcome is, at least it is now clear that it is members of the House of Bishops who are blocking the path to a more affirming Church of England. While some sincerely if mistakenly believe that such relationships should be discouraged for spiritual reasons, I hope those who privately agree but failed to vote in favour think carefully about the human cost and whether this really furthers the Church’s mission. For example, if newcomers to Christianity take at face value the apparent message from senior clergy and break their marriage vows as a result, will this not… Read more »
Why do I despair of the C of E when its bishops get entangled in all this sexuality stuff which for my mind is very second order issue. A former vicar of ours who we knew was gay but made no fuss about it (neither did we – even if the adoring old ladies could understand it in the 80s/90s retired when Jeffrey John was selected as Dean of St Albans, he said to me – One in, One out! I do wish they would ALL contentrate on evangelism, which should be one of their key activities; the cure of… Read more »
But surely the ”sexuality stuff” was raised by Helen King’s motion? LLF failed because the CofE is divided on this issue – as was clearly indicated by the voting figures on this motion in the other two houses. Many of those most committed to evangelism in the CofE most definitely do not regard ”this sexuality stuff” as a second order issue. On this issue they would agree with the Catechism of the Catholic Church that speaks of ”Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity” (2357). This isn’t about sexuality, it’s about authority. On the one side… Read more »
Rather, the divide is between those willing to listen for the Holy Spirit leading us into all truth through the interpretation of scripture, tradition and reason and those who mistake the spirit of the previous age for eternal truth.
That argument can be used to justify any deviation from Christian faith and morality as received and hitherto maintained by the CofE.
You mean like abolishing slavery?
One of the first things Jesus said was ‘I have come to set the captives free’ . Hardly a new revelation.
And yet that was not understood as forbidding slavery, including by Paul.
“On the one side are those who regard the spirit of the age as being our guide, on the other side those who take seriously the testimony of Scripture, or Scripture and Tradition. ‘ I’m not sure where to start with this statement: it’s a false dichotomy, certainly. Probably an ‘ad hominem’ attack. It’s also a complete misrepresentation of those on the progressive side of the argument, most of whom, like myself are fully convinced that Scripture, tradition and (as I’m a bone fide Anglican rather than a Roman Catholic or Calvinist), reason support the full inclusion of LGBT within the… Read more »
Thank you, Father Andrew, I agree with what you’ve said. I notice, though, that you’ve introduced yet another version of the alphabet acronym onto this thread. We now have LGBT (you) in addition to LGBT+ (Jo B), LGTQI+ (Colin Coward), LGBTQI+ (Helen’s original paper) and LGBTQIA+ (the defeated motion). Whether any of these variations is intentional or accidental or just part of the general muddle surrounding this language and its meaning I cannot tell. Within months we will have a new Synod which we already know will be doing further work in this area. We continue to hope that it… Read more »
What (or who?) exactly are you afraid might be included in these acronyms? I don’t want to be in the business of trying to assemble a list of approved and non-approved identities, and I want to recognise that not everyone uses the same descriptors for themselves even when describing similar experiences. To me the primary issues are (1) acceptance that married same sex couples are not substantially different from married opposite sex couples and (2) acceptance that trans people are who they say they are (which has been the position of the Church of England for quite a while now,… Read more »
If the parishes I serve and those in my deanery are anything to go by, the Bishops don’t have anything like the influence they may think they have and we, who choose to engage beyond our parishes, may be inclined to ascribe to them. I hear that this outcome is incredibly hurtful for many whose lives are impacted by these constant rejections and their allies, and don’t seek to minimise that in any way. It doesn’t directly impact me, and I am absolutely sick to my stomach at the damage this is all doing to people. But among the parishioners… Read more »
Supreme indifference – that has been my experience of the view of most of my parishioners. A significant number remembered they were looking after their grandchildren, or some other excuse that particular Sunday if they got wind of an episcopal or archidiaconal visit. The members of my congregations weren’t going to stop being nice to Brian and David or Heidi and Kim just because of the huffing and puffing at General Synod.
35 years of ministry and bishops never fail to disappoint! God save us from the highly selective filter of episcopal consciences…
The message surely is clear – God loves you but the bishops are a lot more picky….
The more I think about the outcome of the vote on the amended motion on Monday and look at the House of Bishops’ voting figures, the more I realise that the bishops are now THE MAJOR PROBLEM in any kind of change in the Church of England’s teaching and attitudes to LGTQI+ people, let alone achieving a dramatic change in attitudes. Earlier in the debate 12 bishops voted in favour of the amended motion, 8 were against and 8 abstained, 28 in total. In the final vote, only 11 voted for, the number against had grown to 14 and the… Read more »
Colin. ‘the bishops are now THE MAJOR PROBLEM in any kind of change’ … I share the frustration here. But I just do not think it is one thing/group. Quite apart from being divided among themselves on this they are trying to manage very powerful, well resourced and deeply entrenched conservative groups.
Hello Colin; the Pastoral Consultative Group has been set up; see GS Misc 1461, one of the documents that was listed in those sent round ahead of Synod.
The membership of the PCG is as follows:
Philip Mounstephen, Bishop of Winchester (Chair)
Sam Corley, Bishop of Stockport
Karen Gorham, Bishop of Sherbourne
Mandy Ford, Dean of Bristol
Jonathan Chaffey, Archdeacon of Oxford
They expect to start work on 1 September.
As for the Working Group, it now has a chair, the Bishop of Sodor and Man, but the membership hasn’t been announced yet.
I am not holding my breath.
If I had been present and voting when this motion came before Synod I would have voted against it. Not because I don’t want equality in marriage and ministry for gay Christians but because I could not have signed up to all four clauses. This is a well-known problem with multi-partite motions and is one reason why Helen King was wise to keep her original motion brief. ‘That this Synod affirm that there are no fundamental objections to being in a committed, faithful, intimate same-sex relationship, and that such a relationship can be entirely compatible with Christian discipleship’ is simple… Read more »
“the deciduous LG(B)TQI(A) plus or minus acronym which seems to sprout and shed letters at random”
Not your finest hour. It says LGBTQIA+. If you don’t know what that means you could look it up.
“I have to wonder whether others were also experiencing this difficulty.”
Unlikely.
Little boxes.
Nope, there are five different versions on this thread alone. See my other post. Plus a reply from someone who thinks it doesn’t matter. The great thing is to be ‘inclusive’. Clarity about what’s included or why is unimportant. For the record, ‘inclusive’ is another term I no longer use. This is why.
Thank you Peter for raising this thread. Some will have observed my contributions on this matter on a parallel thread, so I don’t repeat those here but do say that they support the general,view here regarding the voting, or not, of Bishops. Bearing in mind the the Church of England is recognised as the Established Church, and has 26 Bishops contributing to the governance of the country as Lords Spiritual, surely the Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament has opportunity, and some might say obligation’ to hold the church to account for the actions and decisions of Synod and their possible consequences.… Read more »
This proves that on this important issue the CNC system has failed to select bishops who, overall, are representative of the church as a whole
Kate – why do bishops need to be “representative of the church as a whole”? And who is to say that in their varying views, they are not? Just asking.
Fair question. And I might be wrong…
I would have found difficulty in both recognising as legitimate the view that there are serious objections to certain behaviour and delighting in the lives of those who are subject to those objections
Relying on process and not theology is like building the Tower of Babel. It always ends up in a heap of chaos and confusion.
Adrian. Synod “process” is entirely scriptural. The first synod, in Jerusalem (Acts 15) is the “process” through which the church debated and decided on theology. Synod process and theology is not mutually exclusive.
But scripture also tells us that such a process is messy and human and difficult and takes time and patience to work through the issues.
What is happening here is normal church practice and experience.
In Acts 15 they fall silent because of reports of signs and wonders, which may not often happen these days. The leading figure, Brother James, then speaks, quoting scripture but emphasising (vs 19) that the decision is very much his – dio ego krino Very charismatic, not very like the parliamentary procedures we have now
Fair enough Martin, but still a process and a committee.
I realised once I has posted that perhaps a better analogy would have been the various synods and processes leading up to developing Trinitarian theology, or the Creeds. A difficult process, with many people behaving badly, and many appalling arguments, but still a “process” accepted and valued by the church for the theology it produced.
Best wishes
“In every city they have Moses preached…”
The prohibitions are from Moses.
The first Synod certainly voted against everything you stand for!
You may believe that, Adrian. I believe something different. But that is exactly the point I am making.
Theology and doctrine does not come out of some immaculate, miraculous process, but out of Christians in “sharp dispute and debate” (Acts 15.2, NIV) making the effort to talk to each other in community.
Yes, relying on process to block the inclusion of LGBT+ Christians is creating chaos.
By all means put forward your theology for debate and then let people vote on it. That’s how changing doctrine works in the C of E at least. But I guess you are not in the C of E.
Great idea Adrian. Let’s call it ‘Synod’.
But forward your theology and let’s debate it, but you won’t, hiding behind something you call unity but is actually schism.
Um, have you seen a little book by David Runcorn called ‘Love Means Love‘?
I think David has ‘put forward his theology’ quite clearly.
Adrian. You accuse me of hiding my theology. For what it is worth I have written and edited two books on bible and sexuality themes. TA have regularly posted my blogs – you must have missed them. I host the Inclusive Evangelicals website as well as my own. I taught in evangelical theological colleges for some years and have publicly engaged with those holding more traditional views than me. Hiding? My frustration with your voice (and others) here is not that you hold conservative views. Nor do I expect you to agree with mine. My frustration is that you show no sign of… Read more »
I feel a great dichotomy. On the one hand we talk about laying on of hands, spiritual leadership, apostolic succession, sacrementof of ordination and confirmation, ordination vows etc.. etc. etc.
On the other hand, we don’t like it when bishops vote differently to lay people.
We can surely not have it both ways? Bishops are our leaders when they do what we want, but are not leaders when they don’t do what we want?
Why should spiritual leadership and laying on of hands confer infallibility? We can have it both ways. Belief in apostolic succession. AND belief in bishops can be wrong.
Not sure if you have missed out a negative in your comment.
I don; tthink I was thinking of infallibility. Just leadership.
It is possible, i guess, to believe in the principle of apostolic succession and the importance of laying on of hands, whilst acknoweldging that in practice the bishops do not perform as they should.
As part of this are all kinds of questions about which bishops agree to ordain women. Plus questions about attitudes towards women priests.
It seems the whole structure has fallen apart.
It is incoherent.
Nigel, the discussion here is not about bishops who voted, one way or the other, but about the remarkably high number of bishops who abstained, or who were absent. Those who did not lead, for whatever reason
Bearing in mind that two who might have voted in favour were absent for known reasons, Salisbury and Newcastle, one can’t help feeling that this vote was decided by those who were not in the room.
I realise that.
My point is whether or not the bishops are leading. It seems not. So for those who argue for a hierarchical church structure, and apostolic succession – it seems that the tree has fallen down.
Meanwhile, this is what leadership looks like
https://www.churchinwales.org.uk/en/news-and-events/statement-of-the-bench-of-bishops-of-the-church-in-wales-on-the-publication-of-the-ehrc-draft-code-of-practice/
An overview of how the Equality Act may have been retrospectively re-interpreted out of the contexts and status quo within which it was drafted (and amplified disproportionately by EHRC) may be read here:
Trans.org.uk
I wonder if those against same sex marriage have ever dared to pray “Lord, please help me to understand what it would be like to be gay and not allowed to marry the person I love”. And whether those against trans inclusion have ever dared to pray “Lord, please make me understand the trans experience”. Or do they just take a position in ignorance without asking the Lord to give them knowledge?
The Lord has revealed Himself to us through the prophets and most supremely in His Son (Hebrews 1:1). We’re not left guessing what He calls us to. That’s why the Lord Jesus calls all who follow after Him to count the cost of being a disciple in Luke 14:25-33. All Christians are called to count this, and we all battle with various kinds of sins that we are called to forsake. That’s why I question the framing that the challenges are unique to the topics you mention. Indeed there are same sex attracted Christians who choose to follow Christ by… Read more »
People can be called to celibacy, and that is a valid calling to pursue. The wheels come off when it is assumed from outside that all gay people must be called to celibacy.
Hi Gareth, Christians have felt called to celibacy for almost 2000 years. We only have to reflect on the devoted lives of monks and nuns in the religious life. But it is a specific calling. Most heterosexual people, and most gay and lesbian and bisexual people have natural sexuality and are not given that call. We may also reflect on the possibility that faithful, committed, caring, intimate love for a partner – far from being a sin – may be a gift, a potential, and a blessing. Therefore we might not all believe that gay sexuality should be categorised as… Read more »
If I hear people from the conservative set of convictions accurately, they are not saying that they are ‘called to’ celibacy as a result of being same-sex attracted. Instead, they are saying that they have no such call, but are compelled to reject any potential relationship because they do not believe that they are permitted to enter into it. That’s what I have picked up from those who have spoken in Synod debates. My response to this is simply that they are just as free to make that decision as are people to enter a relationship.
Ultimately it doesn’t matter what you and I agree on.
This is about what God has clearly spoken in Scripture for our good.
That has nothing to do with what ideas you or I might have.
I don’t agree that God is cruel for calling us to follow Him.
The question is is the cost too high, will we walk away like the rich young ruler sorrowful or will we repent and seek to order our lives according to the will of God?
“This is about what God has clearly spoken in Scripture for our good.”
You are, I think, suggesting that the instructions God gives us are for our benefit. That they are not just some set of arbitrary dictates, but are there to guide us into living life in all its fullness. And I very much go along with that. And in most cases, it is indeed apparent how following Christian precepts leads to fulfilled lives, and going against them results in unhappiness.
Can you identify what the bad consequence in human lives is that comes from same-sex relationships?
It is amazing how many folk are untroubled by the problem of riches, though, and happily redefine Jesus’ teaching to make holy poverty an optional extra – y’know a bit like celibacy.
Is there a consistent hermeneutic at work here which I’ve missed? Do tell, I’m intrigued.
Exactly.
I would think that virtues concerned with economic life are matters of degree, having enough or taking too much, whereas virtues concerned with our sex lives generally seem to have an all or nothing nature. You are asked to avoid certain sexual behaviour absolutely rather than be moderate in it
It must be wonderful to have such a crystal clear understanding of the mind of God.
Saints and mystics down the centuries would wonder at your very precise understanding.
Might such confidence be a touch hubristic?
The Protestant Reformers including the English Reformers believed in the perpescuity of Scripture.
Namely that Scripture is clear in its essentials.
Does that mean I understand everything about God? No, absolutely not.
It does mean that what God has revealed can be understood in its essentials.
The Protestant Reformers also believed that the Earth is flat and that the Pope is the Anti Christ.
They thought we were all descendants of Adam and Eve and that the Creation happened in a six day period.
So…..what they believed about the biblical scriptures does have as much clout as you seem to think.
Anglicanism provides a wide umbrella but nevertheless I am led to wonder if you are part of that broad spectrum of understanding.
Scripture is so clear that Protestantism has split into thousands of denominations, all of whom believe their teaching is based on scripture. I’m an evangelical, but I believe the perspecuity of scripture is nonsense. Example: the Bible clearly condemns the lending of money at interest. But how did the lending of money at interest work in biblical times? Is it equivalent to modern venture capitalism, or is it different? To answer that we need to access the discussions of scholars who have given their lives to studying the text. Again, what did Paul mean by justification by works? The reformers… Read more »
I responded to another comment you made on this thread already on this.
We’d probably diverge on this, but the perpescuity of Scripture is an inherent characteristic of evangelicalism as is salvation by faith in Christ.
That’s why I question whether an affirming view is compatible with evangelicalism, and why I would also question whether a rejection of the perpescuity of Scripture or the necessity of Christ alone in salvation departs from it also.
Evangelicalism has some form of definition, otherwise it means nothing at all.
I’d argue the same is true for Christianity in general.
If scripture doesn’t possess perspicuity, what superior source can we adduce to give assurance to the content of Christian teaching?
If there’s a superior source, please can someone name it.
If there isn’t, and scripture is judged to lack perspicuity, doesn’t that evacuate any confidence in Christian doctrine.
I agree with that. You end up having to grant other humans authority over what they think it should be saying. Which flatly leaves us back where we started. Needing a pope to tell you what to believe instead of being empowered to look at the Scriptures to see what they say. Although Tim seems to be more interested in my spelling mistakes ultimately that’s a huge problem that basically undoes the Reformation. That’s why I find a position that denies the clarity of Scripture hard to reconcile with evangelicalism. The clarity of Scripture in its essentials is an inherent… Read more »
Not at all. I’m just aware that the word ‘perspicuity’ is not very ‘perspicuous’! But to be serious, you are determined to avoid the facts. Christians who believe the perspicuity of scripture obviously don’t actually find it to be perspicuous. Hence the thousands of denominations. ON subjects they feel are important enough to split the church, these Christians don’t find the Bible speaking clearly. Or they do, but they hear it saying opposite things. You can claim my view invalidates the reformation all you like. That’s irrelevant. The issue is, is it true? If the perspicuity of scripture is true,… Read more »
This article from Wayne Grudem in the Gospel Coalition’s theological journal Themelios handles some of the questions you raise: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/the-perspicuity-of-scripture/ It’s worth stressing that the perspicuity of Scripture refers to the essentials of the faith. It doesn’t mean that there won’t be some disagreement on secondary or tertiary matters. He also covers helpfully that understanding Scripture rightly requires a willingness to obey it. I think that’s one of the key issues around affirming theology. I think there are a lot of foundational dividing lines beyond that. Including whether or not we believe that God can speak clearly and whether we… Read more »
I think the word you’re looking for is ‘perspicuity’, not ‘perpescuity’.
Which bits do you deem to be the ‘essentials’ and how do you make that choice?
It does seem rough on some people that they are created with a disposition that makes it much more difficult for them than it is for others to comply with the moral law and for that difficulty not to be explained, as most such are, by the need to avoid harm to others
I don’t want to argue with you about sexual orientation because we will get nowhere. But theologically I think you are underestimating the Spirit. Indeed “But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh.” — Galatians 5:16 The Spirit is a being, part of the Trinity. It’s as important as Jesus and more important than Scripture. It is valid to question whether people are listening to the Spirit and conformity with Scripture is part of that, but if Scripture can be read in multiple ways- and this thread proves it can be… Read more »
God the Holy Spirit has breathed out the Scriptures to us for our instruction. It’s ideas like this that highlight that we have a radically different set of convictions. I believe that God the Holy Spirit has already breathed out His perfect word to us and it contains what we need to live a life pleasing to God. Ultimately it seems like you think God got it wrong the first time and the Spirit needs to take Tipex to correct the Bible to affirm what He once declared to be sinful. Jesus came to defeat sin and death for us… Read more »
No. I am saying three things
1) The Spirit is a person of the Trinity on a par with Jesus and therefore more important than Scripture.
2) The purpose of Scripture is to give outer bounds to what the Spirit says so that we can test whether something is likely from the Spirit or not.
3). The Bible is capable of a variety of interpretations. The Spirit guides us which is relevant today.
I think we’ll need to leave it here after this. You’re presenting the idea that the Holy Spirit freely contradicts the Father and the Son. I don’t believe that and think it undermines the unity of the Trinity. 1) The Scriptures are breathed out by the Holy Spirit. You’re trying to somehow suggest that the Holy Spirit freely contradicts what He’s already spoken, peculiarly in a way that is decades later than secular culture. I think He got it right the first time. 2) The Scriptures are written for our instruction. They are God’s word to us. They tell us… Read more »
I’d just like to point out the glaring tension between two Scriptural takes on Jehu’s regicide. The Spirit seems to have changed her/its/ his (pronouns arranged in cognisance of three different languages) mind on the morality of an action. Compare II Kg 10.30 and Hos 1.4. Now, as previously asked, can we have a sketch map of your consistent hermeneutic? I’m sure you’re aware that ‘God-breathed’ scripture can only be made refer to the NT canon (rather than the LXX) by a remarkable process of mental gymnastics, and that the meaning of that term is disputed, as indeed is the… Read more »
I’m afraid that analysis and scholarship have little to do with current debates.
Different people have different deeply held views, and theose views come from a variety of sources, of which scripture is but one.
Queer things, folk. We are not rational beings.
Interesting to see that the church is regarded as out of line if it tries to “control our intimate sex lives”, when it has always done so, and would still in fact be doing so if it did conduct gay weddings (unless we mean to drop any suggestion that lifelong monogamy is what God requires for marriage), but prying into what people have or have not prayed is perfectly acceptable, and not too intrusive.
Nobody is being asked to say so there is no intrusion.
It seems a goodly number of the bishops were hiding in coffeehouses feeling all woebegone. The bishops have used the term ‘crisis’ to describe the collapse in the number of vocations in the CofE to ordained ministry; and yet they are literally unwilling to be counted. Might they not see a correlation between their absence and the lack of candidates for ordained ministry?
Acting bishops can’t vote, given the number of vacant diocesan sees that explains a lot being missing. There were also a few away on other legitimate duties (+Newcastle was on duty in the Lords, +Sodor and Man was back on the Isle of Man for a royal visit). It is very much possible that if all were present, including acting bishops getting a vote, that the slim majority of three against would have been over turned.
Why is it that for a bishop, such secular duties as being in the House of Lords to say prayers, or waiting on the king in a meet and greet, take precedence over what is surely one of the principle duties of a bishop, to attend synod and take part in fundamentally important church governance?
I agree with you other than saying prayers in the Lords. That’s ministry. It should, however, be a chaplain not a bishop.
I can understand why, as we are the established church, these duties do take precedence. But they don’t account for all the bishops who were not attending all of Synod.
But Helen, even as the established church, why can’t +Newcastle get a substitute to say prayers? And why is it assumed that taking part in the Ghormenhast style flummery around a royal visit is a mandatory duty for a bishop, even when synod is sitting.
What does that say about the the bishop’s priorities and values.
I wonder what king Charles would say if the bishop asked to be excused, but of course noone would dare ask.
It’s probably a convention – possibly a rule? – I haven’t checked, that prayers in the HL are said by a Lord Spiritual, a member of the House. Newcastle is possibly the furthest diocesan see from London, and it seems an inordinately long way to travel to say prayers. But we are in danger here of thinking that parliament and the King’s visit to the Isle of Man should defer to GS when you say “even when synod is sitting”. I think it was wholly appropriate for the Bishop of Sodor and Man to be present for the King’s visit.… Read more »
London to Newcastle = 247 miles
London to Carlisle = 262 miles
Thank you. I also discovered that after referring to Truro as another contender. Living in the south, due east of Truro, the distance comes as a considerable surprise.
Somewhat to my surprise, Truro almost equals Newcastle as the longest journey to London – in both cases more than 560 miles for the round trip.
With a bit of further research, exceptionally prayers in the HL can be read by any ordained priest of the C of E who is a member of the House. That would take in retired bishops and possibly others, but the convention is certainly that prayers will usually be said by a diocesan, other than the Archbishops and Bishops of London, Durham and Winchester who are excused this particular duty.
This will add fuel to the fire of the objectors: information from the House of Lords itself. Prayers are said daily by the duty bishop on a rota arranged by the Bishop of St Albans. The usual stint is one or two weeks. For the week commencing Monday 13th July the Bishop of Newcastle was on duty. Prayers in the preceding week were read by the Bishop of Winchester, and in the following week by the Bishop of Hereford. This explains +Newcastle’s absence on the day of the vote. The information about +Winchester differs from what I said previously (from… Read more »
Rowland, I accept everything you say, but surely something is wrong when, even with an established church, a bishop’s duties to parliament, or to “convention”, or to taking part in royal protocol, take precedence over her duties to her church.
Of course in any group of interlocking institutions there will inevitably be such diary clashes, which can be resolved with sensible, grown up conversations and compromises. But it seems that in England such grown up conversations are considered bad form.
Helen King, whose Private Motion this was, has graciously accepted the situation.
The Bishop of Sodor and Man was at the first visit of the Lord of Man, since his accession, to the oldest parliament the Tynwald. As an ex officio member his absence would have been noted by the Manx people. Of course the King would have excused him but the Manx people? And remember the IoM is not even in the UK.
William – the Bishop of Sodor and Man is a woman.
Thank you. And the bishop of Uman is a man. And the Lord of Mann was a lady for over 70 years.
A motion acknowledging there are different views could scarcely be proved more right than this one was.
Different views, yes. Different views many legitimate despite conflict, quite doubtful
This:
https://www.psephizo.com/sexuality-2/helen-kings-motion-for-general-synod-outcome-and-assessment/
And if all this is the synod’s major preoccupation amidst spreading wars, famine, global warming, migration, human trafficking, is there any wonder that most churches have declining congregations?
With you there, Susanna. If the PMM hadn’t been moved a lot of wasted energy could have been saved.
I disagree. These things are iterative, and the fact that the decision was so close, and the bishops did not perform well, will have been noticed, and that will affect future decisions.
Is should be easier to argue for inclusion in the future.
This was not a waste of time.
It had to be moved. It was on the agenda. A member could have moved next business, but that would not have found favour. It was an important debate and the PMM was top of the list for debate.
It was one Private Members Motion, not “synod’s major preoccupation”.