Thinking Anglicans

Opinion – 15 November 2025

Andrew Davison Church Times Analysis: Beware of doctrinal development?

Ruth Harley ViaMedia.News A Question of Conscience

David Runcorn Inclusive Evangelicals When the fruit is good don’t call it bad

Jonathan Clatworthy The point of it all The Word of God and the proposals of humans

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

23 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
David L
David L
20 days ago

I found Ruth Harley’s article interesting, and I agree that there is an asymmetry in the church, where the conscience of ‘conservatives’ holds sway over that of the conscience of ‘progressives’. However, I don’t think that is unreasonable, since the teaching of the CofE is that marriage is between a man and a woman. Obviously, there are many who would like to see that teaching eventually changed. But to respect the conscience of ‘conservatives’ is simply to state the church’s actual teaching on this matter, and it’s not surprising that that takes precedence.

Paul Roberts
Paul Roberts
20 days ago

The Regius Professor’s take on FAOC’s rather amateurish excursion into doctrinal development: gamma minus minus minus.

Adrian Clarke
Adrian Clarke
20 days ago

The LLF project is dead. Above all it’s a failure of project management and the project director, not law or theology. ‘Processing the process’ without managing the risks is as bad as it gets. At the end bishops had no choice other than to shut it down.

Simon Dawson
Reply to  Adrian Clarke
19 days ago

Playing devils advocate, let’s not just blame the bishops. It takes two sides to make a quarrel. The church has shown amazing flexibility over marriage over decades. We have kept the formal teaching that marriage is between one man and one woman for life, and that sex is only for inside marriage, whilst we have adopted to cultural changes that allow for remarriage after divorce, and sex outside marriage. The Augustinian teaching that sex is only for procreation has been all but abandoned. If the church, and even the conservative forces inside the church, have accepted all this flexibility with… Read more »

David Runcorn
David Runcorn
Reply to  Adrian Clarke
19 days ago

er … except that it hasn’t been shut down actually.

Adrian Clarke
Adrian Clarke
Reply to  David Runcorn
18 days ago

Still processing the process? Some people make a living out of it!

Kate Keates
Kate Keates
Reply to  Adrian Clarke
19 days ago

Its problem was that the outcome was mis-sold. ++Justin promised a radical new Christian inclusion but there was never a serious attempt to deliver on it.

Last edited 19 days ago by Kate Keates
David Runcorn
David Runcorn
Reply to  Kate Keates
19 days ago

I could never not call LLF serious. There have been crucial flaws in the leadership and process. – but from my own inovlement I am in no doubt a serious of intention was there. But i know not all agree on this.

Kate Keates
Kate Keates
Reply to  David Runcorn
19 days ago

I don’t think we disagree. I agree that LLF was serious but, even being charitable, if there ever was an intention to deliver “a radical new Christian inclusion”, that intention withered as soon as it encountered headwinds.

Jo B
Jo B
Reply to  David Runcorn
19 days ago

LLF appears to have been a serious attempt to avoid actually standing for anything, and devolved into a proposal that was too much for some (i.e. anything at all) and not enough for anyone else.

rerum novarum
rerum novarum
Reply to  Jo B
18 days ago

Agreed. The Andrew Davison article surely shows the way forward: develop doctrine in a rigorous, thoughtful way, and it will become clear what the church should do and then it will happen.

Kate Keates
Kate Keates
Reply to  rerum novarum
18 days ago

Based on my reading of the New Testament, my personal view is that pastoral care is much more important than developing doctrine. I would even argue that if the purpose of doctrine isn’t pastoral, then it isn’t true doctrine, but then I am one of those pesky lay liberals.

Adrian Clarke
Adrian Clarke
Reply to  rerum novarum
18 days ago

That would be to ignore the lessons learnt from the LLF project. The project put unity at the top of its objectives (radical inclusion). As soon as the Bishop of Leicester realised this was not possible he resigned. That was effectively the end of the project.

Jo B
Jo B
Reply to  Adrian Clarke
18 days ago

I think it’s more the case that “radical inclusion” was, with apologies to Chesterton, found hard and thus not tried. Putting false “unity” above all else is the result.

Last edited 18 days ago by Jo B
Simon Dawson
Reply to  rerum novarum
18 days ago

Absolutely right.

Simon Dawson
Reply to  David Runcorn
18 days ago

David. My own take on this is to commend the determined intention to move forward on LGBTQ issues displayed by quite a large number of bishops, and by many other people working with them, such as yourself. But then I wonder, with all due respect, whether there was a bit of naivety and over-confidence and inexperience. Many people within the rooms where decisions were being made were not themselves LGBTQ. So they had never come across the sort of determined, almost irrational, opposition to any form of debate or negotiation over LGBTQ issues that we LGBTQ people had come to… Read more »

Kate Keates
Kate Keates
Reply to  Simon Dawson
18 days ago

An astute observation. But it shows what pressure ordinary LGBT Christians come under if even bishops, with their institutional support network, falter under the attacks.

Simon Dawson
Reply to  Kate Keates
18 days ago

Thanks Kate. For some, yes, faltering under attacks. That is true.

For others, taken aback by the unexpected strength and vitriol in the attacks, which (not being themselves LGBTQ was a new learning experience for them). But hopefully having learnt, regrouping and still moving forward.

I can only speak for myself, but I have been heartened by various conversations.

Perry Butler
Perry Butler
Reply to  Adrian Clarke
19 days ago

Well it will be a major factor in the GS elections next year. When I was in parish ministry I always voted and encouraged my lay reps to do so. I was incredulous when I discovered in some dioceses only about 60% vote. I remember donkey’s years ago a finals paper had the question ” A Church gets the sect it deserves”…..”A Church gets the Synod it deserves”??

Kate Keates
Kate Keates
19 days ago

I just want to say that David’s piece is an exceptional piece of writing both as prose and theologically. Thank you David.

Jeremy Trew
Jeremy Trew
18 days ago

I enjoyed David Runcorn’s article (as usual), but would love to know where he got his understanding of “orthodox” from. It’s a lovely, and helpful, interpretation, but not one I have come across before.

David Runcorn
David Runcorn
Reply to  Jeremy Trew
17 days ago

Dear Jeremy. Kenneth Leech loved to stress ‘true glory’ but the word development itself is referenced in most NT lexicons including Kittel ‘s Theological Dictionary,  Arndt-Gingrich’s Lexicon of the NT and Liddell & Scott’s Classical Greek Lexicon. Hope that helps.

Martin Hughes
Martin Hughes
17 days ago

I can’t agree with Jonathan Clatworthy’s reading of Mark 11:31 ‘oude phagein eukairoun’. The KJV interpretation is correct. Eukairoun is a third person verb referring to the disciples, who are specifically mentioned, not to people in general, who appear only two sentences further on – and made up of the well-known elements eu=good and kairos=moment/chance. It is not an impersonal reference to the times or to the state affairs or to food supply. The disciples are said to be so busy that have not had a good moment even to eat’. Thus Jesus in Mark decides that they need to… Read more »

23
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x