Andrew Watson, the Bishop of Guildford, has published this paper: Living in Love and Faith: Discerning the Mind of the Church.
Tim Wyatt comments on the paper in his weekly newsletter: B2 or not B2, that is the question.
Sam Wells and Lucy Winkett Church Times Separate structures put the Church of England in danger
“To support same-sex relationships or women’s leadership is not to depart from orthodoxy”
There are some really interesting links here today. I’ll start off with what I think is the least interesting article namely the one in the Church Times. The problem is that they are preaching to the converted. We’re aware that theological liberals assert the Bible isn’t clear on sexuality or marriage. The reality is that evangelicals are unconvinced by this argument. There are several good arguments for example to conclude that Christ defined marriage as being a man and a woman and that when he condemned sexual immorality to a Jewish audience he would have leaned on a Jewish understanding… Read more »
“I understand many are torn thinking about what would happen if parishes were without an evangelical ministry”.
I’m not. Bring it on! I’ve waited years for this.
I find Andrew Watson’s article more coherent than the Church Times one. In particular he makes a clear distnction between male headship issues (with which I understand he disagrees as an open evangelical) and same-sex marriage issues, whereas the Church Time article conflates the two, at least at the start. I also like the way Watson described the illiberality of liberals towards conservatives, and vice versa. He also condemns homophobic attitudes by some evangelicals. i see moving forward slowly as being the right way on all sides. Havng adressed the male headship travesty, a pause is necessary before automatically moving… Read more »
“We seem to be wasting a lot of air discussing sexuality when we’re convinced Scripture is clear instead of focussing on evangelism and reaching the lost.”
Surely, in this day and age, sexuality is one of the first issues that the “lost” are going to grill you on when you attempt to reach them with the gospel.
It’s interesting that you put lost in inverted commas when Christ Himself uses this language in Scripture. There’s a difference between graciously explaining Christian beliefs on sexual ethics to unbelievers and repeatedly arguing the same point in Synod with those who have no interest in listening. Christ tells us that His sheep know His voice. That should give us confidence in evangelism. People will come to know Him if we faithfully share Him with others. Churches are seeing growth as people (particularly in younger generations) question the secular narratives that they’ve been told. That’s good news. You can see this… Read more »
My reading of Luke 19v10 is that jesus is reflecting on the grace that zacheus has received and the dignity that he has been restored to, not that he is using a label that we evangelicals frequently resort to that serves to other nonchristians and reduce them to being merely targets of our wonderful evangelistic efforts.
I truly rejoice in folk coming to christ just in case you are worried!
“The reality is that evangelicals are unconvinced by this argument”
In fact evangelicals disagree over this and there is a growing body of evangelicals who do think the Bible is not as clear as we used to think it is. The group Inclusive Evangelicals is thriving.
I don’t really understand why women priests and SSM are put together as they are different issues entirely but the lack of clear theology on both is clearly a big mistake. The Alliance is against SSM that’s all. It is regrettable that bishops can not be trusted having said the introduction of limited prayers would be experimental, they turned out to be permanent. Having said these are modest changes, it turns out blessing gay marriage would be in effect no different from holy matrimony. It’s difficult to see how measures introduced on a trial basis would be acceptable when there… Read more »
Full inclusion at all levels for both women and LGBTQ+ people is inextricably linked to patriarchy. One can address them separately, but the controlling issue is the same: some support straight male supremacy (and gay men who pass) as God’s will, and either issue poses a challenge to that supremacy.
What do you mean by inclusion? I think this needs real definition as I think it is often used here in a way that it isn’t in Scripture. As far as I’m aware all Christians (including evangelicals) would agree that Christ calls everyone to come to Him and pick up their cross and follow Him. The difference between us is about what it means to follow Christ and what the cost to be counted involves (see end of Luke 14 for example). Evangelicals believe that we need to believe in Christ and repent of our sins. We long for everyone… Read more »
I definitely mean full inclusion, as in all the sacraments for all the baptized and in every level of the church from lay person to archbishop. It is a ridiculous and cruel HUMAN invention to define the “cost of following Christ” as living in the closet and denying things vital to our wellbeing.
The cost of following Christ is much more related to the rich young ruler that you give as an example. The “cost” is loving all of your neighbors so that all can thrive, or at least not be in want or suffer indignity.
The question isn’t about inclusion or exclusion. We’re all agreed that we want to include as many people as possible in the life of the church. Where we disagree is on the cost of discipleship. For traditionalists there can’t be inclusion if people aren’t willing to accept the cost of following Christ. Following Christ also means following a Christian sexual ethic and honouring marriage as the union between a man and a woman as it is laid out in Scripture for us. Counting the cost involves considering where we’re not living in accordance with what God calls us to. Any… Read more »
Serious question, would you welcome a gay couple into your church, who continued to maintain a sexual relationship? How would you advise a gay couple in your church who were thinking of co-habiting? I would hope that you would not refuse entrance or the eucharist in either case, but maybe you would, just like a RC would refuse an Anglican the eucharist. Let’s be practical and pastoral. Less of the theory bit. If entry to the church was denied for anybody who did not live up to Jesus’ ethical standards, we would have very empty churches. I’m not arguing with… Read more »
This is going to be my last comment on this thread. The gospel is both practical and pastoral. I don’t know why we would say that holding to Scripture isn’t pastoral. It’s something I see quite often on here. There’s a notion that when we’re pastoral we don’t encourage people to be faithful to Scripture. That’s nonsensical to me. We know how Christ called people in Scripture. We engage people compassionately but being compassionate means we call people to repent and come to Christ. Your first question is helpful for considering what we mean by inclusion. Firstly – all are… Read more »
If you want an example of non-pastoral use of the scriptures you only have to look at Jesus’s angry critique of Pharisaic teaching that simply left people with unsupported burdens.
Thank you, it is clear. I agree the gospel is practical and pastoral, it is not merely an academic theology or spirituality text (although that in no way discounts theology). I was simply worried that people on these kinds of threads write lots of words, but I am still left unclear what they really mean!
In particular, there was previous discussion with an example of a church which alledgedly was not welcome to all. I am pleased you welcome all.
Those of us who are not fundamentalists do not agree that following Christ involves following a sexual ethic that is invented by HUMANS or living out “Biblical marriage” where women were essentially chattel. The intellectual dishonesty surrounding Biblical marriage is astonishing to me as both a woman and LGBTQ+ person. The authority of Scripture has to include the context of the time as well as the weight and clarity of the issues. The Ten Commandments say nothing. Jesus’ commandment to love God and neighbor doesn’t address sexual ethics or marriage — but Jesus is quite clear about not judging and… Read more »
Might you consider that people refusing to accept your definition of marriage is YOUR cross to bear—rather than imposing that cross on others?
The fact that people still believe that Being Made Queer determines the impossibility of my being married in&through the orientation that God made me, is still sadly my cross to bear. Oh Lord, speed the day I be forced to carry it no longer!
i certainly agree that the eucharist should be available to all baptised (and unbaptised in extremis) , and all positions available subject to suitable training and character (I would fail the latter, just not my thing, God is sensible and has never called me). Marriage? My own position is probably common – not too bothered, but wary of moving too fast, we shouldn’t be bounced into it (as per Tigger). I probably wouldn’t even know if a same sex couple got married or had a blessing in my local church, it would not be shouted from the roof tops. I… Read more »
When I got engaged, I wanted to have the marriage in my own church, but that was not possible as they could not marry same sex couples. Our wedding took place in a United Reformed Church instead.
When you are the ones who are excluded, marriage versus blessing is certainly significant.
We all want people to repent of their sins. We just differ on what behaviours are sinful. Conservatives have adopted a “purity” model; those of us who disagree with them tend to look to Christ’s teaching as to his priorities – how we treat those in need, how we love his people. The “purity” preoccupations have a long history in the church too, particularly when the church has retreated from challenging the powers of this world. That’s why the “purity” culture tends to go hand-in-hand with acquiescence on economic and political injustice.
I think it’s nonsense to suggest that evangelicals don’t care about political or economic injustice. At a minimum that isn’t true in the UK. We need to be holistic on all sin as Christ was and to recognize it’s seriousness. Christ welcomed all to come to Him. He was also clear that they should go and sin no more. The second bit is often lost when we speak of inclusion here. There’s also a lack of consideration of the vertical. Christ doesn’t simply call us to love our neighbour. Christ exhorts us to love God with all our soul, mind… Read more »
Yes, evangelicals have a long history fighting political or economic injustice, at institutional or personal levels.
Did you even read my first two sentences? No-one seeks to “encourage people to sin”. That’s a ridiculous claim.
The paradigm that evangelicals embrace the cost of following Jesus, and non-evangelicals who talk about inclusion don’t have a cost to their discipleship, clearly works well for evangelicals, but I don’t believe it’s true.
No it isnt. Do the numbers.
“Is it prophetic to speak as though we knew the law better than the Supreme Court, or as though we are more competent paediatricians than Hilary Cass?”
LGB Christians have just responded to Christians decrying the recent Supreme Court ruling on the definition of a woman. It seems that many Christian groups focussed on inclusivity are unable to balance the interests of those they seek to represent.
https://lgbchristians.org.uk/2025/05/10/a-response-to-christians-decrying-the-supreme-court-ruling/
That’s it. If material like this is acceptable on Thinking Anglicians then, for the sake of my wellbeing, it is no longer the place for me.
Watson mentioned illiberality by liberals towards conservatives. What do you think ?
Kate, it is a shame that you feel being part of TA is bad for your wellbeing and that you must leave because you and Susannah have provided very helpful insights over the past couple of years in which I have been following it. I reread your post of last October about your views of a female personality after it was referred to by Jane Charman and I have thought a lot about it. I would hate to be the editors here and have to try and balance so many conflicting views on so many topics without just producing a… Read more »
I think the LGBC piece is gently and eloquently expressed.
Kate, before you leave, could you tell us what is unacceptable? Because short of a recognition of yourself as a woman everywhere, in all walks of society, this is not going to happen. That kind of dogmatic conformity was not even achieved in 16th century Spain under torture. Not everyone believes in ‘gender identity’.
It’s flat out offensive.
Oh, and the next time someone tells you something is bad for their well-being, don’t ask why. You leave them with two choices:
1. Ignore your question which makes it look to observers as though they don’t have good reasons
2. Or they have to re-read it to come up with answers, exposing them to more harm.
It’s not about “gender identity”. It’s about believing an individual human being is when that individual human being tells you who they are (instead of saying, “No, I know better who you are than you do”).
That “LGB” piece: I note the use of “women” (as “all women”: presumably they mean “all cisgender women”) in the same way conservative Christians use “Christian” (to mean “all Christians”). It’s the language to push out dissenting voices: “well, you must not be a Real ____, if you don’t think as we ____ do!”
Re: the Watson article: I’d really love to hear specific instances of how lesbians feel harmed by trans inclusion in the UK. No one seems to feel that way here in the US; I haven’t seen any writings from aggrieved lesbians here. The main activity here is that the US administration has made scapegoats of trans people, especially kids, and it’s raining down unspeakable cruelty upon them and their families — this is the logical result of exclusion and “othering” people. Credible biologists have spoken up about the complexity of gender and the variations that occur. Gender may be “binary”… Read more »
I read the watson article fairly carefully but do not recall him saying anything about lesbians feeling harmed by trans inclusion. Can you point me to where he addresses this ? I will also re read.
I think I had the wrong tab open and it was another link. I’ll look for it and retract/amend as needed later today.
Indeed, it was late, I was tired and I was reading a different link, not Watson. I withdraw my comment. Simon is free to delete it if he sees fit.
Respect.
Polling suggests most cis lesbians have no issue with trans women. There is a small group of cis lesbians (particularly but not exclusively political lesbians) who are anti-trans and in some cases seem to think that someone, somewhere, is pushing young lesbians to transition. There is (apparently) also a handful of trans lesbians that have got angry with being rejected for being trans in lesbian spaces and have (allegedly) given the impression that they can demand cis lesbians have sex with them. The latter situation is talked about extensively but it’s not at all clear how common an occurrence it… Read more »
Someone posted an article from LGB Christians that suggests that trans activism has negatively impacted women, particularly lesbians. The US seems to be in alignment with the polling that you reference, i.e., cis lesbians have no issue with trans women, or at least no spokesperson or movement. I haven’t heard about the complaints that you mentioned, but maybe I wouldn’t now that I’m older, settled, and no longer live in a vibrant, large city.
In military circles it is known as “blue on blue action”, when groups that should be on the same side shoot at and damage each other. It normally happens due to misunderstanding, often catalysed by different cultures or processes within the different groups, but it can be created by enemy action. Sadly the long term damage caused by such incidents is out of all proportion to the actual casualty numbers because of the distrust it propagates. I think the same thing is going on here. What may have been a couple of minor incidents have been amplified out of all… Read more »
“demand _____ have sex with them”
THIS IS A CRIME, and it is absolutely a distraction to add any qualifications to it.
…but asking for sex, no matter how awkward—no matter how incompatible w/ one’s orientation (as most lesbians have experienced when a male asked them for sex!)—is not a crime. Even when it’s a trans lesbian doing the asking. [You just politely say No, as you would decline anyone else!]
Biological reality isn’t ‘more complex’. We, like all mammals, are a dimorphic species, anything else is obfuscation. I’ll gladly introduce you to many, many lesbians who are very annoyed at being told that some lesbians have penises. Or gay men who are told that straight women who identify as gay are now touted as such by the BBC. Watch the new season of ‘I Kissed a Boy’. There are no ‘specific instances’ precisely because they have become so widespread.
“Straight women who identify as gay”? Seems like a very wordy way of denying that lesbians exist.
The Supreme Court judgement you so love disagrees with you: trans men with beards and a penis are now lesbians according to that stupid decision. The whole point is that humans are not dimorphic as you claim. With intersex people, they never have been. And you wouldn’t know. I had a friend who was assigned female at birth but has XY chromosomes. Nobody meeting her would guess, although obviously she didn’t get periods and couldn’t get pregnant. Whether you say trans people or not is a form of intersex, trans people exist. Again, there are trans women who were assigned… Read more »
I’m sorry to have to tell you but the artificial organ some women try to attach to themselves is in no way a penis. Just google phalloplasty if you have a strong stomach. No mammal ever changes sex it’s fixed at fertilisation by the type of sperm, X or Y bearing, which fuses with the egg. So sex chromosomes are in every nucleated cell of a person’s body. If we could change sex we could cure Down Syndrome. The various faulty alleles which cause the 40+ types of DSD all have their effects either in XX people or XY people.… Read more »
Those of us who undergo a full transition represent perhaps 2‰ of the population (statistics are a bit lacking). So arguments made on the majority aren’t terribly relevant. It’s sex at the margins which matters.
And most BMA doctors believe that sex is not binary and is complicated
Are you telling us 2% of the population have undergone medical/surgical transition? I don’t believe it. I don’t even believe 2% wish to have medical/surgical transition.
Somewhere on TA there are some better figures, but I won’t be able to find them in a hurry.
Of course, there is a small number who do not fit into binary classifications.
Not 2%. 2‰, i.e. 2 per mille. (That’s what Kate suggested.)
Maybe she can confirm. Never seen that symbol in 50 years a professional mathematician. Yes wike seems to confirm. So 0.002 per cent.. timy as a proportion but large in terms of numbers because population is large.
No, not 0.002%. 2‰ is 2 per thousand which is 0.2%.
It was a long day at work!
Yes, 2 per mille
If the number of people claiming to know people who are ‘intersex’ represented pieces of the True Cross, you’d have an Amazonian rainforest. The numbers are vanishingly small. Indeed, one paediatrician of my acquaintance in 25 years of practice has not seen one case of genital ambiguity.
Most intersex people do not have ambiguous external genitalia, indeed many cases go undetected until there are problems later in life. One of the reasons university biology courses don’t have students look at their own chromosomes is the sheer number of people who turn out not to fit a simple XX = female XY = male pattern. The Olympics stopped using chromosome testing for much the same reason (though the anti-trans moral panic has them going back in time 30+ years to repeat the same mistakes).
Christian anti trans moral panic is nothing new. Sadly much debate on this issue in the UK is too parochial and Eurocentric, and people seem to be unaware of much beyond what they get in their social media feeds. And so, being unaware of history, we are doomed to repeat history. The gender variant Hijira people in India have a recorded history going back at least 3000 years, yet in late Victorian times the British colonists outlawed such people, and forced then into “reformatory institutions”. This was at the same time as Britain outlawed homosexuality across all of its colonial… Read more »
The number is intersex people is small, but not vanishing small. One estimate has the number as about the same as those in the UK population with ginger hair. It’s just that in most of them (unlike for ginger hair) it is unnoticed as they pass through the population, or it is undiagnosed until death. For a scientific, not anecdotal, report there is this from a retired professor of anatomy. https://www.switchingview.com/monkhouse.pdf But as professor Monkhouse says, the debate is as much about gender as sex; what people come to “know” or believe about whether they are male or female (irrespective… Read more »
I think we can all agree that it’s far from straightforward to establish how many transgender people there currently are in society: firstly because there’s no agreement about what the term means, secondly because it’s a shifting cohort which people self-identify into and out of at will, and thirdly because there’s a degree of ideological resistance on the part of transgender people towards collecting this information. Many will tell you that biological sex either doesn’t exist or is irrelevant as a category and activists have campaigned to have it removed from official forms in favour of ‘gender’. Yet without a… Read more »
Kind of, but if, as Simon Dawson suggests, most of them pass through unnoticed, I think some clarity is required about the problem. It is not, as far as I can see, about toilets or single sex spaces. Top level sports is one potential problem area, but that seems to be coming towards consensus.
I think Simon was also talking about intersex rather than transgender?
Maybe if enough words are generated, proportionality will creep in?
Replying both to Jane and to Nigel. I am talking mainly about gender and not sex. Firstly to make the point, denied by some, that gender variance (gender differing from sex) is a category and factor in human existence that has been known about and accepted, mostly unproblematically, for most of the world and for most of human history. Secondly, to make the point, backed up by extensive evidence (even citing Pope Francis himself) that when Christianity tries to enforce its teachings on sex and gender it almost invariably causes immense suffering. And thirdly, to ask that we raise our… Read more »
I’m thoroughly with you. To be clear, if I talk about these issues, it is so that everybody gets so fed up with them (at least on TA) that we can get on and lead our Christian lives.
I’m not sure I am winning ;}
Simon, you seem to be conflating two different constructions of gender. The first relates to the social and cultural expectations of how men and women should behave (masculine/feminine), a matter of social construction. The second concerns the idea that gender can vary independently of sex, which is, to my mind, circular, and therefore incoherent, viz., gender being ‘an inner sense of gender’ without reference to sex. Unless one has a clear idea of what gender independent of sex refers to, it is impossible to undertake the exercises in long retrospection, which purport to identify sex independent gender identities in the… Read more »
Jane, you wrote: “If there are 100 people in a single sex space one of whom has ‘transitioned’, the whole space becomes by definition a mixed sex space, potentially affecting all the people in it. If, as seems likely, the same person behaves in the same way in other contexts then the number of spaces impacted multiplies accordingly.” Firstly, can I say that although you and I occasionally disagree, I value the clarity in your thinking and commenting, which helps me to clarify my own thoughts. The obvious question is why would this be a problem? As long as that… Read more »
You are so right about the need to move forward constructively. It is such a shame that this can so easily be reduced to absurdity and the level of ‘bathroom police’ . We all have to go to the loo! We live in a country where there is a shortage of public loos- this has got worse post lockdown and is often a particular problem for the disabled. I don’t have a blue badge (maybe yet but I don’t want one) but if my arthritis is particularly bad I am ‘guilty’ of sneaking into the disabled loo if it isn’t… Read more »
I drew Simon, the figure I’m using, from Leonard Sax’s 2002 paper. Sax estimated the intersex figure to be 0.018% of the population, in contrast to Anna Fausto-Sterling’s estimate of 1.7%, which would roughly correspond to the incidence of people with ginger hair. Sax excluded people with Klinefelter syndrome, Turner syndrome, and CAIS (the latter making up 88% of AF-S’s figure) because, in his view, they are not medically recognised as truly intersex conditions. Richard Dawkins cites Sax in his extended essay, arguing (very persuasively in my view) for the robustness of the concept of mammalian sex being binary. I… Read more »
Andrew Watson isn’t the first Conservative Evangelical to suggest that the LLF process has not had a proper theological foundation. But I have always been confused by that claim. It’s an accessible document, but the LLF book is shot through with theology. Conservatives often write as if there were some clear cut theological case, and if only we did the theology then the way forward would be clear. But the presumption is that it will be clear in their favour. Bishops are theologians. That’s why they have been expensively trained. The fact that bishops disagree theologically about this matter tells… Read more »
Yes, but Andrew Watson’s essay isn’t mainly about theology but about processes. And I still haven’t heard a good argument as to why it is deemed appropriate to bypass Canon B2 when introducing standalone services.
Bishops only have to have the minimum of theological training like Welby – 2 years diploma, not even degree level, so the bar is very low. The cynic in me wonders if LLF process has been crafted to produce a certain outcome, regardless of the theology, which goes beyond Jesus loves everyone (he does).
Adrian’s comment raises so very many important questions. Many of the older clergy in particular are concerned about the paucity of much pre-ordination training. This may be followed by a ‘curacy’ where the training incumbent has had very limited theological training themselves and in many instances, precious little pastoral training too. I have witnessed weddings where the officiant has little clue how to conduct the service and Sunday mornings when the celebrant is not sure whether he is a priest or a stand-up comic. The fact that those who have been ordained after the ‘short course’ are now taking up… Read more »
I think there is much to be said for the next Archbishop of Canterbury to be someone who was beaten by Smyth, and replaces the previous Archbishop who got beaten by Smyth and Makin.
I’m not making a joke. There seems to be something redemptive possible, with closure. I also think Watson’s article is thoughtful and shows some leadership, even if you disagree.
Aha – I am 1000% behind Watson as the next archbishop, he went to my college (Corpus Christi Cambridge) and is an accomplished musician.
He can hardly be against ordination of women as his wife is ordained.
I have never seen it suggested that Welby himself was beaten by Smyth.
I didn’t mean physically, and was stretching the allusion.
Welby was Archbishop of Canterbury. Then along came Makin’s report into Smyth, and fairly shortly afterwards he wasn’t Archbishop of Canterbury. I assume Nigel is using “beaten” in the sense of “defeated”.
Yes.
Well, the Archdeacon of London’s wife is a priest ……
Permanent Deacon actually, I think
Archdeacon of London’s wife was a “permanent” deacon for nearly three decades from 1991 before eventually being priested. Perma-deacons are quite acceptable to both high church types & conevos – a rare point of agreement!
Bishop of Guildford’s wife is a priest by the conventional route – actually she was priested same year he became a suffragan.
I certainly don’t think we need someone as Archbishop who knew what Smyth was doing and did nothing. Watson too could have spared a lot of suffering yet chose to remain silent in order to serve his ambition to get on. He is unsuitable in many many ways and was easily eclipsed by his Suffragan Jo Bailey Wells during her time in the Diocese. The next ABC needs to be someone of calibre, a sound intellect, and a pastoral heart. I’m not holding my breath……
I found this
https://www.corpus.cam.ac.uk/sites/default/files/The_Letter_97.pdf
page 21
which is certainly on of the more readable Mere sermons, and seems, again, to be sensible.
More of a lecture than a sermon. Certainly not memorable
Maybe…
But not sure that our bishops are all that brilliant at theology. Martyn Snow’s plea for us to live together/ bid for Lambeth has been roundly dismantled as a work of theology. I wonder if episcopal training/formation is rather more about management than theology these days.
It’s not that there isn’t enough theology out there, there’s plenty of it (much of it reviewed in LLF docs), but the lack of authoritative theological decision, which LLF itself was never intwnded to achieve. Such decision has to be led by the bishops but, in Jan 2023, they baulked at it, proceeding with PLF anyway. At least now they are consulting the church’s appointed theological advisors, FAOC.
The many and growing numbers of evangelicals who hold inclusive views on human sexuality (who Gareth still appears not to have not heard yet) will welcome the open letter from Lucy Winkett and Sam Wells and agree with their critique of the familiar claims by conservative voices about the bible, marriage, church growth etc – including +Andrew whose views here have not moved at all through the long LLF process despite his working closely alongside theologically articulate evangelicals expressing more open views. The mind of the church was expressed in the feedback that was sought and gathered from all those… Read more »
So why not use Canon B2 which is designed to stop small majorities splitting the church?
More accurately (and positively) – B2 is the formal synodical process for agreeing changes in doctrine. But no doctrinal change is being proposed. Marriage is not even on the table (though I would argue marriage is not a doctrine anyway). I would also point out that B2 is not a device for any particularly lobby groups in Synod to block the faithful development of doctrine where that is the expressed mind of the church.
And to be even more accurate, Section B of the Canons of the Church of England is primarily about forms of worship not doctrine.
Canon B2(1) tells us that any item approved under B2 “in the opinion of the General Synod is neither contrary to, nor indicative of any departure from, the doctrine of the Church of England in any essential matter”. But B2 is not about doctrine per se.
But, of course, worship cannot be divorced from doctrine.
Indeed. I was correcting David R’s statement that Canon B2 is the process by which General Synod agreed changes to doctrine. On the contrary it is about approving forms of service that do NOT indicate any change of doctrine. Presumably a vote to approve under B2 itself indicates that the General Synod is satisfied there is no substantial doctrinal change.
But whether PLF amounts to a doctrinal change is precisely what is at issue. Progressives can go on asserting that no doctrinal change is being proposed, but roughly 40% of the Church (or at least GS) profoundly disagree. So to them, they are not using B2 as a tribal blocking device but calling for what they see as proper process.
The “doctrinal change” argument is merely the one that has been seized upon as having the most chance of success. Conservatives have decided there is a doctrinal change because that gives a convenient blocking mechanism.
The Winkett/Wells view may be liberal orthodoxy but it is not orthodoxy as the universal Church understands it where support of same sex relationships and women’s leadership is never unconditional. As for discerning the mind of the Church ie the C of E on LLF it is rather admirable to imagine such a thing can be done when attitudes appear baked in on all sides. The issue is inherently divisive. There is no getting away from that sad fact.
In 2023 the RC Church issued Fiducia supplicans: a declaration allowing clergy to bless people in same-sex relationships, with the proviso that these must be “short and simple pastoral blessings (neither liturgical nor ritualised) of couples (but not of their unions)”. Such blessings are now permitted in all twenty-seven German dioceses and in Belgium’s four Flemish speaking dioceses. Fiducia supplicans is significant for at least three reasons (four, if you count that it happened at all): that Rome sees it neither as an endorsement of same-sex marriage nor as a threat to heterosexual marriage, and that it bears some striking… Read more »
RC position seems sensible and coherent. When they allow women to become priests, it will become even more sensible and coherent.
The Catholic Church has done its doctrinal homework, unlike the LLF process. Priests and deacons can:
“join in the prayer of those persons who, although in a union that cannot be compared in any way to a marriage, desire to entrust themselves to the Lord and his mercy, to invoke his help and to be guided to a greater understanding of his plan of love and of truth.”
If LLF said something brief and simple along these lines, not stand alone services, there would be less disagreement
So Prayers of Love and Faith outside of stand-alone/bespoke services are fine?
Adrian, I’m trying not to read too much into your silence, but would love to hear your view on PLF.
i was responding to your point on Catholic Blessings as you raised it. Normally I regard C of E theologians very highly, but they seem to have been frozen out of the discussion around PLF except on some very narrow points, I recall Bishop Snow asking for more resources to fund theological work, but we don’t know the outcome of this work. We also don’t know what the legal advice is surrounding PLF and why is Canon B2 not being followed as this is the cause of such distrust and disunity in the church? Answers please.
PLF is already a mediocre compromise, a stone given in response to asking for an egg. There is no watering down homophobes will accept if they think they can force submission.
Why should anyone accept a stone for an egg? The people that you call homophobic want everyone to flourish in the C of E and have offered a way forward, with legal protections against so called experiments and trials by people no one trusts and outcomes that no one wants.
Tim Wyatt: “stamp out the expectations [liberals have] always had that they’ll soon get much more (gay vicars allowed to marry and standalone services of blessing). Both sides have been radicalised As an Episcopalian, I’m supposed to read this as one from a “radicalised” church. I simply do not recognize this. We’re just Church—our corner of two thousand years of just Church. We listen to (read, mark, and inwardly digest) Scripture, we pray, we baptise, we Take&Eat. And we bless, in the Sacrament of Marriage: faithful couples. It isn’t radical. The measures taken to slur it, and stop its spread… Read more »
Hear, hear!
The country is bored of all the internal bickering. No one cares. Gays are getting married in church because of course they are. Moving on.
Not in the CofE they’re not, which is the whole point. Maybe there should be an arrangement whereby the SEC can adopt a couple of square metres in CofE churches and then the happy couple and the priest can step into them and conduct the appropriate ceremonies according to the Scottish rites (though they would still need a civil marriage under English law). No change to the doctrine or liturgy of the CofE, just need the permission of the Scottish bishop. I suggest these additional “islands” should be considered part of the Diocese of Argyll & The Isles.
There was a same sex marriage in Salisbury last year, conducted by an URC minister, in the Methodist church, and with various CofE, Quaker, and Church in Wales people participating in the service. With the right attitude and the right supportive network anything becomes possible.
Well yes, but my proposal would allow a same sex couple to be married in their parish church by their vicar, including in the context of a nuptial mass, so long as the vows and blessing take place in the designated area.