Rosalind Rutherford Women and the Church Bread and Stones
Colin Coward Unadulterated Love Tricksters versus magicians The state of the House of Bishops and worship in local churches
Kelvin Holdsworth What is in Kelvin’s Head? Listening to the Quiet Revival
I think Coward’s comments on the Bishops are unfair (e.g. ‘They lack courage and vision.’) what they lack is the votes. Synod is against changing our doctrine on marriage and it isn’t close. There’s nothing the bishops can do about that in the short-term. Especially since that although the conservatives are willing to accept a change as long as they are given genuine protections (requiring a two thirds vote too), that goes too far for most liberals.
“Genuine protections” is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. A conscience clause, such as already exists for the remarriage of divorcees, is a “genuine protection”. Such a clause would, I’m sure, be gladly accepted by most as the price of equal marriage in the CofE. The anti-gay contingent in the church are demanding far more than that, and for little apparent reason than that they can, by virtue of holding a blocking minority. Claiming “synod is against” is also over-egging the pudding. Synod has not been asked to authorise equal marriage, and while it is pretty unlikely that a… Read more »
A good illustration of why providing a conscience clause doesn’t give genuine protection and why legal protection is needed.
I don’t think it illustrates that at all.
Could you explain? Has someone been forced to act against their conscience regarding the remarriage of divorcees?
Yes of course. I was thinking of Christians who call themselves gay but are orthodox when it comes to sexuality and marriage. These Christians are frequently overlooked or ignored in this debate and referring to the ‘anti-gay contingent’ illustrates one reason why a conscience clause gives insufficient protection to these people. Maybe recognising their existence would help move this debate forward, but at the moment they feel thrown under the bus.
In what manner are they being “thrown under the bus”? Is anyone forcing them to take a position they don’t agree with? Is anyone making them get married?
Adrian, you’re referring to people who are gay but save sexual relations for their same sex spouse? I agree that they need protection from discrimination.
What protection do you imagine people need to be celibate? Do you imagine that in a future where same-sex couples can marry in church that if someone celibate lets slip they’re gay they’re going to get forcibly paired up and frog-marched down the aisle? Or is it simply that bullying gay people into celibacy is unlikely to work without having institutional authority behind it?
I can see only one party doing the bullying to be honest. But that’s why TA exists so I shouldn’t complain.
Are you kidding? You don’t think the clergy drummed out of the church for getting married were bullied? Or the ones who jumped through the homophobic hoops like Jeffrey John but still got attacked?
I have frequently heard of people coerced into having the ‘demons’ of homosexuality cast out of them, but I’ve never heard of a person having the demons of heterosexuality or celibacy exorcised.
A conscience clause exists to allow clergy to exercise their beliefs; it has nothing to do with the laity.
I don’t understand your comment.
Conscience clauses exist to permit clergy to exercise their beliefs in the context of their liturgical ministry (ie. not remarrying divorcees). A similar clause regarding gay marriage would be a simple solution to the current problem. The laity in parish would have no right to object to their priest conducting a gay/lesbian wedding just as they now have no right to object to their priest marrying or not marrying divorced people. It simply doesn’t pertain to them.
But conversely would the right to marry in their parish church be extended to same-sex couples if the priest exercised the conscience clause? Presumably not. Could they legally go and ask a priest in a neighbouring parish?
I would accept the right of clergy, and indeed organists, choristers, vergers, and anyone else involved in the life of the church not to participate in a wedding ceremony. I’m less sure about buildings, as a parish church belongs in some sense both to all the people of the parish and to the whole church. Given the now relaxed rules about “meaningful connection” I’d say conceding letting incumbents opt their buildings out too is reasonable.
We already do this (unofficially) for baptism and straight marriage.
No right to object. But the priest might consider that she does not represent only herself but also the liturgical integrity of her community.
‘liturgical integrity of the community’ is a phrase I’ve not come across before. What does it mean?
Should a priest who wished to use PLF, but whose congregation was against the idea, go ahead regardless? He might feel he’s being prophetic by ignoring them, but there are better ways of challenging sincerely held beliefs than this. The Hind Report of over 20 years ago identified too many ordinands who viewed ordination as ‘a passport into a self-authenticating ministry’. Maybe many still do.
The Church of England is not a congregationalist polity, so in theory a priest can do whatever s/he pleases within the confines of canonicity. It is often wise to take the congregation’s view (if there is a unified one) into consideration, but it is not necessary.
Why are they thrown under a bus?
Such people have the absolute freedom to live their lives according to they conscience. Nobody is forcing them to have sex or get married.
What legal protection do they need, and from what?
These are the words I have heard used and I think they refer to a sense of betrayal.
Absolute freedom sounds more like a political project rather than Christianity.
Legal protection from an institution that thinks of them as part of the anti-gay contingent, which maybe where the sense of betrayal comes from.
Protection from the institution *doing what*? Even imagining a future where the CofE hierarchy accepted same-sex love on an equal basis to opposite sex-love, what are you imagining celibate people would need to be protected from? Is it that you’re concerned that they’ll no longer be able to browbeat others into taking the same path?
I think I am trying to protect those that follow traditional Christian values from liberals who have different values that threaten to undermine Christianity. That’s all. No brow beating.
But your plan is to separate yourselves from those of us who hold traditional Christian values but apply them differently than you do to same-sex love as well. If your concern is undermining traditional Christianity then you are choosing a very strange signifier. In any case what threat do you imagine these “liberals” pose from which people need protection, and why does it only become a existential threat if it becomes permissible to bless same-sex couples, rather than when it’s the remarriage of divorcees, the ordination of women, allowing the use of artificial contraception, or a host of other areas… Read more »
Adrian. Whenever one uses words such as orthodox or homosexual or gay it is important to be clear as to what that word means. A lot of confusion is caused, on this site and on others, when people mean different things by the same word. For example in a recent thread Charles Read said “Orthodox means believing in the doctrines of the creed” whilst you defined orthodoxy as “following or conforming to the traditional or generally accepted rules or beliefs of a religion, philosophy, or practice“. These two definitions are very different. One is very narrowly defined, one is much… Read more »
I try to avoid Orwellian 1984 Newspeak where the plain meaning of words get lost or changed to advance a particular narrative or ideology, particularly in an echo chamber such as this one. I can appreciate avoiding the use of term orthodox is high up on the liberal agenda and changing the definition of gay as well because there are orthodox gay Christians. But human rational liberalism as a political movement is one thing and orthodox theocratic Christianity another. If plain English can be used to help make this distinction, then so much the better for everyone.
Theocracy is not integral to Christian orthodoxy. Arguably it is antithetical to it. Using ‘orthodox’ solely to denote agreeing with you about same-sex love and its expression is pretty Orwellian in itself.
Adrian, nobody is “changing” the meaning of the word gay. There are already multiple understandings of the word gay around in our culture. just as there are multiple understandings of the word orthodox, or the word homosexual.
It would just make it easier if we were aware of this, and explained our meanings, and did not assume that the meaning we ourselves use is the only valid one, or that if people somehow use a different meaning they are automatically suspect.
The General Synod elections in 2026 will be as hard fought as those in 1990 when the conservatives wanted to kill the then upcoming debates on women priests. I was surprised that the 2021 elections produced a slightly more conservative synod. I think the tide is turning.
I know a two thirds majority for a change in the marriage canon to recognise same-sex marriage is not there in Synod. There are things bishops can do in the here and now to change the opinion of individual Synod members and the general mood in the Church of England. They can/could actively, vocally support the urgent need to recognise the change in English public opinion and the untested change in attitude among what I believe to be the majority of active, Sunday-worshipping members of the Church. Attitudes and opinions can change in response to arguments being made, explanations presented… Read more »
I wonder whether the bishops are more hamstrung than that, although perhaps a bit less so once they are in post. We might suspect for example, that at least sometimes a suffragan bishop who has expressed a strong view might find that they do not get enough backing to become a diocesan bishop.
That’s what LLF was. It was the opportunity to force everyone to hear what the best arguments from the pro-change side was. People weren’t convinced.
No-one was forced to take part, much less hear arguments from those with whom they disagree. Plenty of conservative churches gave no hearing to the inclusive position. And “people weren’t convinced”? Which people? Who has asked them? The exclusionist lobby got scared and mobilised to pack Synod to ensure a blocking minority but it’s doubtful they’re representative of most CofE churchgoers. Even among the likes of HTB I doubt the leadership is representative of the members.
Church of England Bishops imagine that they are gatekeepers to God’s Table. Who gave them this authority? It is most certainly not God given. God’s love is unconditional and ours should try to be as well. If you have the wrong spiritual model then you will constantly come up with the wrong answers. Christianity shouldn’t be a grudging faith that basically believes that the norm is a white hetrosexual upper middle class couple. So if you are destitute, in prison, disabled, gay, non White (like Jesus),transsexual, lonely, depressed, ABUSED then you are defective and so your fate is to be… Read more »
That will be true for parts of the Church in Wales, as it is in the Church of England, but those qualities that you list seem to be in short supply at Bangor Cathedral.
Certainly the CinW Governing Body this week will conduct one final Listening Exercise; this will be collated with the earlier Exercises from each Diocese and taken to the Bishops’ Bench next month. We shall see what transpires.
“Church of England Bishops imagine that they are gatekeepers to God’s Table.” But isn’t that what all bishops are – and maybe more generous in their discharge of this part of their office than some parish clergy. At a chapter meeting a priest announced that he’d refused Communion to a man because he had a boyfriend. The priest was surprised to learn that excommunication was ultimately not within his gift but within the that of the bishop – who took a more inclusive view. Sometimes it seems on TA that our bishops can do no right, but often their hands… Read more »
Wonderful inspirational post. Thanks David Hawkins.
What do you mean by ‘I believe their authority stems from small things’? I’m not sure what you are trying to say about the authority of bishops. It seems very vague. You obviously don’t believe in apostolic succession which is fair enough in an Anglican context but what are bishops for in your opinion? It seems to me that you view them like a kind of member of parliament who is there to reflect the views of constituents. Is this a fair description? I’m trying to understand your point of view.
Bishops are Fathers in faith, successors to the apostles who are called to teach with authority inspired by the Holy Spirit. Their job is not to encourage us to hold hands and sing kumbaya but to exclaim the truth of the Gospel in Jesus Christ with zeal. God’s love is freely given that we might know him and be saved by him from our sinfulness and disobedience to his will.
Good description of the episcopacy as laid out in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. But do you honestly think that this is how most Anglican bishops view their role?
Thank you for posing this question. successors to the apostles — in theory, this might not entail apostolic succession in the sense Catholics believe it If it does, is this a view Anglicans still hold, partially, widely, confusedly? Then, what do bishops in the CofE themselves believe on this score? If they do not believe in the episcopacy “as laid out in the CCC” pertaining to themselves (clearly, this was once believed; to be a ‘Roman’ catholic was illegal; three bishops consecrating as linked to the Chair of St Augustine of Canterbury), then who do they think they are? I… Read more »
The Porvoo Common Statement, agreed in 1993, is one place to look for this. It includes important sections on the nature of episcopacy and the apostolic succession, and represents the official position of the Church of England (and the other Churches of the Anglican Communion in Britain and Ireland) since it is the basis of the full communion (and full mutual recognition of orders) that was agreed between those Churches and the Scandinavian and Baltic Lutheran Churches. https://www.anglicancommunion.org/media/102178/porvoo_common_statement.pdf Scroll down to Chapter 4, paragraphs 34–57.
The difficulty, I fear, is that Anglicanism has a somewhat chameleon tendency in ecumenical relations. What is said in one ecumenical agreement may often chafe against what is said in others. The St Columba declaration, for example, makes the claim of a common understanding of episcopacy and apostolic succession between the Church of England and the Church of Scotland, which is certainly not that of the CCC.
What is said in “conversations” is very often just the view of the participants in the conversation, whoever they might be. The reason I quoted Porvoo is because this goes beyond a shared conversation. The statement is the basis of the “Porvoo Communion”, agreed by the House of Bishops and indeed by the General Synod, and formally and solemnly entered into by the Church of England. And it carries some practical implications, such as mutual participation in the consecrations of new bishops in the linked Churches. That might imply a much higher and more authoritative level of agreement than a… Read more »
I am aware of this statement, thank you. The original comment asked whether the Bishops themselves have a coherent idea of who they are.
And, further, whether those in the declining Church of England populace do.
Put this another way. Given the reality on the ground today, if Stephen Sykes was with us, would he still be writing on Anglican ecclesiology? Or would Michael Vasey still be persuading his Evangelical ordinands that liturgy is not synonymous with voodoo?
You ask about the opinions held by CofE bishops concerning the episcopacy of which they are members. I am puzzled by this question. Has any of these bishops made an utterance which causes you to ask this? The official view is made pretty clear in the Ordinal which each of them has personally experienced once, and indeed the numbers of bishops who subsequently attend consecration services of other bishops suggest familiarity with its content is quite high among them.
As I hear the reactions to Bishops here at TA their place as consecrated successors to the apostles comes in fifth place at best. Perhaps that is warranted as the claim has no force anymore. And if that is so, it could follow that the Bishops’ own identity and purpose is clouded.
They are functioning in a country, moreover, where more people attend the Roman Catholic Church whose Bishops are indubitably in apostolic succession, having never split from themselves.
The ordinal is quite clear cut “Through your Spirit, heavenly Father,
fill this your servant with the grace and power which you gave to your apostles,
that as a true shepherd he may feed and govern your flock,
and lead them in proclaiming the gospel of your salvation in the world.”
To repeat, I do not doubt the intention of things like the Ordinal and its language. My question is how, since this is the Ordinal’s claim, the present Bishops are not seen as ‘apostolic successors’ or ‘true shepherds’ but as politicians, inept agents of cover-up, lacking proper intellectual heft, at odds with one another, confecting arrangements for sexual ‘living in faith and love’ that are divisive and, by the accounts of many on both sides far from ‘apostolic’ in faith and practice. This isn’t an incidental view, but widespread. Any reader of TA sees it clearly. And lacking any coherent… Read more »
It is the understanding of the episcopacy laid out in the ordinal and the Faith and Order Commission.
I am trying to understand Christian liberalism – is it a political movement that rejects theocracy but accepts Jesus’ moral teaching while protecting individual freedoms, or a religious movement that seeks to reform Christianity by rejecting theocracy. Is one more authentic than the other?
A quick stab at a definition of ‘Christian liberalism’: an approach to our inherited Christian faith which (1) accepts the importance of biblical criticism, seeing the Bible not as the literal ‘Word of God’ but seeking to interpret it in the light of a critical hermeneutic; and (2) accepts the importance of change in human society and seeks to incorporate positive change for good in the Church’s understanding. In no sense does my understanding of ‘liberalism’ conflict with ‘orthodox’ faith.
Does that work at all?
i think that that definition is quite close to what most people mean by the term. But ‘orthodoxy’ not yet being defined, the possibility that liberalism excludes orthodoxy (or implies it) so far remains open
WATCH continue to express its inclusive love by trying to have traditionalists expelled from the Church of England. Imagine claiming to be the victim of bullying and harassment while attempting to bully and harass a significant minority (over 12.5% in London) out of your Church for practising the historic faith.
Where did they call for anyone to be expelled?
All they’ve asked is for the CofE to stop pandering to people who have elevated misogyny to being a key plank of the Gospel.
Wanting to get rid of the 5gp is an attempt to expel a flourishing group out of the Church because they’re upset we didn’t just die but continued practising the apostolic faith in the Church of England. And of course, all the women in traditionalist churches, on our PCCs, who want to uphold the faith received by the apostles are misogynists. Or are they self-hating women because you know better?
Equating human rules with the faith received by the apostles is precisely how women get indoctrinated into supporting misogyny.
So you think we should ignore the teachings of the apostles?
No.
Some people want the CofE to be like the RCC which (at least according to the folklore I was brought up with) has never ever made a theological error that needed correcting.
Kelvin’s insights give some hope that the picture of Christian ‘revival’ amongst younger adults is not just limited to one particular narrow religious approach to faith. However we can’t escape the fact that the weekend’s Yaxley-Lennon demonstration in London had a Christian revivalist message as one of its central themes. Rather than simply congratulating ourselves on the changing attitudes of a new generation to Christian faith, there needs to be a very, very careful examination of what is really going on here and what the motivations are behind the politicisation of faith. There is so much in our Christian past… Read more »
Thanks for raising this important question (on the day, incidentally, that a prominent evangelical Christian Tory MP, defected to Reform) about how Christianity can become part of a dangerous “clash of civilizations”. I am not confident that the Church, introspective and in survival mode, is sufficiently alert to this danger. I am particularly concerned by the lack of interest on the part of some stronger churches in open, creative engagement with those of other faiths. They seem lukewarm, but as an outsider to places like HTB I am happy to be corrected. On the whole, though, it sometimes seems like… Read more »
Anglican-in Exile, thank you for a very wise post. The growth in Christian activity is complex and multifaceted. Some are attracted to the church for its liberal message, some for a more conservative message, many start by seeking transcendence, whilst some politicians and activists seek to use the church to pursue their personal strategic plans, unrelated to their own Christian faith (if any). In the latter category you cite Stephen Yaxley-Lennon (Tommy Robinson), but Trump and his MAGA supporters also fit into this box. However I would argue that this is not a recent phenomenon. Many scholars argue that Constantine set… Read more »
You are so right. I was on my way back from helping my daughter in London on Saturday and ended up totally outnumbered in a railway carriage full of elderly and pretty ‘respectable’ white men on their way home from the Yaxley-Lennon march which they had attended to ‘do their bit for our country’. Luckily I had my knitting, and played daft old lady- when they asked me what I thought they’d been doing I said I presumed they’d been to watch Arsenal… The scariest part was the misinformation they were lapping up from their phones – over 3 million… Read more »
It may shock a good many people, but I’d never even heard of Charlie Kirk until he was murdered. I know absolutely nothing about him, but would agree that no one should be killed like that for whatever reason. Something I have learned, sadly, is to have absolutely minimal trust in anything I see coming from the States on Youtube which purports to be ‘news’. The old Hearst ‘yellow press’ used to be famous for making things up and rewriting history, and it seems their successors have learned no better. But, as you rightly say, Susanna, let’s all keep our… Read more »
Me neither.
Unfortunately every significant newspaper and network in the US has kowtowed to The Donald in some way or another, with several of them paying him multi-million dollar bribes.
The Guardian and the CBC are becoming my best and most reliable sources for American news.
i am very cautious in my speaking about the terrible death of Charlie Kirk. I have never listened to an extensive video of what he says. I hear quotes, but they may have been taken out of context, or distorted for political reasons. I did hear one statement that he had ‘brought many young people to Christ’. it worried me a bit, what kind of Christ he was bringing them to. Maybe I will examine his views more closely. I do know that modern USA ‘evangelicals’ are very different to my experience of UK evangelicals in the 1970’s.
Just listened to the Cambridge debate.
https://youtu.be/dkiM-z0Mzyg?si=LBCOj0ty4832v1xk
Deeply unimpressed by the students.
Charlie was a good debater and made his views known clearly and strongly. That does not mean I agree with them.
I was waiting for something he said which showed him to be the extremist we were led to believe – I struggled.
There were maybe some issues where further debate would be useful- such as efficacy of vaccines, and the ‘insurrection’, but the students seemed to be unable to press their points.
The chairing and the questions weren’t brilliant but neither were some of Charlie Kirk’s responses. Perhaps as much as anything it revealed a cultural gap in debating styles and the use of rhetoric between the UK and the USA.
Yes, rhetoric in the UK seems to be completely absent from young people, or indeed Keir Starmer.
Is it absent from the pulpit too?
I was thinking more of the contrast in styles: mainly fairly restrained questions from the floor, sometimes poorly expressed, but much more combative, assertive responses with no compromises given. That may reflect the difference in how public discourse is conducted here and in the USA.
There were 2 Charlie Kirks. He had one message when he spoke in churches and at “Christian” gatherings, and a different message when he spoke at universities or more diverse audiences.
The message he delivered in churches was full-on white Christian nationalism with biblical punishments like stoning. Outside of churches, he emphasized more “Judeo-Christian” or “Western” values and “patriotism”. The difference was really in vocabulary, as the goal and the underlying racism, misogyny, xenophobia, and homophobia were the same.
I can reassure Kelvin that he isn’t as badly out of touch as he fears. Birmingham students may differ in some ways from their Scots counterparts, but, believe me, their Christian social activities still revolve heavily around pizza – certainly if the evidence in our church kitchen’s waste bin after an event is anything to go by. The Lord’s blessing, pressed down, full and running over, is clearly evident. Seriously, we’re in a fortunate position. Our particular church is on the fringe of Studentville, about a stone’s throw from the front door of our oldest university, and have a growing… Read more »
“How do we work our way around that one?” Gentle, pastorally sensitive teaching? From the pulpit and elsewhere. Through talking about issues and explicitly considering a Christian point of view. Through getting involved in social justice issues. Other ideas?
There’s an extensive interview with Tommy Robinson here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZcrnX5VcYs which I’m part way through. Its the first time I’ve made time to actually listen to what he’s saying, and its quite instructive.
Agreeing with Anglican in Exile, above: https://open.substack.com/pub/martynpercy/p/right-turn-only?r=25o1ag&utm_medium=ios Part of the article reads: “We live in strange times. Cast your mind back a few months, when most Church of England bishops were jumping on the bandwagon of an alleged resurgence or even revival of white male youths (re-) turning to Christian faith. Despite research from the likes of Professor David Voas questioning the statistics, many English evangelical Anglicans were happy enough to endorse a thesis that Millennials and Gen-Z were turning to the church as never before, but this time for “full fat faith”, and not the “semi-skimmed” variety that many… Read more »
I know several people who’ve come to faith/returned to faith in the last 12 months who’d fall into the ‘quiet revival’ category, including my 2 20something children. None of them are ‘nativist’ or likely to hang a flag out their window. There is more than 1 thing going on. I’m also wondering if there’s a bit of a retread of Wesley here: thrown out of the CofE for preaching in the streets and focusing on the working classes. Now here is a huge crowd of (mainly) working class people, with Christian faith given an extraordinarily high profile, and seemingly embraced… Read more »
Is it the Christian faith being given a high profile or Christianised slogans being deployed as an anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant weapon? Wesley preached “Christ, and him crucified”. When the far right mention Christianity it is a prop for their nationalism, just as it was when the BNP did it 2 decades ago, just as it was across Europe in the 1930s. Wee Tommy two names is no Wesley.
He certainly isn’t, but there was a fair amount of Christian preaching from the main stage at the march, and it’s predominantly a working class movement, which middle class people like me have to work hard to understand and relate to. It’s easier to dismiss it. Or we could pick up the Christian references as a point of connection and try dialogue and engagement. I walked my dog round my fairly average local estate earlier, and there are significantly more flags out than they used to be. As their vicar, I need to work out how to engage with that,… Read more »
So long as you consider that what’s behind it may well be idolatry.
If they claimed they believed in the historic creeds of Christianity and thus had an orthodox faith, how would you respond?
I would ask them how they saw love of neighbour playing out in relation to foreigners.
ie you would assess practical orthodoxy in terms of historical Christian ethics and the teachings of Jesus, which I agree with.
The church has work to do communicating its message, ensuring that it consistently reflects the vision of its founder, and connecting the dots so that people can clearly see how contemporary developments for today’s world are connected to Jesus.
I wouldn’t be questioning orthodoxy so much as orthopraxis.
Which according to James is the same thing.
It’s easy to say the CofE should flag up what’s wrong with the Unite the Kingdom view of Christianity – but that involves showing their interpretation is at odds with the vision of Jesus and the church’s implementation over millennia.
Arguments not founded on Jesus and church history will rapidly turn into just one personal view versus another. And that means the CofE has to continue to make sure its innovative and developing practices are best aligned with Jesus’ aims, and to be able to explain that.
The problem is that this can lead the church into being thought of as supporting ‘open borders’. The ideal and the reality come into conflict. The love for one individual is extended to an indiscriminate love for millions. The church pronouncements can start to appear naïve. I hesitate to pronounce on ethics – but maybe if we consider love for neighbour in the context of love also for our household it may help? If I give all my money to charity and leave my children to starve, is that ethical? Problem is the lack of a grown-up debate, without the… Read more »
The Guardian leader from this morning, about Christian symbols and tropes being co-opted by the far right.
I think the leader writer called it about right. Although they might have added the warning that in history many religious leaders have gone along with that reactionary co-option, either because that matches their own personal belief, or they see it as to the advantage of the church, or both.
Saint Augustine comes to mind here. The temptations of power can be strong.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/sep/17/the-guardian-view-on-christianity-and-the-uk-far-right-churches-must-stand-up-to-the-false-prophets-of-division
Two key phrases are ‘quiet revival’ and ‘radical inclusion’. The quietness suggests openness to God rather than people going to church in increased numbers or the fruits of the spirit being seen more widely in society. That openness needs the church to be energetically making the message of Jesus Christ known, since otherwise people will look elsewhere, sometimes not in great places. Radical inclusion has to cut both ways – we can’t radically include people we like and exclude people we don’t. But Jesus’ message does actually change people. By nature I’m pretty right-wing, but even I know the church… Read more »