The next meeting of the Church of England’s General Synod is in February 2026. A number of miscellaneous papers, listed below, have already been issued. They include reports from the Faith and Order Commission and legal advice relating to the Living in Love and Faith process.
It has long seemed to me that the desire to frame or define a Doctrine of marriage within an Anglican context is (or ought to be) hampered by the fact that Scripture is equivocal on the subject (as even Jesus himself acknowledged on the dissonance between Genesis and the Law of Moses on divorce). It is certainly fair to say that all of Scripture’s forms of marriage involve a man and a woman (or women); but the varieties and forms of marriage allowed or mandated vary considerably — including some forms no longer allowed, and the allowance today of some… Read more »
It’s not being raised to the level of doctrine now though, is it? In that there has been ‘a doctrine of marriage’ in canon law for many decades.
A ‘doctrine’ that has only been in place for some decades is exactly the problem I am seeking to address. And it is the tag ‘doctrine’ that is the issue at present, as it makes change more difficult.
From the beginning, the Office of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the convening of the Lambeth Conference were expressions of Anglican unity and identity, and an attempt to hold the Communion together in the wake of the disputes over the treatment of polygamous marriages under the first Anglican Bishop of Natal, John Colenso (1814-83). These disputes, stemming from 1855, were also related to his progressive views on scripture, sparking the ‘Colenso controversy’, which the first Lambeth Conference partly sought to address. In the wake of the ‘Colenso Affair’ – the mid-19th-century Church of England Bishop of Zululand who refused to… Read more »
Is there any reason to think that during its emergence, the CofE would not simply carry over the catholic church’s doctrine of marriage? The reformers wanted to make lots of changes to catholic doctrine, but I’m not aware of them having concerns about marriage.
Of course I can see that Henry VIII might have wanted to downplay elements of Rome’s view of marriage. Indeed, he pioneered the church’s historical endorsement of allowing the remarriage of divorcees … but I’m not sure modern Anglicans would want to make a big deal of his framework of adaptability …
The XXXIX Articles removed marriage as a sacrament, so the Catholic doctrine was explicitly not carried over into Anglicanism. That is just a fact. The Church of England from the 16th century onwards had teachings about marriage, and disciplines (e.g., Table of Affinity). But it does not have a ‘doctrine’ in the way that Roman Catholics and the Orthodox use that term. It is risible to suggest that Anglicanism has not adapted its teaching and discipline on marriage. It allows for divorce, the remarriage of divorcees, etc. Catholic/Orthodox doctrines do not permit divorce, which is why only annulments can be… Read more »
The Orthodox church does allow for divorce and remarriage.
…not all Orthodox churches do. Some, I agree. But all, no.
“The Church of England has no doctrines of its own, but only of the Western Church” was often said back in the day, although with lessening authority as the marriage of divorcees became more common. This assertion provoked Stephen Sykes, then chair of the Doctrine Commission, into a magisterial apologia for C of E doctrine (marriage included), which he saw as primarily expressed through our liturgy: 1662 and (36 decades later) CW. The claim that we have no doctrine of marriage stands on feet of clay for as long as it is driven by the view that doctrine is inimical… Read more »
That really is the point. If you have changed something, it is no longer among those things held in common with “the Western Church,” so it no longer meets this definition of “doctrine” and becomes “a doctrine of [its] own” — negating the very thing that saying was meant to affirm. Far better to stick with that saying and acknowledge that there is a discipline of marriage, but not a doctrine. As the Preface to the American BCP (1789) stated, “what cannot be clearly determined to belong to Doctrine must be referred to Discipline…”
Apologies for my loose terminology. In the context of divorce and remarriage, doctrine affirms the ideal of marriage as lifelong, discipline acknowledges that people can fall short of the ideal and the need for a pastoral response. But this by no means requires the abandonment of doctrine. The doctrinal ideal of lifelong marriage still obtains, it is not vitiated by the change in discipline.
Thank you, Allan. This touches well on the point I am trying to make. Of what other doctrine would one say things such as this? Would we allow, for example, pastoral departures from the doctrine of the Incarnation? There is a difference in kind and substance between marriage and, say, the Trinity. I suspect the problem may lie in the two senses of “doctrine” (with a small d as “teaching” and a capital D for dogma.) I have no problem with the church saying it has a “teaching on marriage” which is as you describe it; as it has had… Read more »
Aren’t the points you raise from Matthew and Paul about the breakdown of marriage, rather than marriage itself? And if the church did not have a doctrine of marriage, wouldn’t that mean it might marry 5 people together, for example, or marry a person and a statue, or whatever really? Or would the church take its understanding of marriage from some other agency such as the state, and so view church marriage services as being analogous to church football matches which takes their rules from the football association? And why is it OK for catholics to have a doctrine of… Read more »
There’s a difference between having rules about marriage, based on a common understanding and an application of Christian ethics, and elevating those rules to the status of doctrine.
Thank you for stating the obvious.
I think it perfectly fine to have a church policy on or regulation of marriage. What I am questioning is whether it should be referred to as a doctrine, given the lack of a clear and univocal Scriptural basis; to say nothing of how much marriage policy has changed since the first century — hardly a constant doctrine at all. The other questions you raise are interesting, but beside the point I am seeking to make, other than your first question. The answer to that is “yes” but the issue of the breakdown of marriage is part of marital policy… Read more »
The *doctrine* of the C of E says that marriage is, according to the teaching of our lord, a lifelong and exclusive union between one man and one woman, and then adds the three goods of marriage. In all the changes of administration, when has marriage been thought of in any other way?
Ian, I don’t know what you mean by “administration” but there have been changes and adaptations. There was much debate, for example, about the “three goods” even within the Anglican context, to say nothing of earlier debates, and the downplay of the “fourth good” (remedy for fornication). Obviously “lifelong” and “exclusive” have been fudged for pastoral reasons. Why try to elevate such a wax nose to the level of Doctrine?
“…when has marriage been thought of in any other way?”
Since the C of E began permitting remarriage of divorced individuals when the former spouse is still living. Doesn’t that make “lifelong and exclusive union between one man and one woman” no longer operative?
But strictly speaking, if one regards the liturgy of the BCP as a source, the ‘doctrine’ of marriage articulated there also enshrines male headship, in the (non-negotiable/non-optional) requirement of the woman to ‘obey’ in the BCP vows. Is this no longer part of what you regard as ‘traditional/orthodox doctrine’? And on what basis? Similarly with contraception. In the Roman Catholic Church, the bann on contraception is an intrinsic element of their understanding (what you would call ‘doctrine’) of marriage – that is, marriage must necessarily always be ‘open’ to procreation, in the sense that any deliberate and wilful attempt to… Read more »
Thank you Charles for this very helpful analysis and raising such clear and pertinent questions. Though don’t hold your breath waiting for clear answers. Another thing that amuses me about the way conservative evangelicals appeal to the BCP as a marker for doctrine here is that they would never actually use the 1662 Marriage service. If a traditional language form was required they would probably use 1928, which they believe is not doctrinally sound in other ways. Pick and mix rules. I have always love the words of Dorothy L Sayers, in the mouth of Lord Peter Wimsey, about one… Read more »
Thank you Charles. This is where I wish TA had a “Like” button.
Your stating of what many of us consider to be the absolutely bl**ding obvious with such grace and clarity would get lots of votes.
was very relieved to read Alexander McGregors legal pronouncements this afternoon. It firmly lays out what “We” in the Church of England have in our precious Book of Common Prayer. I am not a traditionalist, I am not a lover of Prayer book Society but I am just so thankful that our bishops have been called up short in their dash for doctrinal change collapsing in a messy heap. If you read the document it is abundantly clear that the matter has been appallingly dealt with by the HoB. I have written to my own bishop on the matter and… Read more »
Geoff there is no mistaking how distressing you find all this. Just two comments. Firstly, lawyers are there to advise – not pronounce. This is one lawyer and, for the record, one who has changed his mind before. The Bishops need to come to their own mind. Secondly, you seem unaware that the bishops are not of one mind on these issues. Some are very conservative. So your image of some kind of made corporate episcopal dash into doctrinal liberalism is a very long way from the truth. If it was we would have got there some time ago.
Let’s agree to disagree on the pronouncement versus advice argument of the lawyers. To be precise they interpret what is already in existence. What is in existence is the ruling proving the LLF project has firmly hit the buffets due to the fact that due process was ignored or brushed aside.
New proposals may eventually come forward to finally place the nails in the established churches coffin but it will take at least 3 years to get to that point and prolong the handwringing and gnashing of teeth that would flow from another round of LLF dominated agendas.
A client is usually free to ignore the lawyer’s advice.
Besides that, who is Alexander McGregor’s client in this situation? Does he even say?
This is an assembly of ‘proof texts’ (not really about marriage) in odd reversal of the very idea as such (proof texts) meant to say just what?
Incidentally are we now to understand that “Christian scriptures” are NT texts?
What do you mean “now”? It’s hardly a new or obscure description. Are you going to feign incomprehension of CE next?
Christian Scriptures are BOTH OT and NT texts, surely.
Christians use the Jewish scriptures but those scriptures are not of Christian origin.
And Jews use the Hebrew Scriptures which aren’t all of Jewish origin.
And not all Hebrew! Some are Aramaic.
Not to dwell on something that is obvious.
If you want to use the word “Jewish Scriptures” — since it isn’t a term Jews use — I suppose what they would think you mean is TANAK and the Talmud.
Did Jesus Christ think “the scriptures” (the term “Jewish Scriptures” is post-biblical) were not his own scriptures?
Christians don’t “use the Jewish Scriptures.” They hear in the scriptures of Israel the accordance the NT everywhere acknowledges.
Christian Scriptures are both testaments.
I am not arguing about marriage, but about the application of Doctrine to what is actually a Discipline. And surely you know what I mean by Christian scriptures, as opposed to the Hebrew scriptures; or the New and Old Testaments.
Greek scriptures, as opposed to Hebrew Scriptures, perhaps?
The Hebrew Bible, known to us as Old Testament, IS scripture for Christians, i.e. Christian Scripture.
The OT is Christian Scripture. That is the faith of the Church.
No, I do not recognize your classifications as part of the catholic faith. The NT is “Christian scriptures,” and not the OT?
Jews know that Christians regard the OT as Christian Scripture. They disagree, and they have their own categories.
When Marcion sought to get rid of the scriptures of Israel, he had to get rid of most of the NT as well. I suppose one could call that achievement “Christian scriptures” (and not the NT as we have it).
Tobias Haller is right about the difficulty of arguing for an Anglican doctrine of marriage out of scriptural example. Many biblical “marriages” simply don’t fit the desired pattern, whether the pattern is based on Augustinian goods or more modern ideas of mutual love, covenant and consent. One suspects that many people are starting with a desired doctrine and carefully selecting biblical arguments to support that doctrine, rather than starting with the biblical example and working outwards from there as to what should happen. As for all marriage examples involving a man and a woman. There is one example of a… Read more »
Even if it were true, given David committed adultery and murder any fornication with Jonathan would not be setting any sort of precedent! BTW there is no “report” except a sexualised interpretation David’s lament:” I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; greatly beloved were you to me; your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.” Next thing liberals be asserting that John called himself ‘the disciple Jesus loved’ because they were in a sexual relationship…. … in which case what would is to be made of John mentioning that Jesus loved Mary, and Martha and Lazarus?!… Read more »
David,
Thanks for the response. I agree that David was not perfect, but strangely the one thing that seemed to get a pretty good description was his loving, covenanted same-sex relationship relationship with Jonathan. Does this count for nothing?
The adultery came later and was heterosexual.
As for the sexual consummation, I was not referring to what you cite, but Diarmaid MacCulloch’s interpretation of their last meeting.
https://modernchurch.org.uk/prof-diarmaid-macculloch-living-in-love-and-faith
See the third paragraph about how this has been hidden from non-Hebrew speakers by “various mealy-mouthed and unfeasible modern mistranslations“.
Best wishes
I wonder why I comment. Warriors who fight alongside each other, have each others backs–please read the entire accounts of 1-2 Samuel–in an era not our own, have become Brokeback Mountain 21st century America with blogs like TA.
Just for the record, how many children did David father? How many wives?
“I wonder why I comment“, as cited by you above Why indeed. Perhaps, for me, it is to let the many LGBTQ+ readers of this blog get access to some of the scholarship about this story written by gay christian scholars or LGBTQ+ supporting Christian scholars, which they would otherwise find hard to access. You are right that it is important to study the entire history in 1-2 Samuel, and find the many Hebrew verses which might portray a loving and erotic relationship using language paralleled in other heterosexual relationships. There is Jonathan’s “delight” in David (I Sam 19:1) which… Read more »
OK, since David had 30+ children and multiple wives and concubines, how much active sex would he need to have undertaken to produce that many children (when he was taking a break from his “warrior sex” with Jonathan, of course)? So, if this is to be a useful category for present purposes, ‘W’ should be added to the present acronym, giving us LGBTQI+W. ‘W’ here meaning resolutely and fairly constantly having sex with the opposite sex, and also saving some libido time for a fellow in arms. Bathsheba should be worried about the possibilities should Jonathan also bathe on the… Read more »
Just one point. The OT is actually Hebrew scripture, although we Christians use it as well, Many of the interpretations I suggest here and have suggested in many posts before, come from Jewish sources. Reading Jewish scholarly insights into texts we Christians think we know and understand well is a fascinating, and often humbling, experience. In the past I have offered insights from Jewish Publication Society commentaries on the Pentateuch, and insights on biblical archaeology from Israel Finkelstein, director of the Tel Aviv Institute of Archaeology. Robert Alter (cited above) is a prize winning translator of biblical Hebrew. The scholarship… Read more »
I am a professional biblical scholar (Yale, St Andrews, Toronto). I have written widely on the scriptures of Israel and the NT. Christians don’t ‘use’ ‘Hebrew Scriptures’ as if they were a source book for ‘warrior sex’ etc. That is not how the NT speaks of them nor the earliest reception history. One could use the Methodist hymnal to reconstruct the thought of said Christians at the time of its appearing, but one would not be singing anymore.
‘Love is not sex.’
indeed. If only the opponents of same sex marriage could understand that.
Dave, adding to my last – and looking at Jesus – you are right that love is not sex. But we can understand that best by trying to study how people in biblical times understood same sex love, rather than projecting back modern understandings. Looking back to biblical times there were two major constructs for what we might today call homosexuality. Theodore Jennings (writing in The Oxford Handbook of Theology, Sexuality and Gender, OUP 2015) describes one form as “Warrior Love”, that widespread age structured homosexuality where a young man becomes the beloved and apprentice warrior, then the lover and… Read more »
“It seems to me that David’s relationship is probably sexual because that is what would be expected within such a construct, and also because the bible tells us so.”
Yes, within your construct.
In his construct? How many wives, concubines, children — we are talking the about what the “bible tells us.”
So, I guess he was LGBTI+ with Jonathan and a big B otherwise, to the point of escaping the 21st century framework.
Ridiculous.
Just a general abstract comment – very interesting and I thank the commentators – but whatever the relationship between David and Jonathan, and whether or not they had a sexual element, does not, IMNSHO, matter a jot to the debate. Does the fact that someone is described in the OT as doing something automatically make it moral? Of course not. Does the fact that something is not repented or explicitly condemned in the OT make it moral? Of course not. These are not coherent reasons to accept or reject same-sex marriage. For avoidance of doubt, i am not at all… Read more »
David is criticised for adultery, but somehow managed to avoid being criticised for having at least eight named wives in the Bible, along with other unnamed wives and concubines.
Presumably because polygamy was the norm, at least among those who could afford it.
“The relationship between David and Jonathan has many similarities to marriage as understood today by the church.’ Really? David was already married – and Jonathan almost certainly was also. So this was an affair, if anything? David was actually a disaster area when it came to relationships. He is someone who inspires love rather than gives it; the object of love while appearing to do nothing to encourage it. Note that he never actually declares his love to anyone in return. Jonathan, by contrast is one of the most integrated, relationally aware, and emotionally literate of all the male personalities in… Read more »
David, Thank you for taking time to respond. This is an incredibly rich and complex story, with many people, rightly, finding different ways to respond to it. All I ask is that the many and various homosexual or pro LGBT+ scholars who have written on this are allowed into the debate alongside the more traditional ones. I fully agree that the story of David is a tragedy not a heroic saga, with David as a flawed man ending his life demented and impotent whilst the woman he wronged most, Bathsheba, sits triumphant on her throne at the right hand of… Read more »
Tobias Haller,
Scripture records Jesus’s great commision, which orientates a Christian”s application of other parts of Scripture:
‘Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”’
Calling it the “great commission” is not part of the canon. Perhaps Jesus’ words were addressed to those he was addressing at the time and we are wrong to assume it was given as a word for all his future followers.
Isn’t Scripture’s equivocation on the subject the very reason why we need doctrine and why Anglicans turn to the first Christian centuries and the consensus of the early Church as its source, provided said source is not repugnant to Scripture?
Christian doctrine (aka teaching) is based primarily on the teaching of Jesus and His Apostles.
In the Sermon on the Mount He Himself explicitly overrode some of the Old Testament law!
So it does. But do we leave whether or not to ignore the Matthean exception to Dave? Allan? The man on the Clapham omnibus?
i started reading the Nature of Doctrine and the Living God and came to : Vanhoozer observes that, ‘To repeat the same words in a new situation is in fact to say something different.’ Instead of categorical resistance to any alteration in doctrinal expression, he argues that the church must be open ‘to change in a way that would be faithful to, even though different from, Christian beginnings.’ Tradition embodies ‘the church’s attempt to negotiate this tension between “sameness” and “difference,” an attempt that aims at a kind of nonidentical repetition… “The Christian movement is always the recognizing of a… Read more »
I can see that the same words in a different situation may move from truth to falsity, as when the cat used to be on the mat but isn’t now, but that doesn’t imply that one is saying something different but the opposite, that one is saying the same thing
How would you handle the tension between sameness and difference? I wouldn’t particularly seek out the wings of the CoE, but I celebrate the fact that there are wings.
GS Misc 1431 – I do not recognise myself in this logic-chopping by those opposed to any change at all who have never bothered in any way to speak to me or understand my life. They are happy to tell me that I cannot be exemplary from afar, from behind their axiomatic fortress. Others who know me much better may have a more useful testimony to offer. I am struggling to spot the radical new Christian inclusion we were promised in all this.
It’s intriguing to hold together GS Misc 1431 and 1429 (somewhat hilarious that these papers fall under the rubric “miscellany”). 1429 attempts to articulate how the doctrine of marriage is to be understood, while 1431 reminds us that “doctrine is true knowledge about the living God, grounded in or agreeable to the Holy Scriptures”. Does marriage apply to the living God? Perhaps we should be speaking of the “poetry of marriage” rather than the “doctrine of”, certainly a better way to dwell within the concept of the Church as the Bride and Body of Christ. If it’s any comfort Jeremy… Read more »
Jeremy, the reason why you find it hard to spot the ‘radical new Christian inclusion’ you were promised is that you were promised it on no authority, without any thought, by someone who has acted with manipulation and duplicity throughout this process, aided by a small number of others, and it is one of the many reasons why I am glad he has gone. In the July Synod following, we passed each other in James, and I challenged him: ‘Why did you say this?’ His response: ‘I had to say something’. My reply:’No you didn’t. You could have sat and… Read more »
Jeremy it is remarkable how much recent history Ian Paul conveniently ignores. The 2017 take note paper from the Bishops was rejected by General Synod, and not a few of Justin’s cronies. The meeting of General Synod in February 2026 should likewise reject the recent pronouncement of the House of Bishops and make it equally clear to them that their response is unacceptable and that they need to think again. Ian and his small number of conservative evangelical cronies forget the so called apology that was issued by the bishops less than three years ago. So let me quote from… Read more »
I’m shocked to the core, Andrew. No reminder to bring your credit card.
So after seven consecutive decades containing major reports and debates on human sexuality, culminating in the most honourably church-wide theological consultation ever undertaken – and during which every measure indicated a desire to move in the direction of inclusion – it is all one person’s fault. Well I, for one, think the question of where responsibility lies is altogether more complex.
I’m somewhat surprised that the LLF legal advice appears to be the work of one lawyer, the legal adviser to the Archbishops’ Council, also an NSM priest in a Society parish. I would not doubt for a moment the accuracy or probity of that advice, but I would have thought it behoved the House of Bishops to solicit more than one legal opinion on a matter that has taken up so much of the church’s recent time and energy.
I agree. This legal advice is advisory. But – even accepting your caveat – it cannot be presumed to be neutral.
I’m surprised that there isn’t also a proposal to discuss where to insert the two new lines which have to be added to the Nicene Creed
‘And I believe in the overall superiority of men
And that all homosexuals will inevitably go to hell’
And I’m more than a little surprised that the legal advice wasn’t sought years ago at the start of the LLF process!
I strongly suspect that legal advice was sought, and said something different at that time. This advice was surely commissioned and published to give the bishops a legal figleaf for surrendering to the threats from the “alliance”.
There has been legal advice all the way through; there have been calls from conservatives in Questions and elsewhere in Synod to ‘see the legal advice’ and responses that some of it was written advice and some given orally, as well as documents issued giving key points. And now we have another piece of legal advice, written by just one person, which is supposed to end the discussion. I have heard it said that the advice isn’t any different; what has shifted is how the bishops have interpreted it. I can’t imagine that this ends the matter.
I’ve only heard one side of the debate asking for the legal advice, and they have been saying that it says something like this. If (as you say) the legal advice hasn’t really changed, and this is the advice that has been consistently given, then I don’t really see how it was ever open to any other interpretation. Here are some quotes that seem quite clear: “… this would unquestionably amount to a departure from the current doctrine of the Church of England …” “That marriage is necessarily between two persons who are respectively male and female is part of… Read more »
Is lawfully open to a bishop to declare that clergy in his or her diocese will face discipline if they enter into a same sex marriage ?
It seems so.
What form that discipline will take is another issue. Losing roof over their heads and salary/pension?
How this affects the presentation of the Gospel of Jesus amongst the general population is also another issue.
Just seen Andrew’s comment below, which is along similar lines.
It is also clear in the legal advice that a particular bishop is free to ignore the ‘policy’ that clergy in same sex partnerships may not undertake a civil marriage. What we surely need are a number of the House who are prepared to state quite openly that they have seen the advice but are quite prepared to offer a licence or permission to officiate to clergy in same sex marriages, and that they, the said bishops, are prepared to take the consequences. Enough bishops doing that will surely cause the lawyers to change the advice in due course.
So if enough people disregard the law then the law is null and void? A foolish argument. The Bishops are transitory and do not have the authority to disregard canon law or any other law. They may not like it but, so far, not a single bishop has had the courage to resign their office. I do not expect any of them to offer their resignation. I would respect some of the bishops more so if they did resign and set up something that agrees with their Liberal convictions.
There isn’t any law here Geoff. There is legal advice. And I am saying that legal advice would be informed differently if there were actual cases that can be cited.
Alex McGregor is a top-rate barrister and legal mind; he is respected widely in the Church of England. To attack his professionalism because of where he worships is a low bar and worringly trumpian.
It is the mark of a skilled legal professional, particularly a barrister, to be able to produce a legal argument that serves the wishes of the client. Mr McGregor has done that with commendable skill. Let us not pretend, however, that the goal in procuring the advice was anything other than CYA for the episcopate.
Yes, it would be worrying so to attack Mr McGregor, which I didn’t. I was quite clear I didn’t question his professionalism. Given the highly controversial nature of LLF it would have been wise for the Bishops to solicit advice from more than one source full stop, but in this context so as not to give any appearance, however unwarranted, of possible partisanship.
If the HoB had published legal advice from a single lawyer who was an NSM in an Inclusive Church I would have made the same point. The debate around LLF has become so polarised the Bishops cannot afford to lay themselves open to any suggestion of partisanship which, alas, they have. Even before the advice from FOC and legal advice were published, there were accusations flying around that conservatives had sewn it up. Thanks to social media we live in a Trumpian world; our bishops should be aware of this and take a lot more care with an issue which… Read more »
Fr. Andrew, your words….’ Carelessness and even amateurishness from the episcopal bench’ sums it up nicely. Thank you.
This is pretty grim. A friend and theological teacher has summed parts of GS Misc 1430 as reading like ‘a Christian Union sex book’. Who produces this stuff – and after these long years of theological debate?
It’s pretty turgid stuff. Towards the end he says:
The Church’s doctrine of marriage—as the exclusive, lifelong union of one man and one woman—is not a marginal element of its teaching. It is embedded in its formularies, undergirds its moral theology, and has implications for its understanding of the sacraments, of the body, and of the vocation of all the baptised.
which I find incoherent and unpersuasive. It also seems to be a tautology.
What I find amazing, amongst my friends on TA that I firmly disagree with on this matter, is that the statement you reproduce from “The doctrine of marriage “ legal advice is what has been in clear ( black and white) print for decades. Yet those that have eagerly pushed for a change of doctrine must/ should have understood that this IS the formal position of the church. My wife, a retired cleric, is amazed that a grouping in the church feel that one of our foundational understandings on human relationships can just be scrapped so that it fits with… Read more »
I don’t necessarily disagree that the doctrine of marriage has been clear for years. What I found strange was that it apparently:
It is embedded in its formularies, undergirds its moral theology, and has implications for its understanding of the sacraments, of the body, and of the vocation of all the baptised.
What do you think?
Undergirds its moral theology? How?
Understanding of sacraments? Which sacraments?
The body? Maybe.
The vocation of all the baptised. Really?
None of this is obvious to me, but what do I know. Even the words ‘exclusive, lifelong’ seem strange in the CoE.
Speaking of the supposed unchangeability of the doctrine of marriage, let’s not forget the bitter theological and legal disputes in 19th Century Britain over the question of whether a widower could legally and morally marry his dead wife’s sister.
That dispute raged for much longer, and arguably with more intense feelings, that the dispute over same-sex marriage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_with_a_deceased_wife%27s_sister
I find I can’t engage with much of the discussion on here because it all seems to revolve around whether some proposals are, or are not, changes to the ancient beliefs we have inherited. Whereas there’s a deeper question about what is actually true! Using the common Christian metaphor that likens God to a person, “What does God think?” (for example about whether or not same sex partnerships are an abomination or something to be celebrated). Unless you think that Scripture or tradition are somehow infallible (which is so idiotic as to be not worth engaging with), only to be… Read more »
Interesting points you raise, however, for me it is fine for those in my church to hold different views and we are ( of course) still wholly Christian. I choose to remain in my church and ( a turn I dislike used by our Diocesan bishop) “hold the difference “. I still accept and love those who disagree with me. I still accept as equal those in my family and in my church that are gay. I shall however, due to my absolute conviction of my own faith, leave the church if gay marriage is permitted amongst clergy. This is… Read more »
The problem is a substantial portion of people in the church disagree with you and see the Bible as authoritative, truthful and reliable in the matters that we’re discussing and more generally.
The discussions on marriage are merely symptomatic of that difference.
The root question is where do we place Scripture and what authority do we give to it?
I don’t think you’re likely to convince your opponents.
OK, I agree the differences are more fundamental, and the disputes on same-sex marriage are merely a reflection of those differences. But if, say, it was very clear that David and Jonathan has a loving sexual relationship. What does that tell us about scripture and its authority for modern day loving and sexual relationships? How do we elucidate God’s will? It is clear, even to a non-theologian like me, that David’s behaviour wrt. Bathsheba and Uriah was against God’s will. Whatever that means. But where does scripture indicate that David and Jonathan’s relationship was against God’s will? Moreover, what does… Read more »
Let’s do something different. If Christ for example was crystal clear that same-sex marriage was permitted and the apostolic letters and if Scripture wasn’t as clear on the prohibitions then we wouldn’t be having this conversation. I would take Him at His Word as the Son of God without question. The reality is that traditionalists on this issue largely believe that God has been clear on this in Scripture, and that this isn’t an agree to disagree on issue particularly if it concerns God and what He’s spoken particularly if it concerns our salvation. I don’t see an obvious way… Read more »
Nigel….”But if, say, it was very clear that David and Jonathan has a loving sexual relationship”
But that hasn’t the slightest biblical support! A “what if” that’s empty of evidence. Periodically it reappears but still without foundation… not that behaviour ( as with Bahhsheba) is automatically presented as a model for others. The death of their child underlines that.
The important word is ‘if’. There were other commentators who seemed to be spending a lot of time arguing about the original Hebrew text and saying they may have had a sexual relationship. I am countering that. I am saying that even if they did, it does not mean that God necessarily approved. I didn’t think the discussion added much to the debates. My main point is that if something occurs in the OT, and there is not explicit Godly disapproval, that does not mean there is Godly approval. I am arguing purely about the logic. A lot of people… Read more »
Thanks Nigel…I agree. Otherwise that’s a huge weight “if “is carrying.
Maaaaate!! You’re a vicar, aren’t you, whose ministry is (or ought to be) governed by Canon Law. How does your quote below measure against Canon A5? Presumably that’s a null question in your view, since if Jesus can be wrong I guess the Canons have no more heft than a fairy tale either. But this level of anti-scriptural ‘liberalism’ leads to a church with ministers accountable only to themselves (on earth) for what they believe and teach. You may think that’s good – but at least have the intellectual honesty to acknowledge that it is a novel and thorough overturning… Read more »
Not being bound by scripture doesn’t make me “anti-scriptural” as you put it. My faith is of course formed by Scripture and tradition. We don’t do our discerning in a vacuum.
My point was simply that the argument seems to revolve around what is “orthodox”, but that there’s a more fundamental question: is orthodoxy correct, or might it need modifying?
If you can tell me why I should believe that every recorded utterance of Jesus must be entirely historically accurate and why he never made any mistakes I’ll gladly reconsider!
A doctrine of marriage. Well, how many doctrines of Holy Communion can be found in the Church of England?
Several, no doubt. But Article XXVIII and the BCP give us benchmarks for assessing their propriety.
And the sacramental portions of the Catechism.
Thank you, Perry. I think the above comment applies to your point. P.S. my diocese has just appointed a ‘Church Planting and Growth Officer’ who is coming to us from a position as Senior Pastor at a Pentecostal Church. So much for sacraments!
I am not sure that Article helps us very much. It tells us what the consecrated elements are not and what we should not do with them. The consecrated elements are the body and blood of Christ. We are left to interpret what that means.
Article XVIII needs to be read alongside Article XXV which describe sacraments as effectual signs of grace.They effect what they signify and signify what they effect. I always recommend students read ” The Mystery of the Eucharist in the Anglican Tradition” by H.R.McAdoo and Kenneth Stevenson ( forward by +Rowan) Canterbury Press 1995.
Ian’s agenda is to ‘draw a line under LLF’ as if that makes the discrimination against LGBT+ people go away. It doesn’t. In terms of what is believed in the Church of England today, it’s well possible that more than half the members of the Church of England affirm gay and lesbian relationships. In the context of such a divided Church, at the very least there should be respect for conscience, especially since it is God-given. To be clear, the gay-affirming half of the Church has already proposed right of conscience for socially ‘conservative’ priests and individuals to opt out… Read more »
Thank you for saying this hidden sister. I suspect the bishops are hoping if they procrastinate once again this will all go away. It won’t. Not till LGBT Christians are given full equality.
Please – there are bishops who want everything we want and have been trying to enable this. We know very well they are not of one mind.
Yes, that I concede. And I tend to use ‘bishops’ as a synonym for ‘house of bishops’ which may not be fair to those in the college but outside the house. However, I do wish the bishops who ‘want everything we want…’ would now show some leadership– in public. Unless I’ve missed it, we’ve heard a few platitudes about disappointment but nothing about the way forward from those in the purple who purport to be LGBT supportive, which is something many, many LGBT Anglicans (myself included) really need to hear right now. When the press release signalling the demise of… Read more »
Brilliantly summed up Sister
Not so, absolutely not so. If, as you speculate, more than half of the C of E members accept and embrace change, then they should leave the organisation and set up something new. They could then leave the “miserable” conservatives to keep their historic doctrine and their canons and , in their view, sink beneath the waves.
I am a Labour Party supporter, they are polling around 17% in the national opinion polls. I am therefore in a minority but shall continue to support Labour as this is my conviction.
I assure you I don’t think you’re miserable, Geoff. You have ardour for God and I pray God blesses you. None of us should have to leave. Besides, we are all one in Christ whether we like it or not. We need to have compassion for one another. It is so sad when we don’t. But we know in the end Love will win, and I say that in full confidence in the Resurrection, not as a political statement. Our eyes will see the King in His Glory, and see a land that stretches afar. May God give us the… Read more »
I do find it rather strange that there are people on both sides of this discussion who think those who disagree should leave and set up their own denomination. Surely that is not what Christians are called to do? Surely Christians are called to live together in their disagreement, to love one another in their disagreement, to find ways to care for one another in their disagreement? Because, as Jesus himself is recorded as saying, it is when his followers show such care and consideration for each other that others may see that they have something new, that they have… Read more »
‘de facto’ v. ‘de jure’
Just do it.
Apollo v. Dionysus.
It’s just a reality, that in the Church of England we believe two different things about gay sexuality. That’s ‘de facto’. In other words there is a difference between what the Church of England purportedly believes, and what it actually does. We… the people who make up the Church… ARE the Church of England. There is always a tension between obedience and the exercise of God-given conscience when obedience leads to other people being harmed. In strategic terms, it may be best for gay-affirming Christians to be patient as they campaign, and to retain a moral high ground. For example,… Read more »
Brilliant. Hidden Sister for the next Archbishop of Canterbury! … assuming she’s not already 🙂
Maybe love is the de jure? Aha that is exactly what you wrote !
“As the greatest of the medieval scholastics, Aquinas is representative of the thinking of the church catholic.” Ermmm west-centric much?? (And that’s not the only problem with the sentence.)
There are things I dont understand- having really tried to read these over and over again. 1. When did marriage become doctrine in the C of E (unlike the catholic sacramental view where secular/other faith marriages are not sacraments and do not need annulments ) – noting marriage is not creedal. 2. When did the high proportion of CofE members views and the views of the ACC, TEC, the Episcopal Church of Scotland and the Church in Wales of faithfully and communally interpreting scripture and the words of Jesus to be permissive of same sex marriage have absolutely no weight… Read more »