Ian Gomersall A Retired Rector’s Reflections What do you do with your palm cross?
Martine Oborne Women and the Church Making the pain of our exclusion present
Colin Coward Unadulterated Love What kind of God do we believe in – Supernatural or Metaphysical?
Reading through Colin’s comments, I was reminded of a remark by Kenneth Graham, author of ‘The Wind in the Willows’ (and, if you are wanting a truly beautiful piece of metaphysical, or possibly supernatural writing, I’d recommend the chapter “The Piper at the Gates of Dawn”.) Graham remarked somewhere that his world – the Edwardian era – had rationalised everything, so that ‘water’ was simply H20, rather than something to enjoy playing with, and that we no longer expected to meet angels unawares, or knights in shining armour just down the road. The loss, he said, was entirely ours. (Did… Read more »
You are doubtless aware that Enid Blyton wrote a number of religious books for children, perhaps the best known of which is ‘Tales from the Bible’ (Methuen, 1944). In one of her Five Find-Outer series, ‘The Mystery of the Missing Man’ (Methuen, 1956), there features a very assertive girl called Eunice Tolling, who with her father is staying with the Trotteville family over Easter. At church on Easter Sunday she sings so loudly as to attract the attention of the entire congregation and embarrass her hosts. ‘The Mystery of the Missing Man’ is unusual amongst Blyton’s stories in that it… Read more »
Richard Hooker (one of my “heroes” of Anglicanism) put it so well (please permit a direct quotation): Let it therefore be sufficient for me presenting myself at the Lord’s table to know what there I receive from him, without searching or inquiring of the manner how Christ performeth his promise; let disputes and questions, enemies to piety, abatements of true devotion, and hitherto in this cause but over patiently heard, let them take their rest; let curious and sharpwitted men beat their heads about what questions themselves will, the very letter of the word of Christ giveth plain security that these mysteries do as nails fasten us to his very Cross, that… Read more »
I fail to see the motive behind Martine Oborne and her friends attending a Chrism Mass from which women clergy are excluded. Perhaps the title gives a clue. They wanted to feel pain – which is an extraordinary reason to attend Church. I’m glad they were warmly and politely welcomed. But I fear their attendance would have changed no one’s mind. It’s rather like a staunch Labour party member attending a Reform rally in the hope Farage supporters feel Labour’s pain.
They “feel pain” whether they go or not. Perhaps they felt it worth “bearing witness” to their pain? An act of solidarity with others who are “othered”?
Please read the title with more care. It is to no one’s credit if their presence, and exclusion, there did not challenge or stir consciences.
The bishop of London was there by kind invitation! How does that stir the consciences of those who invited her?
It might stir their consciences that she was forced to sit on the sidelines. On the other hand, some might rejoice to see she had been sidelined. It depends on the individual and their conscience.
It’s worth noting that, according to the Church Times, Bishop Sarah spoke of the “personal cost for myself and others” of attending the service.
Good for her. It feels awful to be stuck up in front of everybody and be conspicuously banned from taking part. You might as well ring a bell and shout ‘unclean’!
I think the “personal cost” Bishop Sarah feels may well be counterbalanced by the knowledge that we are witnesses to the demise of this “movement” playing out before us. They simply aren’t producing the number of vocations needed for ministry in all the “Traditionalist” parishes, and these are slowly changing their minds and entering the mainstream. Eventually all that will be left for them will be a handful of parishes with historic endowments to support a priest. No parishes are travelling in the other direction. This form of misogyny is an endangered species and will eventually be nothing more than… Read more »
Do we have figures for this? For the traditional/inclusive ordinands (to use a no doubt improper wording) and for parishes which have passed the traditionalist resolution? Is there a trend in both?
Not According to one of the women bishops who was involved in drafting the mutual flourishing guidelines. She has warned that far from ossifying as she had hoped, that in fact traditionalists are “flourishing”
https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2025/17-april/news/uk/catholic-tradition-not-ossifying-bishop-of-fulham-tells-chrism-mass-congregation
(Also in this week’s letters page)
Numbers would be useful. I can see that definitions might make it difficult to reduce the thing to maths, but presumably there is some central totting up of the number of parishes which maintain a “no women priests here” stance? Is there a trend available?
She will still be experiencing the personal cost as long as there are priests and parishes in her own diocese who do not accept her.
The Catholic worshippers at the Chrism Mass adhere to what they believe to be the traditional view of ordination held by the majority of Christians. It is your opinion that “it is to no one’s credit” that people didn’t change their minds to agree with you.
I had a hope their presence might ‘stir consciences’. I said nothing about changing minds.Once again you misquote what is being said here.
I fail to see the difference. Why would anyone have a conscience about doing what they believe to be right?. Your assertion suggests they should have their minds changed by the mere presence of women clergy.
According to psychological research people don’t tend to have their minds changed through theoretical or theological arguments.
It’s often the case that they have a personal experience in life which challenges their views, and causes deep thought, and leads to a sometimes painful change of views over time.
Such personal reflection will often go hand in hand with deep intellectual/theological reading and thinking, but it is the personal experience, and not the intellectual argument, which is the catalyst for change.
The sorts of personal encounters, experiences and conversations that Martine Oborne describes are exactly what may change some people’s minds.
The conscience needed is the capacity to be sensitively and respectfully aware of the impact of my convictions and behaviour upon those who, with the same thoughtful integrity, have come to views very different from mine. Nothing to do with forcing people to change. Oh and while we are talking about sensitivity and respect, women clergy are rather more than a ‘mere presence’ in the church.
Presumably you respect the “thoughtful integrity” of those who don’t accept women clergy and are aware of the impact of your views upon them.
I aspire to nothing less.
And yet you think those who disagree with you should have their “consciences stirred”. That’s rather disrespectful.
Why? David Runcorn has been very clear about what he thinks. He uses the terms ‘sensitive’ and ‘respectful’. And I think disagreement should prompt a stirring of conscience. You may end up where you started, but you should reflect.
Not for the first time this is not getting us anywhere. Easter grace to you.
Would you also fail to see the motive of a Jewish person to attend a neo-Nazi meeting? Or a Muslim to attend a group that called for the occupation of the West Bank?
Sometimes it is necessary to make one’s presence known to demonstrate your opposition.
Or a Jewish person attending a rally calling for the destruction of Israel, of which there have been many in London (or at least attended by many who hold such views).
Good Friday fast approaching & church person queries role of pain & suffering in Christianity?
I didn’t. I questioned the motives of those who attend Church to seek it out.
As Pam Wilkinson commented above, the pain of discrimination is there whether people seek it out or not. When I was growing up in the USA, black people were making point of turning up at white-only universities and other places they were excluded from, to make their exclusion more visible. The women’s attendance at the Fulham chrism mass has drawn attention, very effectively, to the sex-based discrimination the C of E still allows.
I’m not sure there’s a parallel. If there were no women bishops – or black bishops – in the CofE on prejudicial grounds that would be intolerable discrimination. Allowing people to hold traditional beliefs around priesthood doesn’t affect those who disagree. Personally I don’t believe in men’s ‘headship’. I wouldn’t seek out a Church which believes women are inferior to demonstate my disapproval.
FrDavid H we are truly in the season of miracles. I think I might actually agree with you.
This has never happened before! Happy Easter!
There is certainly a parallel between those who discriminate on the grounds of sex and those who discriminate on the grounds of colour. In the USA I knew devout Christians who believed racial discrimination was God’s will, on the grounds that black people were descended from Noah’s son Ham, and therefore lived under God’s curse on Ham. The effect on black people of such discrimination was the same whether there was a ‘theological’ or ‘traditional’ reason, or just instinctive. And while I don’t want to drive anyone out of the C of E, allowing people to discriminate against women within… Read more »
The majority of parishes in the CofE accept women priests. Only a small minority are not open to women clergy. Ms Osborne and friends sought out a minority Church to express their disapproval. The days when people attend Churches to demonstrate against women priests are happily over. It is sad that these women deliberately attended a Church to show they shouldn’t be allowed in the CofE. So much for Christian tolerance.
The days when female priests receive regular hate mail and horrid comments on social media are far from over. To talk about Christian tolerance as if it is only being exercised by one side here is quite laughable given the context. Why should an ordained priest in our church not feel free to attend any church within the C of E? We are either in communion or not. Or at least that is how it should be. The accommodations made in the 90s and onwards have created a church so fragmented and complex that I no longer have any idea… Read more »
I didn’t read that reasoning in their decision to attend!
Some devout Christians are also seriously bonkers.
And you do not question the motives of all the saints who sought to come closer to God through pain & suffering?
Even in secular world this is understood. “No Pain – No Gain” is the classic mantra for PT Instructors the world over.
I see the citizens of Ukraine, Sudan and Gaza as victims of pain and suffering. I don’t think middle class ladies free to attend a church service undergoing what you assert.
Of course you do not.
I see the citizens of Ukraine, Sudan and Gaza as victims of pain and suffering..
You might not, but I do.
Interesting twisted leap of logic.
I may say that I have been shipmates with Ukrainians, and you do not get a closer bond than shared hardships.
the first or second sentence of Francis James’ comment? I am confused.
That’s a bit old school. Modern athletes training have coaches who are very aware of injury risks, and the need to recover quickly so training can go on day after day. this is particuar;y true with young athletes – over training can be a big issue, and coaches have been disqualified for such.
I hate PT instructors! I had one who forced a boy to spend the whole class naked because he had underware under his shorts. He played no 8 for Bath,so was not to be questioned.
Ah. You are talking about PE Teachers, I am referring to military PTIs, who are entirely different in character, training & aims.
Aha! I think my Dad was a PTI, or at least he was an instructor during the war. He had polio hence could not continue to be in active service. He never talked about it.
But it’s the same. No pain, no gain = injury. Strength comes through recovery. When training for a marathon, there is a rule ‘increase mileage by 10% a week’.
Unfortunately the mantra gets twisted by those who do not understand it. In the services ‘no pain, no gain’ refers to the mental pain barrier, not that of physical injury (far from it – injuries would render you unfit to serve). Its most extreme in my experience was aircrew escape & evasion culminating in resistance to interrogation, not a course that anyone wished to repeat!
Respect!
You can see the church from our living room window in our family home where my brother now lives in retirement. It’s a Basil Spence church and you certainly cannot miss it. It’s the church that we both served at and from which we were recommended for training for ordination many years ago. My mother was churchwarden. There is presently an interregnum, my brother now a retired bishop is sadly not allowed to help out on a Sunday because he has ordained women as priests…he is tainted. I could help out if asked, even though I agree with him on… Read more »
Around here it is enough to commit the ‘Thought Crime’ of accepting that women can be priests to put you beyond the pale. Perhaps unsurprisingly that hard line can be counter-productive & some have moved on from thought to deed & now welcome women priests in their church (in for a penny, in for a pound)
If only the church had to obey the Equal Ops laws and wasn’t given an exemption
Then the pain in Martine’s and Colin’s writings would end. Discrimination over gender and sexuality (and all other forms of discrimination and oppression) needs to end.
Would also love to see the C of E disestablished.
The current situation where many clergy and lay leaders are discriminated against whilst the C of E continues in all forms of state pageantry and power despite less than 1% of the population attending is untenable. The centre cannot hold, and change is coming, one way or another.
Your points about reversing exemption from equality laws and the need for disestablishment are well made although achieving the latter may be much more complex and convoluted than the former.
That would create a very challenging situation for the RC and Orthodox churches in this country. And all mosques would need to be open to female imams.
Yes it would certainly be challenging to RC and Orthodox churches but there’s an important question about how far “religious” or other special pleading should enable some groups to evade laws which reflect the wider values of our society. How about female circumcision? Or allowing a child to die rather than have a blood transfusion?
Do you think that those two examples are equivalent to holding a particular view about who can be a priest?
… and male circumcision? A ‘religious exemption’? And halal meat- a ‘religious’ variance from concerns about animal ‘welfare’? Holy grounds?
Yes. That would be excellent
Making illegal the all-male ministry of the RC Church and in Mosques sounds like the religious purges under Stalin. The Pope wouldn’t be happy if the British government proscribed his Church.
I don’t see the present government being enthusiastic to allocate precious and limited parliamentary time to bring forward Disestablishment; Tony Blair and Robin Cook failed to find a formula for Lords reform; disestablishment would also involve the undoing of the Elizabethan Settlement and open the question of the Monarchy. All too much. On the other hand a simpler ‘attack’ on pontificating troublesome prelates in the House of Lords, maybe following on from succesful and also popular removal of heridatary peers, could find favour with an atheist Prime Minister with an at least largely agnostic cabinet and a Jewish wife. Equalities… Read more »
I have taken this position in the past myself, but I have changed my mind on it. The news is covering how Trump is trying to control Harvard and the parallel is a little uncomfortable.
Asking for discrimination to cease is the opposite of control …
An excluded person on both counts is here saying discrimination on the basis of sex, gender, sexuality and gender identity is wrong.
That’s NOT equal to an elected president freezing educational funds unless he gets to change the humans who make up the administration of Harvard, and potentially its student body (spoiler alert: this DISPROPORTIONATELY affects Muslims and people of colour)
You’re effectively saying there should be no room for traditionalists in the CofE.
In other words your position is an intolerant one. Agree with your liberal theology or leave.
Why should traditionalists trust any assurances given on LLF if you’re arguing for ripping up assurances on complementarian belief on ministry scarcely more than a decade after they were given.
Are you advocating for all denominations to be forced to share your beliefs on sexuality and gender roles?
If so that’s a massive violation of freedom of religion and any separation of church and state that disestablishment should bring.
Gareth I am part of a growing inclusive evangelical network that states very clearly we do not want to force out those holding traditional views on sexuality. But on conservative discussion threads where I seek to engage I have frequently been told I am not an evangelical, I have broken my ordination vows and more than once – from Ian Paul – I should leave the CofE and join the Church of Wales (a church he declares is in terminal decline). May I ask what your position is towards folk like me?
It’s not my place to have a position on you. That is with Christ alone.
I’m concerned by the attitudes of people like #churchtoo who would effectively desire to make basic conservative evangelicalism illegal.
If civil liberties reached such a nadir in the UK I think disobedience would be a right response.
In terms of defining evangelicalism, I’d say Bebbington’s Quadrilateral is a good starting point for defining evangelicalism:
Biblicism, Crucicentrism, Conversionism, and Activism are all key features.
What do you think?
Gareth. You take a firm position on the views of others when you post here. Why you delegate me to Christ at this point I am not sure. Yes, like you I find Bebbington a helpful summary of evangelical faith. But others who know that tell I am not an evangelical and am no longer biblical because I hold inclusive convictions. Some will not pray with me or share communion with me. Would you?
I think having firm views in respect to our beliefs is good and what we are called to. I’m also convinced that those who disagree with me also have firm views on a variety of matters. In Romans Paul tells us to be convinced in our own mind even in respect to disputable matters (14:5) not withstanding salvation issues. That’s a good and honourable thing to do. What you asked me to do was to take a position in respect to “people like you”. I won’t do that because that isn’t my place. Also I don’t know you (or at… Read more »
A final comment here. You have claimed there are others who wanting to exclude traditionalists from the church for their views on sexuality. I give evidence that the many fellow evangelicals who are inclusive on this issue and believe we can walk together. I have told you of my/our experience at the hands of traditionaiist evangelicals who want to exclude us from the church and the evangelical tradition. You do not need to know me to say if you agree with their behaviour. I would welcome more transparency. Something about walking in the light,
Happy Easter David! You didn’t ask me to comment on the opinions of others, you asked me to take a position on you and I declined to do so for good reason. I think avoiding personal comments is a good way forward. It tends to only produce unnecessary and unedifying interpersonal drama. The better way forward is to discuss the substantive issues: – Is an affirming view compatible with evangelicalism? – Can two diametrically opposed theologies on sexuality exist within the same church when a substantial minority doesn’t consider this to be adiaphora? – Is it “exclusive” to hold to… Read more »
Happy Easter to you!
There are no plans to exclude any group from the church over this issue. Synod has voted to allow choice, without prejudice. You surely know this. But there is another substantive issue and I have asked you this several times. If con evos gain a majority in decision making will inclusive believers be allowed a place or will they be excluded?
To answer this properly we’d need to explore the assumptions we hold. That requires a long comment to do this justice. I’d use the word affirming rather than inclusive here as I’ve explained that all people would be welcome to be a part of an evangelical church in practice. From a lay persons perspective I wouldn’t be able to attend a church in good conscience that held to an affirming perspective as I believe that it is false teaching that has consequences for salvation. I think 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 warns us of the consequences of unrepentant sin. Therefore I’d conclude… Read more »
Thank you for distinguishng the two debates. i agree with you that they are very different., yet seem to mingle in the same pot. It may be a misquote, but I note Pope Francis (R.I.P) is said to have said, in the obituary in the Guardian: On questions of gender and sex, he remained unusually relaxed for a Catholic leader. “They are really not the most serious [sins],” he wrote in 2025. My personal attitude is that it is a shame the church (or Church) focuses so much on same sex marriage, and not so much on much more serious… Read more »
Thank you for your trouble in replying here and responding to my question. It is clear you believe me, and others like me (affirming – or whatever label), to be a ‘false teacher’ and a danger to the salvation of others. For my part I hold to the position of the Church of England that people may choose their position on this and we walk together. Nowhere in the historic teaching of the church is this found to be a ‘salvation issue’. The evangelical tradition has never been ‘one thing’ that everyone agrees, believes or must leave. I’ll leave it… Read more »
Hi David
I attempted to reply to this earlier and explain my reasoning but think my lengthy response may not have been approved.
I’m fully open to the idea that TA don’t have to publish every comment and have the full right to discern what’s appropriate for their platform.
I suspect the discussion has been well rehearsed already in any respect.
I’ll draw stumps here and wish you and all the very best in Christ.
Gareth, your earlier response went into our Spam folder. I have now retrieved it.
So should those with a ‘traditional’ view of slavery be tolerated, perhaps in the same way that ‘a woman’s place is in the kitchen’ especially a vicar’s wife if he is allowed to marry? Of course those who resisted proposals to end the slave trade had a, to them, reasonable hope of ‘mutual flourishing’. Would they still?
It’s not remotely true to suggest that most Christians approved of slavery particularly when Paul advocated for slaves to seek their freedom where possible (1 Corinthians 7:21), nullified the power dynamic between master and slave (Ephesians 6:5-9), and encouraged a Christian to welcome his returned slave as a brother in Christ (Philemon). It’s also ahistorical. Christianity led to emancipation of slaves in the Roman Empire. That chestnut aside, it’s evidently good faith Biblical arguments (from a new covenant perspective) both for male leadership in churches and for a traditional sexual ethic (sex only for heterosexual marriage). Seeking to legislatively punish… Read more »
However, growing up in the USA in the 50s and 60s, I knew many Christians who argued that racial discrimination was God’s will, because black people were descended from Ham and were under God’s curse. Presumably Christians in South Africa who supported apartheid were using similar arguments. It was right that they were prevented from continuing to discriminate against black people.
The reality is though that this wasn’t traditional in the church and goes against the clear teaching of Scripture. That’s what I argued in my last comment and it is true. I’m thankful that there will be a multitude from every nation, tribe, people and language stood before the throne of the Lamb (Revelation 7:9). Therefore we know that racial segregation is antithetical to Christian teaching and is contrary to Scripture. The gospel also requires us to go and make disciples of all nations (Matthew 28:20). I’d argue that’s not easily possible with segregation. I think we should focus on… Read more »
My point is that those Christians could and did argue their case from scripture. I disagreed with their interpretation and their selection of texts – just as I disagree with the selection of texts and interpretation used by opponents of eg women’s ordination and same sex marriage. At what point do we decide that discrimination is outside God’s will and will no longer be allowed – even though some use ‘biblical’ arguments to justify it?
I understand that to be the conversation we’re having.
Conversation- maybe; conversion of any point of view/ stand point/ position? I agree with your argument regarding selection and interpretation/ clearness of scripture- which has been a matter of contention, and going to the stake, down the years, and still .
You might as well ask whether those with a ‘traditional’ view of child sacrifice or cannibalism should be tolerated: obviously not. When Gareth speaks of traditionalists, it’s a matter of common sense that he doesn’t mean those with a traditional view of anything at all. For example. he’s presumably not advocating for traditional Nazism to play a role in the CofE. Rather, he is referencing a particular set of doctrines that are still held by the world’s largest churches, but which Anglicans are presently questioning. And of course slavery is not amongst them, with the role of 18th century evangelical… Read more »
The way I look at it is like this:-
If the Church of England was fully inclusive and a group wanted to stop ordaining women or being consecrated by a bishop who had ordained women, would we allow that? I am pretty confident that the answer is no
Grandfathering in those practices therefore seems wrong to me.
The CofE has a diversity of views in respect to gender roles in the church and that’s why there’s a variety of different practices. I’m sceptical of the use of “inclusive” here as in practice it’s simply a case of what theology you wish to hold to and the implications that has for those who attend. In practice holding to egalitarian views may cause some people to go elsewhere and holding to complementarian views may cause some people to go elsewhere. That isn’t because either are “inclusive” or “exclusive”. The reality is on any given Sunday people will be free… Read more »
“I’m pretty sure that the vast majority of complementarian churches would say that women play an essential role in the mission and ministry of the church.” Of course they do. But who decides what constitutes essential roles? Patronising as it sounds. But in such churches only men lead teach and exercise public authority.
“I’m pretty sure that the vast majority of complementarian churches would say that women play an essential role in the mission and ministry of the church.”
Sure–’cause somebody has to cook the food, set the table, wash the clothes, change the nappies….
…but it’s men who should teach, preach, and lead, right?
Pat – you are quoting Gareth here not me.
I wonder whether a button label’ ‘Response’ or ‘Responding’- or ‘Comment’?) would be more helpful (and accurate?) than ‘Reply’? One for the moderators’ consideration, esp as the ‘Send’ button is labelled ‘Post Comment’?
Yes, I hit reply to the wrong posting. Sorry
In the 70s I belonged to a Free Church which, under Terry Virgo’s influence, was becoming more conservative on gender issues. The elders were baffled what to do with me, because they could see that I had a gift for Bible teaching – and it wasn’t just for children and other women. Eventually I left.
I can believe it Janet. I knew that network a bit. But I am worried you and Pat think I am agreeing with Gareth’s words here. I most certainly am not!
David, I know your views and should have made it clear that I was expanding on your comment from my own experience, rather than arguing with you.
And in liberal churches only the university-educated “lead teach and exercise public authority”.
Does that mean those churches aren’t inclusive to those who aren’t ordained?
‘And in liberal churches only the university-educated “lead teach and exercise public authority”.’
That’s a sweeping statement. Do you have any evidence for it?
Every time I have gone to a liberal church every person to “lead teach and exercise public authority” wore symbols of a university education.
If you are telling me that at your church, you have people in roles that women cannot fill at conevo churches who are not university educated (minister-in-church, preaching to men/mixed-sex, supervising male/mixed-staff sex) then I’ll believe you.
I don’t know how you’re defining ‘liberal’, but my vicar doesn’t have a university education.
And if by ‘symbols of a university education’ you mean academic hood, they used to be a standard part of clerical dress for all clergy, and betokened training colleges as well as universities. For instance, if you were over 30 you could go to Wycliffe Hall for a 2-year non-degree course which would qualify you to wear the hood.
Thank you, I have learnt something from this discussion. (That there exists people who don’t consider a Wycliffe Hall education a university one.)
It wasn’t a university education in my day, unless you took the degree course. I believe the Certificate course is now also accredited by Oxford. It used to be the case that ordinands over 30 took the 2 year GME course, also not accredited by Oxford. I don’t know if that’s still the case. An academic hood signifies a college or course education, but not necessarily a university one. Nowadays, of course, most clergy seem to wear cassock alb or street dress, and an academic hood wouldn’t be worn with either. So I’m a little surprised that you encounter a… Read more »
The questions Colin raises challenge the thinking which frets, and is convinced that God frets, about the nature of our reproductive organs, and what we choose to do with them. Or (in the previous set of blogs) conceives of God is a discrete “being” for whom we must identify appropriate pronouns.
Are there not bigger and more interesting questions about what Paul Tillich called “the ultimate concern”?
The Bishop of Ebbsfleet is unlikely to preside at a Chrism Mass, but would Martine Oborne and her friends attend any service led by him, as a matter of principle?
The Bishop of Fulham is a remarried divorcee – his brand of ‘traditionalism’ is neither coherent nor consistent. The ladies should have highlighted the ‘tainted’ nature of his second marriage.
And a Freemason.
So mote it be.
I believe that he resigned from all his Masonic membership before he was made Bishop of Fulham.
So that’s all right then!
I’m saddened that he was required, however discretely is was put, that he should resign from his Masonic membership. In my opinion there is nothing in masonry that is incompatible with orthodox Christian faith. It is not an alternative religion but rather encourages its members to deepen their commitment to their faith community. As a provocative statement I would say that if all members of the Church of England who are Freemasons left the church then the numbers of PCC members and Churchwardens would see a significant decline from in numbers.
This do in remembrance of me, me, me. Maybe the bishop will restore some discipline?
And are in love and charity with thy neighbour and intend to lead a new life following the commandments of God???
When of course we can all stop bickering about what we think they might be and most other ‘Christians ‘ have got hopelessly wrong…..
I wish I was less surprised to find all the discussion here about “what kind of Church” rather than (as Colin Coward invited us to consider) “what kind of God”. I spent half an hour of quiet contemplation this morning, after my shopping, in a church with a very beautiful and simple altar in the Lady Chapel, all decked out with little bouquets of white flowers. I was not very successful in my effort to quiet my mind because I found myself (having grown up in a church which was shrouded with gloom on good Friday, with crucifix etc wrapped… Read more »
Thanks Pam. I think I am with you on the agnostic Christian.
There are two important words in Colin’s question. “God” and “believe”.
I wonder if the interesting question is ‘in what way do we “believe” in God?’
Simon, it will come as no surprise to you that one of the interesting questions I pursue (and am pursued by) is exactly that – ‘in what way do we “believe” in God?’ And then there’s the more interesting, personal, difficult question or questions – ‘How am I experiencing God right now? How am I deeply infused with, seamlessly immersed in, the presence of God right now? How do nourish my inner life and my relational life so that this awareness and presence is manifest as I relate to the people and life around me?
Briefly, Colin, as I do not have time today for a more considered response, are you aware of Harry Hay’s subject-SUBJECT relationship ideas? Your experience of being “deeply infused with, seamlessly immersed in, the presence of God right now?” seems to me a classic example of subject-SUBJECT thinking (but in relationship to God and not one’s lover). This is in contrast to the subject -OBJECT relationship to God which is prevalent in the patriarchal church around us. Can we argue that there are gendered and sexuality based differences in the way that men and women relate to each other and… Read more »
Simon, thank you so much for introducing me to Harry Hay’s subject-SUBJECT relationship model. I find myself wondering whether it could really be true abut same-sex compared with opposite sex relationships. It appeals because it’s delightfully perverse, but . . . ? It could certainly be an ingredient in the God’s gender pronouns debate -.and possibly in the Trans identity conflict. If Hay’s idea is authentic in the context of our relationship to God, then things get a whole lot more interesting. If a mystical relationship to God is stereotypically homosexual, that provides a genuine reason as to why a… Read more »
Hi Colin, I am glad that comment about Harry Hay worked for you. I think there is something of deep value in the idea, although Harry’s own writings on this are from a stage in his life when he was still forming his thoughts. The context is still very much in personal relationships – gay relationships as against straight ones. Later on Harry applied the same thinking to the relationship with the divine. I have been working on this and similar ideas from Harry Hay. But there is a network of people with similar ideas, almost a chain of connections… Read more »
And just by way of illustration, that “in most of the world, for most of human history, human cultures were gender egalitarian, matrilineal, and welcomed gender variant and homoerotically inclined people as their priests, counsellors and healers.” includes Britain.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c20g7j707g8o
I suspect that parish, like my own, sets up a “garden” on the night of Maundy Thursday, where volunteers stay awake and pray through the night (often in shifts), as Jesus pleaded with his apostles to do.
Pam, thank you for commenting on my blog in such a thoughtful, reflective way. You capture my own dilemmas and experience as I pursue my life-long attempt to immerse myself in the wood every day and am continually distracted by the focus on trees, some of which may reflect the depth of unconditional love and goodness Jesus manifests – and many of of which don’t, being more interested in the minutiae of churchy life. I’m also an agnostic “progressive” contemplative Christian.
Health warning.
Some of these comments may make Buddhism a more adult option.
I enjoyed Ian Gomersall’s piece about palm crosses. Exploring a few other recent posts on his blog, I particularly appreciated this one on the original purpose of the Chrism Mass.
Thank you for this, Tim.
Although many of us value the one occasion in the year when we gather around our bishop, not least at a time when there is low morale among parish clergy, it is a pity that this so often seems to eclipse the more venerable rite of blessing the oils.
Last night at the Easter Vigil I baptized two young people, anointing them with Chrism consecrated by their chief pastor and thereby admitting them to Communion. Baptism making Easter visible indeed. Alleluia!
Wishing Easter joy to all on TA.
I wish you all a Happy Easter. i leave you with this.
https://youtu.be/cmN0I8W40gw?si=6jXDWLD18zJTygu4
Not easy. But worthy and full of love.
There is an abrasive and self righteous edge to much of conservative evangelical culture. I say that as a person who holds to the historic and apostolic traditional convictions. I have in the past been glad to converse with David Runcorn, Tim Chesterton and others on this site. I continue to wish them well. I have also deplored the dreadful culture on a well known conservative evangelical blog comments section. I still stand with Gareth who comments on this site from a historic stance. It is grevious, but we must distinguish ourselves from those who do not hold our convictions.… Read more »
Hi Peter ,
Easter blessings to you!
I hope things are better for you now than the last time you posted.
I am also sad that you still see such divisions between the people Jesus died to save because I cannot see a loving God wanting such divisions , especially because that then creates so many permanent losers.
Hi Susanna,
Blessing to you too !
We are divided – there is no way round that reality. We need to find a way to acknowledge the distinctions, whilst causing the least amount of harm to people.
Peter
Hi Peter – I also think the personalised tone of many comments elsewhere is best avoided. I definitely agree we need to remember the humanity of others in our responses and have tried to so this. If I’ve failed I’m willing to learn.
Hi Gareth, It is good to converse with you. I think your contributions to this site are helpful and well judged. The world of Anglican blogs is pretty small and I have in the past been fairly active on them. I disagree with much of what is said on TA. It is also the case that other commentators on this site have extended personal kindness and a sense of decency to me on many occasions. It grieves me profoundly that another well known Anglican blog has commentators who share my theology but are brutal, rude and provocative. I now deplore… Read more »
You think TA links to articles are not tribal?!
I obviously said nothing of the sort.
My comments were addressed at people who deliberately twist the words of others to gain the opportunity to grandstand and preen themselves for their purity of heart and theology.
If you have never encountered such a person, or wondered if you might be one yourself then good for you
Thanks Peter. Greetings. There is, of course, no kind, non-personal way of telling me or others that I am a false teacher endangering the salvation of others by my views on this subject. Painful though it is, and deeply mistaken as I think he is, I respect Gareth’s willingness to reply honestly.
Hi David, It is all grievous in the extreme. I think calling on you to renounce your Orders -which I believe has been said to you – will have been deeply wounding. For myself, I would not say that to you. I would contradict you public teaching if I were myself teaching on the subject and was asked about your views. If we were close friends I would be candid and direct with you – as, no doubt, you would be with me. We have to find our common humanity even in the midst of deep division. I wish you… Read more »
And there is another option: we can disagree about this specific issue without claiming that others are putting people’s salvation at risk or that it’s a ‘first order ‘ issue. We do this over numerous issues (atonement, election, Trinity, biblical inspiration, women’s and men’s ministry, sacraments, etc); all churches do to some extent. What is really puzzling is why the current differences have been elevated to the level of the creed. It feels as though there are other dynamics and emotions at play behind the presenting issue that are being kept out of sight.
I agree. The problem for the present evangelical anglican tradition – which has always been diverse – is that there is nowhere for this kind of hospitable discussion to happen any more. The CEEC was set up by John Stott precisely to be such supportive, resourcing co-ordinating forum meeting. But that is now controlled, along with its extensive financial resources, by narrow separatists and more open evangelicals are excluded.
It’s sex, innit. You might be working in the middle of nowhere for 40 years, acting as a healing doctor, building up a hospital, bringing the gospel to multitude churches within a 2 hour journey, be a kind loving father to ten children, welcome all-comers to your community, provide advice and healing to those who seek it, etc. etc., but if you get the sex bit wrong you are a sinner.
On the other hand, you may be a brute who does none of the above, but lead a monogamous (but loveless) marriage, and you are a saint.
The tensions in evangelical unity and identity pre-date the sexuality debate actually. But this is the latest red line and certainly the most volatile so far.
A holistic view of sin and repentance is important. I agree that simply heeding a Christian sexual ethic whilst being ungracious or unkind to ones spouse is every bit as sinful as anything else. If the healing doctor has repented and turned to Christ and put his trust in Him there’s grace for all (1 Corinthians 6:11) In Him. Having said that I’ve not heard any church leaders argue for affirming covetousness or greed (for example) in the life of the church and I think churches should be opposed to all sin and we seek to live a life that… Read more »
Gareth you keep referring to 1Cor 6. If you are interested here is a non-affirming New Zealand bishop challenging conservative readings of that text. https://www.inclusiveevangelicals.com/post/revisiting-1corinthians-6-9-10
I wasn’t really replying to you, just a general comment. Yes, I forgot to mention, the mythical person is a fully believing convert (at least in his/her own eyes).
It’s just strange that the perception, from secular world at least, is that the church is so focused on sex.
Hi Tim,
I’d taken quite a bit of time to explain my position from Scripture in a comment below, so there’s nothing hidden here.
Out of curiosity – why are the creeds more authoritative than Scripture?
The creeds themselves are authoritative from a Protestant perspective because they agree with Scripture (Article 8 of the 39 Articles of Religion for example). They were also written in the context of disagreement on Christology.
It’s interesting that some evangelical groupings are now adding statements on gender and marriage into their doctrinal basis due to the current disputes in the church.
Thanks for your reply, Gareth. It’s very helpful to have a generous response. My point really is not to argue for same sex marriage but rather to question why this issue has been raised to a prominence greater than differences over the ones I referred to. How is it possible to allow wide differences over those areas, which are unquestionably at the heart of Christian faith (and theo – logy: what we mean when we use the word ‘God’) and actually give quite different understandings of e.g. salvation and the Trinity. I’m not seeking to change anyone’s view about sexuality.… Read more »
Tim, The evangelical tradition has always had a problem with authority and the bible. Of course the more we emphasise the centrality of the bible the more likely we are to disagree over what it says. My question is – who gets to decide who is right? When I began theology studies at a conservative bible college there were other students who could not believe I accepted the authority of the blble because, among other things, I did not believe in a seven day creation, supported women in leadership, was not a calvinist, and drank alcohol. These were absolute red… Read more »
David,
I think you are wrong in your understanding of the bible and I am sure you accept I am entitled to hold that view.
The question is surely how does the church (the people of God, not the institution) decide what is right.
Peter
Concerning the 7 day creation, I refer once again to St Augustine, whom your fellow students at the time ought to have taken seriously, and regarded as authoritative?
https://harvardichthus.org/2010/09/augustine-on-faith-and-science/
How many souls have been put off Christianity by this kind of nonsense, and I include leadership by women within the term nonsense.
Same-sex marriage I view as different.
Tim/Peter, do you accept what St Augustine wrote?
I don’t need to worry about who is right or wrong even if I think this is very clear in Scripture.
Christ decides. He will come to judge the living and the dead. He will settle this.
Meanwhile I aim to listen to what God has spoken and live accordingly.
This isn’t about me. It’s about Him.
In every Christian context until recently marriage is between a man and a women. It is true that this is considered a matter of Salvation. Romans 1-8 provides theological context. This is is what makes it a red line.
I’m skeptical about turning a question of marriage into broad statements about same-sex charity, decency, pastoral care, generosity. My closest friend in the parish I serve is a Christian who believes God ordained marriage as between a man and a woman, and the mother of a daughter who is gay. She loves her daughter. I love her. I could never preside at marriage between her and her partner because I don’t believe there is a scriptural warrant to depart from the BCP understanding of marriage. This cultural moment is unique when, in the West in particular, there is a new… Read more »
My prayer and longing is that our Father in Heaven will raise up a new generation of leaders who call the people of God back to the historic, apostolic Faith. In the Church of England all of us – of whatever theological view – face a dark reality. Those who call themselves our leaders have included brutal and cruel men who have done unspeakable things. There is no “just a few bad apples “ bromide that will be accepted by the laity in the face of such wickedness. We need a new beginning under new leaders who are humble, meek… Read more »
Peter, you and I normally disagree, but I am fully with you on the need for new leaders who are humble, meek and kind! The trouble is that these attributes don’t often seem to lead to promotion ….. though people who knew the last ABC but one always said that of him.
Somebody once told me they came across Rowan Williams at a General Synod. They said he would sit down and chat with anybody – a humble man indeed.
Apparently he was also moderately disheveled, which I think is always a good sign in a man !
I hear you. ‘Dark reality’ can also be made darker by looking elsewhere and deciding we must go to areas of division over this or that, hammer away, and not face entrenched, institutional, polity matters crying out for primary attention.
Hey, Thinking Anglicans: are you OK? No Easter message (BTW, He is Risen Alleluia!), no acknowledgment of the death of Pope Francis?
Holding space for you, TA (as the youths say).
Your remark speaks volumes. I’ll say no more.
Dear Anglican Priest, what are you hearing, or not hearing that JC Fisher is or is not hearing? IIUC, the TA threads consist of comments prompted by articles selected for publication. Hence no Easter message? As I understand it, ‘Anglicanism’ isa broad church including a range of ‘traditions’- a reformed and catholic church. Pope Francis was the leader of the Roman Catholic Church, as will his successor. Ecumenism ebbs and flows; Liberation Theology similarly. I am pleased that TA welcomes a range of thought, as the name suggests, and the site displays. He is risen indeed. Alleluia! PTL as some… Read more »