Martyn Snow, the Bishop of Leicester, has stepped from his role as Lead Bishop for Living in Love and Faith. He published the following statement on his Facebook page earlier this afternoon.
With a very heavy heart, I have decided to step down from my role as Lead Bishop for Living in Love and Faith. I am hugely grateful to the staff team that I have worked with over the last 18 months and similarly the Working Group members who have given hours of their time to seek an agreed way forward in the Church of England on matters of sexuality, relationships, and marriage. I hope it may yet be possible to reach such an agreement, but I don’t think that can happen under my leadership. I will not be making any further comments.
The logic of the incommensurabilty of the LLF proposals is working itself out – at personal cost – in the lives of those who have given themselves to trying to progress this doomed project. LLF/PLF tries to say that the church can simultaneously proclaim ‘Same sex sexual relationships can be good, holy and blessed by God’ AND ‘Same sex sexual relationships are shameful, sinful, and accursed of God.’ It’s the internalisation of contradiction in the body of Christ. A Kingdom divided against itself… It’s time to stop limping on with 2 opinions. Affirm the traditional teaching, and ask the progressives… Read more »
Or, split as most major denominations have on this issue.
Which denominations did you have in mind here? In the UK those denominations that affirm equal marriage have managed to do so by accepting a diversity of views and I’m not aware of any that have experienced a substantial split.
Mostly American examples as they are the best examples of how churches which have deep divisions on same-sex blessings tend to deal with this issue. In America, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Anglicans and Methodists are broadly split across these lines because these contradictory positions aren’t easily reconciled. The CofE isn’t similar to the Methodists or the URC in the UK as the number of theological conservatives is much greater. It’salso much greater than the TEC or the Anglican Church of Canada and those have seen significant exits over this. The reality is that the CofE has about 45% in opposition to this… Read more »
So not, in fact, “most major denominations”, just those where homophobes command enough support to force a split.
Name calling aside the reality is a substantial portion of the CofE disagree with LLF and some see blessing same sex relationships as a first order salvation issue. That isn’t true of the Church of Scotland, the Scottish Episcopal Church or the URC even though churches have left from these. I’m not sure of the URC but it is definitely true of the other two. The reality is though that it is unsurprising to say that there wasn’t a split down the middle in churches that have very safe liberal majority. In all of the examples I’ve seen where it’s… Read more »
Calling a spade a spade is not “name calling”. If you don’t like being called homophobic then the solution is to stop doing homophobic things and advocating for homophobic ideas. The “first order salvation issue” rhetoric is simply an excuse. There is no coherent theological framework that can determine homophobia to be an inescapable requirement for salvation but can also finesse teaching on divorce to be a second order issue that doesn’t require separation. It’s simply a matter of numbers – if conservatives thought they could muster a large enough faction on divorce, or indeed on the ordination of women,… Read more »
Name calling and labels for authentic believers is about where it has come to. I love and accept same sex attracted people but I hold to scripture that it is not Gods plan . So I am labelled Homophobe. This attitude has split the church and your name calling just pours oil on the fire.
According to its website the number of congregations in the ACNA Diocese of Canada is 72, 27 of which are in southern Ontario and 23 of which are in the lower mainland of BC (in other words, two thirds of the ACNA congregations are highly concentrated in two areas of the country). By contrast, the Anglican Church of Canada has over 2000 congregations across the country. I live in the Diocese of Edmonton which has about 45 congregations. One parish in our diocese split over this issue and an ACNA parish was formed as a result. Every exit is significant,… Read more »
But those who lead the 72 are incredibly noisy and that is what makes it look like a great parting of ways rather than a handful of congregations leaving.
I guess it depends where you listen. I don’t follow Canadian or American ACNA sites on social media, but I do have a few friends here in Canada who are in ACNA. Most of them seem to be quietly getting on with their own ministries and ignoring the Anglican Church of Canada. We never hear about them in the Canadian press or on Anglican Church of Canada news sites.
Maybe they are noisy, but I certainly don’t notice the noise.
I don’t see how churches that split are the ‘best example’ of dealign with controversial issues.
They show us that churches which have a near 50% 50% split on this issue tend to go their separate ways.
As far as I’m aware there’s no comparable example where that hasn’t happened so far.
So why keep hitting a brick wall when we know the only way for both sides to move forward in a situation like this one is to split?
The issue is irreconcilable particularly when nobody seems to think this is actually adiaphora.
Good examples are those churches which are able to live with their differences and disagreements. ‘That they may be one, as we are one.’
Claiming to bless what God has revealed to be sinful in the church is expressly against the Christian faith as is affirming things that threaten the salvation of others. At some point there’s a boundary where we have to say this is false teaching and the New Testament offers guidance on what to do with that, that is avoid false teaching and avoid false teachers. This is why we need to determine how serious the disagreement is, and that’s where people keep talking past each other. We long to be one, but unity isn’t achieved through human machinations, but by… Read more »
Isn’t that pretty much what we have done in the case of remarriage after divorce? There is a form for a service of blessing whuch can be used in such a case, and clergy are free to choose to celebrate a marriage ceremony in such cases if they wish. This is almost unremarkable in 2025. As recently as 60 years ago (and perhaps considerably less) it would have been utterly unthinkable. Divorced people were often effectively excommunicated. And I remember that at the Oxford Movement sesquicentennial celebrations in the Parks in Oxford that a group of us were accosted to… Read more »
Jesus permits divorce for marital unfaithfulness in Matthew 5:32. It isn’t true to say that all divorce is sinful. There’s also legitimate debate around whether or not marriages following this is sinful. You can see one side of the argument in the Westminster Confession of Faith (chapter 24) making direct reference to this verse. Then there is the permanence view which suggests that one shouldn’t remarry for as long as their former spouse is alive. I’m personally not sure which of these positions I hold to but both are evidently grounded in Scripture. Affirming arguments for same-sex relationships and marriage… Read more »
You acknowledge that, regarding divorce and remarriage, both views are grounded in scripture. Why can’t you acknowledge that conflicting views on same sex marriage are also both grounded in scripture? It sounds as if there is something visceral about your response to LGBT issues, which is not the case re divorce. And yet both concern the theology of marriage – which you appear to regard as not only doctrine, but essential doctrine.
I don’t because the arguments aren’t grounded in Scripture.
I’ve replied to a similar comment here dealing with the same point.
Many people on this site have given detailed and educated responses grounded in scripture. If you can’t even acknowledge that, it does seem to suggest that your response is visceral rather than reasoned.
Perhaps I’ve missed something profound but I’ve not seen an argument based on Scripture presented here that doesn’t fall into what I’ve mentioned in that comment in one way or another.
The arguments in favour of changing the teaching of the church don’t seem to have changed much since J.I Packer left the Anglican Church of Canada in 2003 and they haven’t become more convincing.
AMEN!!
The Church of England is split on the most fundamental questions of theology and has been ever since it’s foundation. So what I want to ask my conservative sisters and brothers is this: if the Church of England can live with fundamental differences over the nature of the Eucharist and Women Diocesan bishops why is it apparently going to.split over LLF ? After all nobody suggests that conservative parishes should have to marry same sex couples. The only explanation that makes any senseto me is a deep, entrenched and for me very unpleasant homophobia. I understand all the arguments against… Read more »
David – you know the answer to this, as it’s been explained several times both here and in other places. The reason why this is considered a first order issue is that we’re told that unrepentant sin threatens our salvation in Scripture in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 amongst other places) So the idea that we should bless what God condemns in His name is problematic. The problem is as FAOC said recently, liberals keep wanting to tell conservatives about what sort of disagreement they are having instead of listening to what’s been said, many times. Women’s orders and a different theological… Read more »
How do you presume to know what God condemns have you asked him recently ? We may believe the bible was divinely inspired but it was written down by fallible human beings constrained by their understanding of first century Palestine. “Biblical Authority” usually means inventing a “God” to justify pre existing prejudice and hate. I’m sure the Inquisition also thought they had “biblical authority’ for torturing Protestants to death. If we apply logic as opposed to a text written two thousand years ago it seems a very strange “loving God” who creates people to love someone of their own gender… Read more »
You’re right to identify the dividing line.
It’s the place and authority of Scripture. This particular topic is basically presenting a bigger divide which is that the vast majority of evangelicals view Scripture as being authoritative in all matters of faith and conduct and theological liberals do not.
Most of us are simply seeking to obey Christ and want to be a part of a church that does this.
The dividing line is not “the place and authority of Scripture” though, is it? It’s the authority of one particular interpretation of Scripture.
From what I can tell, typically in this conversation one side advocate for putting Scripture aside in respect to these verses, and others advocate for holding to the teaching of Scripture in these matters.
David highlights this very neatly when he says:
We disagree on what the Bible actually is. Is it the inspired infallible word of God which is authoritative in all matters of faith and conduct or is it not?
If you believe the Bible to be “the inspired infallible word of God” then you are right that we also disagree on what the Bible actually is. But even if that is your belief about the Bible, that doesn’t change the fact that it needs interpreting, does it? So I think my point still stands that the difference is our interpretation of what Scripture says- not that some “hold to scripture” and others do not. For example, in the past the church argued that the world must literally have “foundations” and “cannot be moved” and was the centre of the… Read more »
The text of Scripture is very clear on this subject and that’s why there’s been no dispute on this topic from Christ until the late 20th century. The innovations are very modern and the affirming argument is more centered around the dubious claim that loving consensual same-sex relationships were unheard of in antiquity or that same-sex relationships are fundamentally different to what they were then and so on. The claim is false because there are examples of these in the ancient world. There’s a good article on Ian Paul’s blog from a few years ago dealing with this. The claim… Read more »
I’m intrigued by this. What about someone who has been in a loving committed homosexual relationship in a part of the world never reached by the Gospel and who never knew it was forbidden? Will they not be let into heaven because of their sexual behaviour? It doesn’t seem to me to fit with the axiomatic belief that God is good, loving and just.
Stating the obvious, from the days of St Augustine it has been realised that scripture needs to be understood with the mind, and in particular with an understanding of scientific advances. Otherwise Christians look foolish, and the gospel is not heard. So, can we understand current views on sexuality in the light of scientific advances? We certainly have different understanding in the last 100 years, and surely our scientific understanding of sexuality is nowhere near what it was 100 years ago? The days when a scientific cure of homosexuality was proposed (e.g Turing and medication) now seem absurd, So, regarding… Read more »
David, you remain in error. What makes you think this present generation has enlightenment and years of accepted Christian doctrine can be sacrificed for an unnatural human desire.
Nothing unnatural about being gay.
The nature of the Eucharist is about church tradition, women bishops is about restoring equality lost at ‘the fall’, same sex marriage is about biblical authority.
‘What I want to ask my conservative sisters and brothers is this: if the Church of England can live with fundamental differences over the nature of the Eucharist and Women Diocesan bishops why is it apparently going to split over LLF ? After all nobody suggests that conservative parishes should have to marry same sex couples.’ Not sure these assertions are true. There’s a growing head of steam to overturn the idea of ‘mutual flourishing’ around women’s ordination. The logic is that the existence of those who do not accept women’s orders de facto prevents the flourishing of women, and… Read more »
I am against intolerance and in favour of an Anglican big tent where we can at least talk and pray with each other. I try to be consistent about this I am against conservatives banning same sex marriage in liberal parishes and I am equally against liberals expelling conservatives or forcing conservative priests to go against their conscience. I can tell you the sort of Anglican Communion.I want. My spiritual home is St Woolas Cathedral in Newport. It is a catholic Anglican cathedral where a sung Eucharist is central.to their worship. The Salvation Army does not celebrate the Lord’s Supper… Read more »
I applaud your motivation – but I have doubts about its practical durability, or ultimately its theological desirability.
Sooner or later a big tent becomes too baggy to stand up in the wind. Or some within it decide that the tent is too big.
If what we stand for is some kind of unlimited and unlimitable inclusion, do we actually stand for much at all?
Dear Pax, I’m bored too. Bored with the claims that recognising the committed relationships of two consenting adults are somehow the thin end of the wedge into ‘anything goes’. I would have hoped that we’d moved beyond that now, even with last year’s scaremongering little Grove booklet ‘Three or More’. Am I the only person who has read this?
I haven’t come across that booklet, but I am aware from social media that there are some arguing that limiting marriage to just two people is in some way oppressive. Once you start redefining things where do you stop?
Ask King “700 wives and concubines” Solomon?
I am really sad about this. I believe Bishop Martyn has acted with integrity. It seems it is all too much.
I am torn in more than one direction here, but I think that sufficient numbers regard LLF as a doctrinal issue that it is correct to invoke canon B2 and require a 2/3rds majority in each house of Synod. I write as someone very strongly committed to working for equality.
2/3 majorities and canon B2 are not about doctrine. They are to do with authorizing liturgical material that is alternative to a service that already exists in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. Services which are not alternative to the BCP may be used at the discretion of the minister (Canon B 5.2). Commendation by the House of Bishops reassures the minister that they are most unlikely to be disciplined.
But, as you know, Canon B 5.3 stipulates that “All variations in forms of service and all forms of service used under this Canon shall be reverent and seemly and shall be neither contrary to, nor indicative of any departure from, the doctrine of the Church of England in any essential matter.” The Hous eof Bishops needs to understand that it cannot commend material that does not fulfil this requirement. This is about doctrine.
Yes indeed. But commendation by the HoB carries the implication that they believe that it does so conform.
A bunch of revisionist bishops sticking their fingers in their ears and endlessly repeating “We’re not changing doctrine” does not make it so.
Really rather insulting, Pete. Have you really not met ‘revisionists’ bishops who are as committed to biblical faithfulness as you? Call us what you like but those of us who are inclusive are not sticking things anywhere. We simply disagree with you over what we think the texts are saying.
Aside from his admittedly terse language, I think what + Pete is referring to here is disagreement over whether PLF implies doctrinal change, not disagreement over the meaning of biblical texts. I for one am fully prepared to accept that ‘inclusive’ readings of those texts can have at least the same integrity as conservative readings. I think we can speak here of two hermeneutical abd ethical integrities and I hope the CofE could at some point come to affirm both equally (but I realize many conservatives will never accept that; I also doubt many progressives will either, given that they… Read more »
May I thank you for your sober conclusion.
Thanks Jonathan. I always read you with care. I share your position – ‘we can speak here of two hermeneutical and ethical integrities and I hope the CofE could at some point come to affirm both equally. As you know I am part of an inclusive network that does not encourage abusive comments towards those we disagree with. I have withdrawn from some conservative blogs sites because polite conversation became impossible. It is an emotive debate. Both sides fail. But no discussion is possible with people who tell those those they disagree with they have their fingers in their ears.
David, Church history is full of theologians of the first rank using strong language about their opponents. I don’t like it much but it’s a bit silly getting so upset about this that one fails to engage with the arguments. Your own writing advocating acceptance of homosexual relationships claims that loving same sex relationships as we know them today were unknown in New Testament times and the NT is talking about something different. But your argument is historically wrong. I am pretty familiar as a classicist with Latin writings of the first century BC and AD and Greek literature of… Read more »
The mind boggles, but we are not talking about a simple disagreement over a choice of restaurant or movie. These are serious matters about sexuality, relationships and marriage and we are unable to live with this level of disagreement. It seems the revisionist bishops have their fingers in their ears about this too.
Alternatively a bunch of homophobes sticking their fingers in their ears and insisting that anything they don’t like is a change of doctrine doesn’t make it so.
I wish the CofE was changing its doctrine. I hope and pray that the Holy Spirit will lead it there in due time, to recognising and blessing Holy Matrimony regardless of the sex or gender of the couples. But PLF isn’t that. It’s a “miserable little compromise”, a stone given in place of bread.
Jo – a genuine question: is it possible to uphold the classic Christian teaching that the God-intended place for human sexual activity is heterosexual marriage, without becoming a ‘homophobe’?
No, at least if you’re implying that anything not intended by God is wrong.
Surely anything contrary to the intention of God is, ipso facto, wrong?
“Not intended” ≠ “contrary to the intention”. A lot depends on how one understands God’s intention. It’s not automatic that everything in the universe is either intended by God or opposed to that intention. It’s not unreasonable to suppose that God can delight in human creativity and ingenuity, or indeed in some form of randomness (“Does God play dice?”), but then we’re into the messiness of “intend” vs “foresee”. Did God “intend” the Internet, for example?
Not a very appropriate way to phrase it, if I may say so. And I presume you do not object to the current prayers which do not refer to marriage.There is also a tradition of doctrine developing and that might be helpful in this area enabling us to say ‘this is the doctrine now, but there is space for it to develop in future generations.’ Otherwise we get to the position where we say that however biblical studies develops or research in other disciples sheds new light on human sexuality and gender or the variety of cultural factors continue to… Read more »
“A bunch of revisionist bishops”
Would that be revisionist bishops like Cranmer? Ridley? Latimer?
I do find it ludicrous when members of a church that, in its Reformed manifestation came into existence some millennium and a half after Christianity started, bang on about ‘tradition’ and ‘what the church has always taught’. Teaching changes, doctrine changes, understanding develops, faith is a living thing, revelation is ongoing, as all Anglicans are, or perhaps should, be very well aware.
If you are going to argue against change, argue it on its own merits/demerits, not on whether it is ‘tradition’ or not.
If only it were about doctrine, and the debate that we ought to be having which is equal marriage. The Prayers of Love and Faith are explicitly not a marriage service, yet many on the conservative side misunderstand this and believe that it is about marriage. So, to be absolutely clear, the PLF are a service giving thanks for the good things in the lives of two people in a relationship. Unless your position is that it is Anglican doctrine that there can be nothing whatsoever that is good in the relationship of two people in the same sex, the… Read more »
More smoke and mirrors. The Alliance raised the issue of B2 back in July 2023. Unfortunately the PLF are not clear, that’s the point. Nothing is explicit, but everything is implied.
I agree with you. Thank you. In a recent letter in the Church Times the conservative Andrew Cornes was willing to admit that in the ancient world ‘the large majority of same sex relationships were loving, generous, tender and committed’ and claimed St Paul knew of them (where his evidence is for this I am not sure). But he nevertheless insists that these relationships are ‘porneia’ – a word translated as ‘unchaste, ‘sexually immortal’ and ‘fornicators’. This means the very relationships Cornes commends in terms I aspire to in my own marriage are to be listed with ‘idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, thieves… Read more »
Andrew Cornes *needs* to argue for all these tender and committed relationships in the ancient world, so that he can then argue that St Paul was talking about something just like today’s relationships which are expressed in civil partnerships or equal marriage. I don’t agree with his analysis and I note that he seems entirely oblivious to the differences in genre in the ancient sources he quotes. I wonder if this is the other side of his approach to the Bible as speaking with a single voice, rather than being a collection of voices?
I agree with Andrew Cornes that there would have been “tender and committed relationships” between homosexual people in the ancient world, but any evidence from Roman texts from St Paul’s time is hard to find and interpret. I think the biggest failing is that much current Christian debate looks back to those times for evidence of such loving relationships, and assumes that Paul is also describing such things. But in pagan Rome the most visible homoerotic activity was within the temples, especially in the worship of Cybele. Men who we might now label as homosexual or transgender became the priests… Read more »
Can we please do better than an English Heritage piece with no authors or evidence cited?
Helen, I must admit I am puzzled by your comment and wonder why you requested it. Normally people simply engage with the content of the material offered. If we required everybody to comply with the Harvard full referencing system in every post then this site would be a lot shorter and duller. Nevertheless I am very happy to comply with your request for a more academic treatment. Three texts can be found here: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/9n13iu4qcxzirf0wemuwd/AMwmhG5-oksPaJqengPZdZ0?rlkey=yjiqq7zy8kj6vhkgj3bd55n5h&st=erjs7qg2&dl=0 One text is an extract from Randy Conner’s “Cassel’s Encyclopedia of Queer Myth Symbol and Spirit”. The other text is part of the same author’s book… Read more »
Rather than arguing about the nature of the homosexual practice being condemned by biblical writers, in order to make their condemnation not apply to regular gay couples today, would it not be much simpler, and a stronger argument, to acknowledge that minorities are often persecuted, and often have the uncomfortable truth of human evil projected onto them by “othering”, and that Biblical writers are also sometimes guilty of this? It’s entirely understandable that St Paul and others, just like some today, would interpret “different” as “unnatural” and therefore “wrong”. If the only reason not to use this argument is belief… Read more »
Simon, so many historical errors in that piece. 1. Rome was always patriarchal; this was not a Christian innovation.2. Christianity was not powerful c. AD 100, it was being persecuted (Pliny). 3. There is plenty of homoeroticism in first century Latin poetry and Petronius’s Satyricon that has nothiñg to do with Cybele worship.
James, thanks for engaging with the text. It’s quite old now so some points can certainly be challenged, but it gives the general idea of what I am trying to say. It was this florid and visible gender-variant spiritual activity that was the focus of the Christian writer’s disapproval, and not the idea of same-sex loving relationships (although such things would have been known about). Of course there were other forms of homoeroticism, but sadly the vast majority of texts have been lost to us through neglect or deliberate destruction. But (ref your note) below we should use what we… Read more »
David, you are missing three things (at least). 1. Andrew Cornes rightly points out that many homosexual relationships in the first century had a strong personal affectionate element. This is obvious to anyone who knows first century Latin poetry (something I used to teach) as well as Greek literature. But it destroys your claim in your book that the NT only knew of exploitative and abusive (i,e, rape) same sex relations. This is nonsense. The NT writers lived in that world and knew what they were writing about. Have you ever read Petronius’s Satyricon? It was written in the time… Read more »
That’s begging the question. It seems only recently that some people have decided that marriage is a doctrine, let alone an ‘essential doctrine’.
And if not an essential doctrine, why shouldn’t the House of Bishops recommend the forms of service?
The Eucharist is also about doctrine but some Anglo Catholic parishes have been using unauthorised Missals for over a hundred years. Do you suggest legal action to put a stop.to this ? Of course you don’t because “theology” in this context really means a prohibition on the sexual expression of love between same sex couples You seem to suggest that the New Testament should be our exclusive guide to sexual morality. Allow me to explain why that doesn’t work. In first century Palestine Jewish girls got married and started having children as soon as they reached puberty. St Paul did… Read more »
Have you read the canon recently?
I had the text in front of me when I wrote my earlier comment.
For well over a hundred years Anglo Catholic Church of England Parishes have been using unauthorised Missals.
I ask again. Why is a Missal.less important than the blessing of a same sex couple ?
Key word there is ‘unauthorised’
For thirty years, liberals have been unauthorisedly blessing gay unions.
The problem comes when you turn a discipline issue into a change of church teaching.
I’m pretty sure that – for example – even if you look at the most Anglo-Catholic authorised common worship communion service there’d be nothing that insists of transubstantiation.
As David says, many Anglo-Catholic churches have been using Roman Catholic (not CW) missals which are illegal in the C of E. And the RC missal does contain elements contrary to C of E teaching, such as transubstantiation. We have been able to get along with each other despite these disagreements, so why can’t we tolerate disagreements over the blessing of same sex relationships?
Precisely because of the lex orandi, lex credendi principle. The Roman Missal does not pretend to be an official expression of the CoFE doctrine of the eucharist. PLF liturgical provision, whether authorised or commended, does pretend to be an expression of what the CofE believes. All CofE liturgy must be capable of being prayed in good conscience in any CofE church. That’s the unitive principle we adopted when we embarked on liturgical revision – and it’s what the Canons express.
Where does it ‘contain’ transubstantiation? I’m not sure what you mean by this assertion. Before the new translation came out in 2014, the Roman mass was barely distinguishable from Common Worship order 1 which had largely copied it. I know that a lot of anoraks are going to pop up and tell me all the differences, but to an outsider like me it all looked and sounded much the same.
Sadly transubstantiation is much misunderstood since many people are unaware of the philosophical underpinning especially what substance in this context means. Many think , for example, the substance of a chair is wood or metal, but it is in fact philosophically chair.The eucharistic presence is neither physical, material nor spatial. Henry Chadwick and Ted Yarnold dealt with this in their helpful little ARCIC catechism.
The word ‘is’ is philosophically very controversial. In my world of data modelling, something can have multiple ‘is’, or can have multiple ‘roles’, and ‘is’ is not the same as ‘role’.
A chair can hold a door open. A chair is not a door stop.
The essential nature of a chair is quite difficult, if not impossible, to define, but a chair, if it does not have the potential to have the role to allow people to sit on it, may not be a very useful chair.
Yet somehow we know what a chair is!
I once attended an Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament in an Oxford Anglican Church. It was an expression of the doctrine of transubstantiation.
Was it an expression of transubstantiation? Or was it an expression of belief on the Real Presence? The two are not synonymous.
Personally I find the foundations of transubstantiation in Plato, Aristotle, even Aquinas, make little or no sense in the world of today. It’s a non-scientitfic philosophical underpinning for the way the world is, and I would call it perhaps rather shaky.
I have heard or read that John Keble believed in the real presence. Without knowing, I suspect that belief did not extend to transubstantiation.
You may be right. However, the BCP forbids such display of the host.
Article 25 says “The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon, or to be carried about, but that we should duly use them.” It does not forbid such display, but says that this not what the sacraments were ordained for. Not quite the same thing. The rubrics require that remains not required for communion are to be consumed. But they may be retained for subsequent communion. (Personally, I am not into Benediction at all, but there is some wiggle room!)
Good point. Article 28 could be interpreted in a similar way (i.e. with some latitude): ‘The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.’
Benediction aside, many Anglicans value spending an hour at the Watch on the evening of Maundy Thursday, with the Sacrament as a focus for devotion in much the same way that the Cross is on Good Friday. That said, the purpose of reservation is to provide Communion for Good Friday and any devotional practice is a consequence of this. It follows then that there should be no reservation if Communion is not offered on Good Friday. There are some parish churches (and even a cathedral in the past) in which the Blessed Sacrament is reserved on Maundy Thursday, but with… Read more »
When I attended free churches and (US) Baptist churches, it was the usual practice to have Holy Communion on Good Friday, because we were remembering the Crucifixion. We need had Communion on Easter Sunday, because that was about the Resurrection, not the Crucifixion. I found it very difficult to adjust when I became an Anglican, and for years it felt wrong to have the Eucharist on Easter Sunday.
I think the variations in practice between denominations are both interesting and instructive. It makes us examine our own assumptions, and that’s a good thing.
It does not forbid it. Read Article xxv carefully. The best place to look for it is in the back of a copy of the Book of Common Prayer, rather than in your imagination.
I already know where the Articles are, thank you. I do read them now and again, and did so yesterday. But I agree that my reading of them is different to yours – possibly because I was nurtured on the Reformation and read them through that lens.
I am guessing you are not a bishop?!
Anyone reading this thread would say. We have those who believe people holding to what is a traditional understanding of marriage are homophobes who must leave. Those who hold that traditional marriage is the present position of the CofE and must be maintained. Those who are saddened that one Bishop appears to have looked at this situation and said, ‘I have had enough.’ Why would said person reading the thread not conclude. This is unworkable. “Incommensurability is working itself out,” as Pax writes. And has been for some time now. There is simply no way forward short of some formal… Read more »
I do not believe that those holding to a traditional view of marriage are homophobes. The homophobes are those who seek to impose their view of marriage on every Church of England parish.
I do not disagree. Hence my point.
No-one is insisting that homophobes leave. You’re trying to create a false “both sides” narrative. The affirming position can accommodate people not agreeing with it and choosing not to participate in celebrating the marriages of same sex couples while remaining within the church. The calls for schism are all coming from the homophobic side.
Denying same sex marriage services on religious grounds is not homophobic, as they don’t discriminate against individuals,
“Denying” is ambiguous. If you personally deny that same sex marriage is possible that can easily be accommodated within.thr Anglican “big tent,”. The problem starts if you wish to deny other parishes the freedom.to.bless or marry same sex couples
I repeat my question.If unauthorised Missals have been used for over a hundred years why are same sex blessings a sticking point ?
The only explanation that makes sense to.me is fear and loathing of gay sex.
I don’t think the individuals who are discriminated against feel that.
Denying marriage to same sex couples is inherently homophobic, regardless of the theological gymnastics performed to justify it. Discriminating against all same sex couples, rather than specific ones, doesn’t change that a single bit.
‘The affirming position can accommodate people not agreeing with it.’
Maybe, but not for long, surely. Either there are issues of what we believe to be truth and falsehood at stake here – which can’t be fudged indefinitely. Or we’re a church that has given up on the idea that truth is real, vital, liberating and precious. Which would be an abdication of what church is called to be.
I’m reminded of the so-called Neuhaus law: “where orthodoxy is optional, orthodoxy will sooner or later be proscribed”.
We’ve fudged the nature of Holy Communion for half a millennium, and the nature of ordained ministry, the historicity of the Hebrew scriptures, and almost everything else not explicitly covered by the historic creeds. For decades Anglicans have managed to square the belief that marriage is lifelong and irrevocable with blessing the marriages of divorcees. The idea that this particular flavour of Anglican fudge is uniquely unpalatable strains credulity, and reflects the conservative tendency to conflate the certainties of the society in which they grew up with eternal truths.
It may strain your incredulity, given your commitments and weltanschaung. Fine. But you don’t get to tell me or others what my bandwidth of accommodation must be. Or on what issues and because of which stances the bonds of communion might become unsustainable to me. To many Christians the clarity of scriptural witness that marriage is intrinsically heterosexual, and that God’s gift of sex is blessed solely within that context, is simply compelling and unambiguous. You can disagree with that assertion, of course. What you can’t do is tell me that I must disagree with that assertion too. Nor that… Read more »
You can hold whatever incoherent views you like, and are free to decide for yourself with whom you deign to break bread. What you can’t do is expect others to conform to your views or demand the church divide itself so you can be in a special club of only those who agree with you.
Indeed. Only a couple of years ago I attended a very grand wedding in a Church of England cathedral where it was the bride’s fourth marriage – and all her previous husbands are still living. I was delighted that she has now, apparently, found the right husband, but it sticks in the craw that same-sex couples can’t even have a refracted form of prayer that specifically *isn’t* a blessing of their marriage – never mind no possibility of actually getting married in a CofE church – when opposite-sex couples can marry as often as they like in the same setting… Read more »
Anglican Priest, what is it that is “unworkable”? Prayers of Love and Faith as currently authorised have been designed not to simulate a marriage. As witness the latest update on Living in Love and Faith: “The theological advice from the ERG [Episcopal Reference Group] indicates an argument can be made that the Prayers of Love and Faith as outlined do not resemble a marriage, or change the doctrine of marriage.” As no one is under any compulsion to use PLF, it’s hard to see the problem lies there. However, the ERG theologians continue: “the context in which the Prayers might… Read more »
‘”increases the already poor chance” should of course read “decreases….”
I am not sure there is too much of a demand for these types of services – I don’t need a service to give thanks for the good things between me and my friends, but in any case Bishop Snow says PLF is about sexuality, relationships and marriage. Portraying it as anything else is a sham, but then the whole PLF consultation process has been a sham led by the ABY as Bishop Snow has now found out.
+Martyn was referring to the entire Living in Love and Faith project, not Prayers of Love and Faith as you claim.
If read PLF, the only part of LLF that has authorisation, you’ll find they say nothing about sexuality and are carefully crafted not to resemble a marriage.
I think you mean by explicitly avoiding asking questions about sexual activity? This is where the deception takes place.
You’d have to tell me. Looking on, all I see is entrenched disagreement. People do not like PLF as “stones instead of bread” or as encroachment on traditional BCP understandings.
Perhaps you are saying they can be brought together around PLF.
I see no evidence of that here. Can you explain?
PS As you ask, I think ‘via media’ is past any obvious sell-by date. I think it is a fig leaf for establishmentarianism. No province in the AC speaks of this in the way the CofE does (or did).
How is it working now? Empirically. In the CofE.
Alas, I fear you are right. Writing on the eve of the Feast of Pentecost I was hoping that we – liberals and conservatives alike – might allow the Holy Spirit to penetrate the tiny chinks we leave in our armour. For what it’s worth, I can’t see how the doctrine of marriage has the band width to accommodate same-sex marriage. Over time, the faithful witness of same-sex couples might cause this to change, but the time is not now. I have offered Eucharist for a same-sex couple in the past, and would be open to doing so again, possibly… Read more »
At Pentecost In Auckland NZ I heard a preacher suggest that while the Church everywhere looks for the gifts of the Sprit, rarely does it expect the fruits of the Spirit to be in evidence. I thought he got it in one.
As a lay person what shocks me is is how much the different sides of the CofE despise each other. Dislike is far too weak a term, they have no mutual respect whatsoever.
I do agree. It seems to me that conciliatory jargon like ‘mutual flourishing’ or ‘living in love and faith’ is utilised in inverse proportion to the chronic and visceral antipathy which animates Church politics, to the extent that such jargon has long degraded into a species of newspeak. The relationship between Church parties is akin to that of a toxic marriage held together only by a fear of drastically reduced living standards were any formal divorce to be effected and the assets separated and dissipated in legal costs. There is therefore a separation ‘a mensa et thoro’, but within the… Read more »
Tell us what you really think!
I agree with much of what you say, but also much of modern life is a sham, maybe always has been, some of us have to exist in the sham which is corporate culture.
(for example, I have never voted in an election because I do not wish to give legitimacy to a political system – so-called ‘representative democracy’ – which is a fraudulent negation of itself) Froghole I find this rather shocking. My grandmother lived with us from when I was 4 until well after I left home at 18. All the way from 1963 and well into the 80s. She would never disclose who she voted for. But she had come from pretty solidly working class and maintained that it was her duty to cast her vote because women before her had… Read more »
My thoughts too Francis. Very sad.
If you look back at major disputes in the past then the strong feelings displayed here can be seen there as well: slavery, cosmology, the Reformation, Nicea. Compared to some of those disputes, where people ended up dead or imprisoned, this debate is well mannered and friendly.
We will get through it, it just takes time and patience.
I will say it again. Anyone reading this thread would see nothing but a dumpster fire. Discourtesy is bad but it isn’t the root of the problem. That would suggest that everyone getting along was a goal unto itself. This just keep turning back on itself and shows it is a vain project. Pax said it at the top of the thread. There is no ‘via media’ inside incommensurability. That is a philosophical/logical point. We don’t need to go into theological territory to know that. We keep returning to ‘homophobe’ decretals. Statements like “We will get through it, it just… Read more »
Well we are closer to the parousia than in 2001, when the preacher at my ordination predicted the demise of the Church of England within 5 years, and at most 10. The COVID pandemic has broken more than has been acknowledged of the link between CofE and nation, but the institutional ties are still stronger than we might imagine. Whether that is a good thing is a theological/ecclesiological question that may come more to the fore. Colin Buchanan was an evangelical advocate of disestablishment, But the attractions of power are great, and the fantasy of a (pseudo)-christian nation is still… Read more »
Could you explain this comment please. Are you saying that a church with severely declining numbers and financial challenges could reduce to a very diminished public face — or, more than at present –and establishment would be the thing that keeps it from death?
Also, I couldn’t decipher the last sentence.
Thank you.
If you continue to be homophobic you will continue to be called homophobic. Why is that a problem or difficult to understand? Shades of this sketch:
https://youtu.be/zvgZtdmyKlI?si=5pUUtzwRZlNcatkq
I think everyone knows that you are concerned about “homophobia.”
Why the inverted commas?
In the eye of the beholder land. Phobia, a free floating boogey word.
I am none the wiser.
It’s intended to imply that homophobia doesn’t really exist.
How very silly.
No it is not intended that way.
Bishop Cherry Vann writes about a group of newly ordained women priests and male priests opposed to the ordination.of women.
“we were able, by God’s grace, to model something profoundly important to the diocese and wider church. That is, fundamentally we’re held together in God’s love, which is stronger than any of our differences and divisions.”
And? Is this example meant to say that all is well more widely? Obviously it isn’t. Aspiration isn’t reality. Look at this blog thread.
Aspiration can become reality with God’s help. Without aspiration nothing will ever change for the better. Bishop Cherry is the very last person to complacently say that “all is well”.
I wasn’t quoting her! I was speaking of the entrenched character of disagreement in the CofE as evidenced on this blog.
The evidence on this issue particularly in Scotland and Wales suggests otherwise, but evidence doesn’t seem to count for much these days.
Perhaps we English are too constrained by our history and tradition ? In much of continental Europe you get legally married in a civil ceremony followed by a religious marriage in church. On the Greek island of Syros three marriages are completely normal. One civil, one Orthodox and one Catholic. Perhaps us liberals are a bit feeble ? 19th century Anglo Catholics were prepared to fight and even go to prison for their beliefs and as a consequence Anglo Catholic parishes use unauthorised Missals. I don’t suppose the congregations in such parishes care very much if their missals are authorised… Read more »
I suspect that quite a few UK church goers have had civil rather church wedding.
My point was that in Continental Europe it is normal to have a civil wedding followed by a religious wedding. In Britain we are used to one wedding that combines a state ceremony with a religious one. If you separate the state ceremony from.the religious ceremony you remove the need for the religious ceremony to be authorized.
Could you explain this please?
“If you separate the state ceremony from.the religious ceremony you remove the need for the religious ceremony to be authorized.”
If you seek a marriage in the Catholic Church after the civil ceremony in front of the Marie, the “religious ceremony” is an authorized one.
Could you clarify.
Thank you.
I’m not sure why David thinks that separating the secular bit from the religious bit will make any difference. One can already quite happily have a same-sex marriage in England and Wales if they want to in a registry office. That doesn’t mean that the church should conduct them if God has revealed to us that marriage is the union between a man and a woman and that sex is for marriage. Secular society is perfectly free to contradict the word of God, but it doesn’t mean we should seek to do the same. Rather – we should hold more… Read more »
My reasoning is this. If an Anglo Catholic Parish uses an unauthorised Missal nothing much happens and I doubt very much if the congregation cares if the order of service is authorised or not. But the situation with marriage is different. If a Church of England priest uses an unauthorised service to marry a same sex couple then they would not be legally married in the eyes of the state. However if we were to adopt the system in use in much of continental Europe this problem disappears because the couple are legally married in the civil.ceremony and the religious… Read more »
I was a member of a parish where the vicar gradually moved more and more towards a Roman rite celebration of the eucharist, ultimately using the Roman eucharistic prayers. I objected very strongly. My objections were ignored.
This may be your personal view, but Europe does not think of Christian marriage along these lines. Typically if you want to avoid that, you avoid the Christian service altogether. You don’t opt for what you are calling an “unauthorised service.”
I am not talking of people who want to avoid a Christian marriage I am talking of same sex couples who want a Church of England wedding. The principal sanction is that the state would not legally recognise the wedding. This is overcome by having a civil ceremony first. My argument is that if enough liberal parishes started holding unauthorised same sex weddings the church of England hierarchy and government would be very reluctant to act just as they do not act against unauthorised missals. A same sex religious wedding is before God and your congregation. I don’t think the… Read more »
Well I’ll leave you to your own ideas, but European parallels are not to hand for your argument.
I do not understand your response please clarify.
Thank you.
In those countries where it is the state ceremony that is lawful & the church one merely an optional extra, surprisingly many people still do church as well. In Germany the numbers are better than UK, so unlatching has had no adverse impact.
I suspect that Church weddings having legal validity may not last much longer in multicultural UK, and given its ever declining size doubt that CofE can fight it.
But all it requires is for a state registrar to attend and ensure that the legal words are said. This already happens in churches of other denominations. Many congregations in such churches have someone who is the appropriate authorized person.
But a same sex wedding is explicitly banned in a Church of England church in the legislation, But if you are already married in a civil ceremony where is the sanction.?
This was a comment on the marriage of opposite-sex couples, as was the comment I was replying to.
Another spat about wobbly bits.
There really are many more important things going on in the World and in the Church .
…..and they pass by on the other side.