Colin Coward Unadulterated Love Through Our Long Exile – doing theology with Ken Leech
ISB11 What does Mr X’s case mean for Church of England safeguarding?
Simon Cross ViaMedia.News Why Progressive Christians Must Reclaim the Case for Church – Or Face the Consequences
Andrew Rumsey (Bishop of Ramsbury) Down in The Effra Blank Arcades
Helen King sharedconversations Living in Love and Faith, October 2025: What’s changed?
Thank you Colin for your timely reminder of the work of Ken Leech. He also founded the homelessness charity Centrepoint. I was fortunate enough to hear him give an excellent talk on the Battle of Cable Street about 30.years ago.
Really appreciate Colin’s piece too. Would be interested if he could unpick this part, as it chimes as true but would like to understand it a bit better:
“Theology has been co-opted by certain forces within late capitalism.”
Yes, that would be interesting. I recall reading a piece by Colin some time ago in which his response to the “new forms of church” being promoted on the C of E website, suggested that what we needed was rather “a new form of God”. That made sense to me. But the “forms of Church” we are accustomed to (a variety of forms, old and new) do reflect a particular form of God, don’t they? Standing in a particular, distinct and “up there” relationship with man. To be petitioned, worshipped, assured that we know ourselves to be unworthy, with no… Read more »
I made this comment elsewhere. A couple of people approved and no-one said they thought it a bad idea, so in the interests of being constructive, I’d like to share it again here and get people’s reactions. Would it help if the new ABC made a public statement on coming to office that “many of us want to be fully inclusive of LGBTQI+ people but unfortunately church politics has led to a powerful traditionalist element being able to block the rules from being changed” ? This would seem to me to have a number of benefits: It’s entirely true, clear… Read more »
This is an excellent idea Nigel for all the reasons you describe.
I doubt the timing is coincidental. Were I the incoming ABC I would tell the House of Bishops that I didn’t want my term of office to be dominated by LLF and same sex marriage.
I also think that is right, too. While there are ongoing injustices against LGBT people in the Church of England, I think poverty and homelessness ought to be higher priorities.
I agree, Kate (if I have understood you correctly), that it makes sense at this point to draw a line (for now) under these painful and divisive discussions. My suggestion is about HOW to get more good out of drawing that line. And I 100% agree with you that part of the reason for drawing that line is to be able to focus on other super-important things that have been squeezed out in recent years.
Kate and Nigel, I’m not sure that I am ready to draw a line under these discussions. We should not give up on fighting injustice and discrimination simply because the fight has become become difficult and painful. It took many decades to move the issue of women priests and bishops through many stages to some sense of completion. So a five year LLF process is not much more than an opening skirmish. Perhaps “battle” analogies are inappropriate, but I like Churchill’s phrase. “This is not the end, nor the beginning of the end, but the end of the beginning”. I… Read more »
I agree. It seems as if (for now) Synod is not the place where progress is going to be made. My suggestion is about how to move the dial a little via a different route.
Meanwhile, I argued on a previous thread that how conservatives do theology, and epistemology, is the real underlying issue that needs addressing. I got the expected type of reactions which, when I responded, seemed to run out of arguments pretty quickly:
https://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/llf-responses-to-recent-announcements/#comment-492837
Welby on taking office tried to draw attention away from debates over sexual morality to debates over social justice, with particular reference to Wonga and payday lenders. He had some success in this. But the Church can’t avoid its responsibility for the blessings that it chooses to give or withold
Thank you Kate, may I say as a gay married man that I think your comparison is a false dichotomy. One that I object too very strongly. Scripture teaches and instructs us to feed the poor and care for the homeless. Scripture also teaches and instructs us that justice is a non negotiable gospel matter. The position of LGBTQIA+ in the church is not a matter of being unfaithful to orthodoxy. It is a matter of Biblical justice. If conservative Evangelicals are uncomfortable well maybe they deserve to be uncomfortable. The CEEC are behaving like thugs and bullies. They need… Read more »
More name calling. Thugs and bullies you say. As a non gay man I have no issue with your chosen sexual preference. I do take issue in the way you want to distort scripture to suit your chosen lifestyle. I consider that the “bullying “ has been delivered by the outrageously liberal C of E bishops who have led everyone ( both sides) down the garden path, promising “inclusivity” and then falling down due to ignorance and haste in reforming structures. I have, since LLF HoB announced their U turn, compiled a list of the names both I and the… Read more »
Geoff, I presume you are unaware of how insulting the terms ‘chosen sexual preference’ and ‘chosen lifestyle’ are to gay people and thus the irony of using them in a post complaining about ‘name calling’. Sometimes it’s only when you start throwing stones yourself you realise that you too are living in a glass house.
I find the problem of taking offence, your comment is a classic example, is just too difficult to negotiate in the modern era. My language is plain English. You and those in your protesting camp will always find new ways to take offence. My comment was not offensive or insulting. I certainly will take no lectures on what is offensive and what is not.
Geoff, your comment was insulting, because you are (deliberately or not) ignoring the science that being gay is inborn, not chosen. Blaming someone for being gay makes as much sense as blaming them for being male or female, black or white. Sexual preference is not a choice.
Calling bishops ‘outrageously liberal’ is also insulting. And while you complain about the insults you have received here, you have frequently insisted on labelling many of us ‘not orthodox’, while you yourself are apparently ‘orthodox’ – despite being repeatedly told that you are offending us.
You moan constantly about “name-calling” then have the gall to complain about people “taking offence” at “plain English”. Can you not see the blatant hypocrisy?
No
Geoff, it seems you’re saying you don’t care who you offend, you yourself are the only arbiter of what is offensive and if you don’t think it’s offensive it isn’t! Is ‘arrogance’ an offensive word, because I think it might apply here? As a self-confessed ‘non gay man’ do you think it’s for you to determine what is and isn’t offensive to gay men? Seriously? I’m sure you harbour no animus towards gay people; that doesn’t mean you’re incapable of being offensive in what you say to them. I think you’ll find the terms you used are far from being… Read more »
I don’t think you’re really here for a constructive discussion, amazingly.
Thanks Chris. So by not agreeing with the vast majority of TA posts, my comments are not constructive? That just about sums up the one sided views that the revisionist grouping hold. If you are LGBT etc your comments are valid. If you remain orthodox you are discriminated against. Your position appears hypocritical given you say you support the marginalised and then marginalise and dismiss me. Why I am not surprised?
Tolerance is a contract, not an article of faith, and it is a contract you’ve repeatedly broken. Discriminating on the basis of how you treat people and how you campaign for them to be treated by the church is both legal and entirely justified.
I remain orthodox and don’t feel discriminated against. Funny that, almost like homophobia is not a marker of orthodoxy.
Geoff, the problem is not the nature of your views; it’s the offensive way in which you so often express them. Others can express similar views to yours without upsetting so many people.
Didn’t Jesus, according to the Gospels, do a fair amount of name calling? Did he not say very many offensive (to most ears) things?
Woe betide a church which is not offensive.
One of my favourite words is “preposterous”. But only when applied to your comments which are becoming increasingly ridiculous.
Geoff is correct to say that equal marriage cannot presently be viewed as orthodox. It hasn’t yet been defined by the CofE. And being undefined, it’s impossible to show that it’s a coherent extension of current belief and practice. The sooner that is addressed, the sooner this discussion will become more helpful. The church never will be in the business of breaking free from the constraints of theology and biblical texts, redefining God, or doing what society tries to force it to do. But it is in the business of creatively, robustly, rigorously, gently and urgently discerning God’s vision for… Read more »
‘Geoff is correct to say that equal marriage cannot presently be viewed as orthodox.’ I, and many of us here, disagree. Orthodoxy is defined by the creeds none of which mention sexual behaviour – or any other kind of behaviour. Orthodoxy describes what we believe. Morality and ethics describe what we do.
Any attempt to progress same sex equality now will go nowhere. It would just be the same people saying the same things.
I so often disagree with your posts but I have to agree that the “social separation “ that continues at a pace in the UK is a focus Christians can and should champion. The greed, tax breaks for wealthy ( including the several million who pay themselves little or no wages just to avoid income tax) by taking “income” from their own companies via dividends, is appalling. My wife has a £2.5 k C of E pension, coupled with her state pension means she pays tax although her income is less than £15k. A colleague runs his business and pays… Read more »
I don’t know your colleague, but perhaps he worked hard over the years to build his business up so that he can afford to do what you mention. If that is the case, is it immoral for him and his family to reap the benefits of his hard work? As for his being remunerated via a dividend and not a salary, perhaps it is worth quoting a famous court case (Inland Revenue Commissioners v Duke of Westminster) in which the judge said: “Every man is entitled, if he can, to order his affairs so that the tax attaching under the… Read more »
I note that the judge didn’t say it was moral behaviour. It isn’t, of course, his job to do so. But it is the job of the Church.
You seem to agree to my point while defending the immoral at the same time. My colleague did work hard. He is entitled to, to a degree, to reap the benefits of his work. My complaint is against a system that allows very wealthy people to become wealthier while taxing the minions. My point is that “ he should not be allowed to order his affairs in a way that adds to his already bloated wealth”. Change the rules so that he cannot avoid tax through scheming.
Firstly, if your colleague is entitled only “to a degree” to reap the benefits of his work, have you told him, or would you like me to do so? Secondly, you say that he “pays zero income tax but takes a dividend which attracts tax at a lower rate”. Therefore, he does pay income tax, albeit at a lower rate than that which would apply to a salary (or at a lower rate than you might wish). Thirdly, if you are against tax avoidance (which is legal, as opposed to tax evasion, which is not), then consider this simple example.… Read more »
“It’s not insulting to ,,, conservatives’. I’m afraid it most certainly would be. Conservatives believe their convictions on this are based on scripture and their faithfulness to ‘orthodox’ church doctrine. A new Archbishop saying the present situation is ‘unfortunate’, and due to ‘church politics’ and that ‘a powerful traditionalist element’ has been able to ‘block the rules’ is hardly going to make them feel understood or respected.
I have to agree with this – I think the conservative side of our church would see it as little more than vagueposting. Tone doesn’t translate over text very well, but I can see the spaces left for side-eyeing after “many of us” and “unfortunately”.
On a personal level, however, I’d be pleased as punch to see a statement so decisive and plain-speaking coming from the ABC. I don’t think it’ll happen, but still, a man can dream.
Arguably, the ‘unfortunately’ does indeed insult conservatives. I think the statement as phrased above would cause uproar.
I am a conservative and it wouldn’t take much to make this statement acceptable to me: “many of us want to be fully inclusive of LGBTQI+ people but there is a powerful traditionalist element who disagree and they have been able to block the rules from being changed” Perhaps this begs the question on one side ‘so what are you doing about it?’ And on the other ‘how can you possibly want that and be a faithful leader?’ but it seems to me that it would still be worth saying for the sake of some honesty about where we are… Read more »
I agree that it would. But I understand the feeling behind it. Everybody KNOWS that there are major differences on all kinds of important matters – the pretence that a mysterious process of “discernment”, unique to the Church, can somehow produce a consensus fools nobody. The difficulty of the “cabinet responsibility” approach has been identified elsewhere. Some transparency wouldn’t go amiss.
Vive la difference!
Pam, you write of a process of ‘discernment’ fooling nobody. I agree in so far as such processes have an unfortunate history of being abused by those anxious to shut down discussion. However, there is little appeal in continuing a conversation that has become as rancorous as it is polarised, particularly as conditions outside may not be as wintry as they seem. There are already priests willing to use PLF in stand-alone services. This may vex some bishops – and maybe test canonical boundaries too. But would any bishop want to make this a hill to die on? What… Read more »
Yes, i think I said elsewhere, let priests use PLF in stand-alone services, are they going to be thrown out of their vicarages?
[in the secular world, I am currently unemployed because I fell out with my manager, we had a difference of opinion. Mortgage still has to be paid somehow. Hope for all your sakes I find a job soon so I can reduce my ramblings here.]
I can’t see that happening – priests getting thrown out of their vicarages, I mean, not you finding a job! Best wishes in that endeavour.
I accept the criticisms and I can see that you’re right. (Asking opinions here was deliberately “road testing”- so that’s fine!) In fact the original suggestion was to say that we know that “the majority of us want to be fully inclusive of LGBTQI+ people but unfortunately church politics has led to a powerful traditionalist element being able to block the rules from being changed” This makes more sense, but on reading on TA that there is even argument about whether there is a majority, I changed that- but that leaves the “unfortunately” unexplained and unjustified. Since then I have… Read more »
There is top down and bottom up. Think of the ridiculous situation with Andrew. We didn’t need to be told by anybody to call him Prince – just stop using the title, everybody. Charles Windsor only needed to get involved to get him out of the Royal Lodge. To be honest, I see the idea that anybody has the authority to tell anybody what words to use as beyond comprehension (within reason). Was there going to be a knock on the front door from the local constabulary if we didn’t use the correct title for Andrew? Nothing against the monarch,… Read more »
I am not opposed to the new ABC making a statement of this kind but much more than words is necessary. The problem lies in the senior lay management and unless that is radically changed, nothing else will change. The Council put in place under ++Carey claims in its title to be that of the Archbishops but, in reality, it is run by its Secretary-General, and the Archbishops are as subject to him as everybody else. As a former royal courtier, he always puts preserving the reputation of ‘the firm’ above everything else. And look how well that has worked… Read more »
There is no evidence regarding the alleged legal advice which makes it impossible to judge whether or not it is true that a change can be blocked. How come this was not clear earlier but suddenly is now?
Secondly if there is a problem with the rules then maybe MPs should change them. The canon B2 is supposed to preclude any change by Synod.
Read today’s pronouncement of legal advice. It makes excellent reading and clearly shows that this detail should have been made available much earlier. It also appears to make a number of our bishops look a little foolish given they never had the authority to lead the church in the way they have. They appear to have mixed up personal desires to make changes with their obligations under law and in obedience to their high office.
The “advice” reads very clearly as begging the question it purports to answer – the authors have decided (or been told) the conclusion and then made a legal argument to support it. This is, of course, why it has been released, to shield bishops from having their cowardice criticised.
A happy and blessed All Saints’ Day, everybody! In all your ‘thinking’, don’t forget to do a bit of celebrating, in the company of that ‘great cloud of witnesses’!
Tim, shortly after seeing your comment, I opened my copy of the latest, The Bulletin, published by Canadian Association for Baptist Freedoms. I came across a book review that connects with All Saints Day. Ed Colquhoun has a very brief review of Michael Ignatieff’s book, On Consolation: Finding Solace in Dark Times. Ignatieff is a non-believer. Raised Russian Orthodox. I have not read the book, but the review is compelling. The Reviewer notes that if Alexei Navalny had been martyred in Putin’s Russia prior to the writing of the book then his death may have found its way into the… Read more »
Yes, St Paul is much maligned from many quarters, by people who extract a small number of contentious verses. How closely he communicates Jesus I will leave to biblical scholars – but I am assured that he had close contacts with many who knew Jesus. If St Paul had not written, would the later Gospels have been very different?
In other words, sometimes people consider whether St Paul reflected the words of Jesus and the Gospels. Maybe they should consider whether the Gospels reflected the writings of St Paul?
If St Paul had not written – and all the rest of it – arguably the Church would not exist!
We must think politically about this. Full equality is a distant prospect within the existing structures of the Church of England so I believe we must look to where the Church of England is vulnerable. On Monday 27 October King Charles laid flowers at the national memorial to LGBT armed forces veterans. He was deeply embarrassed by one single heckler complaining about Prince Andrew. Why did nobody ask why he is “Supreme Governor” of an institutionally homophobic Church ? The appointment of every single homophobic Church of England Bishop was approved by King Charles. If people say King Charles has… Read more »
There are VERY many in ‘our national church’ who represent inclusivity.
Please do not tar us all with the homophobic brush.
What we need to stop is the House of Bishops behaving as a cabinet and peaking as one when we know full well that many support equal marriage.
They should note the deans of Canterbury, Southwark and Salisbury, each of whom seems to have more intellectual and moral authority than the HofB!
I didn’t say there weren’t good, humane and progressive people within our national Church, I said there wasn’t a two thirds majority for full equality in our National Synod. “We must think politically about this. Full equality is a distant prospect within the existing structures of the Church of England so I believe we must look to where the Church of England is vulnerable.” A two thirds majority for full equality in our national synod is a distant prospect and I believe that it is humiliating to beg for crumbs from the top table of “normal” people. If you say… Read more »
Yes, that’s absolutely right. The “Cabinet responsibility” approach needs to go. If people could see that a genuinely thoughtful debate is going on, and that bishops can have different views about important things (maybe assisted dying too!) it would go a long way to improve people’s view of the Church.
There wasn’t much sign of cabinet responsibility when the HoB only recently rejected by a large majority their appointed lead bishop’s proposal for the way forward on safeguarding. Many victims/survivors are suffering unneccessarily as a result.
The King’s job is to be as anodyne as possible. He knows full well the institution of the monarchy is living on borrowed time and, if we were honest as a society, well beyond its sell-by-date. He, nor any other recent monarch, would willingly give up what little power they still hold. “Supreme Governor” is little more than a polite fiction as he has no say in Church politics, being just a rubber stamp for whatever Synod/Crown Nominations Committee decide; but he won’t rock the boat. Charles III may have some “soft” power, but what impact that actually has is… Read more »
May be David if we retain the Monarchy, it will be like the Secular Monarchies of Europe, where the Monarch is sworn in like a President but not Crowned , where we have a Secular State in place of a Semi-Theocracy where all Christian Denominations and all Faiths play Ecumenically on a equal Playing Field. However to ask a future Monarch to make Oaths that he or she is a True Protestant, then effectively break that Absurd Oath by participating in Ecumenism and Inter-Faith Dialogue is tantamount to inviting the Monarch to commit Perjury before God, his Church and the… Read more »
I’m unapologetically progressive on the issue of equal marriage, but I think we should be very, very careful about saying that a church claiming to be ‘Christian’ can’t disagree with the prevailing view in the nation on any given ethical issue. The first call of Christians is to follow the call of Jesus, whether or not the nation agrees. If being ‘the national church’ means we can’t do that, then that’s too high a price to pay.
Whatever one’s views are on the issue of LGBTQ inclusion, it is preposterous to suggest that the church should “break free from the constraints of theology and biblical texts” and simply reflect the views of the wider nation. If the majority view of the nation is that immigrants are not welcome here and should go back to where they came from, should the church simply parrot back those views and not speak out against them?
The duty of a Christian is to fear God and honour the king. The right to break the social contract by disobedience to the law is a right existing for everyone but only in the gravest extremes. The idea of an Established Church is that it supports the law which supports its existence, not that it organises scorn for the values which the law upholds. There may be extreme situations, I agree, and I hope not ever to be caught up in one. The present situation isn’t one of them. The law upholds the value of non-discrimination, which isn’t an… Read more »
How quaint.
One of the ‘values that the law upholds’ is that wealth is an unmitigated good and should be constantly increasing (‘economic growth’). In the teaching of Jesus, on the other hand, wealth is treated rather like radioactive material – in the right place it can do a lot of good, but it has to be handled very carefully or it can kill you. I have no hesitation in pouring scorn on the idol of materialism in the name of the gospel. I’ll gladly do the same for the idol of nationalism, which I think is doing a huge amount of… Read more »
That property should be protected against theft is a basic right morally and legally. I hope you support it fully. There is no legal backing for the sacredness of economic growth and no one is obliged to seek it, though I think that there is a normal obligation to work and make good use of one’s pay if that possibility is open to you – and to do that is to promote economic growth. I don’t think that goods or money is treated as radioactive in the Bible, though great accumulations thereof are recognised as potentially dangerous, those accumulated in… Read more »
Definitions of property, what can be owned, when it can be legitimately taken, and hence what may count as theft are far from “basic”.
Simon Cross defines the church as “ a practice, a discipline.” I have always thought of the church as a local group of identifiable believers committed to Christ and each other, working together to glorify God and to serve his mission. The church is the gathered people of God, rather than a practice or a discipline.
In the early Church our faith was often called “The Way” which to my mind implies a way of life, practice, and a discipline. Unfortunately the majority of parish churches I have known are more or less a variation of a semi-private members’ club run by and for a small clutch of members to satisfy their own likes, needs, and interests instead of making disciples for Christ. I found a lot to agree with in Simon Cross’ piece to be honest.
Quite so David. Saul persecuted those belonging to the Way. The church is made up of those who follow in the way of Christ, who is the way, the truth and the life. I agree it is often true that some parish churches have lost all interest in making disciples for Christ. It’s as if they are ashamed of the gospel and of Christ, preferring to blend in with society and its values and beliefs. Pray for those churches who do preach and teach the gospel. Best wishes.
It’s often said that the Church should be counter-cultural. But of course that depends on what the culture is. For example, where the prevailing culture is compassionate and caring the Church can support that aspect of society not run counter to it. Where society persecutes the poor, the hungry, the homeless or the needy — or the foreigner or stranger in our midst — then the Church should most certainly be straining both to care for them and also to change the view of society. And clearly it’s not impossible that there are things that society might be doing better… Read more »
Compassion is certainly a theme throughout the bible, from Deuteronomy onwards. I agree that Christians should be active in showing compassion. It is also true that reconciliation both between God and humankind, and amongst the people of God is another theme with the bible. Clearly central to the gospel is the message of reconciliation between God and Humankind through the redeeming work of Christ on the cross.
David. I agree with your first sentence. I think we often forget the origin of Christianity within the widespread mystery religion tradition of that time. There were many like Jesus, wandering mendicant preachers and healers, and at that time heterodoxy was valued. There were also many different versions of early Christianity. One thought carefully and made one’s own choices about what discipline to follow, and what to believe. One took responsibility for one’s own faith journey. It was only later that the idea of orthodoxy – an approved and enforced belief – came into Christianity. Catherine Nixey said this in… Read more »
Cross’ article is thin to the point of vanishing paucity on anything like Biblical and theological ecclesiology. Magisterially unconvincing to anyone who doesn’t share his unarticulated and quite unclear philosophical starting points. He mentions ‘gospel’ quite a lot, without elucidating the grounds for, or content of, this Good News in any helpful detail. My suspicion is that Cross’ own accurate admission that ‘progressive’ churches are shrinking may have something to do with their lack of clarity or conviction about the power and nature of Gospel, and its relation to the formation of Church. The Gospel changes life for those called… Read more »
Totally agree. A number of parish churches near me are totally focused on a social gospel with no mention of the Cross, repentance and salvation. The only salvation they seem to be focused on is the planet. In one church it was taught that all eventually are saved by Christ. It was described as Christian Universalism.
Universalism is an ancient Christian belief, more compatible with God revealed in Christ than eternal conscious torment.
Andrew Rumsey writes beautifully – and in the course of his reflections he reminds us that ‘like the majority of episcopal colleagues I’m not a member of the House of Bishops’. Important to remember this when the tendency is to seek of The Bishops as one thing. More than hint here that the larger College is not of the same mind on LLF than the House.
Thank you for this David and I agree that Andrew Rumsey writes very well indeed. Lovely piece.
I think that General Synod needs to give the House of Bishops a very hard time about this as it did in February 2017 and suggest that they go back and have another go.
I think there is a case for the College of Bishops pressing the House of Bishops harder too.
I have been lucky enough to have an Archdeadon and Suffragan both of whom were creative artists, an Icon painter and folk singer respectively.
Their artistic gifts were present in their approach to their faith, and their carefully crafted writings and speech.
As a country we have said that there should be full equality for same sex couples. And the King has recently endorsed this by laying flowers on the memorial to LGBT soldiers. This was a clear moral statement by the King on behalf of the nation. But our national Church is at variance with this national consensus. Not only does it say that it refuses to marry same sex couples in Church it also forbids its priests to go through a same sex civil marriage. I don’t see any possibility of the Church reforming itself in the near future so… Read more »
Yes David. Let’s disestablish the c of e and then use our humanist legal structure to “smash” the evangelicals and orthodox believers so they leave the church. I find your rants and always being the victim tiresome at times.
By all means rip the church apart, it’s already a long way down that path. I have absolute faith in the “remnant “ of Christ followers not being in the least bit threatened by your proposal. Just remember, the last one out needs to switch off the lights.
Can I gently remind you Geoff that nobody suggests that conservative parishes should be forced to accept same sex marriage. Nobody suggests that priests in same sex relationships should be forced to marry. The Church of England has managed to encompass the widest possible range of theological opinions and liturgical practices without a split. Now we are likely to split over what consenting adults do in bed. I am not asking you to change your opinion just to exercise some traditional Church of England tolerance. Why is that a rant ? I am also saying this. As a straight white… Read more »
This evening, at our Requiem for All Souls, we’ll pray ‘May God in his infinite love and mercy bring the whole Church, living and departed in the Lord Jesus, to a joyful resurrection and the fulfilment of his eternal kingdom’. Some churches will certainly not be joining us in beseeching our Maker and Redeemer to ‘work in them the good purpose of your perfect will’. But at least we don’t throw dead cats at each other or sling wild accusations of ripping the Church apart.
They would say, often have said, that God’s good purpose should be worked in gay people by and only by ‘conversion’ and not by relapse into unscriptural heresy on the part of the rest of us
Didn’t most evangelicals give up on that many decades ago? I am happy to be corrected.
I agree that conversion in the medical sense is widely agreed to be impossible, though many would welcome it if a genuine version were to emerge. But conversion to a better way of life is surely expected
Nobody is trying to “smash” anyone (except your gay-bashing fellow travellers in GAFCON, perhaps), and plenty of both evangelicals and orthodox believers look forward to the full inclusion of LGBTQ+ and the full celebration of their marriages in church. You do not get to misappropriate “orthodox” or even “evangelical” to cloak your homophobic ranting in the appearance of righteousness.
Maybe the next time the King (aka Charles Windsor) visits the Pope he can comment on the male priesthood and convince him to ordain same sex couples? Then close down all RC churches in UK because they do not conform to equality laws? See how that plays out.
There is a case for disestablishment, but this is not it.
Who says Churches which don’t accept same-sex marriage should be closed down? Or force RC clergy to marry? To say this would result from the CofE being disestablished is preposterous.
You do love the word ‘preposterous’ !
We clearly have a communication problem. I was being sarcastic/facetious/choose your own description.
Jesus often called people names. As you say above “Woe betide a Church which is not offensive”. I think preposterous applies perfectly.
King Charles is not the Supreme Governor of the Roman Catholic Church. Bishops from the Church of England crown our Head of State. Bishops from.the Church of England sit by right in the Upper House of Parliament. None of the considerable benefits of Establishment apply to the Roman Catholic Church or the Anglican provinces of Wales, Scotland or Ireland. When as a country England has decided to abandon the moral stain of homophobia then it is completely unacceptable that our National Church should be homophobic. In my view homophobia is on a par with racism. And please allow me to… Read more »
I don’t care about King Charles, I don’t care who crowns him. He, and the monarchy, is useful, but there to serve us. The title supreme governor is completely, to me at least, meaningless.
Why don’t lesbian and gay priests marry in a civil ceremony? Will the sky fall in? Will their bishop throw a hissy fit? Will they be thrown out of the vicarage? Will they worry about their ordination vows, to obey their bishop? Why worry?
The ‘traditional’ Bishop of Fulham is a remarried divorcee. The Bishop of Horsham gave a platform to those advocating gay conversion therapy before she was made bishop. There are LGBQ bishops with same sex partners. It’s difficult to take them seriously. The bishops have cruelly marched LGBTQI people up the hill, only to march them back down again.
Ignore them. But that is easy for me to say.
I’m single Nigel so in so far as I follow their machinations I mostly giggle at their hypocrisy and absurdity. I do however have friends who are deeply hurt by the incongruent bishops. English lay people can have a lovely wedding in the Scottish Episcopal Church but that is not an option for clerics and aspiring ordinands; clerics are pursued through the ecclesiastical courts and potential ordinands have to give up any hope of ordination. These unpleasant conservatives would not be forced to bless or solemnise same sex marriages themselves; their antics are to queer the pitch for everyone else.… Read more »
“Will their bishop throw a hissy fit?” Some Bishops most certainly will, and have. I refer to the Employment Tribunal case – which ended up in the Court of Appeal – of my husband, Jeremy Pemberton -v- the Acting Bishop of Southwell & Nottingham. Eleven years on, Jeremy is still not able to hold a Permission to Officiate anywhere in the Church of England, solely because he and I are in a same-sex civil marriage. He is also not allowed to stand as a member of our local Cathedral Chapter as he is neither a lay person, nor a clergy… Read more »
I’m sorry. That is ridiculous. And preposterous.
It seems you weren’t even a vicar of a parish church.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-42906132
BTW, I tend to be in favour of disestablishment, but realise it is a can of worms and intensely difficult, if only legally. Somehow one would have to preserve the concept of parishes and parish churches. So in practice i am probably against total disestablishment, but certainly reduce the entanglement with the state, particularly the silly bits. I don’t see it necessary to have Bishops in the HoL. If they are capable and useful, they can be given Lordships like all the others. Coronations and all the rest are, to me, like watching Puccini’s ceremonies in Tosca. Useful and entertaining.… Read more »
Both the Church of Scotland and the Church in Wales manage to retain parishes and parish churches without establishment. It’s hardly an insurmountable obstacle.
The Church of Scotland is an Established Church
You’d better tell the General Assembly that, it would come as something of a surprise, I imagine.
The Church of Scotland (Presbyterian not Anglican) is a National Church but not established. Jonathan
The Church of Scotland is Presbyterian and is Established. The Scottish Episcopal Church is Anglican and is not established.
I can assure you that I know well the difference between the Kirk and the SEC, and further that the Kirk is not established. That was sorted out in the 1920s.
This parliamentary note “The relationship between church and state in the United Kingdom” suggests that the question of the establishment of the Church of Scotland is not as clear cut as you would seem to be suggesting. In particular, no Act of Parliament has ever explicitly disestablished the Church of Scotland, unlike the explicit acts that disetablished the Church of Ireland and the Church in Wales.
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8886/CBP-8886.pdf
It seems to me that the Church of Scotland is still the body “established by the laws made in Scotland” . . “I, Charles the Third, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of My other Realms and Territories, King, Defender of the Faith, do faithfully promise and swear that I shall inviolably maintain and preserve the Settlement of the true Protestant Religion as established by the Laws made in Scotland in prosecution of the Claim of Right and particularly by an Act intituled “An Act for securing the Protestant Religion… Read more »
The King-in-Parliament retains a constitutional right to intervene in the affairs of *any* organisation in the UK, religious or otherwise. It could re-establish the Welsh Church if it so desired. For many decades the Scottish Episcopal Church was required by law to pray for the monarch. That does not mean it was ‘established’.
The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Scotland_Act_1921 affirms that the Kirk is self-governing, and hence the Kirk could not be subject to the likes of the Prayer Book Crisis. The Kirk’s rules are, unlike Act of Synod, not part of the law of the land.
The status is perhaps deliberately ambiguous, partly in order to effect a reversal of the Great Disruption. Article III of the Articles Declaratory appended to the Church of Scotland Act 1921 is deliberately ambiguous: “This Church is in historical continuity with the Church of Scotland which was reformed in 1560, whose liberties were ratified in 1592, and for whose security provision was made in the Treaty of Union of 1707. The continuity and identity of the Church of Scotland are not prejudiced by the adoption of these Articles. As a national Church representative of the Christian Faith of the Scottish… Read more »
I’ve spent my entire ministry in a church that has never been ‘established’, and must admit I can’t get my head around the concept.
I think it shocking that the Established Church should be allowed to practise discrimination in forms unlawful according to the King in Parliament
Let alone him going to Rome. Shock horror. He should eschew all forms of discrimination.
Leaving the king out of it, I do actually sympathise with what you are saying. Disestablish immediately!
There are now, in the past and in the future, many laws with which many Christians will disagree. What then? Say some future government agrees to repatriate immigrants (a bit like Trump and ICE). Will churches provide safe haven for immigrants (of several generations back)?
‘Let alone him going to Rome. Shock horror.’ What is that about?
There was some fuss about the King laying wreaths for LGBTQ+, and being head of a church which is homophobic, and going to Rome where the doctrine is something else.
Well,thank you for that answer. I am content to acknowledge that it makes sense to you, and leave it at that
I wasnt trying to make sense. I was trying to show how it is incoherent and nonsense.
How quaint.
“….structures that mechanise the heart…..”. indeed, General Synod structures appear to be just such. thank you +Andrew