“the national coherence of liturgical practice – and the doctrinal witness it sustains – may be compromised. (§60)” It IS compromised. Half the Church doesn’t believe it. Indeed, probably more than half the Church. The idea that gay relationships are sinful is a fantasy in terms of what the members of the Church of England believe, let alone the wider general public that it serves. “It is precisely in the act of translating these prayers into public worship that the theological and doctrinal stakes become most acute. (§85)” They SHOULD become more acute, because the harm of others is involved.… Read more »
I am really sorry for the distress and dismay, Martin. Thank you for your honesty. Yes it is hard. We must pray for grace, for mercy, and for love for one another, even in profound differences of view. And in prayer, may we offer ourselves in our daily lives, each with our own sins and selfishness, to be given in our hearts to God, and to take a share of the Christ’s suffering for the world, and open to the eternal love of God that longs – absolutely longs – to flow through our lives to others. We are all… Read more »
The Church’s encouragement of suspicion and hostility towards gay people has caused great suffering and harm. I find it hard to be committed to an institution which can’t altogether stop doing this. How dwells the love of God in this place?
A lot of churches are the last resting place of retired military banners – usually the regimental colours, laid up after receiving a new set from the monarch, or because the regiment has been disbanded or merged with another. The best examples will be found in Brecon Cathedral, or places such as Pompey – sorry, Portsmouth, Plymouth and Colchester. Like Tim, I don’t feel entirely comfortable with the practice; the colours are said to represent the ‘spirit of the regiment’ which doesn’t sit too well with my rational leanings. Similarly some parts of the official service of remembrance (and a… Read more »
Sorry – I meant to say ‘O, Valiant Hearts’ – and should have added ‘Langemark’ to Tyne Cot and Messines. My late father was on the Icelandic and Arctic Ocean patrols, including PQ17. That has a lot to do with my views on the subject.
I can’t remember where, I quoted it in one of my comments, but in one of the papers it seems to say that liturgical practice drive doctrine. Something about communal doctrine. It seemed to be the wrong way round. Here we go: The Church’s doctrine of marriage—as the exclusive, lifelong union of one man and one woman—is not a marginal element of its teaching. It is embedded in its formularies, undergirds its moral theology, and has implications for its understanding of the sacraments, of the body, and of the vocation of all the baptised. Not exactly liturgical practice driving doctrine,… Read more »
Valerie Challis
20 days ago
Thank you Thomas for both these articles. It is so easy to see the latest batch of CofE papers as being the final word on the subject, and so vital that we can hear a different viewpoint – which in this case make more sense!
hidden sister
20 days ago
Sadly, this FAOC report seems set on ‘freezing’ things in an eternal status quo. Meanwhile people who know and love gay and lesbian neighbours, colleagues, family, and friends, are left appalled. The young in large numbers find the Church disgusting for discriminating against their friends and relatives, and rightly so. We are in a state of unreality over what people in the Church actually believe. Bishops may long for peace, but there cannot be peace where there is no peace. There can be no peace without justice. In allowing opt ins and opt outs they were set on a respectful… Read more »
Thanks for your clarity, sister, but two questions. If the prophets in the OT had been swayed by ‘what the majority of Israel actually believe’, wouldn’t they have opted to endorse the worship of Baal, rather than calling the people to repent and return to the Lord? And – are there any appropriate limits to the ‘respect for conscience’ you advocate? If, in conscience, some Church of England vicars decided that animal sacrifice should appropriately be reintroduced to the worship of God’s people, ought that to be permitted? I hope we’ll all agree ‘No!’, but thinking through why we do… Read more »
In both cases, they are clearly in breach of what scripture, read overall, teaches us. They are truly foundational doctrinal Christian beliefs. The is One God. There has been one perfect and sufficient sacrifice. People are perfectly free to go against those doctrines, but they will not be Christian. In contrast, if two people are in a same-sex relationship, and are exemplary Christians in all their (other) beliefs, thoughts and actions, I hope we would all agree they are Christians. Thank you for the question. As Einstein said: “If I had an hour to solve a problem and my life… Read more »
Thank you. I think we are in agreement, then, that ‘majority rule’ and ‘exercise of conscience’ should not dictate or influence Church teaching and polity when calls are made to act in clearly unscriptural ways. That’s helpful common ground, though not occupied, I think, by all TA contributors. It just leaves the question of what ‘truly foundational doctrinal Christian beliefs’ actually are, and who gets who define them, and who gets to enforce the consequences of their definition upon others. Which, I think, takes us back again to the current CofE impasse. Overly crudely: ‘Progressives’ – this is a second… Read more »
Thank you as well, and for your blessings. In answer to your first question, I think there is little progress to be made if we allege that fellow Christians are not worshipping God, loving God, leading sometimes costly lives in the Love of God for their neighbours, the sick and the lonely. Not saying you allege that. In addition, since Pentecost we have the Holy Spirit to help us open to love and lead caring, fruitful lives. I think many people would say that their married gay and lesbian friends bear good fruit through the devotion they have and what… Read more »
Thanks sister, certainly praying for us all.
For clarity, I wasn’t likening same sex relationships to either Baal worship or animal sacrifice. Just using those examples of conduct to explore questions about the relevance or otherwise of ‘majority opinion’ and ‘respecting conscience’, in regulating the life of the people of God.
Blessings.
You appear to have inside knowledge on what the “majority “ of C of E members believe. I tend not to accept your pretext. Regardless of what the so called members believe it really doesn’t give any excuse to arbitrarily change doctrine. I would ask, why do you belong to an organisation that you clearly are at odds with ? Why do you spend so much time trying to change the organisation to accept your enlightened theology? It really doesn’t make any sense at all if you are so outraged and , in your view, abused by an organisation that… Read more »
Six consecutive decades of commissioned reports, major synod debates in hr Church of England, plus several Lambeth confernces focused on human sexuality, and culminating in 7 years of the LLF process is not what I call ‘arbitrary change’.
Peter S
20 days ago
Thanks to Thomas Sharp for articulating so clearly things I sensed in both papers. I still can’t believe no one has mentioned Article XXXII: “Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, are not commanded by God’s Law, either to vow the estate of single life, or to abstain from marriage: therefore it is lawful for them, as for all other Christian men, to marry at their own discretion, as they shall judge the same to serve better to godliness.”
Hi Peter It does of course hinge on what the definition of marriage is and article XXXII sits in the middle of all the Church’s current understanding of marriage.
If a same sex civil marriage is a marriage as understood by the Church of England, then Article 32 applies and clergy should be free to marry a same sex partner. If a same sex civil marriage is not the same thing as being described under Canon B30 on Holy Matrimony, then that relationship is not a marriage in the eyes of the Church and therefore has nothing to do with what Canon B30 is describing. And therefore a priest being in a same sex civil marriage is not acting contrary to Canon B30, which is about Holy Matrimony in… Read more »
Actually this is not the case. Article 32 was approved in 1562/1571 before there was legislation permitting clergy to marry (a Jacobean innovation). The clergy do not need to wait for the permission of Parliament or the General Synod or anyone else. The moral authority is already there in the fundamental formularies of the Church of England – as long as in good conscience they genuinely believe marriage will lead to godliness.
Nice try. Dancing around the head of a pin. You are evidently incorrect. If you were correct the LLF debacle would not have hit the buffers. Because it has hit the buffers and is now stalled proves my point.
Geoff. LLF let the genie of LGBT+ inclusion is out of the bottle and won’t go back in – least of all by episcopal or legal pronouncement. This isn’t going away. Nor is the CofE is not a railway line.
You may be incorrect in dismissing the railway line analogy. The whole institution has been careering towards its inevitable destination for many years now. Over 30 years ago my local priest noted , following a rather irritable exchange of views at a local deanery synod, that there are a number of people in the C of E who no longer uphold the authority of scripture and wish to move away from orthodoxy. This has proved to be true as the infiltration of “wayward “ bishops (claiming to be progressives) have grown. You are , I feel, sadly correct in your… Read more »
So the sheep in this parable are straight and the goats are gay. Well, who knew? Meanwhile I am confused. At one point on this discussion thread you say ‘I choose not to lecture anyone’ and insist , ‘I have no issue with my gay friends and family, who I love and accept’ only to then tell us, ‘schism will be a price well worth paying if it finally divides the sheep and the goats and enables each group to set (sic) their eventual destination’. Well, while you stand holding the door to hell open for your friends, loved ones and… Read more »
Why do you assume the sheep are straight and the goats gay? I did not indicate which were which. Why do you immediately take the side of the “accused” ? If I hold to Holy scripture, but am wrong, then I would be the goat. I am very happy to make my choice and face the consequences if it turns out that doctrine is something that flows with our times and can be changed to reflect the society we live in. I certainly wouldn’t be holding the door open for anyone to pass into the abyss as I am also… Read more »
Geoff, we have engaged here and on another well known conservative blog over number of years. In all that time I have never heard you suggest other than that you think that I, and those l like me, are false teachers, have abandoned scripture, true doctrine and my ordination vows, and for its support for inclusion the CofE is under God’s judgment, and therefore in decline. So perhaps you can understand my assumption that when you quote that parable I am among the goats. If you are open to discovering you are wrong – and that the journey to inclusion… Read more »
David, I have found our exchange of views on this matter enlightening. Our God is, indeed, the God of the impossible and I never rule out what amazing things he has done in my own life and those known to me. I know that God constantly calls his people to repentance and to turn away from everything that grieves him. We, evidently, disagree on what grieves The Spirit. I hope I can always remain open to being convicted of error in my life. I would hope all Christian’s would be open to correction and guided by The Holy Spirit in… Read more »
I am curious as to the choice of parables and biblical texts being used across the whole discussion. The wheat and the tares could be used just as easily, allowing the farmer to judge and sort at harvest time, rather than destroying the crop in an attempt to purify the field. [Answer to David, because of David’s interest in the biblical texts]
So just days after insisting ‘I choose not to lecture anyone’ you can presently be found on a well known conservative blog site writing this about Mike Higton’s piece:‘The article presented as unbalanced, predetermined, prejudge, to serve his stated position, with contradictions and logical fallacies from a skimmed reading …composed with something of an air of desperation.’ Can you give us another word for it then?
You seem to be mistaken. I have not contributed on any “conservative “ blog. I shall give you the opportunity to check your incorrect statement and , if you wish, withdraw it. I do not understand your comment at all. I accept people make mistakes and it appears this has occurred in this instance.
I think David was referring to this comment on Ian Paul’s Psephizo blog, a comment made by someone calling themselves “Geoff”. There is no way for us to know whather that is the same person as you.
Indeed I am not Geoff of the Ian Paul Blog. I would add that I do occasionally read Ian Paul and have followed his occasional contributions to Times Radio and BBC Radio. I find him a well informed academic and tend to agree with much of his output. It’s unfortunate that you should end our discussion on a misdirected accusation but I guess this illustrates the damage that the LLF process has levied on an already divided church.
When you have two people with the same first name, both of whom post from similar points of view and neither of whom is willing to use their last name, it’s totally understandable that this mistake should be made. Calling it a ‘misdirected accusation’ is unjust. I would have made the same assumption as David, and not out of malice either.
Of course, this would all change if people were willing to use their full names.
Tim. I am “judged unjust “ as someone made an incorrect assumption, wrongly took up the issue with me, accepted his error and apologised. Just because I “hide” my surname from the blog. I never ever considered if it was relevant to use my surname. You seem to have victimitus brother. I am thankful to David for his apology am happy to move on. It’s encouraging to know that some of you chaps read so called “conservative “ sites. I don’t consider myself conservative ( my wife being ordained). Ian Paul has spoken recently about how the LGBT community in… Read more »
Geoff. Thank you for clarifying this. I now understand your perplexity at my recent comments to you! It seems that for some time now I have been assuming two Geoff’s, appearing regularly on two different blog sites, are one and the same. I totally apologise for my mistake and withdraw my comments here directed to you in error. If it helps you to understand, my confusion was based not only on a shared, not very common, name. You happen to hold the same strongly held beliefs on certain issues, theology and the church, and have a very similar writing style.… Read more »
That’s wonderful – and I hadn’t noticed it myself. ‘to marry at their own discretion’ – what a gift from the past!
Kieran
20 days ago
Thanks for these pieces. Thomas Sharp has given us a sensible view of some pretty silly thinking.
It strikes me that seeing doctrine as descriptive rather than prescriptive would do a lot to save the report writers from themselves. But the prescriptive approach taken in these reports is very in line with the whole “the Bible says…” territory that’s been the chosen fighting ground for the anti-LGBTIQ+ faction for the last thirty or so years.
As the Irishman at the crossroads is said to have remarked, “If you want to go to Cork, I wouldn’t be starting from here…”
Or, as another (real) Irishman said to my late mother in law, “But if you follow that road there, it’s sure to go somewhere…..”
Simon Eyre
20 days ago
FAOC were asked to produce a theological statement on the various issues covered in the papers. They have honestly tried to present a balanced view on what the theological position of the Church of England is. They represent a broad spectrum, as I understand it, of tradition and belief. Throughout the LLF process the importance of a theological perspective has been stressed Now a theological perspective emerges that does not support many of the directions LLF was taking the Church of England there is a loud cry of “foul”. We cant have it both ways
I don’t think it’s quite as simple as that, Simon. My understanding is that these papers were sent to the bishops only a few days before their October meeting, so that there was no time to read them properly. That meant it was easier to put a particular spin on them, focusing on some sections rather than others. Would it not have been more appropriate, after the many months (in some cases, years) for which we have waited to see the papers, if a discussion had been begun but no decisions made until the December meeting?
Perhaps But clearly the bishops felt the need, for whatever reason, to pass some judgement on their content at this stage. To have remained silent for any length of time might have also been misinterpreted.
I am very grateful for Father Sharp’s perspicacious consideration of these three papers. I have read GS1429 and will read the others. They are odd documents: they are a hybrid between an academic paper and a report but they lack any proper indication of how they were produced. If they were academic papers, there would be a named author(s) about whom one could find further information and one could be assured that they had been peer-reviewed. If they were reports, there would be an indication of the terms of reference and information about who was doing the reporting and how… Read more »
Hi David Yes the papers in themselves might not be considered broad because of the conclusions reached. Rather it was the membership of FAOC to which I was referring. They are not as I understand it a group of very conservative theologians but rather from a broader spectrum of understanding
Martin Hughes
20 days ago
I do think that it was traditional to think that the moral values associated with marriage could not exist in a sane sex relationship. Near unanimous, I would think, looking back to my young days. So the word ‘marriage’ retained its application solely to man+woman. Our moral judgement was wrong and the reasons commonly given for it, including the Catholic ‘objective disorder’ nonsense, were deceptive. It’s been a huge change, affecting many aspects of life and thought, not least the position of authority systems, medical, educational, church. The word changed its legal meaning only when the moral change was well… Read more »
If it’s a sane sex relationship, you’re not doing it right!
To misquote Woody Allen, I think.
Allan Sheath
20 days ago
Fr Thomas Sharp rightly calls out the two references in GS Misc 1430 to same-sex couples and their ‘life choices’. A phrase that should never have been used at all, or, at the very least, should not have survived the editor’s red pen. A document written in haste? Incidentally, this is why I find the acronym LGBTQIA+ unhelpful, as it has become a hostage to those who belief exactly that. Where Fr Thomas’ argument falls down is when he challenges the assumption in GS Misc 1430 that our unchanging doctrine of marriage ‘is and has always been between one… Read more »
‘Life choices’ – once read, it can’t be unread. Takes me back to a CofE report of 40+ years ago with its excruciating phrase, ‘those of a homosexual disposition’.
I find your faux excruciation dumbfounding at reacting to a totally acceptable term such as “life choices”. The “human rights lobby” grips Christendom methinks. What I consider excruciating is the genuine suffering of brothers and sisters at the murderous hands of a Russian dictator in Ukraine. The perishing cold and the prospect of a long cold winter of never ending suffering. Please don’t use words like excruciating and suffering over a mere dislike of a few words that you choose to take offence of. Please consider that genuine hardship really does exist elsewhere and put your own “outrage “ into… Read more »
Seriously? You moan and wail and stamp your feet and threaten to leave the church over the prospect of a same sex couple being blessed somewhere in the church without being condemned by the hierarchy and you have the temerity to lecture other people on the terms they use to describe their experiences.
Seriously, I choose not to lecture anyone. I accept that others, such as the majority of contributors to TA, choose to disagree with me. I have no issue with my gay friends and family, who I love and accept, disagreeing with me. I shall however never accept that the God that revealed himself to me through his son wants to bless sin in whatever form it may take. I don’t consider same sex attraction as sin. I do consider certain practices within those relationships as totally outside of Gods plans for Christian living. You will find many that hold this… Read more »
Geoff, thank you for your contributions. I may not agree with them all, but the fact that you write them prevents this site from becoming an echo chamber.
Any contrary view, if expressed politely and with common sense, should be welcomed.
[isn’t that part of the recent issue with the BBC – some criticism was ignored or dismissed – how dare anyone criticise the staff or editors of the magnificent hard working and independent organisation, particularly when from a Tory plant!]
You too are no stranger to hyperbole: “dumbfounding”, “totally acceptable term” – and all the while hiding behind the cloak of anonymity. And do you really believe that any Christian would choose to be gay, given the unexamined attitude of those Christians who continue to ignore the medical consensus of the past 50 years.
If the remarriage of divorcees has indeed become ‘routine’ in the CofE, in the sense of totally uncontroversial, something offered ‘on the nod’, without prayerful, pastoral listening to the couples’ circumstances and a wise, patient formulation of a decision as to its propriety or otherwise then… this is a gross failure of theological vision, pastoral seriousness and Christian authenticity. I can well believe, therefore, that it has happened, given the current superficiality of Christian formation prevalent in our church. Such a failure should not, though, be seen as an indicator that the doctrine (discipline, teaching, whatever) of marriage should be… Read more »
I deliberately contained ‘routine’ within inverted commas. I can’t speak for others, but I would only solemnise the mariage of a divorcee after following the bishops’ guidelines. The last time I looked, we were still an episcopally ordered church.
Trying to hold fast to what is good is part of my rule of life. And there are good gifts in this otherwise dispiriting process. They are found in the vey high quality of theological and legal reflections on the Bishop’s pronouncements and the FAOC papers. For that I am very grateful. The theolgical terrain would be even bleaker without these voices.
David Runcorn
20 days ago
I am grateful to Father Sharp for exposing just how one-sided the FAOC theological material actually is. Of the 24 theologians used: “100% are white, 96% are men, 83% are straight or in opposite sex marriages, 46% are North American, 12% are ex-gay / same-sex-attracted identifying evangelicals. The one affirming gay Anglican contribution cited is from Jeffrey John, from his book published in 1993.” The views and voices of LGBTQIA+ people “are almost entirely sidelined.” It is truly shocking. But then I note that the composition of FAOC itself reflects very similar biases. I have taught theology and if someone had submitted… Read more »
One of the many things I have against the ESV Study Bible is that not a single contributor is a woman. In this day and age, that’s just not on. I would think the same applies here.
It still happens Tim. The one time David Runcorn and I met in person was at a study day on sexuality organised by my diocese as part of the LLF process. The lecture on Homosexual and LGBT history was given by Professor Mark Chapman, historical advisor to the LLF process, who I believe to be straight. When discussing early research on gay history he mentioned the one book written by a straight man (Havelock Ellis) and failed to mention the five books written by gay men at that time (by John Addington Symonds and Edward Carpenter). He told us that… Read more »
Thank you David for writing this. The gay scholar Anthony Delaney has written a fascinating book called “Queer Georgians” exploring queer lives in the 18th and early 19th-century in England and America. In his discussion he created the word “heteroregulation” to describe the “deliberate social, cultural and legislative acts that were calculated to control and admonish one or two groups across several centuries. That regulation continues today.” It is a process where people with power control what is allowed to be said and done by and about LGBTQ people. Sometimes it is conscious, but sometimes entirely unconscious. And it happens… Read more »
But perhaps too a similar analysis of those involved in the LLF materials, particularly the video presentations, and those who provided the theological conclusions coming through LLF might be similarly revealing.
They are impressively comprehensive. This was one of their clearest priorities. All voices are present. But it is very easy to check.
Despondent
20 days ago
Thomas Sharp quotes: ‘the vocation to ordained ministry is a ‘whole-life dedication’ which makes it ‘difficult, if not impossible, to separate the moral from the exemplary imperative in a life conceived as a form of witness’ (§64). Then argues: This is an extraordinary argument for an Anglican to advance, especially as it is essentially the root of the argument for clerical celibacy in the Roman Catholic Church. If ordination is ‘whole-life dedication’ to God, then heterosexual marriage and dedication to another person also should be inappropriate for the clergy. Except that marriage is part of one’s ‘whole life’, so the… Read more »
David Hawkins
20 days ago
Last Saturday I was in St Woolas Cathedral in Newport to witness the enthronement of a Lesbian Archbishop of Wales. It was a wonderful, spiritual, joyful event. I pray and expect that Cherry Vann”s “revolution of small things” (welcome, kindness, generosity, Christian love, mutual respect, joy, humility, empathy) is going to transform the province of Wales and hopefully the wider Anglican communion. And what is the response of the province over the border in England ? Faith informed by Order. Men in Mitres and Whigs deciding who God thinks are first and second class human beings. Cherry Vann talks of… Read more »
I think your joy will be short lived brother. I am very saddened to see what has taken place in the church in Wales. Not because I have any ill feelings towards those taking the church along this path but I consider that the church leadership is in error.
Let’s see if the rebirth of that branch of the church is fruitful. I am, of course, open to be corrected should the statistics prove me wrong over the next few years.
Kyle Johansen
19 days ago
Sharp’s argument is wrongheaded from the start. It seems to refuse to recognise that it is a descriptive document. So, Sharp says “Rather, it reveals just how far the compilers of the report were not aware of the issues of power underlying the texts with which they engage.” when, of course, the document isn’t “engaging” with texts but laying out what the texts that are authorities over the Church of England say. Sharp might think that Canon C26 is disturbing and dangerous – the writers of the report might agree! – but it is still a canon in the church… Read more »
There’s an excellent exploration by Rowan Williams of what it means to be church(es) that live with profound disagreements at: Rowan Williams : Doctrinal diversity and christian communion – YouTube
It moves us off the tedious ground of ‘how much do we have to agree with to work together’ or ‘I can only worship with, work with, pray with those who I agree with.’ It should have been a part of the LLF process from the start.
Pam Wilkinson
19 days ago
I find it dispiriting that it seems that this whole debate about the doctrine of “marriage” is the only aspect of theology/doctrine which interests people. Is the C of E only interested in sex? What about more fundamental aspects such as whether people still believe that “he will return again in glory to judge both the quick and the dead”?
“the national coherence of liturgical practice – and the doctrinal witness it sustains – may be compromised. (§60)” It IS compromised. Half the Church doesn’t believe it. Indeed, probably more than half the Church. The idea that gay relationships are sinful is a fantasy in terms of what the members of the Church of England believe, let alone the wider general public that it serves. “It is precisely in the act of translating these prayers into public worship that the theological and doctrinal stakes become most acute. (§85)” They SHOULD become more acute, because the harm of others is involved.… Read more »
People are finding it unbearable to be part of an institution where many proclaim the values they reject. It’s hard
I am really sorry for the distress and dismay, Martin. Thank you for your honesty. Yes it is hard. We must pray for grace, for mercy, and for love for one another, even in profound differences of view. And in prayer, may we offer ourselves in our daily lives, each with our own sins and selfishness, to be given in our hearts to God, and to take a share of the Christ’s suffering for the world, and open to the eternal love of God that longs – absolutely longs – to flow through our lives to others. We are all… Read more »
The Church’s encouragement of suspicion and hostility towards gay people has caused great suffering and harm. I find it hard to be committed to an institution which can’t altogether stop doing this. How dwells the love of God in this place?
I get that. When I visit my mother’s current church in the UK, I find the presence of military banners hanging in the sanctuary very hard to take.
What military banners are they?
A lot of churches are the last resting place of retired military banners – usually the regimental colours, laid up after receiving a new set from the monarch, or because the regiment has been disbanded or merged with another. The best examples will be found in Brecon Cathedral, or places such as Pompey – sorry, Portsmouth, Plymouth and Colchester. Like Tim, I don’t feel entirely comfortable with the practice; the colours are said to represent the ‘spirit of the regiment’ which doesn’t sit too well with my rational leanings. Similarly some parts of the official service of remembrance (and a… Read more »
Sorry – I meant to say ‘O, Valiant Hearts’ – and should have added ‘Langemark’ to Tyne Cot and Messines. My late father was on the Icelandic and Arctic Ocean patrols, including PQ17. That has a lot to do with my views on the subject.
I can’t remember where, I quoted it in one of my comments, but in one of the papers it seems to say that liturgical practice drive doctrine. Something about communal doctrine. It seemed to be the wrong way round. Here we go: The Church’s doctrine of marriage—as the exclusive, lifelong union of one man and one woman—is not a marginal element of its teaching. It is embedded in its formularies, undergirds its moral theology, and has implications for its understanding of the sacraments, of the body, and of the vocation of all the baptised. Not exactly liturgical practice driving doctrine,… Read more »
Thank you Thomas for both these articles. It is so easy to see the latest batch of CofE papers as being the final word on the subject, and so vital that we can hear a different viewpoint – which in this case make more sense!
Sadly, this FAOC report seems set on ‘freezing’ things in an eternal status quo. Meanwhile people who know and love gay and lesbian neighbours, colleagues, family, and friends, are left appalled. The young in large numbers find the Church disgusting for discriminating against their friends and relatives, and rightly so. We are in a state of unreality over what people in the Church actually believe. Bishops may long for peace, but there cannot be peace where there is no peace. There can be no peace without justice. In allowing opt ins and opt outs they were set on a respectful… Read more »
Thanks for your clarity, sister, but two questions. If the prophets in the OT had been swayed by ‘what the majority of Israel actually believe’, wouldn’t they have opted to endorse the worship of Baal, rather than calling the people to repent and return to the Lord? And – are there any appropriate limits to the ‘respect for conscience’ you advocate? If, in conscience, some Church of England vicars decided that animal sacrifice should appropriately be reintroduced to the worship of God’s people, ought that to be permitted? I hope we’ll all agree ‘No!’, but thinking through why we do… Read more »
In both cases, they are clearly in breach of what scripture, read overall, teaches us. They are truly foundational doctrinal Christian beliefs. The is One God. There has been one perfect and sufficient sacrifice. People are perfectly free to go against those doctrines, but they will not be Christian. In contrast, if two people are in a same-sex relationship, and are exemplary Christians in all their (other) beliefs, thoughts and actions, I hope we would all agree they are Christians. Thank you for the question. As Einstein said: “If I had an hour to solve a problem and my life… Read more »
Thank you. I think we are in agreement, then, that ‘majority rule’ and ‘exercise of conscience’ should not dictate or influence Church teaching and polity when calls are made to act in clearly unscriptural ways. That’s helpful common ground, though not occupied, I think, by all TA contributors. It just leaves the question of what ‘truly foundational doctrinal Christian beliefs’ actually are, and who gets who define them, and who gets to enforce the consequences of their definition upon others. Which, I think, takes us back again to the current CofE impasse. Overly crudely: ‘Progressives’ – this is a second… Read more »
Thank you as well, and for your blessings. In answer to your first question, I think there is little progress to be made if we allege that fellow Christians are not worshipping God, loving God, leading sometimes costly lives in the Love of God for their neighbours, the sick and the lonely. Not saying you allege that. In addition, since Pentecost we have the Holy Spirit to help us open to love and lead caring, fruitful lives. I think many people would say that their married gay and lesbian friends bear good fruit through the devotion they have and what… Read more »
Thanks sister, certainly praying for us all.
For clarity, I wasn’t likening same sex relationships to either Baal worship or animal sacrifice. Just using those examples of conduct to explore questions about the relevance or otherwise of ‘majority opinion’ and ‘respecting conscience’, in regulating the life of the people of God.
Blessings.
You appear to have inside knowledge on what the “majority “ of C of E members believe. I tend not to accept your pretext. Regardless of what the so called members believe it really doesn’t give any excuse to arbitrarily change doctrine. I would ask, why do you belong to an organisation that you clearly are at odds with ? Why do you spend so much time trying to change the organisation to accept your enlightened theology? It really doesn’t make any sense at all if you are so outraged and , in your view, abused by an organisation that… Read more »
Six consecutive decades of commissioned reports, major synod debates in hr Church of England, plus several Lambeth confernces focused on human sexuality, and culminating in 7 years of the LLF process is not what I call ‘arbitrary change’.
Thanks to Thomas Sharp for articulating so clearly things I sensed in both papers. I still can’t believe no one has mentioned Article XXXII: “Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, are not commanded by God’s Law, either to vow the estate of single life, or to abstain from marriage: therefore it is lawful for them, as for all other Christian men, to marry at their own discretion, as they shall judge the same to serve better to godliness.”
Hi Peter It does of course hinge on what the definition of marriage is and article XXXII sits in the middle of all the Church’s current understanding of marriage.
as they shall judge the same to serve better to godliness
If a same sex civil marriage is a marriage as understood by the Church of England, then Article 32 applies and clergy should be free to marry a same sex partner. If a same sex civil marriage is not the same thing as being described under Canon B30 on Holy Matrimony, then that relationship is not a marriage in the eyes of the Church and therefore has nothing to do with what Canon B30 is describing. And therefore a priest being in a same sex civil marriage is not acting contrary to Canon B30, which is about Holy Matrimony in… Read more »
Actually this is not the case. Article 32 was approved in 1562/1571 before there was legislation permitting clergy to marry (a Jacobean innovation). The clergy do not need to wait for the permission of Parliament or the General Synod or anyone else. The moral authority is already there in the fundamental formularies of the Church of England – as long as in good conscience they genuinely believe marriage will lead to godliness.
Nice try. Dancing around the head of a pin. You are evidently incorrect. If you were correct the LLF debacle would not have hit the buffers. Because it has hit the buffers and is now stalled proves my point.
Geoff. LLF let the genie of LGBT+ inclusion is out of the bottle and won’t go back in – least of all by episcopal or legal pronouncement. This isn’t going away. Nor is the CofE is not a railway line.
You may be incorrect in dismissing the railway line analogy. The whole institution has been careering towards its inevitable destination for many years now. Over 30 years ago my local priest noted , following a rather irritable exchange of views at a local deanery synod, that there are a number of people in the C of E who no longer uphold the authority of scripture and wish to move away from orthodoxy. This has proved to be true as the infiltration of “wayward “ bishops (claiming to be progressives) have grown. You are , I feel, sadly correct in your… Read more »
So the sheep in this parable are straight and the goats are gay. Well, who knew? Meanwhile I am confused. At one point on this discussion thread you say ‘I choose not to lecture anyone’ and insist , ‘I have no issue with my gay friends and family, who I love and accept’ only to then tell us, ‘schism will be a price well worth paying if it finally divides the sheep and the goats and enables each group to set (sic) their eventual destination’. Well, while you stand holding the door to hell open for your friends, loved ones and… Read more »
Why do you assume the sheep are straight and the goats gay? I did not indicate which were which. Why do you immediately take the side of the “accused” ? If I hold to Holy scripture, but am wrong, then I would be the goat. I am very happy to make my choice and face the consequences if it turns out that doctrine is something that flows with our times and can be changed to reflect the society we live in. I certainly wouldn’t be holding the door open for anyone to pass into the abyss as I am also… Read more »
Geoff, we have engaged here and on another well known conservative blog over number of years. In all that time I have never heard you suggest other than that you think that I, and those l like me, are false teachers, have abandoned scripture, true doctrine and my ordination vows, and for its support for inclusion the CofE is under God’s judgment, and therefore in decline. So perhaps you can understand my assumption that when you quote that parable I am among the goats. If you are open to discovering you are wrong – and that the journey to inclusion… Read more »
David, I have found our exchange of views on this matter enlightening. Our God is, indeed, the God of the impossible and I never rule out what amazing things he has done in my own life and those known to me. I know that God constantly calls his people to repentance and to turn away from everything that grieves him. We, evidently, disagree on what grieves The Spirit. I hope I can always remain open to being convicted of error in my life. I would hope all Christian’s would be open to correction and guided by The Holy Spirit in… Read more »
I am curious as to the choice of parables and biblical texts being used across the whole discussion. The wheat and the tares could be used just as easily, allowing the farmer to judge and sort at harvest time, rather than destroying the crop in an attempt to purify the field. [Answer to David, because of David’s interest in the biblical texts]
So just days after insisting ‘I choose not to lecture anyone’ you can presently be found on a well known conservative blog site writing this about Mike Higton’s piece:‘The article presented as unbalanced, predetermined, prejudge, to serve his stated position, with contradictions and logical fallacies from a skimmed reading …composed with something of an air of desperation.’ Can you give us another word for it then?
You seem to be mistaken. I have not contributed on any “conservative “ blog. I shall give you the opportunity to check your incorrect statement and , if you wish, withdraw it. I do not understand your comment at all. I accept people make mistakes and it appears this has occurred in this instance.
I think David was referring to this comment on Ian Paul’s Psephizo blog, a comment made by someone calling themselves “Geoff”. There is no way for us to know whather that is the same person as you.
https://www.psephizo.com/sexuality-2/can-the-plf-process-be-rescued/#comment-504830
So you are not the Geoff that regularly comments on ian Paul’s bog site? And specifically as quoted –
Geoff
November 18, 2025 at 7:59 pm
Indeed I am not Geoff of the Ian Paul Blog. I would add that I do occasionally read Ian Paul and have followed his occasional contributions to Times Radio and BBC Radio. I find him a well informed academic and tend to agree with much of his output. It’s unfortunate that you should end our discussion on a misdirected accusation but I guess this illustrates the damage that the LLF process has levied on an already divided church.
When you have two people with the same first name, both of whom post from similar points of view and neither of whom is willing to use their last name, it’s totally understandable that this mistake should be made. Calling it a ‘misdirected accusation’ is unjust. I would have made the same assumption as David, and not out of malice either.
Of course, this would all change if people were willing to use their full names.
Tim. I am “judged unjust “ as someone made an incorrect assumption, wrongly took up the issue with me, accepted his error and apologised. Just because I “hide” my surname from the blog. I never ever considered if it was relevant to use my surname. You seem to have victimitus brother. I am thankful to David for his apology am happy to move on. It’s encouraging to know that some of you chaps read so called “conservative “ sites. I don’t consider myself conservative ( my wife being ordained). Ian Paul has spoken recently about how the LGBT community in… Read more »
Geoff. Thank you for clarifying this. I now understand your perplexity at my recent comments to you! It seems that for some time now I have been assuming two Geoff’s, appearing regularly on two different blog sites, are one and the same. I totally apologise for my mistake and withdraw my comments here directed to you in error. If it helps you to understand, my confusion was based not only on a shared, not very common, name. You happen to hold the same strongly held beliefs on certain issues, theology and the church, and have a very similar writing style.… Read more »
That’s wonderful – and I hadn’t noticed it myself. ‘to marry at their own discretion’ – what a gift from the past!
Thanks for these pieces. Thomas Sharp has given us a sensible view of some pretty silly thinking.
It strikes me that seeing doctrine as descriptive rather than prescriptive would do a lot to save the report writers from themselves. But the prescriptive approach taken in these reports is very in line with the whole “the Bible says…” territory that’s been the chosen fighting ground for the anti-LGBTIQ+ faction for the last thirty or so years.
As the Irishman at the crossroads is said to have remarked, “If you want to go to Cork, I wouldn’t be starting from here…”
Or, as another (real) Irishman said to my late mother in law, “But if you follow that road there, it’s sure to go somewhere…..”
FAOC were asked to produce a theological statement on the various issues covered in the papers. They have honestly tried to present a balanced view on what the theological position of the Church of England is. They represent a broad spectrum, as I understand it, of tradition and belief. Throughout the LLF process the importance of a theological perspective has been stressed Now a theological perspective emerges that does not support many of the directions LLF was taking the Church of England there is a loud cry of “foul”. We cant have it both ways
I don’t think it’s quite as simple as that, Simon. My understanding is that these papers were sent to the bishops only a few days before their October meeting, so that there was no time to read them properly. That meant it was easier to put a particular spin on them, focusing on some sections rather than others. Would it not have been more appropriate, after the many months (in some cases, years) for which we have waited to see the papers, if a discussion had been begun but no decisions made until the December meeting?
Perhaps But clearly the bishops felt the need, for whatever reason, to pass some judgement on their content at this stage. To have remained silent for any length of time might have also been misinterpreted.
I am very grateful for Father Sharp’s perspicacious consideration of these three papers. I have read GS1429 and will read the others. They are odd documents: they are a hybrid between an academic paper and a report but they lack any proper indication of how they were produced. If they were academic papers, there would be a named author(s) about whom one could find further information and one could be assured that they had been peer-reviewed. If they were reports, there would be an indication of the terms of reference and information about who was doing the reporting and how… Read more »
I wonder if you are reading Fr Thomas Sharp’s theological assessment of the FAOC papers? He, like me, finds them anything but broad.
Hi David Yes the papers in themselves might not be considered broad because of the conclusions reached. Rather it was the membership of FAOC to which I was referring. They are not as I understand it a group of very conservative theologians but rather from a broader spectrum of understanding
I do think that it was traditional to think that the moral values associated with marriage could not exist in a sane sex relationship. Near unanimous, I would think, looking back to my young days. So the word ‘marriage’ retained its application solely to man+woman. Our moral judgement was wrong and the reasons commonly given for it, including the Catholic ‘objective disorder’ nonsense, were deceptive. It’s been a huge change, affecting many aspects of life and thought, not least the position of authority systems, medical, educational, church. The word changed its legal meaning only when the moral change was well… Read more »
If it’s a sane sex relationship, you’re not doing it right!
To misquote Woody Allen, I think.
Fr Thomas Sharp rightly calls out the two references in GS Misc 1430 to same-sex couples and their ‘life choices’. A phrase that should never have been used at all, or, at the very least, should not have survived the editor’s red pen. A document written in haste? Incidentally, this is why I find the acronym LGBTQIA+ unhelpful, as it has become a hostage to those who belief exactly that. Where Fr Thomas’ argument falls down is when he challenges the assumption in GS Misc 1430 that our unchanging doctrine of marriage ‘is and has always been between one… Read more »
‘Life choices’ – once read, it can’t be unread. Takes me back to a CofE report of 40+ years ago with its excruciating phrase, ‘those of a homosexual disposition’.
I find your faux excruciation dumbfounding at reacting to a totally acceptable term such as “life choices”. The “human rights lobby” grips Christendom methinks. What I consider excruciating is the genuine suffering of brothers and sisters at the murderous hands of a Russian dictator in Ukraine. The perishing cold and the prospect of a long cold winter of never ending suffering. Please don’t use words like excruciating and suffering over a mere dislike of a few words that you choose to take offence of. Please consider that genuine hardship really does exist elsewhere and put your own “outrage “ into… Read more »
Seriously? You moan and wail and stamp your feet and threaten to leave the church over the prospect of a same sex couple being blessed somewhere in the church without being condemned by the hierarchy and you have the temerity to lecture other people on the terms they use to describe their experiences.
Seriously, I choose not to lecture anyone. I accept that others, such as the majority of contributors to TA, choose to disagree with me. I have no issue with my gay friends and family, who I love and accept, disagreeing with me. I shall however never accept that the God that revealed himself to me through his son wants to bless sin in whatever form it may take. I don’t consider same sex attraction as sin. I do consider certain practices within those relationships as totally outside of Gods plans for Christian living. You will find many that hold this… Read more »
Geoff, thank you for your contributions. I may not agree with them all, but the fact that you write them prevents this site from becoming an echo chamber.
Any contrary view, if expressed politely and with common sense, should be welcomed.
[isn’t that part of the recent issue with the BBC – some criticism was ignored or dismissed – how dare anyone criticise the staff or editors of the magnificent hard working and independent organisation, particularly when from a Tory plant!]
You too are no stranger to hyperbole: “dumbfounding”, “totally acceptable term” – and all the while hiding behind the cloak of anonymity. And do you really believe that any Christian would choose to be gay, given the unexamined attitude of those Christians who continue to ignore the medical consensus of the past 50 years.
If the remarriage of divorcees has indeed become ‘routine’ in the CofE, in the sense of totally uncontroversial, something offered ‘on the nod’, without prayerful, pastoral listening to the couples’ circumstances and a wise, patient formulation of a decision as to its propriety or otherwise then… this is a gross failure of theological vision, pastoral seriousness and Christian authenticity. I can well believe, therefore, that it has happened, given the current superficiality of Christian formation prevalent in our church. Such a failure should not, though, be seen as an indicator that the doctrine (discipline, teaching, whatever) of marriage should be… Read more »
I deliberately contained ‘routine’ within inverted commas. I can’t speak for others, but I would only solemnise the mariage of a divorcee after following the bishops’ guidelines. The last time I looked, we were still an episcopally ordered church.
Is there a term for “life choices” that you consider acceptable?
No.
Trying to hold fast to what is good is part of my rule of life. And there are good gifts in this otherwise dispiriting process. They are found in the vey high quality of theological and legal reflections on the Bishop’s pronouncements and the FAOC papers. For that I am very grateful. The theolgical terrain would be even bleaker without these voices.
I am grateful to Father Sharp for exposing just how one-sided the FAOC theological material actually is. Of the 24 theologians used: “100% are white, 96% are men, 83% are straight or in opposite sex marriages, 46% are North American, 12% are ex-gay / same-sex-attracted identifying evangelicals. The one affirming gay Anglican contribution cited is from Jeffrey John, from his book published in 1993.” The views and voices of LGBTQIA+ people “are almost entirely sidelined.” It is truly shocking. But then I note that the composition of FAOC itself reflects very similar biases. I have taught theology and if someone had submitted… Read more »
Wow. Very revealing.
One of the many things I have against the ESV Study Bible is that not a single contributor is a woman. In this day and age, that’s just not on. I would think the same applies here.
It still happens Tim. The one time David Runcorn and I met in person was at a study day on sexuality organised by my diocese as part of the LLF process. The lecture on Homosexual and LGBT history was given by Professor Mark Chapman, historical advisor to the LLF process, who I believe to be straight. When discussing early research on gay history he mentioned the one book written by a straight man (Havelock Ellis) and failed to mention the five books written by gay men at that time (by John Addington Symonds and Edward Carpenter). He told us that… Read more »
Thank you David for writing this. The gay scholar Anthony Delaney has written a fascinating book called “Queer Georgians” exploring queer lives in the 18th and early 19th-century in England and America. In his discussion he created the word “heteroregulation” to describe the “deliberate social, cultural and legislative acts that were calculated to control and admonish one or two groups across several centuries. That regulation continues today.” It is a process where people with power control what is allowed to be said and done by and about LGBTQ people. Sometimes it is conscious, but sometimes entirely unconscious. And it happens… Read more »
But perhaps too a similar analysis of those involved in the LLF materials, particularly the video presentations, and those who provided the theological conclusions coming through LLF might be similarly revealing.
They are impressively comprehensive. This was one of their clearest priorities. All voices are present. But it is very easy to check.
Thomas Sharp quotes: ‘the vocation to ordained ministry is a ‘whole-life dedication’ which makes it ‘difficult, if not impossible, to separate the moral from the exemplary imperative in a life conceived as a form of witness’ (§64). Then argues: This is an extraordinary argument for an Anglican to advance, especially as it is essentially the root of the argument for clerical celibacy in the Roman Catholic Church. If ordination is ‘whole-life dedication’ to God, then heterosexual marriage and dedication to another person also should be inappropriate for the clergy. Except that marriage is part of one’s ‘whole life’, so the… Read more »
Last Saturday I was in St Woolas Cathedral in Newport to witness the enthronement of a Lesbian Archbishop of Wales. It was a wonderful, spiritual, joyful event. I pray and expect that Cherry Vann”s “revolution of small things” (welcome, kindness, generosity, Christian love, mutual respect, joy, humility, empathy) is going to transform the province of Wales and hopefully the wider Anglican communion. And what is the response of the province over the border in England ? Faith informed by Order. Men in Mitres and Whigs deciding who God thinks are first and second class human beings. Cherry Vann talks of… Read more »
I think your joy will be short lived brother. I am very saddened to see what has taken place in the church in Wales. Not because I have any ill feelings towards those taking the church along this path but I consider that the church leadership is in error.
Let’s see if the rebirth of that branch of the church is fruitful. I am, of course, open to be corrected should the statistics prove me wrong over the next few years.
Sharp’s argument is wrongheaded from the start. It seems to refuse to recognise that it is a descriptive document. So, Sharp says “Rather, it reveals just how far the compilers of the report were not aware of the issues of power underlying the texts with which they engage.” when, of course, the document isn’t “engaging” with texts but laying out what the texts that are authorities over the Church of England say. Sharp might think that Canon C26 is disturbing and dangerous – the writers of the report might agree! – but it is still a canon in the church… Read more »
There’s an excellent exploration by Rowan Williams of what it means to be church(es) that live with profound disagreements at: Rowan Williams : Doctrinal diversity and christian communion – YouTube
It moves us off the tedious ground of ‘how much do we have to agree with to work together’ or ‘I can only worship with, work with, pray with those who I agree with.’ It should have been a part of the LLF process from the start.
I find it dispiriting that it seems that this whole debate about the doctrine of “marriage” is the only aspect of theology/doctrine which interests people. Is the C of E only interested in sex? What about more fundamental aspects such as whether people still believe that “he will return again in glory to judge both the quick and the dead”?