Thinking Anglicans

Justin Welby interview

The Archbishop of Canterbury was recently interviewed for The Rest is Politics podcast. The wide-ranging interview is also available on YouTube. The topics covered are listed below with links to where they start in the YouTube video.

The section “Is LGBT love sinful?” has attracted much comment. The Church Times has covered the interview and there has been a statement from Lambeth Palace.

Links to YouTube video

00:00 Intro
00:20 The Archbishop’s dad
03:50 The Archbishop’s mum
06:43 Alcoholism in his house
09:10 How he found his faith
10:00 How he found being a teenager
11:48 What did he want to do with his life
14:05 How he decided he wanted to be a priest
19:00 Archbishop’s relationship with politics
23:40 His experience of the war on terror
30:30 Israel and Palestine
36:47 How to feel hopeful
39:05 Peace building
41:05 The death of Queen Elizabeth II
45:50 The Coronation of Charles III
48:35 Is LGBT love sinful?
52:50 The Church as a broad coalition
54:50 The Church is growing
55:25 Mental health
59:40 What Christ brought to the world
1:01:35 Trump
1:04:37 Politics and power
1:07:10 Is he going to criticise keir starmer
1:07:41 Debrief

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

164 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Mitch McLean
Mitch McLean
13 days ago

Until this point I was holding up hope that he actually personally held to the doctrine of the Church of England that sexual intimacy belongs in marriage (between a man and a woman) only but was just getting weak-willed about enforcing it. It seems that was wishful thinking.

Lord, have mercy.

Bob
Bob
Reply to  Mitch McLean
13 days ago

Sadly it’s not just Welby but Cottrell as well plus a majority of the bishops too. They have renounced their vows.

Bishops: Will you teach the doctrine of Christ as the Church of England has received it, will you refute error (Titus 1:9) and will you hand on entire the faith that is entrusted to you?

Their answer is an emphatic NO!

Kate Keates
Kate Keates
Reply to  Bob
13 days ago

Have you considered that they are, in fact, teaching doctrine as they understand it correctly to be? You disagree with them. As do many in the Alliance.

Given the behaviour of the Alliance, I don’t think good disagreement is a valid option any longer. The best would be for the Alliance to take the matter to court and get it definitively settled one way or another.

Bob
Bob
Reply to  Kate Keates
13 days ago

Are they teaching the faith as received? As set out in the Book of Common prayer?

Too old to genuflect
Too old to genuflect
Reply to  Bob
12 days ago

Or De Heretico Comburendo?

Caelius Spinator
Caelius Spinator
Reply to  Kate Keates
13 days ago

Indeed. This is classic Book VIII of Hooker’s Lawes, interpreting Deuteronomy 17:9-12.

Martin Sewell
Martin Sewell
Reply to  Kate Keates
12 days ago

In the secular world, the Government has underwritten the costs of a third party to bring a Court action to secure a definitive resolution of an important uncertainty via a Court judgement.

I personally conducted such litigation and was paid by my “ sympathetic opponent” who saw that my client’s case was a helpful and clear test case for their future planning. Ordinarily nobody wants to risk costs liability in such. litigation

Openmind
Openmind
Reply to  Bob
13 days ago

Have a look at Psephizo for Andrew Goddard’s forensic takedowns of the Archbishop’s catastrophic utterances.

Bob
Bob
Reply to  Openmind
13 days ago

Thanks. I have done so. I have also listened to him, and read the attempts to clarify the comments as his personal views.

Simon Sarmiento
Reply to  Openmind
13 days ago
Too old to genuflect
Too old to genuflect
Reply to  Openmind
13 days ago

Kyrie eleison

Too old to genuflect
Too old to genuflect
Reply to  Bob
13 days ago

The Christian Faith is not contingent on what people do with their wobbly bits.
Why have sections of the Church become obsessed with physical sex rather than focussing on relationships and love.

Bob
Bob
Reply to  Too old to genuflect
13 days ago

I believe you have missed the point of my comment. The bishops said yes to the following charge: “Will you teach the doctrine of Christ as the Church of England has received it.” They are clearly not doing so.

Too old to genuflect
Too old to genuflect
Reply to  Bob
13 days ago

I am not sure that the DOCTRINE of the CofE has much to say about human sexuality. Far too hot to handle.
But I did understand the point of your comment.
I suspect you are claiming a non existent authority from the CofE for your own particular hang up about sex.
Do otherwise tell me where this ‘doctrine’ is to be found in the historic authoritative documents of the CofE….but please spare me a proof text.

Tim P
Tim P
Reply to  Too old to genuflect
12 days ago

I think it’s fair to say that there is an understanding on the “doctrine” of the Church of England – and in particular with relation to human sexuality e.g. in the document “issues in human sexuality” Now to what extent were people ever meant to fully agree/believe that document when they make that vow – or to what extent they could just understand it as the doctrine and that they shouldn’t teach that the official line is different – or something else – I think that’s another question. There is also the point that your interpretation of that vow would… Read more »

Too old to genuflect
Too old to genuflect
Reply to  Tim P
11 days ago

There is such a huge difference between clergy discipline and doctrine. That rather discredited nasty little booklet ‘Issues ‘ to which you refer is not a statement of doctrine but of discipline. Furthermore it makes no ethical sense to insist on one set of ethical disciplines for the clergy but not Christian laity. The book is about discipline, NOT doctrine. It seems that clergy across the decades and indeed centuries have disagreed with their bishops but it is a matter of which lines you cross. Many of us firmly believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharistic elements. That is… Read more »

Tim P
Tim P
Reply to  Too old to genuflect
11 days ago

I think we may agree on a lot (T.o.t.g.) but where we differ is that I think it’s reasonable to say that the doctrine of the Church of England within the context of marriage and sex is a thing that is relatively well understood. “issues” may not be the best example – ok I take your point. But certainly the arguments in synod up to this point have hinged around “do we change the doctrine of marriage / do we uphold the doctrine” – and many people have talked about the preface in the liturgy that says one man and… Read more »

Too old to genuflect
Too old to genuflect
Reply to  Tim P
11 days ago

I do take your point but the 1662 marriage Service marriage is for the feeble who cannot do the real thing and abstain from sex.. ..A cure gainst fornication that such that have not the gift of continency might marry and keep themselves undefiled… ..I am quoting from memory…forgive any lapses there!! If that is where Anglican ‘orthodoxy’ springs,….then Lord have mercy. I have to admit to being a dangerous liberal on social justice issues but also believe that in this case ‘The words of the prophets are written on the subway walls’. The under 50s tend to look at… Read more »

J C Fisher
J C Fisher
Reply to  Bob
10 days ago

Because “opposite-sex marriage ONLY” is not {gasp!} “the doctrine of Christ as the Church of England has received it”, but only arises from the narrow minds of bigots?

Bob
Bob
Reply to  J C Fisher
9 days ago

The phrase you have quoted comes from the vows taken by the bishops and other clergy in the Church of England. They all have agreed to it. Does that make them all bigots?

Janet Varty
Janet Varty
Reply to  Too old to genuflect
12 days ago

Exactly, well said.

Martin
Martin
Reply to  Bob
13 days ago

It’s a shame you have you have only focused on the sex. He spoke honestly and openly about lots of things and came across very well.

Bob
Bob
Reply to  Martin
13 days ago

I have not done so. I have focused on the vows taken by the bishops. They said yes to the following charge: “Will you teach the doctrine of Christ as the Church of England has received it.” They are clearly not doing so.

John Darch
John Darch
Reply to  Bob
12 days ago

So the church’s doctrine, which has evolved and developed over the centuries, is now to to set in stone at a point in time of your particular preference?

Bob
Bob
Reply to  John Darch
12 days ago

There is an agreed process within the Church of England for changing doctrine. It is not through the ABC announcing the change on a podcast. If he wants to change doctrine he goes through General Synod.

Kate Keates
Kate Keates
Reply to  Bob
11 days ago

One thing that is becoming clear is that while conservatives think there is a clear doctrine of marriage many of the rest of us don’t see it that way.

David Runcorn
David Runcorn
Reply to  Bob
9 days ago

‘ … the ABC announcing the change on a podcast’. Which he didn’t at all actually. This is such a distorted view. And the agreed process has been under way in General Synod for some time and is continuing.

Tony Bellows
Tony Bellows
Reply to  David Runcorn
2 days ago

Quite right – he was commenting on committed relationships in society, not the CoE marriage rites.

Tony Bellows
Tony Bellows
Reply to  Bob
2 days ago

Justin Welby said nothing about advocating same sex marriage within the rites of the Church of England. His comments were on same sex marriage and commitments in society in general.

Jeremy Pemberton
Jeremy Pemberton
Reply to  Bob
1 day ago

The ‘change of doctrine’, as you would put it, to allow women to be ordained to all three orders of ministry, took place only after a long period of discussion and debate, with those, including some bishops, who wanted to see this change, laying out their position in sermons, pamphlets and books. Were they wrong to do so? And what is your understanding of how doctrine develops? Demands for bishops to adhere to the doctrine of the church is one thing – but a church does, in fact, develop and change how its beliefs allow it to live in the… Read more »

Tony Bellows
Tony Bellows
Reply to  Bob
2 days ago

I thought “The Doctrine of Christ” was to do primarily with the nature of Christ, and the Trinity, as for example embodied in the creeds, and what is usually termed Christology. Does it include wider theological doctrines, or is this something assumed but not necessarily true.

Tony Bellows
Tony Bellows
Reply to  Martin
2 days ago

Well said. But sadly parts of the Church of England are totally obsessed with sex. I somehow don’t think it was edited out when Jesus told his listeners the greatest commandments. As for “Will you teach the doctrine of Christ as the Church of England has received it”, the Tractarians showed just how wide the scope of interpretation could be. Remarriage in Church was once seen as impossible, and C.S. Lewis was rebuffed by a Bishop for asking for a church marriage service for him and Joy. The core doctrinal area has to be the 39 Articles which do not… Read more »

Lorenzo
Lorenzo
Reply to  Bob
13 days ago

They obviously have come to believe that it’s not error. You’re not infallible yourself.

Bob
Bob
Reply to  Lorenzo
13 days ago

Never claimed to be! The bishops said yes to the following charge:
“Will you teach the doctrine of Christ as the Church of England has received it.” They are not doing so.

J C Fisher
J C Fisher
Reply to  Bob
10 days ago

Opposite-Sex ONLY Marriage Is Not Doctrine!

I’m sorry you’ve allowed yourself to believe it is. May I respectfully suggest you get to know some same-sex couples in your parish?

David Runcorn
David Runcorn
Reply to  Bob
9 days ago

Bob. You made this claim several times in the form of a loaded question on the previous discussion thread to this one. I went to the trouble there of responding – explaining the Anglican the understanding of doctrine and this is not a renouncing of faith my ordination vows. You chose not to reply but to continue to repeat your accusations here. I am not sure what you are hoping to achieve by doing this and you show no sign of wanting to engage with those you disagree with.

Anglican Priest
Anglican Priest
Reply to  Mitch McLean
13 days ago

I listened and had a sense of vacuity and politics. I wonder if this is simply the inevitable result of an establishment polity coupled with enforcers of it lacking any genuine theological/historical training. The Church of England will be what England is. One might note that this is also a view emptying the pews.

Last edited 13 days ago by Anglican Priest
FrDavid H
FrDavid H
Reply to  Anglican Priest
13 days ago

We can be thankful the Episcopal Church isn’t what America is. Fifty per cent of the English aren’t in thrall to a madman.

Anglican Priest
Anglican Priest
Reply to  FrDavid H
12 days ago

What in the world does that mean? You need to get out and do something constructive or fun! TEC is a tiny denominated entity, which like the CofE, contains people of differing political views.
My point should have been obvious: The Archbishop speaks as if his office has no genuine identity or responsibility. It’s just a man telling us his thoughts and feelings a la interview.

Last edited 12 days ago by Anglican Priest
FrDavid H
FrDavid H
Reply to  Anglican Priest
12 days ago

Unlike Trump, Welby isn’t a dictator. His opinions are no more important than the bishops of the Episcopal Church which you are always quick to deride.

Anglican Priest
Anglican Priest
Reply to  FrDavid H
12 days ago

“His opinions are no more important than…” is a ridiculous statement, frankly. (I leave aside whether the Bishops of TEC are also just issuing bromides a la carte). He is the Archbishop of Canterbury. If he wants to issue opinions, he can do that in another role and another context.

J C Fisher
J C Fisher
Reply to  Mitch McLean
10 days ago

Lord have mercy, on all those like you Mitch, who cannot see spousal love, blessed by God, between faithful same-sex couples.

Mitch McLean
Mitch McLean
Reply to  J C Fisher
10 days ago

Maybe you can help me? What Bible verse tells you that God blesses same-sex couples, or considers them as ‘spouses’, or considers their sexual activity as ‘faithful’?

J C Fisher
J C Fisher
Reply to  Mitch McLean
9 days ago

“Bible verse”. If you can’t find it in all the utterances about LOVE from my Lord Jesus Christ, there’s nothing I can say that will convince you.

Beyond that: Scripture, Tradition, and Reason. All while praying for the guidance of the Holy Spirit, that’s how I discern. I thought all Anglicans did?

Too old to genuflect
Too old to genuflect
Reply to  Mitch McLean
9 days ago

What Bible verse allows us to wear polyester clothes?

David Runcorn
David Runcorn
Reply to  Mitch McLean
8 days ago

The Inclusive case from scripture is an accumulative one. There are no explicit texts and examples. ‘Show me one text’, comes the demand. ‘Give me one example of blessed gay couples in scripture’. But this is not how scripture teaches and reveals. It is not a divine encyclopedia with a text and example for every life question – so that if ‘Blessed gay couples’ are not found in the index, well, they are obviously not biblical. Nor do we obey every place in the bible where there is a clear text and example. For instance, the church has never campaigned… Read more »

Tim Chesterton
Reply to  Mitch McLean
8 days ago

I certainly can’t find a Bible verse that tells you God is okay with you lending out money at interest; every time this is mentioned in the Bible it is condemned. How’s your pension plan doing? And are you enabling sin by taking out a mortgage?

Christopher
Christopher
13 days ago

Seems to have been taken off youtube

Rev Richard Fisher, Staffordshire
Rev Richard Fisher, Staffordshire
Reply to  Christopher
13 days ago

still there

Maungy Vicar
Maungy Vicar
13 days ago

I am struggling to understand why clergy had licences denied, and why others were subject to clergy discipline and ordinands had to assent to the House of Bishops guidelines on human sexuality for such a long time, if it was not a doctrinal issue.

Fr Dexter Bracey
Fr Dexter Bracey
Reply to  Maungy Vicar
13 days ago

Would such people now have a case to take against the C of E given this archiepiscopal uttering?

Lorenzo
Lorenzo
Reply to  Maungy Vicar
13 days ago

Well, Maungy, you’re not alone, if it makes you feel a little less mangy.

Lorenzo
Lorenzo
Reply to  Maungy Vicar
13 days ago

Maungy, obviously. It is upsetting however, and you are absolutely right.

Tim P
Tim P
Reply to  Lorenzo
12 days ago

I think there’s an obvious answer – – because things can change. It may have been a doctrinal issue e.g. 5 years ago when those people had licenses denied. It may still be a doctrinal issue – or maybe he has revealed it is no longer a doctrinal issue – – but either way that doesn’t mean that it wasn’t in the past. It may mean that the church of England was wrong in the past – – and there may be a case for asking if a bulk “re-assess” certain cases could be useful. Now whether or not things… Read more »

Lorenzo
Lorenzo
Reply to  Tim P
10 days ago

I don’t understand, Tim, it was either a doctrinal issue all along or it never was a doctrinal issue. It has nothing to do with the fact that the doctrine in question has changed.

Tim P
Tim P
Reply to  Lorenzo
8 days ago

I don’t understand where you’re coming from. You seem to accept that doctrine may change; but then the concept of something being a ‘doctrinal issue’ you seem to take as never changing… Surely it is just as possible to come to a new understanding on what is important and what matters are less important. That all being said – – so far as I understand; officially the doctrine of the CofE is unchanged; but the “importance” on the doctrine of marriage being hetero-normative is in some sense being pushed down – to the extent that it’s more acceptable to not… Read more »

Martyn
Martyn
Reply to  Tim P
6 days ago

As I say, the CofE was opposed to polygamy in the 19th and 20th centuries. It saw it as a “missionary problem”. Bishop Colenso saw it differently and as a cultural and social issue of which he was tolerant. Conservative bishops in the CofE went so far as to take Colenso to the Privy Council seeking to have him deposed for his views. The Privy Council declined to do this. From 1888 to 1988, the CofE – through Lambeth Conferences – agonised about whether polygamous men could be baptised. Or, as some argued, they could receive Christian instruction (?!) but… Read more »

Last edited 6 days ago by Martyn
Francis James
Francis James
13 days ago

No fan at all of Welby, indeed I think he is a disaster as ABC.
This was a remarkably soft interview, but hysterical overreaction towards parts of it by those on conevo wing of CofE is a sad reminder that some Christians love to hate.

Martin Sewell
Martin Sewell
13 days ago

Sorry to inject a cynical note, but it is as easy as pie for the leader of a political party to say, “Look, I don’t believe in the death penalty / Brexit/ defence cuts etc but that’s not where our party is at the moment. I recognise that the mood of the country has changed, but our party delegates, and those who they represent, remain of the same mind, so while my personal views are clear, I’m afraid this is where we are at.” Welby is doing what he does best: playing to the press gallery which is ill equipped… Read more »

Susanna (no ‘h’)
Susanna (no ‘h’)
Reply to  Martin Sewell
13 days ago

And with a bit of luck the noise of the baying of the Alliance and chums about section G this or that and false teachers will drown out a lot of the response to the Smyth report, which , after all, is only overdue safeguarding

Adrian Clarke
Adrian Clarke
Reply to  Susanna (no ‘h’)
12 days ago

What has the Alliance got to do with Smyth report? I don’t understand.

Paul
Paul
Reply to  Martin Sewell
12 days ago

Hi Martin, I always enjoy your contributions and I agree about Welby playing to the press gallery and the failure to challenge him on safeguarding. However, I’m confused by your “change in doctrine” comments. I agree that the doctrine of marriage was one of the key issues at stake in the English Reformation: “Can clergy marry?” “Is marriage a sacrament?” Important questions! Clear and controversial answers were given to those questions and were part of why the CofE broke from Rome. This means that the CofE does have a defined set of teachings about marriage, i.e. a doctrine of marriage.… Read more »

Martin Sewell
Martin Sewell
Reply to  Paul
12 days ago

Are we not in the area of discussion of “ first and second order issues” in this part of the debate? The 39 Articles remove marriage from the list of sacraments as part of our breach with Rome – not least rejecting its authority and ( what I would term ) moral gravitational pull – though some still feel it and I do not criticise them for it. So the CofE outplaces the law relating to marriage into the sphere of the Kings Authority. That authority has been exercised by “ The King in Parliament” to redefine who can enter… Read more »

Paul
Paul
Reply to  Martin Sewell
12 days ago

I wholeheartedly agree that it would be good to see the advice given by the lawyers. Your own work has repeatedly revealed that we should be a bit cautious when powerful people tell us “Trust us. It’s all legal and above-board. No, we won’t let you see the evidence yourself. Just trust us.” As you say, we are in discussion about first and second order issues. I think that it is a first order issue, which is why it was enshrined in Canon law and listed as something which every minister must be ready to teach. I agree that Cranmer… Read more »

Allan Sheath
Allan Sheath
Reply to  Martin Sewell
12 days ago

If the opinion of Canon lawyers fails to convince, could the doctrine of ‘reception’ help? Catholic thought has become far more ready to see the Church’s teaching office less as a discrete activity received, as it where, in splendid isolation, and more as the work of the whole Church in receiving what is being taught. A process of to-and-fro, if you like; a conversation. If this is so, then the witness of committed, faithful gay couples in the life of the Church (lived out despite all we lay on them) will be intrinsic to that conversation. The teaching office of… Read more »

Janet Fife
Janet Fife
Reply to  Paul
12 days ago

We’ve already made the procreation of children optional; permitted divorce and remarriage; and dropped the bride’s father giving her away, and the bride’s vow to obey her husband. Those are pretty substantial changes from the BCP’s ‘doctrine’ of marriage.

Too old to genuflect
Too old to genuflect
Reply to  Janet Fife
6 days ago

Is it doctrine, discipline or practice.
I fear discipline and practice are being confused with doctrine.

Jo B
Jo B
Reply to  Paul
12 days ago

Given that the CofE permits the remarriage of divorcees within the lifetime of a former spouse, in apparent contradiction of the quoted canon (and dominical command), why didn’t that result in demands for a third province and accusations of apostasy? Why is the “one man with one woman” essential but “till death do them part” is able to be fudged? Why is lifelong celibacy demanded of gay people, particularly clergy, but not divorcees? It seems to me that there are two possible answers. One is simply homophobia, that disgust towards gay people makes the objections more determined and visceral. Two… Read more »

Paul
Paul
Reply to  Jo B
12 days ago

Hi Jo, I can’t speak for everyone; but I can give you my own logic. I believe that Jesus permitted remarriage in the case of porneia; and this has been the mainstream Protestant understanding. In permitting remarriage in such cases the CofE was simply rejoining the mainstream. It does not contradict Canon B30 in that marriage remains intended to be lifelong by nature, not temporary. I do not feel a visceral disgust towards gay people. I appreciate that it’s impossible to prove that to you in an anonymous blog comment, but it is true. I don’t think we will “win”… Read more »

Charles Read
Charles Read
Reply to  Paul
12 days ago

Why would you be forced out? The prayers are optional – and we have accommodated different views over many other things. The bishops are bending over backwards to keep people in – even allowing ‘alternative’ ordinations.

Janet Fife
Janet Fife
Reply to  Paul
11 days ago

When the C of E decided to permit remarriage after divorce, it didn’t restrict such marriages to cases of adultery.

Jospeh
Jospeh
Reply to  Jo B
12 days ago

And third factor will be that we are slowly drifting away from the scriptures bit by bit and a time has come to put the foot down and say stop it.

Charles Read
Charles Read
Reply to  Paul
12 days ago

Two observations / questions:

  1. Can the church of England ever make any changers to its doctrine and practice then? Do you not think the ordination of women and the permission of divorce / remarriage are such changes?
  2. I think you read too much into the BCP and Canons – the Reformation issue was about clerical celibacy. Other apects of marriage were not under discussion.
Paul
Paul
Reply to  Charles Read
12 days ago

Hi Charles,

  1. There are well defined paths for changing Canon Law – 2/3rds majority in Synod and all that; as far as I can see the processes were followed for decisions around divorce and female ordination. (I was too young to be involved.)
  2. The Canons remain the CofE’s law and take a very clear view on these things.
Charles Read
Charles Read
Reply to  Paul
12 days ago

And there are moves to make those changes in synod. __Justin was describing what he thinks many bishops think. Surely bishops are allowed to think things through and then campaign for official change?

Paul
Paul
Reply to  Charles Read
10 days ago

Hi Charles,

Yes, they are allowed to push for official change. But the bishops keep saying that they *aren’t* doing this and so it is not necessary for them to get a 2/3rds majority. This is why the process feels dishonest to people like me.

Kate Keates
Kate Keates
Reply to  Paul
11 days ago

As I have explained elsewhere on this thread, I don’t see anything which breaches the letter of Canon Law and, for all their bluster and resources, the Alliance hasn’t mounted a legal case.

Martin Sewell
Martin Sewell
Reply to  Charles Read
12 days ago

There seems to be some slippery reasoning in play here, which I am sure is not intended. Let’s unpack it- It should be borne in mind that: 1. A doctrine is an agree set of beliefs taught by a church, political party etc. For the church, the incarnation and resurrection of Jesus plainly fall into the ‘doctrine’ category. Marriage is a second order matter. It is not a sacrament in the CofE, and the BCP makes it clear that the church/minister “solemnises” the relationship. That is the CofE’s view on marriage, and it does not amount to a doctrine. 2.… Read more »

Allan Sheath
Allan Sheath
Reply to  Martin Sewell
11 days ago

Sadly, arguments over what we believe marriage to be, and whether that amounts to a doctrine, are not cutting any ice with conservatives, for whom the C of E clearly does have a doctrine of marriage.

But if, for the sake of argument, we allow that we do have a doctrine of marriage, as you point out, it’s a doctrine that the C of E has changed in the past and can change in future. Our reception of doctrine is not set in stone – it is a living process, always has been and always will be.

Tim P
Tim P
Reply to  Allan Sheath
10 days ago

As Martin says “A doctrine is an agreed set of beliefs taught by a church, political party etc” The belief that marriage is for one man to one woman was something taught by the church – taught through the liturgy and taught through sermons for many years unchallenged. Hence doctrine… Martin then just takes states that marriage is something that falls into a different category – – I don’t follow the logic for it – and I don’t think it matters as it becomes word-smithing surely? Whether or not it is a doctrine – or some other ‘category of thing… Read more »

Allan Sheath
Allan Sheath
Reply to  Tim P
9 days ago

‘do we now feel confident we have the “right” opinion.’? Good question! I think we have to accept that our reception of doctrine is always going to be provisional. When the books are open we may find that we were wrong! This should keep us humble – but also hopeful.

Tim P
Tim P
Reply to  Allan Sheath
10 days ago

I think I agree with you Allan. I don’t understand why there is an argument that it is or isn’t a doctrine…

Paul
Paul
Reply to  Martin Sewell
10 days ago

Hi Martin, I promise I’m not trying to be slippery! I’m in agreement with your definition of doctrine as “an agreed set of beliefs taught by a church, political party.” I would argue that this is exactly what the Convocations of Canterbury and York thought they were doing with Canon B30 in 1964 and 1969. In Canon B30 they were defining what ministers should teach in that area – that sounds like “an agreed set of beliefs taught by a church”. They did not claim that Moses came down the mountain carrying Canon B30, but they did call it “the… Read more »

Kieran
Kieran
Reply to  Paul
9 days ago

Paul, picking up on your last point. Marriage is not a first-order matter because it is not a doctrine that is to be believed as essential to salvation. One example of this would be the doctrine of God as Trinity: three persons in one being, co-equal, co-eternal, with a single divine will. Another would be belief in the divinity of Christ. Marriage has no bearing on these essential doctrines, which is what makes it a second order issue. Marriage is not codified by any historical creed of the undivided Church. It is essentially a matter of discipline which may or… Read more »

Last edited 9 days ago by Kieran
Paul
Paul
Reply to  Kieran
9 days ago

Hi Kieran,

Thank you for this – I think your framework is correct. This should be about matters that are essential to salvation – I think that is the approach of the Athanasian Creed and the Apostle Paul. We should not dare to separate from another Christian over something which is not as weighty as eternal salvation.

I would argue from 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 that we are in the field of things that affect eternal salvation. I think that 1 Corinthians 5:9-11 demands that we must separate in these circumstances.

Kieran
Kieran
Reply to  Paul
8 days ago

Hello Paul, thanks for your reply. I would argue from Romans 2:21-24 that people quoting Paul as a support for much in most questions needing a hefty reality check.

Paul
Paul
Reply to  Kieran
8 days ago

I wholeheartedly agree that we should seek to take the log out of our own eye first; but I don’t want to give up learning from the apostle Paul.

Kate Keates
Kate Keates
Reply to  Paul
12 days ago

You are quoting selectively. You ignore Canon 36.1 “If any persons have contracted marriage before the civil registrar under the provisions of the statute law, and shall afterwards desire to add thereto a service of Solemnization of Matrimony, a minister may, if he see fit, use such form of service, as may be approved by the General Synod under Canon B” Synod has approved PLF so this section applies and, in terms of civil marriage which is followed by a service, there is no requirement for a couple to be a man and a woman. Canon 36.1 relies upon the… Read more »

Paul
Paul
Reply to  Kate Keates
12 days ago

Hi Kate, This is an interesting line of argument which I haven’t come across before. However, I don’t find it persuasive. The minister is to perform a service only “if he see fit”. If someone unreservedly, joyfully and wholeheartedly believes in the doctrine of marriage as laid out in Canon B2 then they would not “see fit” to bless a marriage between anything other than one man and one woman. My primary concern in this thread is that Welby no longer appears to believe in the doctrine of marriage as laid out in Canon B30 and I think that is… Read more »

Tim P
Tim P
Reply to  Paul
11 days ago

Your reasoning on ‘if he see fit’ – and hence some couldn’t do it – ignores that is part of the point of PLF. Not every minister will do that; you have to opt-in rather than it being assumed. So only if you “see fit”. So what you say makes PLF seem more compatible with canon. As for whether Welby no longer believes in the idea of marriage in B30 or not. It does sound like “no” or at least “not as exclusively the only committed relationship type” His opinion isn’t a new doctrine though, he isn’t the pope and… Read more »

Paul
Paul
Reply to  Tim P
10 days ago

I agree that no-one is going to be forced to do anything. My point is that you cannot wholeheartedly do your duty under Canon B30 (explain that “marriage is in its nature a union […] of one man with one woman”) and then “see fit” to perform a same-sex marriage.

I was responding to the idea that Canon 36.1 gives space for blessing a same-sex marriage – I don’t believe that it does.

Adrian Clarke
Adrian Clarke
Reply to  Paul
9 days ago

The prayers are carefully drafted by legal experts to avoid any reference to sex or marriage, they just refer to committed same sex relationships (although Justin Welby has just driven a coach and horses through that slight of hand). If same sex marriage did not involve a change in doctrine, you can be sure the lawyers would have given a green light to its introduction, but they appear not to have done, which leaves the bishops in a bind.

Too old to genuflect
Too old to genuflect
Reply to  Paul
9 days ago

Scribes and Pharisees?

Martin Sewell
Martin Sewell
Reply to  Paul
11 days ago

Paul Please be clear, the conscience issue has been fully conceded at Synod and summed up in the motto “All may, none must”. The debate has moved into the legal sphere so within that environment can we please have the actual date of this CofE “doctrine’ of marriage you keep appealing to, and also the definition adopted? Does the description of marriage contained in the Canon actually describe itself as a doctrine, or is it a Canon? As canons and doctrines are not the same things, could you explain by what authority and by whose powers these terms are being… Read more »

Martin Sewell
Martin Sewell
Reply to  Martin Sewell
10 days ago

“Further to my last comment, we have a date defining the doctrine of the Trinity – 325, Nicea – and a creed thereafter (Nicene). We have the finalised doctrine of the incarnation in 425 from Chalcedon, and usually referred to as ‘the Chalcedonian Definition’. There are doctrines of salvation too, the last of which was 1647 – the Westminster Confession. The above are all doctrinal statements, and result in Creeds or Articles of Faith. But I am struggling to find the date and place for this very elusive “doctrine of marriage” that has entered the bishop’s phrasebook. If the bishops… Read more »

Paul
Paul
Reply to  Martin Sewell
10 days ago

Hi Martin, Apologies, I made a typo in my comment and I can see it has confused things. It should read: ‘If someone unreservedly, joyfully and wholeheartedly believes in the doctrine of marriage as laid out in Canon *B30* then they would not “see fit” to bless a marriage between anything other than one man and one woman.’ Canon B30 was promulged by the Convocations of Canterbury and York in 1964 and 1969, but claims to reflect a much older consensus of the Church and the teaching of Jesus. It explicitly calls its description of marriage “the Church’s doctrine of… Read more »

Charles Clapham
Charles Clapham
Reply to  Paul
9 days ago

Not really sure it’s worth jumping in here, Paul, but… if indeed Canon B30.1 sets out ‘the doctrine of marriage’ (and is not merely about church discipline and practice), you appear to want to take the bit about marriage being a union ‘between one man with one woman’ as absolute, but the bit about it being ‘permanent and lifelong, for better for worse, till death them do part’ with a bit of flexibility. The latter element would clearly rule out divorce, let alone remarriage after divorce, and especially among clergy. But instead of accepting that, it seems to me that… Read more »

Last edited 9 days ago by Charles Clapham
Charles Clapham
Charles Clapham
Reply to  Charles Clapham
8 days ago

To pursue this in rather more legal way… Others will know better than me, but I think this issue of the (re)interpretation of Canon B30 was raised at least as far as the Lichfield report (1978) which (in the context of a discussion of divorce and remarriage) noted that the phrase “in its nature” when describing marriage in canon B30 could be taken to mean “either the characteristic and normative nature of marriage” or (rather more rigidly) “its determinative and invariable essence”. On the basis that it could be understood as the former (characteristic) rather than the latter (invariable), the… Read more »

Last edited 8 days ago by Charles Clapham
Allan Sheath
Allan Sheath
Reply to  Charles Clapham
8 days ago

Where this parallel breaks down is that remarriage after divorce (in the language of GS 1449) “could be permitted as a pastoral accommodation”; a concession to human frailty. This implies that our sexual orientation is a moral choice that we are free to make, and that same sex marriage is a concession to those who have fallen short. I can’t think this is what you mean – have I missed something?

Charles Clapham
Charles Clapham
Reply to  Allan Sheath
8 days ago

No, Allan, I wouldn’t want to say that same sex marriage is a concession “to those who have fallen short” or that sexual orientation is a choice. My intervention was merely a comment on the legal status of the PLF (which are much less than the same sex marriage I would like to be able conduct) – namely, that if we can remarry divorcees in church, and clergy themselves can get remarried after divorce, without having to rewrite Canon B30, which describes marriage as permanent and lifelong (by nature, not merely in intention – the latter being the modern liberal… Read more »

Allan Sheath
Allan Sheath
Reply to  Charles Clapham
7 days ago

Thank you, Charles, for your clarification. I had assumed that was so (although others less well disposed to same sex marriage might have seen it differently). Canon B30 describes marriage as ‘in its nature a union permanent and lifelong, …of one man with one woman.’ And, as you say, we now remarry divorcees without Canon B30 having to be rewritten. ‘By nature’ here appearing to mean normative though not essential. But although this is an important methodological admission – as is the fact that marriages do break down – it seems a stretch to apply it to ‘one man with… Read more »

Jo B
Jo B
Reply to  Allan Sheath
7 days ago

The thing is, monogamy is a custom and assumption that Christians have inherited. Commitment and faithfulness are normative, but it doesn’t follow that there are not polyamorous relationships meeting those criteria that are blessed by God. I suspect that such relationships are likely less stable, but it’s also possible that for those few who can make them work, that they offer an example of mutual sacrificial love that goes beyond two people.

T Pott
T Pott
Reply to  Allan Sheath
7 days ago

One man and multiple women is certainly Biblical.
It is said Protestant men can have sixteen wives: four richer, four poorer, four better and four worse.

John U.K.
John U.K.
Reply to  Martin Sewell
12 days ago

On the matter of “change in the doctrine of marriage”, that would be 1533 when Henry VIII separated from Rome over his decision to divorce and remarry. @Martin. Err, “up to a point, Lord Copper”. Despite the popular rhyme about “Divorced, beheaded died . . .” Henry’s understanding of ending a marriage was unaffected by the break with Rome. Divorce was not the modern understanding, where a marriage is ended but remains valid until the date of its ending. Rather it was separation a mensa et thoro – from bed and board. What Henry sought from Rome, and was eventually… Read more »

John Davies
John Davies
Reply to  John U.K.
11 days ago

So the Saducees challenge to Jesus, about the widow of seven successive brothers, (whose wife would she be in heaven?) was in contradiction of Leviticus? Indeed, they did (and do) have a fine way of setting aside the scriptures when it suited them!

Martyn
Martyn
Reply to  John U.K.
7 days ago

Replying to John UK and Paul, and also commenting on Sewell. Thanks for these comments. You say that: “ Canon B30 was promulged by the Convocations of Canterbury and York in 1964 and 1969, but claims to reflect a much older consensus of the Church and the teaching of Jesus. It explicitly calls its description of marriage “the Church’s doctrine of marriage.”    Surely 1964/69 is quite late to be claiming any kind of “consensus” on marriage  Article XXXII (of the 39) removed the requirement for celibacy for clergy and allowed them to marry. Matrimony is excluded as a sacrament by Article XXV, as… Read more »

Anglican Priest
Anglican Priest
Reply to  Martyn
7 days ago

It has also changed its relationship to the state and to the logic of Article XXXVII (those articles that no one believes mean anything anymore, additionally). A good monograph needs to be written on this. At times the CofE seems a phantom floating in some space between the logic of its foundation, and the present state of affairs, and bit-by-bit accommodations and alterations. The Realm of England isn’t a Christian territory governed by a Monarch in the way said article will have assumed.

Paul
Paul
Reply to  Martyn
6 days ago

I find the argument that because marriage is not a sacrament that there is no doctrine of marriage very unpersuasive.

Doctrine just means teaching. The Church has always taught what is and isn’t sexual immorality. Claims that it has not done so are bizarre.

Mark Andiam
Mark Andiam
Reply to  Paul
6 days ago

If ‘doctrine just means teaching’ then you have effectively accepted Martyn’s argument, because as he has clearly pointed out, the church has already changed its teaching on marriage and ordination.

Martyn
Martyn
Reply to  Mark Andiam
5 days ago

Correct, Mark. And the CofE adjusted its teaching on marriage on polygamy and the remarriage of divorcees over the centuries. And it has also changed it’s gender-related practices on ordination too. So irrespective of whether or not the CofE has a doctrine of marriage or ordination, or not, their wholly non-sacramental status set out in the 39 articles (on marriage) has led to changes every century since 1533. And on ordination in the 20th and 21st century. I find Paul’s reasoning to be totally flawed – so wholly unpersuasive. He’d obviously like it be an unchanged doctrine, despite all the… Read more »

Paul
Paul
Reply to  Martyn
5 days ago

Hi Martyn,

I’ve been trying to stay polite and understand your logic. It sounds like you don’t feel that we are communicating. I’m sad about that.

Martyn
Martyn
Reply to  Paul
5 days ago

I was hoping for a date for this doctrine of marriage you keep referring to. Doctrines do have dates, usually agreed at church councils, synods etc such as Nicea or Chalcedon. Do you have a date and perhaps a definition of the marriage doctrine? And then maybe some comment on the CofE’s interesting history re debates on polygamy, the remarriage of divorcees, ordination, etc?. But the only reply I seem to get is that the CofE has always been consistent, when plainly that has not been the case. So in order to communicate on marriage/doctrine/etc might you perhaps engage with… Read more »

God 'elp us all
God 'elp us all
13 days ago

Compare and contrast the comments of self-styled Thinking Anglicans on this thread with the much more ‘understanding’ and appreciative comments appended to the ‘The Rest is Politics’ You Tube podcast- where is the disconnect, where the charity, the compassion, the judgement …?

Adrian Clarke
Adrian Clarke
Reply to  God 'elp us all
12 days ago

The medium is the message.

Janet Fife
Janet Fife
Reply to  Adrian Clarke
12 days ago

?

Adrian Clarke
Adrian Clarke
Reply to  Janet Fife
10 days ago

He chose to speak out about the most divisive issue in the church not from the pulpit or church but in a podcast posted on the internet from Lambeth Palace. Not to clergy or laity but to politicians, one an atheist .There was no reference to the bible or theology, just his thoughts, knowing he would not be challenged in anyway, The podcast turned a deeply theological issue into a personal one in which anyone can make up their own minds on human sexuality,

Janet Fife
Janet Fife
Reply to  Adrian Clarke
9 days ago

I’m not a Welby supporter, on the whole. But he agreed to appear on a very popular podcast, which extended his audience. And answered the questions he was asked, knowing he was very likely to be challenged by two men with very sharp minds – one, of them, as you say, an atheist. I think that took some courage, and you are being rather unfair. I’m sure he has referred to the Bible and theology when speaking on other occasions during the very lengthy LLF process.

Adrian Clarke
Adrian Clarke
Reply to  Adrian Clarke
9 days ago

Oh and Alistair Campbell just happens to be a world leading communications expert. Enough said!

Janet Fife
Janet Fife
Reply to  Adrian Clarke
9 days ago

I’m sorry, I have no idea what you mean by that. And, whatever my issues with Welby, its manifestly unfair to accuse him of ‘not doing God’.

God does not expect or require us all to ‘do God’ in the same way – and thank God for that!

John Waldsax
John Waldsax
Reply to  Adrian Clarke
8 days ago

And one with a very creative bent while communicating Iraqi data for the government of the day.

Adrian Clarke
Adrian Clarke
Reply to  Adrian Clarke
9 days ago

Alistair Campbell ‘We don’t do God’
Archbishop Justin Welby ‘Neither do we’

Too old to genuflect
Too old to genuflect
Reply to  Adrian Clarke
9 days ago

That is unjust

Tim
Tim
Reply to  God 'elp us all
12 days ago

Yes, the interview was over an hour. The section on LLF/SSM was 10 mins. Yet it has produced some very uncharitable and judgemental comments. He said some very good things about faith, his family, the Queen’s funeral, the coronation etc, but they hardly get a look in. Instead we focus in on some admittedly loosely worded comments on sexuality. Let’s get some graciousness and charity back into our responses. Why does judgement and criticism come so quickly?

Adrian Clarke
Adrian Clarke
Reply to  Tim
9 days ago

If his words were loosely worded, why does he not come out and say so? No, the interview and words would have been cleared by Lambeth Palace. He knew this question would come up and was ready with a prepared answer.

Allan Sheath
Allan Sheath
Reply to  Adrian Clarke
9 days ago

“Sex should be within a committed relationship” is what I believe +Justin said. During biblical times and for the next 1,000 years this would have been uncontroversial. Betrothal was seen as the beginning of marriage. The betrothal vows were conditional, only becoming unconditional at whichever came first: sexual congress or the solemnization of the marriage.

The rite of betrothal only lost its legal status in England and Wales after the Hardwicke Act of 1753. It lingers on (unnoticed) in the CW marriage rite’s “N, will you take N to be your wife/husband?”

Peter S
Peter S
12 days ago

I thoroughly enjoyed this interview and daresay I felt blessed by listening to the Archbishop being, well, profoundly human. There was no shying away from the complexity or brokenness of our world, and I was deeply struck by his perceptive comment that the last decade has been an almost unmitigated disaster for every part of the planet. Yet the response was not dictatorship, or I have all the answers, or pretension, just an honest Christian voice that accepted some of the privilege and power that has come his way, and spoke with conviction of the difference knowing Jesus makes. I… Read more »

Tim
Tim
Reply to  Peter S
12 days ago

Thanks .Very nice to read a positive comment about the interview.

Jospeh
Jospeh
12 days ago

When I read Mitch’s comment, my thoughts were filled with Romans 1:21. I suspect Welby is more concerned with the trappings of his position.

James Allport
James Allport
Reply to  Jospeh
12 days ago

I know the myth persists that bishops and archbishops live like medieval princes, but it is a myth. The Archbishop and his family would have enjoyed a much more materially comfortable life if he had chosen to remain as the group treasurer of an oil company.

Tim P
Tim P
Reply to  James Allport
12 days ago

Agreed – and would be a lot less stressful for Justin.

Also Justin is clearly giving glory to God and specifically to Jesus at many points in the interview, so I don’t think that bible verse is the right one if you want to complain about him being concerned with worldly trappings…

Jospeh
Jospeh
Reply to  James Allport
11 days ago

My own thinking is that the church is too divided to be reconciled over doctrinal issue. We read the same bible but come to different conclusions. How even this is possible?

I think it is best both groups go separately to worship the same god (if that is true) in their own ways and live peacefully until Christ returns.

Jo B
Jo B
Reply to  Jospeh
11 days ago

Anyone who feels they cannot worship with people with whom they disagree is, of course, entitled to depart. What they’re not entitled to do is to lay claim to the identity and property of the church they wish to leave. You can’t have your schism and eat it. Whatever disagreements I may have with those evangelicals who left the Kirk in the Disruption I can at least admire that they had the courage of their convictions, and walked away from Manses, stipends, church buildings and all the certainties and comforts of the national church because they were convinced the Kirk… Read more »

Jospeh
Jospeh
Reply to  Jo B
11 days ago

So even if the entire church (PCC, congregants) disagrees, they can’t run off with the church building. Some will say CofE is bastion of homophobic, abusive, discriminatory and slave-supporting sinister organisation and you wish to be part of that organisation. Why? The problem is the CofE’s doctrine is more in-line with the traditional view and people who disagree with it are welcome to leave and set up a modern in-tune with progressively-thinking church. With richest blessings.

Jo B
Jo B
Reply to  Jospeh
10 days ago

The church building is for the parish, not for the PCC or even the congregation. Should the CofE feel that some buildings are no longer required by their respective parishes I think it would be reasonable to grant long repairing leases at peppercorn rent to other Christian churches who can make use of them. You seem to want to blur the distinction between disagreeing with the policies of the church and refusing to worship with people who disagree with you about what those policies should be. People who want to see the church treat LGBTQ+ people better have persevered because… Read more »

Jospeh
Jospeh
Reply to  Jo B
9 days ago

“people better have persevered because they believe the church can change
 
Is that why the official doctrine of CofE says one thing and progressives reinterpret the doctrine to say another without changing the doctrine. I have no doubt some Christians mistreat others badly. If LGBTQ+ folks did not like any church or CofE doctrine, they are welcome to set up another Church.
As Gamaliel (Acts 5:38) says, if it is of men it will fail but if of God it certainly will flourish. This I am certain.

Jo B
Jo B
Reply to  Jospeh
9 days ago

Why should people leave just because they don’t agree with the current official view? The church has long accepted that its understanding may evolve over time, as it has over the ministry of women, the acceptability of slavery, the reservation of the sacrament, the use of vestments, divorce and remarriage, contraception etc etc. The Church of England is for all the people of England, and followers of Christ in England have every right to seek its better alignment to God’s will rather than abandoning it.

Nigel Jones
Nigel Jones
11 days ago

Is it not in the very DNA of the C of E to be broad and accepting of those with whom one disagrees? This could be called a ‘doctrine’ and is our most distinctive characteristic, something truly wonderful. The C of E is a famously broad church- even including those who wish it were less broad. There have been times in history when those who wanted a narrower church have left (and sailed to America, for example, to set up their own pure church), but it was they who left. It seems to me that hardliners are now trying to… Read more »

Adrian Clarke
Adrian Clarke
Reply to  Nigel Jones
10 days ago

The Anglican Church has a poor track record when it comes to persecution of people with whom who it disagrees until after the Act of Toleration. In fact persecution of minorities is much more part of your ‘wonderful ‘ C of E’s DNA than you care to acknowledge, which is why many Christians left for America and insisted on the state keeping out of religion in its constitution.

Paul
Paul
Reply to  Nigel Jones
10 days ago

The Puritans who went to America went because they believed they were persecuted by the CofE.

Nigel Jones
Nigel Jones
Reply to  Nigel Jones
9 days ago

I’m quite happy to stand corrected on the history here- not my expertise.

It’s the broadness of today’s C of E that I wanted to suggest is something valuable to be preserved.

What I was trying to argue is that that broadness, and ability to disagree yet stay together, is itself worth fighting for, and akin to a doctrine that we should cherish and not change, just as much as the issue itself.

DAVID HAWKINS
DAVID HAWKINS
10 days ago

Please watch this (especially if you are a conservative) https://www.youtube.com/live/woepFXwvBXw?si=-K4KBQe65iKEuOLT Please watch the body language of those involved not just the words they speak. Especially notice the very young daughter of the Deacon about to be priested who sits on her mother’s lap. When I first watched this it was like a slap on the face it was so wonderful. And it is no accident at at that the presiding Bishop is a woman and practicing Lesbian. This is absolutely not an impediment. Heaven came very close to Newport on that day because of the Bishop’s loving sexuality not in… Read more »

Adrian Clarke
Adrian Clarke
Reply to  DAVID HAWKINS
10 days ago

Evangelicals believe in the authority of the bible and in particular the apostolic teaching handed down to us through the centuries. The bible does not teach that our daughters should get married at the age of 13., or slavery, burning at the stake, colonisation.The bible does not support war crimes in Gaza (it is not strictly speaking genocide as Israel responded to an attack by Hamas) It is only in the 21st century that people have begun to question the biblical foundation of human sexuality. If we do not follow the biblical roots of our faith which has been tried… Read more »

Mark Andiam
Mark Andiam
Reply to  Adrian Clarke
9 days ago

Your ‘example’ regurgitates the slur in Issues in Human Sexuality (5.8) which falsely states: ‘Nevertheless, it is clear that bisexual activity must always be wrong for this reason, if for no other, that it inevitably involves being unfaithful.’ Kindly desist.

Last edited 9 days ago by Mark Andiam
Adrian Clarke
Adrian Clarke
Reply to  Mark Andiam
9 days ago

This is not a slur or regurgitation, it is a real life example in which I am personally aware. What is committed, what is faithful, who decides? The church can no longer speak with any authority on human sexuality. People will take offence after offence as indeed you seem to have, which sadly will be why the church will end up splitting despite all the warm words. Clergy will be exhausted, ordinations will dry up, laity disheartened, where will it all end?

Mark Andiam
Mark Andiam
Reply to  Adrian Clarke
9 days ago

Issues in Human Sexuality (5.8) is certainly a slur, but I accept you did not write those warm words. So what you are saying is that the church will end up splitting because people like me keep taking offence, and not because people like the Alliance offensively claim authority over our sexuality?

John Davies
John Davies
Reply to  Adrian Clarke
9 days ago

If what is going on in Gaza isn’t genocide, then it comes very close to something very much like it! I’ll say no more, save that my sympathies and prayers are very much with the poor beggars – particularly the children – trapped in the middle. Neither Israel, Hamas or Hezbollah have anything to be proud of – indeed, everything to be ashamed of – in this.

Charles Read
Charles Read
Reply to  Adrian Clarke
8 days ago

‘Evangelicals believe in the authority of the bible’ – yes though don’t forget so do lots of other Christians.   ‘and in particular the apostolic teaching handed down to us through the centuries’ – and here you tellingly depart from classic evangelical teaching by positing a canon within a canon! To be evangelical is to believe in the authority of all the scriptures though some contemporary evangelicals do appear to think only Paul is truly inspired scripture – and seem to pay less attention to Jesus! (Tom Wright often bemoans this.) To believe in Biblical authority in this way is… Read more »

Tim
Tim
Reply to  Charles Read
8 days ago

Yes, I noticed that for some Paul seemed to be more important than Jesus. And not even the whole of Paul’s writing but key sections are prioritised e.g Romans 1-8, Galatians, sections of 1 Corinthians,1&2 Timothy. Tom Wright clearly seeks to give due weight to it all.

A not so humble parishioner
A not so humble parishioner
10 days ago

I think our Archbishop must have known saying what he said would arouse the ire of the Alliance. As such I can only surmise that it was intentional and a play to force the issue. Not that I disagree with that approach. Something needs to be done to move forward in one way or another. The Alliance need to decide whether they are part of our church or not. They will not get those that agree with PLF and the inclusion of same-sex married couples in church life to suddenly give up this belief and as others have pointed out… Read more »

Kate Keates
Kate Keates
9 days ago

The doctrine of the Church of England is that The King (or at times, The Queen) is Supreme Governor of the Church of England and is chosen by hereditary succession. That has been the doctrine since the formation of the Church of England and has never been changed.

Most people in the Church don’t really believe it. I suspect a great number of ministers don’t teach it. But contributors to this thread would have us believe that the doctrine of the Church of England is inviolate and all ministers must subscribe to it. It’s baloney.

DAVID HAWKINS
DAVID HAWKINS
Reply to  Kate Keates
9 days ago

In the late 1940’s my mother was refused Communion because she had got divorced pretty strange from a church that was founded to facilitate a King’s divorce! Our monarchs still refer to themselves as “Defender of the Faith” conveniently omitting to mention that the faith is Roman Catholic and the title was awarded by the Pope.

John Davies
John Davies
Reply to  DAVID HAWKINS
8 days ago

Indeed – and I used to know a lady who, in the 1950s was refused membership of the Mother’s Union for the same reason. “One strike – never mind three, and you’re out!” was (and still is, in some circles.) the rule of thumb.

Personally, Kate, I’d call the monarch’s role or title a polite convenience for the purposes of law. In reality there can only be one supreme ruler of any church – and that supreme ruler is Jesus Christ. He needs to have a physical intermediary, really for our convenience.

Lorenzo
Lorenzo
Reply to  DAVID HAWKINS
7 days ago

The king wanted an annulment, not a divorce.

James Allport
James Allport
Reply to  Kate Keates
9 days ago

I’m only a volunteer lay minister Kate, but I think this is better understood than you give it credit for. I believe it, and teach it. But it is, of course, a matter of governance rather than a matter of doctrine.

Kate Keates
Kate Keates
Reply to  James Allport
8 days ago

I don’t doubt that a significant number do still teach it, but many don’t, but it is clearly doctrine – it was part of the original Esse of the Church of England and has never been formally dropped.

Tim Chesterton
Reply to  Kate Keates
7 days ago

Surely that’s a matter of canon law, not doctrine.

Richard Ashby
Richard Ashby
9 days ago

Oh, for heaven’s sake. I’ve read through most, but not all, these comments with increasing frustration and irritation. Would it be possible for contributors to bear in mind that they’re discussing real people’s lives, not some theoretical dispute. There are two things to bear in mind. Christian doctrine has been changing ever since the first Christians started to think about what their beliefs about Jesus meant. And secondly the Hebrew Scriptures show god has been changing his mind ever since mankind started recording their thoughts about who god was and what he taught. There’s no such thing as ‘the faith… Read more »

FrDavid H
FrDavid H
Reply to  Richard Ashby
9 days ago

Well said!

Jospeh
Jospeh
Reply to  Richard Ashby
8 days ago

Christian doctrine has been changing ever since the first Christians started to think …

Oh dear what are you saying?  When Jesus said his words do not change, I am sure he meant it (Matthew 24:35). Can God say today I punish those sins and tomorrow I will forgive them because they are struggling with it? This can’t be right. Doctrines must follow bible otherwise we create our own religion.

Anglican in Exile
Anglican in Exile
Reply to  Jospeh
8 days ago

This isn’t the best proof text to quote to make your point, as immediately before Jesus is quoted as saying that the current generation won’t pass away before the Son of Man has appeared in glory to gather the elect. To my mind it rather reinforces the point that the church has developed and changed its understanding on key issues, like for example the end times.

David James
David James
Reply to  Richard Ashby
8 days ago

Most sensible comment on here. The whole sexuality debate has failed to recognise that real people’s lives and loves are at the root of all the discussions. For a National Church with its roots in the community that is a travesty. That’s the real reason for the decline in church attendance – the institution has lost interest in the people it is called to serve.

Tim P
Tim P
Reply to  David James
8 days ago

I see the hurt – but no one has a monopoly to being hurt. I agree on the need to think through things pastorally – but that doesn’t mean we can’t tackle the issue beyond that. Really the “issue” – or rather “topic for discussion” is that Justin Welby gave an interview – – how should the church respond given he has said some things which a number will consider dramatically ‘too far’ and yet another number will find ‘dramatically not far enough’. “the whole sexuality debate has failed to recognise that real people’s lives and loves are at the… Read more »

John Davies
John Davies
Reply to  Richard Ashby
8 days ago

Absolutely true, Richard – and spoken from a straight point of view too. The problem with so much of the church, both CofE and others groups, is that they have this idea that doctrine is paramount, and we must conform our lives to it. Jesus promised us ‘life in all its fulness’ – and life is a fluid, changing and immeasurable, undefinable thing.

Someone once said that Jesus miraculously turned water into wine, but the church have reversed it. We’ve turned wine into water. And stagnant, tepid water at that.

Tony Bellows
Tony Bellows
23 hours ago

His experience of the war on terror
Israel and Palestine
How to feel hopeful
Peace building

An amazingly important topic, side-lined by Is LGBT love sinful! Priorities!!!

164
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x