To the first post the answer seems because they don’t want to give up their buildings.
You could argue that they should leave ASAP (like I would), but I can understand why they don’t want to lose their buildings because there are false teachers in the church.
There is also the desire for control to consider. While inside the tent they can put a thumb on the scales of General Synod and manipulate the fuzzy middle by threats of leaving. It’s worked very well for them so far. They’ve been left alone to pick their own bishops and all attempts to treat LGBT folk better have been successfully booted into touch. Why would they quit the field?
He never claims to be the arbiter of what constitutes false teaching. If you actually listen to what he says, he points out the plain meaning of scripture which defines false teaching.
Peter – it is what you and William Taylor believe is ‘obviously’ what the bible teaches. That is not the same. It is not clear to me how anyone in a tradition that takes human sin and fallenness so seriously could ever insist their particular view of the bible could never be wrong. It is worth noting, however, that not all conservative evangelicals make such claims. In his book, ‘People to Be Loved: Why Homosexuality is Not Just an Issue’ the respected conservative theologian Preston Sprinkle warns his readers, ‘there is no such thing as an unbiased reading of the Bible. We… Read more »
Which sounds great, except I imagine William Taylor is a strong believer in the doctrine of sola fide – we are justified by faith alone. But a plain reading of Scripture when you get to James says: “You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone…For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead.” (James 2:24, 26)
No, the Bible is. Part of the issue with Charles Lord’s article is misdiagnosis. The cause of division in the church is because theological liberals are pursuing teachings that are contrary to Scripture are contrary to the clear teaching of the church throughout history on sexuality and marriage. Scripture teaches us that this issue is a salvation issue which is why the agree to disagree approach no longer works. That’s why this is false teaching. Both Christ and the apostles tell us to warn it and give us clear directions on how to deal with it. My main criticism of… Read more »
I honestly can’t see the point of this argument. Gareth claims that the Bible is the arbiter of what constitutes false teaching in the Church of England. Others point out that there are many different schools of interpretation of the Bible, so clearly, by itself, it can’t fulfil that role. Gareth claims that the people he calls ‘liberals’ are contradicting the clear teaching of scripture about sexuality. Others point out that it’s far from clear that Paul and other biblical authors had committed, faithful same-sex relationships in mind in those passages. Jesus’ teaching on divorce, non-violence, and selling your possessions… Read more »
I’d love it if these arguments were anything new. J.I Packer addressed these thoroughly in the article he wrote when he left the Anglican Church of Canada in 2002. The text is clear on this and always has been. That’s precisely why an affirming view is modern and hasn’t been held throughout Christian history. We should follow Christ in all of the areas you’ve mentioned and we should obey Christ in avoiding sexual immorality which He did condemn to a Jewish audience without qualification in Mark 7. Christians don’t believe that we have one life or live once I believe… Read more »
The text is clear and always has been that slavery is permissible. That’s why the anti-slavery view is modern and hasn’t been held throughout Christian history.
Do you realise how ridiculous your argument sounds?
Your claim fails because the New Testament makes it clear that slavery (man-stealing) is certainly not God’s positive will and if it can be done away with, it should be. So your opening assertion is mistaken. Secondly, even a little bit of research will show that douleia covered a wide range of statuses in the ancient Greco-Roman world. Remember that Paul regularly caled himself the doulos of Christ. It’s a mistake to see everything through the lens of plantation slavery. Thr reality was vastly more complex.
Now if only you could find the same degree of nuance, and sensitivity to evolving understanding of words and institutions across time, when it comes to human sexuality.
It is possible for some people to read Jim Packer and find his arguments conclusive, and for others to read the same arguments and not be persuaded by them. I read Robert Gagnon two decades ago and found him entirely persuasive. Later, I began to notice the holes in his arguments. ‘The text is clear on this and always has been.’ Gareth, I know that’s what conservatives sincerely believe. The biblical text is also clear that lending money at interest is wrong. But was lending money at interest in the ancient world the same as venture capitalism today? The text… Read more »
The Old Testament never forbade loans with interest, only from one Israelite to another. So interedt charging is not intrinsically wrong but was seen as a breach of thd familial covenant.
What mistakes did you discern in Gagnon’s work?
How far do you think you were influenced by your own family’s situation, of which you have often spoken here?
I agree, Tim. The same old arguments repeated ad nauseam. There was a previous post arguing that you don’t reason someone out of belonging to a cult. In any case it’s all theory. Perhaps we should judge by who’s following the teaching of Christ (love God, love neighbour) rather than who’s saying what we believe to be right doctrine. By that measure, many non-Christians would do better than many Christians- which is probably part of the reason why so many thinking people are not interested in church.
Good set of points, Tim. “Honestly, what is the point?” In some cases the point is the trolling/gaslighting of people on what is largely a gay friendly site. There is a dimension of dense insensitivity to it. I think of the song, Life Is A Carnival. With apologies to The Band one might say TA is a carousel. We wee ponies go round and round making the same presentation each time. TA’s excellent archive evidences the point. “Haven’t we all got more pressing things to do with our one wild and precious life?” I ask my myself the same question.… Read more »
“In some cases the point is the trolling/gaslighting of people on what is largely a gay friendly site.” It is interesting to see how people view the site and take it as self-evident. On the ad nauseum problem (TC above) and getting on with one’s life. Could that be unpacked? Is the idea that one gets along with one’s life and lets both sides have their views? Or, is it that being nauseated is bearable after all? I can’t get these two things together in my small brain. If nausea isn’t desired, what is the ecclesiological solution, or the solution… Read more »
As one Anglican Priest to another: I have learned from hard experience on TA that my giving the C of E advice is not generally well received. So I will pass on that question. As to what the TA community should do, my advice (tongue in cheek) would be ‘could we not just cut and paste?’ Every time same-sex issues come up, the same arguments are trotted out by the same people. Could we just take that as read? Personally, I can’t remember a time when my mind was changed by arguments on TA. However, my mind has been changed.… Read more »
I’m fine with that provided you accept that a substantial portion of people view this as a salvation issue and therefore not an agree to disagree on subject. The question is what do you do about that? From a conservative evangelical approach: It looks like at least one option is William Taylor’s approach, another is a softer version using flying bishops if you’re complementarian along with avoiding false teaching, another option is to jump ship. What won’t work is ostrich syndrome where we pretend this will go away. That’s why I’ve said I suspect the only option that will actually… Read more »
Tim
Well, you could at least enumerate the arguments thst made you chsnge your mind. But – as you have mentioned this before – how much did your own family’s experience change your thinking?
James, as I have said before, if you will search the blog posts on the Inclusive Evangelicals website you will discover that I have already done so. And of course my family’s experience influenced my thinking. No one’s theology is purely rational. But I think if you want the clearest arguments that persuaded me, you will find them in the writings of Karen R. Keen, especially ‘Scripture, Ethics, and the Possibility of Same-Sex Relationships’ and ‘The Word of a Humble God.’ I would also mention the loving and generous way I was treated (over a long period of time), as… Read more »
Behold, looping— reply to comments about the same old same old, with the same old same old. Not a single new insight, or even an old insight offered up from a new perspective. However, one thing we may have some agreement on, and this is to focus on something you have adverted to in the past, “TA exists in that C of E context”. That has become increasingly self evident in comparison with past chatter here. It is not a context I share. So, I suppose getting on with my life in my case means leaving the context to those… Read more »
Thanks, as I have also said in the past. To clarify. I am not limiting TA to a relevance for the CofE. Nor, am I noting some change on this matter as against earlier years. I am much more interested in the logic of an anglican way which historically traces back to the 16th century. “Will it bend or will it break?” Has it broken already, due to permutations over time, adjustments to a governing logic at the time of Henry’s supreme governorship, and now intractable positions. Establishment is unique in this context, vis-a-vis the wider communion. The battles inside… Read more »
How can the C of E arrest its decline? Not, I suggest, by emulating the Canadian Anglican church which is now down to under 100,000 uSa and facing extinction. But is this enormous decline a reflection as well of the demographic reality of Canada, in which nearly 50% of the population are either immigrants or the children of immigrants with no attachment to Anglicanism or even to Christianity?
In MCA Mennonite churches here in Edmonton, the growing congregations are ethnic minority churches largely made up of immigrants. The other MCA church that is growing, First Mennonite Church, is openly affirming. All Canadians except for Indigenous people are immigrants of descended from immigrants. I am a case in point, but I notice that few people think of me as an immigrant. I wonder why?
I guess the main point I’m making is that it would be wrong to suggest that ‘immigrant’ = ‘no attachment to Christianity’. I think a third of the student body at Regent College in any given year is from southeast Asian countries. We have a thriving Filipino congregation in Edmonton, and my last parish before retirement is about one-third African—including almost all the children in the Sunday School.
If ’emulating the ACoC’ means ‘on the issue of same-sex marriage’, that wouldn’t be hard, since the Anglican Church of Canada has done precisely nothing on that issue.
Well, of course, no one is suggesting that the C of E imitate the Anglican Church of Canada in decline. But I don’t know what the numbers are. In Canada we’ve declined an average of 6.7% per year (average Sunday attendance) from 2017-2023 (the most recent year for which statistics are available – see here.). What is the comparable decline rate (in average Sunday attendance) over that time period for the C of E?
You’re begging the question. The issue is how the Bible is to be interpreted and applied, and what we choose to emphasise. The NT places at least as great an emphasis on unity as it does on chastity. In fact, Jesus said remarkably little about sexual sin, but quite a bit about unity. One of his final prayers for his disciples was ‘that they may all be one’.
Janet, Jesus said a great deal about sexual sin, warning against committing adultery in the heart, the eye that causes you to sin, porneia etc. He made one statement about unity, and several about false teachers, wolves in sheep’s clothing, the narrow road that leads to life, blind leaders of the blind, and such like. Simply on an easily verifiable statistical reckoning, your statement doesn’t stack up. But I notice it is a common rhetorical tactic for people to assert ‘Jesus said very little about X but quite a bit about Y.’ Such statements are usually false because they are… Read more »
You’re right, I should have phrased my comment more carefully. Jesus did not seem overeager to condemn sexual sin, and was not always detailed in what he did say. There is no agreement re what he meant by ‘porneia’, just that it seems to signify sexual uncleanness – whatever he meant by that. In reply to the disciples’ question about divorce he commented that God had relented, in the law of Moses, due to the people’s hardness of heart. That indicates an ideal rather than an absolute standard. And he refused to condemn either the woman caught in adultery or… Read more »
contrary to Scripture are contrary to the clear teaching of the church throughout history
This. Is. Only. Your. Opinion!!!
Why is that so difficult to understand? That people can read the same texts (if they are even the same translations!), study the same historical periods, and come to different opinions about them? That what seems “self-evident” to one faithful Christian can, and often does, seems contradicted (or at least contested) to another just-as-faithful Christian?
There is not a shred of evidence that any human society, anywhere at any time, has believed anything other than the fact that the fundamental unit of society is a union between one man and one woman.
It is a reality that is written into the DNA of human civilisation.
We cannot be gaslighted into accepting the notion that same sex unions are anything other than a novel idea held by a tiny fraction of the human population
Given that many cultures have polygamous traditions, some polyandrous, and a good number some recognition of people who don’t fit typical binaries of sex or sexuality it would appear to be you that is trying to gaslight people into accepting your Victorian understanding of sexuality.
I’d have thought it pretty clear that many societies have not followed this idea. It’s obviously not the case in much of the Old Testament, where a man can legally have many wives (and plenty more concubines too). And that continues to be the case in the Islamic world to this day, and no doubt in other societies too.
I don’t think that’s taking your comment out of context. You made a categorical assertion that marriage has always and everywhere been recognised as between one man and one women, monogamous and lifelong. And you use that to support your position on SSM. But the assertion is simply not supported by the clear record as well as by our own observation. One might summarize ypur argument as: I define marriage as this, and therefore anything else isn’t marriage, and therefore nobody else can break my definition, and I’ll ignore any counter-examples, because by definition they’re not marriage. That might seem… Read more »
On polygamy, it is obviously an aberration. The Old Testament is not a Manuel of Morals. People do horrible things in the OT.
If you were to put a thousand same sex couples of the same gender on an island with all the means to survive, that proto-society would be extinct in a single generation.
It has nothing to do with what I do or do not recognise.
‘On polygamy, it is obviously an aberration.’ Obvious to you. Not to the heroes of faith in the OT, though. ‘ If you were to put a thousand same sex couples of the same gender on an island with all the means to survive, that proto-society would be extinct in a single generation’ What a ridiculous argument. No one is suggesting that everyone should be in a same sex marriage! If a thousand people who felt called to singleness were in that situation, they would also be extinct in a generation, but you wouldn’t use that as an argument against… Read more »
Obvious to us all, Tim. You know perfectly well that polygamy is an aberration. One of the wearisome aspects of social media is that people jump into an exchange of which they were not part with some triumphal flourish by completely ignoring the context. Marriage between a man and a woman is the foundational unit of human civilisation. That has always been recognised across history and across all societies. It is the truth. To claim otherwise is to ignore the fact that I point out about an island full of same sex couples. Please can you acknowledge the basic fact… Read more »
‘You know perfectly well that polygamy is an aberration.’ Maybe I do, but history is bigger than me. Lamech, Abraham, Jacob, Esau, Saul, David, Solomon, Elkanah – these are just a few of the OT folks who had more than one wife. Nowhere does the text itself describe their marriages as aberrations. Yes, marriage between one man and one woman is laid out in Genesis 1, and it is then almost universally ignored throughout the rest of Genesis. To say ‘Marriage between a man and a woman is the foundational unit of human civilisation’ is to read modern western understandings… Read more »
Tim, I will be charitable and assume I have failed to be clear. I am not making a point about the bible. I am not making a point about christian marriage. I am not making a point about monogamy or any of the other bag load of points you raise. I am making a point about reality. If you take the basic unit of society away (a man and a woman who raise children) you have no society beyond one generation. That is it. People can spin the issue in every possible direction, but reality does exist and we must… Read more »
There are plenty of periods in history when men had little or no involvement with raising children, and children were raised by aunts and older siblings. What you seem to mean is that human reproduction requires (for now at least) a sperm and an ovum, and therefore a man and a woman, to conceive a pregnancy. You can certainly argue that societies function best when that man and woman stay together in a loving relationship and raise the child, but to say this is the “basic unit of society” is to ignore that for most of history this didn’t happen.
Polygamy is a particularly interesting one here given it has Old Testament precedent and some of us are old enough to remember when evangelical angicans in East Africa asked the Archbishop of Canterbury if they could continue the practice.
I think you’re in danger of disappearing up your own gaslight, Jo. As you know very well, Peter’s view of sexuality is the same one the catholic church has held for centuries.
In what way not? They certainly thought they were defining and defending Christian marriage as arising from the length and breadth of Scripture. I am unaware of places where Aquinas clarifies a different position than Augustine.
I’m impressed you managed to get such in depth knowledge of Paul’s intent based on scant references in his writings. Paul, to my knowledge, mentions children not at all in his references to marriage, yet Augustine considers them the highest good. I’m sure you’ll be able to tell me by some convoluted argument that they’re actually part of a seamless whole.
The tradition did not treat scripture in a manner in which an individual “Paul” is the norm for marriage. So the premise is faulty to begin with. Paul’s declarations are already incripted ones.
I am still curious how Aquinas and Augustine do not agree in their reading of Paul and the entire canon of scripture, when it comes to Christian marriage and their teaching.
We know generally speaking how they differ in emphasis, here and there. But on marriage?
I am an admirer of much of what was generally accomplished by the Victorians but it is a travesty of my position on biblical authority to label it as Victorian.
The late Victorians took a pick axe to the doctrine of biblical inerrancy and sufficiency.
No, you are wrong, Christians until about 1980 were all of the same opinion about everything, they only killed each other, put each other to the stake, fought wars, slaughtered indigenous people, had a common understanding of the role of relics, all understood the same meaning of grace, all accepted the same things about the sacrements and the role of the papacy, but for some trivial misunderstandings outside of scripture. I’m not sure Peter is a real person. i wish he would reveal himself. He is taking a heroic position. The boy stood on the burining deck, while all else… Read more »
Please read what I actually said. Marriage is the foundational unit of human society.
It does not belong to Christians. It is a universal ordinance for all of humanity. Your screed about Christians is an irrelevance to the point I am making.
You would certainly regard it as unacceptable for me to call you a stupid boy. Hold yourself to the same standard as you would expect of others.
There are many things which is better to laugh at rather than take seriously. Did you never watched the Monty Python episode where he asked the policeman?
I apologise if I have offended you. I am lucky enough to have friends who tease me endlessly, particularly if I make pompous remarks, and we all need a joker or fool in our lives. I am much more interested in your background and experiences than in theology. How would you describe your personality (I am thinking Myers-Briggs or similar here). What are your social circles? Do your social circles share your views on these matters? Are you, in fact, ordained or a parish priest? Where? Where were you trained? For removal of doubt, I am not ordained. I have… Read more »
Thank is kind of you. Social Media is a mixed blessing but we must always remember there is a real person behind a post and I would not wish to leave you with a sense your olive branch has not been accepted.
Thank you. I still do not know who, what, where or why you are. Maybe you have good reasons to be hidden. I have already had a blessing today – by the guy who runs a little snack shop at the bottom of Tattenham Corner, he does the best egg and bacon sandwiches, and he says ‘God bless’ to every customer. I have no idea of his religious beliefs, but he probably does more for the kingdom of God than anybody else in London! BTW, I take any such phrase as person to person, I have no regard at all for… Read more »
Yes, this is why the equal marriage discussion in the CofE is taking so long and proving so difficult. The case for it has to be advanced on the basis of rigorous scholarship, reflecting exactly what scripture and tradition say and explaining the factors that cause a re-examination now to reach a different conclusion than in the past. That requires a lot of painstaking work. Much easier to pretend that the understanding the church had in 1960 was something it came by in about 1930 rather than 0030, and that in earlier times the church supported equal marriage, despite not… Read more »
“the case for equal marriage remains to be convincingly made. I’m pretty sure it can be, but until it is – properly – this is going to cause more and more difficulty and go absolutely nowhere.” I agree with your larger point. The case has not been made. But it does not sound like the case is going to be made in a way that convinces people. Most arguments turn on the a priori of “I know Gay couples and they are good people, and so forth.” Or, “I have Gay relatives.” The traditional position also knows this factor, but… Read more »
And once again, my question is, ‘convincing to who’? It is obvious that some people are convinced by them. Others are not. Many, many books have been written on the subject. Clearly, you do not find their arguments convincing. Equally clearly, others do. To say ‘This is not convincing’ is to purport to make an objective judgement. Surely it would be more honest to say, “I and my friends are not convinced by this.” Personally, I often find arguments offered by academics to be somewhat lacking in pastoral awareness and sensitivity—as is evidenced by the way you casually dismiss those… Read more »
I was responding to the language being used in the comment in question. It sounds like you are responding to him
I am an academic. I am also a pastor. To suggest these can’t overlap is problematical. God gave us a left and a right brain. Both are critical, as made in His image.
The Lord compassionate and merciful, slow to anger, who will by no means clear the guilty.
Long and painful stories are not the domain of the pastorally elect.
See my recent Le Grand Voyage: Life, Loss, Love (Cascade, 2026).
I should add. It sounds like your complaint would be with those with loved ones in Gay relationships who love and pray for them. They also would not say that God has made clear from scripture his approval, nor would they necessarily claim that their identity has been given to them at birth. I think it is important to recognize that there is not just one kind of “compassionate” response for those with relatives in same-sex relationships. Just as there isn’t something like “academic thinking” over here and “pastoral thinking” over there. And that is also why I personally don’t… Read more »
So the pastoral perspective points one way and the scriptural perspective the other way.
I defer to your much greater knowledge in assessing the likelihood of finding a case for equal marriage within scripture, while reserving my intuitive guess that such a case might, with earnest study, be found.
Either way, I don’t think the discussion is taken forward by creative breakouts to church traditions that never were – however understandable the motivation to get the church over the line on this issue and uptodate with where society is at.
Yes, and that is why it’s so important to check where support for equal marriage comes from. Is it to be found within scripture and church history, interpreted in light of Jesus’ general approach, which was a mix of revolutionary and conservative? If not, how does the church proceed without building on sand?
Supporters of solemnising same-sex marriages in church often render the ‘good’ of procreation as ‘fruitfulness’, and gay couples can indeed raise children in ways that are not only fruitful but also precious in God’s sight. However, as Alison Milbank has posted on TA, a wife bearing her husband’s child is a particular gift of marriage arising from the sacramental act by which the two become one flesh. A gay couple opening their home to a child has moral and spiritual value; but while their union is in no wise second best, it does not participate in the same sacramental and… Read more »
Arguments like this are the reason I prefer not to engage with this issue any more on TA. I am the grandfather of two boys being raised in a same-sex marriage by two mothers. They are the children of my daughter. So I’m sorry, but I can’t help but take this personally. Theologians giving learned opinions that ‘while their union is in no wise second best, it does not participate in the same sacramental and creational ontology of the one‑flesh union from which procreation arises’ are a prime example of the sort of disembodied academic-speak that I was referring to… Read more »
Tim, in your umbrage you stop listening. This isn’t complicated argument! You have your way of dealing with your grandchildren. Others have their way. You support same-sex relationships and marriage and believe God does too. Others in a similar place with Gay relatives do not believe the same, but love their relatives all the same. I know a great many faithful Christians in precisely this category.
When Pope Francis said “who am I to judge?” he didn’t purport to dismantle the teaching of the Catholic Church. He was stating a deep truth consistent with that teaching.
Anglican Priest has pointed out something useful here. You changed your mind because you wanted to based on your daughter and that’s typical in many cases. It isn’t that the Bible became less clear on this. It’s that you decided to change your view because you wanted to affirm your daughter’s sexuality and then found reasons as to why the traditional understanding of marriage was wrong in order to fit that. Believe it or not I’ve got great sympathy for that view. It comes in part from a positive motivation. I do think Anglican Priest is right to say that… Read more »
That the prompt for re-examining a tradition came from the collision of that tradition with reality does not make the subsequent re-examination invalid, nor does it mean changing your mind “because you want to”. That you disagree with how others interpret scripture doesn’t mean that only your interpretation is valid. In Christ there is neither male nor female, for example, yet you will no doubt find ways to twist this simple, scriptural statement to mean other than what it “clearly” says, because you *don’t* want to accept the implications.
The question “did God really say…?” is a problem in Genesis because it is asked disingenuously and to deceive. If it is never allowed to be asked sincerely then errors are permitted to continue to eternity. God is always right; that doesn’t mean that the church has always been right about God. Deus vult and all that.
‘I do think Anglican Priest is right to say that others can and do love their families whilst continuing to hold an orthodox view.’ I know. I did for at least ten years after my daughter came out. She’s a very patient woman. ‘You changed your mind because you wanted to based on your daughter and that’s typical in many cases.’ You seem to know me quite well, Gareth, which is interesting because I don’t know very much about you except that you hold to a conservative theology. I would never presume to make simplistic assumptions about how you came… Read more »
“Arguments like this are the reason I prefer not to engage with this issue any more on TA.” Tim, have I not been reasonable? Eirenic? Catholic? Do I not have gay relatives? As a parish priest did I not pastor gay couples?
Tim, I have an incarnational faith that knows how moral teaching needs to be enfleshed in real lives and real communities. I am also an Anglican, so maybe my take on ‘catholicity’ will not be the same as someone who breaks bread in a congregationalist church.
Apologies – I meant ‘doctrine’, not ‘moral teaching’. I welcome same-sex civil marriage, including that of Tim Chesterton’s daughter. But it was church marriage I was referring to – a distinction that Tim appears not to make.
I’m not sure any of those who were advocating for change had any qualms about lacking integrity when they opposed the doctrine they promised to uphold? I don’t think they are lacking integrity. They are arguing that they shouldn’t lose their buildings for holding to apostolic truth as others depart from it. It should be the other way around. I think their plan is to wait until they are forced out or until the trajectory of the church turns in the other direction as theological liberalism dies out. I’d argue there’s a lot more we could be doing in the… Read more »
Do they need to loose their buildings? Why not come to an agreement with the diocese, leave the C of E but lease the building from the diocese.At least it was save us from all this fruitless wrangling.
If (strictly hypothetically) Mr Taylor were to resign the living, a successor would need to be appointed with a parish church. I suppose this could be achieved by merging SHB with another parish, declaring SHB redundant for C of E worship and then leasing it to the Taylorites or whatever his new church is called
Well said Charles Lord. I wonder whether if, at all, William Taylor will deign to reply. I would go further to ask now that Mr Taylor has declared “impaired communion” and renounced the authority of Bishops and those who he is set to ignore and walk away from, how can he justify living in a Rectory and expecting his pension to be paid in due course by the Church he is avowedly out of communion with on account of the “false teaching” he is so keen to preach about? Those who for other sincerely held convictions have tried to take… Read more »
From the logic of William Taylor’s interpretation of Titus 3.9-11 engagement with Charles Lord seems unlikely. Indeed any engagement would contradict the thrust of Taylor’s sermon, it seems to me.
But Charles Lord’s piece isn’t really about engagement or dialogue, is it? Or have I missed something? It read like a piece of political positioning for his GS candidacy, coupled with political manoeuvre against candidates linked to William Taylor’s church.
I seem to remember reading that back in the 1960,s when a meeting of Evangelicals was taking place at All Soul’s Langham Place during the Incumbency of the Revd Dr John Stott, Dr Martyn Lloyd Jones a Welsh Congregationalist Minister who was then Minister of the City Temple Church in London was preaching at Dr Stott’s invitation and in the course of his Sermon he counselled Anglican Evangelicals present to break from the Authority of the Church of England and its Bishops and go their own way. Dr Stott was horrified by what he was hearing in his own Church… Read more »
The cage of modernism? Glad we (under 70) have escaped that – some cages were more gilded than others.
Allan Sheath
25 days ago
Reading Charles Edward Lord’s piece reminded me how ecclesiology really has become the poor relation. At a recent ordination in a parish church, an ordinand asked the Vicar “Is it alright if Paul joins in the laying on of hands.” Paul is a Baptist minister. What was especially concerning about this was that the Vicar wasn’t sure either – despite being in orders for over ten years. The bishop’s response was not recorded. The Ordinal notes: “ordination to the priesthood involves incorporation into the college of presbyters of the diocese”. Does this matter? No, if collegiality means grey clergy and a… Read more »
The problem is that PYO doctrine which several bishops are engaged in doesn’t work, eclessia just falls apart as dreams and interpretation of dreams take hold.
Do Anglicans accept Baptists as Christians equal to themselves? Do they accept Baptist ministers as equal ministers of the Gospel? Or do they think they are better?
Anglicans do accept Baptists as equal Christians. It’s highly unlikely an Anglican bishop would be expected to lay hands in the course of a Baptist ordination, since this would not be in accord with their ecclesiology. It’s fairly conventional these days for Roman Catholic bishops to attend the ordinations of Anglican bishops, but again they wouldn’t be expected to lay hands in the act of ordination. The question is what we can share that falls within an ecumenical ecclesiology. And on that front, Evensong can be a great gift.
The technical answer (re. ministers) is no – since Baptists are not in the apostolic succession. In practice many of us (most of us?) do of course accept Baptist ministers as equally valid ministers alongside us.
We think we are different, at least, in that ordination as a Presbyter is conferred by laying on of hands by an episcopally consecrated bishop, assisted by episcopally ordained presbyters. If you open that up to all who self identity as ‘ministers’, whatever the origin or nature of their commissioning, then chaos ensues.
Yes, I know the legal theory, but I was really getting at the incongruence of actual practice and the spiritual pride that underlies a lot of thinking. Further, the Roman Catholic Church declared Anglican orders ‘null and void’ in 1890, and denied that Anglican bishops stand in Catholic order. So who are Anglicans to look down on Baptist minsiters?
People who think Saepius Officio made a better argument than Apostolicae Curae? Given that the latter was based on special pleading and proven falsehoods (the “Nag’s Head Fable”) that’s hardly a stretch. Besides, Apostolic Succession is hardly the only relevant point to consider. Baptist ministers do not accept the existence of a three-fold order of bishops, presbyters and deacons, or indeed the concept of ordination itself. Baptist teaching consciously and deliberately does not claim in appointing ministers to be doing what the universal church has done throughout history because it holds that practice to be in error. It’s apples and… Read more »
Thank you Jo B. The Common Worship Ordinal is the go to source for our ecclesiology. It develops 1662’s take on apostolic succession and sets it within the apostolicity of the whole Church. As for the laying on of hands by the presbyterate, this can only be done by priests in full Communion with the CofE, ideally with most of them being priests of the same diocese as the ordinand. Although, this – despite the Ordinal entering it’s 20th year – is catching on only patchily.
An Anglican priest who wishes to minister in the Roman Catholic Church must first be ordained. So RCs do not accept Anglican orders. The only Anglicans who consider their orders to be ‘real’ and Baptists to be ‘unreal’ are Anglo-Catholics – but since RCs don’t accept Anglican orders, the ACs are out on a limb
Nothing to deal with real or unreal. Anglicans accept Baptist ministers on the same terms that Baptists accept their ministers – as Baptist ministers. You have set up a straw man.
Actually it’s only evangelicals who seem to have an issue with the idea that some people are ordained priests and some aren’t. The reality of ordained ministry and the importance of the historic episcopate as part of that are pretty essential to Anglicanism.
Fr Dean
25 days ago
The temerity of quoting Scripture at conservative evangelicals – ‘they don’t like it up ‘em Captain Mainwaring’. Mr Lord would have my vote if I were eligible to cast my ballot.
I don’t care if someone has any balls or not. I assume your comment was a joke and you forgot to put it in quotation marks with a smile at the end. ps. I was influenced/converted many years ago by Jonathan Fletcher and attended the round church. Although I am myself public school educated, I always had a suspicion of a certain type of public school person – humility seemed to be completely absent. Luckily at my school pupils were fairly normal. I was never invited to Iwerne. I was not a member of the tennis club. Maybe more seriously… Read more »
The expression play the ball, not the man is an illusion to football. It means do not kick the footballer. It is not a quotation and therefore does not require quotation marks. It was not intended as a joke
You choose to make a number of personal insinuations about William Taylor. They are unwarranted.
Actually, after my run in Battersea Park and thinking about this more, it is all about the man and psychology, and very little to do with theology and scripture. It is very little, indeed, to do with evangelicanism. It is to do with a certain type of public school culture and the personalities it creates. It’s funny – I was educated at a major/minor public school (Marlborough), which was decent and was fairly liberal. Admirable headmaster (John Danby). I am grateful to it and the teachers there. James Newcome and Nick McKinnell I knew quite well, James was in my… Read more »
Taylor belongs to a theological school that is international in its reach and goes back hundreds of years.
Disagree with the theology if you must. The notion that it is all about English public school culture is simply ridiculous.
Last edited 23 days ago by Peter
Adrian Clarke
25 days ago
Those bishops that support same sex marriage which is against the church doctrine are not asked to leave the C of E, yet those clergy that do are asked to leave. So why not ask Mr Lord to leave. Surely a more relevant question,
You have misunderstood the question. No-one is asking William Taylor to leave because he takes a conservative line on sexuality. The issue is that he has removed himself from relating to his own bishop etc.
And what is this doctrine of marriage of which you speak? Where can i find it in the creeds? Whereas Trinitarian subordinationism, beloved by some conevos, is explicitly repudiated by Nicea.
Charles Read asks: Where can I find this doctrine of marriage in the creeds?
Charles: where can you find bishops? or canons? or a host of other things you think necessary? Be careful you are not hoist by your own petard.
Which bishops support same sex marriage? I can only think of the last Bishop of Salisbury.
Peter
25 days ago
An open letter to Charles Lord, Dear Charles. I am a lay minister in the Church of England and therefore have an interest in your critique of Revd William Taylor. May I urge you to attend a morning service at St Helen’s when William Taylor is preaching. Over coffee, you will have the opportunity to raise your questions with him which I am sure he will be glad to answer. William Taylor is a fine preacher, but there is only so much anybody can do in a thirty minute sermon – answering your questions is obviously beyond the scope of… Read more »
James
25 days ago
Why does St Helen’s Bishopsgate remain in the Church of England? Because it still believes and teaches the received doctrine of the Church of England. The existence of heresy among some bishops doesn’t change that fact. The Church of England did reach a low point this week when the Archbishop of Canterbury awarded some honour to a Pakistani imam who bestowed a title on Osama bin Laden and said suicide bomberd against British troops in Afghanistan was a good idea. The award was hastily withdrawn when media reports came out but so far, the Archbishop has not apilogised or resigned.… Read more »
The Archbishop’s office didn’t do their due diligence, for which they are answerable. But, to add to context, the recommendation to give this honour to the man in question was made formally by the Primate of the Church of Pakistan (to Justin Welby when he visited Pakistan while still serving as Archbishop).
“Tangentially involved”? Is that one of those irregular verbs?
I’m innocent
You’re tangentially involved
He/she/they have been paid from the public purse to free the people they enslaved
The CofE has had centuries of benefit from the labour of enslaved people and did little to challenge that institution or make restitution to the people whose labour they benefitted from.
What utter tosh! See below please. If anyone expects me ( as a non slave owner) to make reparations to people who are not slaves but for something that happened c 300 years ago, then they will lose me from this church.
Nope- hardly involved at all. The South Sea Company was transporting slaves for the Spanish and my reading is that although said company was a sort of Ponzi Scheme of its day, it didn’t make all of its money from slavery.
This may provide some helpful data so people can make their own judgements. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/sep/16/church-of-england-enslavement-reparations-debate And as for the South Sea Company, a linked article says this: “As part of a 1713 peace treaty, Queen Anne agreed with Spain’s King Philip V that Britain would be awarded the asiento – an agreement to deliver a stipulated 4,800 enslaved African men to Spain’s American colonies every year. . Anne announced it triumphantly in the House of Lords: “I have insisted and obtained, that the asiento or contract for furnishing the Spanish West Indies with Negroes, shall be made with us for the… Read more »
What is your source for this information? All of Tahir Ashrafi’s publications and statements and interviews have been made in the Urdu language. Are you familiar with this language? Or do you just regard your Daily Telegraph as the mediator of all truth? Over fifteen years ago Tahir Ashrafi, who is not just ‘a Pakistani imam’, but the Reisul Ulema, the most senior clergyman, in Pakistan, made a rhetorical point that the offense given to Pakistani muslims by Britain honouring Salman Rushdie with a knighthood might be equivalent to the offence given to the UK were Pakistan to award the… Read more »
It is nit an equivalent between two persons. It was an equivalence of potential public outrage caused. Do try thinking a bit harder – and dare I suggest – putting aside some of your prejudices.
Tahir Ashrafi’s advocacy on behalf of Pakistan’s religious minorities, particularly Christians, is well documented. Where his record is somewhat ambivalent is over Shi’a Muslims and particularly Ahmadiyya Muslims. The UK has around 2.7 million Muslims of South Asian heritage. Time to put away our preconceptions and get to know our neighbours better?
I heard about this first from Gavin Ashenden, then the BBC. In general I don’t get my news from the Daily Telegraph, although that wouldn’t be a problem to me. I read The Jewish Chronicleas well. It’s clear to me that Ashrafi hates the apostate Salman Rushdie and was a supporter of Osama bin Laden – even “the exuberant manner of rhetoric … in Urdu discourse maked this clear” – just follow through the logic of your statement: writing ‘The Satanic Verses’ in Pakistani Muslim eyes is as bad as the September 11th atrocities in western eyes. Yes, they really… Read more »
Gavin Ashenden. A very balanced source then. And the Jewish Chronicle !
The rhetorical question was ‘ How would the UK feel if Pakistan gave a public award to Osama Bin Laden.
One question to ask, when a controversial remark is dug up from someone’s past, is why this was not remarked on at the time.
This article just goes to show that Lambeth Palace should stop acting like a para-government, bestowing gongs on people like the King in the New Year Honours. I think it was Welby who started this nonsense -even giving Queen Elizabeth an “award”! The interview also shows how terrifying it is to be a Christian in Pakistan when mobs, inflamed by ‘blasphemy’ allegations, will come and destroy your home or your church or your very life. Even children are not safe from mobs. Lambeth Palace actually makes things worse for Christians there by its incomprehension of Indic and Islamic culture, with… Read more »
Ashrafi was recommebded by the church of Pakistan for this award. He has been highly critical of the abuse of the blasphemy laws.
Anthony Archer
24 days ago
The best challenge to false teachers (themselves falsely regarding others as such) I have seen for a long time. The apostate St Helen’s Bishopsgate (strange given what ought to be a congregation with intellect) is put in the dock by a City fellow. It’s Rector will not reply, partly because he can’t, and partly because the arrogance of ‘my’ interpretation of Scripture must prevail. I hope the next Bishop of London will challenge this nonsense.
How should the next bishop of London act in challenge, Anthony?
Kyle Johansen
24 days ago
I hope everyone suggesting that William Taylor should leave, because he views the bishops as false teachers are as quick to say that everyone should leave who calls the bishops ‘homophobic teachers’.
John Darch
24 days ago
St Helen’s and similar congregations remain in order to retain their buildings along with clergy stipends, housing and pensions. Those are perhaps obvious reasons but another, equally important, reason is in order to retain their influence. Whatever they may think of the current state of the denomination they know that to leave the C of E would be to lose their influence. There have been many previous secessions from the C of E; those that still exist have dwindled to the point of irrelevance.. A noisy opposition group in a large denomination has far more influence that a small evangelical… Read more »
You are spot on, John. As a lifelong Anglican, now in my 7th decade, I reflect that this latest display of semi-detached ‘disgruntled’ behaviour is not new at all. I well remember it from university and church life in the early 1980s. Same sense of superiority and certainty, claims of biblical authority and a patronising and withering view expressed towards any bishop whom they considered not to be ‘sound’ or ‘keen’.
The patrons of St Helens are the Merchant Taylors Company. I wonder how they view the parish, though I suppose patronage doesn’t count for much now?
On 19c Secessions from the Church of England there is Grayson Carter’s Oxford monograph. Some are now extinct and the Free Church of England a very small body.
I suspect the prime movers at the next vacancy will be the PCC, the Parish reps, and the wider Conservative Evangelical community. Not the Patrons or Diocese.
I would be interested to have a comment on this from an Archdeacon or canon Lawyer. Presumably in the vacancy the Church Wardens PCC etc on the basis of a Parish Profile come to a mind about a preferred candidate. Assuming the Patron is happy the name goes to the Bishop. It is probably unlikely the Bishop would refuse to appoint but if then the Bishop and Archdeacon are were told the Parish does not recognise their authority and don’t want to grant them access to perform the induction and institution what happens then? An interesting question??
Its rector has laid out a whole bunch of reasons which, if actually believed rather than being pious posturing, compel departure. The luke-warm, neither in nor out, neither hot nor cold, position tells us exactly which of the two it is.
It’s funny how certain things stick in one’s mind. back in about 1975, I took my Dad (who came from a more Anglo-Catholic background) to attend the Sunday morning round church service. Jonathan Fletcher was preaching. He preached on the verse from Genesis about the heel of the serpent. JF said that Luther considered this to be the most blessed verse in the bible, or something similar. My Dad was somewhat caustic, and said he could think of many more blessed verses.
Dear Mr. Lord, I read your recent open letter to William Taylor with more than passing interest. You write with the sharp administrative clarity of someone who understands institutional structures, and on one crucial point, I believe you are entirely correct. You are logically correct to expose the deep ecclesial and institutional contradiction at the heart of remaining within the Church of England while simultaneously declaring its leadership to be false teachers. As you rightly point out, “congregationalism with selectively imported bishops” is a profound structural incoherence. You cannot structurally repudiate a bishop’s spiritual authority, withhold financial support, and bypass… Read more »
Without going into the minutiae of St Helen’s Bishopgate and Rev William Taylor, like many, I, as a liberal Catholic, rather than an evangelical, at times despair of the Cof E and its leadership as I’m sure the NT churches did when they disagreed with Paul! However, we need to remember the Declaration of Assent which clergy have to agree every time they accept a new position – ‘which faith the Church is called upon to proclaim afresh in each generation’. For me, proclaiming afresh means that the Gospel needs to be contextualised so that 21st century people can see… Read more »
My comment to “former vicar” was in relation to his choice to leave the Church of England – obviously a matter of conscience and not doctrine.
The actual doctrine of the church is a different category.
Anglican in Exile
24 days ago
The older I become, the more I become aware of the attractiveness to a large minority of human beings of behaviour that presents as cultic practice. The marks of such behaviour are well documented and worth being familiar with in these turbulent times. It’s a sad fact that those who are part of a cult are extremely resistant to reason and logical argument as well as promoting a very strong ‘us and them’ mentality which makes any meaningful social interaction extremely challenging. Any direct challenge simply re-affirms and strengthens a persecution narrative that in turn drives deeper cultic behaviour patterns.… Read more »
This. Arguing using logic is pointless, whether in politics, religion, or bringing up children. We see this many times within TA – when questions are asked, to analyse their binary viewpoint in a spirit of inquiry, we get no answer. Maybe I over emphasise, there are some here who start with what seems to be a binary position, but after a bit they relax. What is the way to deal with cults? To be fair, I see plenty of Anglo-Catholic cults. Have conservative evangelicals alway been like this? In my student days, a few were, but others were reasonably sensible.… Read more »
If that were true that might be helpful. I’ve responded to plenty of comments here engaging quite a bit. The frustration is that we’re at an impasse. One side holds to the traditional understanding of the Scriptures. The other side suggests that there’s some new understanding we need to have of them despite the fact it clearly disagrees with the text. The reality is that you don’t get to change Christianity and expect everyone else to suggest that novel teaching is somehow wonderful. If you expect that then yes you’re going to be disappointed. It doesn’t change the fact that… Read more »
One side holds to an understanding of the Scripture it labels “traditional.”
Others hold to understandings of Scripture that the first side labels “new” “non-traditional” “novel” “heterodox” “false” “destructive” “cause of division” (I could go on with the ad hominems hurled my way, but I don’t have all day).
In 1998, Ship of Fools’ “Mystery Worshipper” visited the breakaway group which carried on the “Nine O’Clock Service” for a while outside the C of E, after it was shut down. I think that group has fizzled out.
Charles Lord has his own agenda, clear from his GS election address, but he is dreaming if he thinks the Diocese of London is going to expel one of its largest churches. It simply can’t afford to do so. When push comes to shove, it isn’t going to vote for death. Compare what is happening south of the river. One of the largest churches in Southwark diocese, Dundonald Church, left the C of E without much ruffling, because it is entirely self-funded and owns its own buildings. If you listen to William Taylor on youtube, he points out that bishops… Read more »
Perhaps someone in the diocese might comment. I don’t think it is true. The theft was from various parochial charity accounts I think. The diocese of London is v lucky ( and this is why the majority of parishes have their own priest and haven’t been amalgamated) owing to the amount of money that can be gained from letting,car parking etc. And the fact some parishes esp in central London still have substantial endowments plus the existence of charities like the City Parochial Charities, the St Pancras Burial Trust which supports churches north of the Euston Rd. and others.
I am struggling to recollect any closure or disposal schemes which have been published or made by the Pastoral and Closed Churches Division in respect of London diocese since news of the Sargeant affair broke. Indeed, I don’t believe that there have been any. However, I appreciate that the publication of a closure or disposal scheme is not necessarily the same as running a church down or letting it go to waste so that it falls into a condition where such a scheme can be made quite easily at some point in the future.
Openmind
24 days ago
Bishops and their helpful or not so helpful opinions come and go. Anyone remember John Robinson? But if one believes in the permanence of the faith delivered to the saints, as long as you’re not deposed or imprisoned for preaching it, you’ll carry on. And if you are, you’ll still try. Woe is me if I do not preach the Gospel.
Naughtius Maximus
23 days ago
Here we go again….
I think we need a “First ammendment to the sixty nine articles” along the lines of the USA’s with their constitution: “The Church of England shall make no law respecting an establishment of sexual orientation, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….” Maybe we should only allow ourselves the luxury of arguing about sexuality once we have helped eradicate child poverty in the UK?
Sorry- 39 articles. That’s Grade Inflation for you!
James
23 days ago
William Taylor has said on a Youtube interview that the hierarchy of the Church of England eventually comes round to accepting facts on the ground when it sees it has nowhere else to go. He cites the example of the abandonment of clerical dress in the C of E. This used to a red line for some. Then evangelicals dropped it – and the C of E went along with it. He said the men who were ordained as deacons by the REACH South Africa bishop will get jobs in Church of England parishes willing to employ them – and… Read more »
This appears to be a confession of what I have always suspected – the posturing about leaving is simply a mechanism to force other into submitting to conservative views. When it ultimately fails and conservatives back down all the sturm and drang over “apostate bishops” and “salvation issue” will vanish as if it never was.
All this chat about William Taylor as a preacher. I don’t go to worship to hear a sermon. I go to receive bread and wine. It’s a bonus if the sermon is helpful.
Both and surely? “apostles’ teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer”. Bread and wine can be found at the supermarket of you choice if that is all you require…😉
That appears to be a breach of Canon F2 which clearly doesn’t contemplate use of a temporary or movable table. Its position, if disputed, is to be decided by the Ordinary, i.e., the diocesan bishop – although not sure quite how SHB would interpret either requirement …
Canon F2 says: ‘In every church and chapel a convenient and decent table, of wood, stone, or other suitable material, shall be provided for the celebration of the Holy Communion, and shall stand in the main body of the church or in the chancel where Morning and Evening Prayer are appointed to be said. Any dispute as to the position where the table shall stand shall be determined by the Ordinary.’ Nothing says it has to fixed and immovable.
Perry Butler stated that SHB “have no permanent Communion Table”. I suppose if a movable table is lawful (that very much depends on the interpretation of “shall stand”, its position would have to be pre-determined: the bishop isn’t going to be on call to decide at every service.
If anyone here has relevant knowledge, it would be interesting to learn what happens at SHB.
So how do you explain the fact that the services listed on the St Helen’s website is full of details of sermon series, bible studies, talks, prayer meetings, fellowship and study groups. But there is not one mention anywhere of holy communion at all. If I only had their website to go on I would not know the Lord’s Supper existed. I struggle to call that ‘serious’.
A look at pictures of the interior of the church is instructive. The church was restored by the architect Quinlan Terry. The pulpit is central, all seating facing it. It reminds me of a Dutch Reformed Church.
Perry, Nobody has asked me to speak on behalf of St Helens, so I do not want to give any impression that I am doing so. I attended the church for ten years which spanned the period of the restoration. The reason for restoration was an IRA bomb. There was no “hidden agenda”. We would all much rather the bomb had not been detonated for obvious reasons. There will, inevitably, be the suggestion that St Helen’s used the opportunity to do things it should not have done. You will obviously know that every inch of the restoration was subject to… Read more »
Only an insider (like you were) would know that Peter. I wonder why. The overwhelming focus – including the position of the pulpit – is on the Word. I don’t know how make my point.
That’s a bit tribal. I am just pointing out a matter of fact which is that St Helen’s have done nothing radical with either the pulpit or the seating.
Too much is being made of the HC schedule which they follow.
There are plenty of parishes where HC is celebrated once a month at most. Nobody would treat that as grounds for concern. (For the avoidance of doubt, I do not know the current HC interval at St Helen’s. )
You are barking up the wrong tree with the notion you are onto something significant by monitoring their church calendar
What evidence do you have that HC is not being celebrated in the St Helens parish at that interval – and there is no canon stipulating how the occasion of the sacraments should be promulgated.
Just asserting that if it is not in their online calendar it must not be happening will not do
I was not talking about St Helen’s. I was talking about the plenty of parishes you refer to where HC is celebrated once a month or less. In fairness, this was common for much of the eighteenth and nineteenth Century. More regular celebrations of Holy Communion were first championed by those influenced by the evangelical revival before those of the Oxford Movement persuasion. Daniel Wilson of St Mary’s Islington introduced an 8 AM Sunday communion service for those parishioners too poor to afford pew rents for the later service. John Wesley also commended frequent communion.It may be that the canons… Read more »
My observation is that clergy would be delighted to preside at the Lord’s table far more than is practical.
Perhaps a quite word with the Church Commissioners is needed to get them to spend money on parish clergy who, I am certain, will be glad to provide the ministry of the Word and the Sacrements as often as possible.
Hello Peter In convent, the eucharist is celebrated every day, because it is the central act of devotion, in union with the supreme and sacrificial devotion of our Lord Jesus Christ. It is the heart of covenant love between God and God’s people, as we enter into the great baptism of Christ in bread and wine, and the present grace of God. I agree that the sad reality is that with priests having to provide Holy Communion in multi-parish benefices, many lay people – and particularly those without transport – only receive the sacrament once a month, especially if they… Read more »
I was merely asking how often the eucharist is celebrated at St Helen’s. I don’t know? Do you?.It is unusual not to have a fixed communion table. Many churches have a weekly eucharist. Does St Helen’s? Word and Sacrament are equally important in the Anglican tradition.
I go to receive the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ (“under the appearance” yada yada). Oh, and to sing! [Am tenor in St Michael’s Carmichael CA choir]
ITA re the sermon.
Kate Keates
23 days ago
I am as liberal they come but arguing that SHB should have left the church seems to me a bad faith position. That does not build up Jesus.
I dislike their teaching but I rejoice that they have managed to remain within the family.
David Runcorn
22 days ago
‘My confidence is not in the certainty of being right, but rather on the grace and mercy of God, before whom I have sought truth as best I can.’ I came across this many years ago and it has remained the most liberating and non-anxious guide to the journey of faith and truth I know.
Oh dear! https://celord.com/ i was a bit confused by their biographical notes until I read at the bottom Charles Edward’s pronouns are ‘they/them/their’ It’s funny, our athletics club asks for sex on becoming a member, and somebody recently (the first time ever) responded non-binary or similar. Problem is England Athletics, with whom we have to register athletes, has male/female at birth. So we have to go back to the athlete and ask what sex they were assigned at birth. Slight double entendre when I wrote our athletics club asks for sex on becoming a member, shades of Frankie Howerd but… Read more »
Amanda, I am not sure what point you are making and why? When someone’s initials are CEL, they sign themselves ‘Charles Edward Lord’ at the end of this blog (or anywhere else) and we are not told, or know, otherwise, the most reasonable assumption is that they expect to be called by their first name, is it not?
“They sign themselves” …..? A curious way to talk about one man. Amanda’s point is that Edward Lord is indeed well known as a Stonewall activist and a forthright opponent of “transphobics”, in particular Kathleen Stock, for many years. Lord also described himself (in the link Amanda gives) as ‘bi’ and ‘non-binary’, and a candidate for General Synod.
Pretending not to understand the use of singular ‘they’ regarding someone who considers themselves non-binary is not terribly becoming. You don’t find it “curious”, you don’t like it because of the implied acknowledgement of Lord’s non-binary identity.
‘Identity’ doesn’t mean ‘who or what I think I am’, it means ‘who are what I am’. It’s a statement of ontology, not feeling or desire. That is why we rightly talk about cases of ‘mistaken identity’. As far as human beings are concerned, there is no such thing as ‘non-binary identity’, there are just beliefs people have about themselves which may or may not be correct.
It’s like health: a person may feel fine but actually have a terminal illness.
It’s also a terrible solecism to say ‘they’ and themselves’ when talking of an individual human being.
Singular ‘they’ has been around longer than singular ‘you’. It is neither ungrammatical or ill-mannered. As I suspected you just reject the existence of non-binary people and are searching for an excuse to insist on assigning them a pronoun you prefer.
Speking for myself, I was only ‘not understanding’ because i didn;t know they were non-binary beforehand.
I don’t think I have ever come across anybody else who signs themselves in that way. I do not live a sheltered life.
It really doesn;t matter. I just didn’t know beforehand. I had no idea who they were. It seemed a bit affective to me.
William
20 days ago
The Church of England is not a federation of independent churches. St Helen’s is not an independent private members club, nor is it a private concern, free to affiliate or defiliate at will. So there is simply no mechanism whereby St Helen’s could “leave” the C of E and nobody or no body to make such a decision. Any such purported decision by the PCC would be ultra vires. Charles Edward Lord suggests candidates who are “members”, as he puts it, of St Helen’s should refer to their rector’s position, as if they were somehow responsible for his views or… Read more »
Peter
20 days ago
Progressives who post on this site need to refrain from double standards.
I have had progressives throw up their hands in distress and storm off the site because I have suggested they need to get out more or something equally anodyne.
Yet a progressive telling me I’m a stupid boy is evidently perfectly fine.
If progressives want to take their case forward they need to win hearts and minds and double standards are not the way to do that.
I said that rejecting the fact that a union between a man and a woman is the foundational unit of society is delusional. I am commenting on general ideas.
What you personally think is entirely a matter for you.
You are treating critical thought as a personal insult. That is a basic category error.
If people lose, or abandon the distinction between general analysis of belief and personal insult, they are reversing the age of reason
This is sophistry. If I have stated I reject a view and you say rejecting that view is delusional you are calling me delusional. Nobody reading could plausibly take it otherwise.
It is not fact. Human society depends on variety, and the dedicated single teacher (to give one example) has been for a long time foundational in education.
The widowed have also been foundational.
It is when you talk about truth and facts that the problems start arising.
I think nuance is missed. I did not call you a stupid boy. I made an analogy with the boy standing alone on the burning deck while all else had fled. I think that is similar to your position. I then added the quip ‘stupid boy’ which I always found funny. For the record, I don;t think you are stupid, nor do I consider you to be a boy, but I do recognise that you have like everybody else, some challenges. That is why I offered to buy you a pint and have a laugh over all this ridiculous chatter.… Read more »
Jonathan Chaplin
20 days ago
Just wanted to put a word in for Bishop Andrew Rumsey’s fine piece. Mysteriously, Charles Lord’s has cornered all the comments so far. Perhaps the best response to William Taylor is actually hidden in Bp Andrew’s.
Yes, there is, and it’s all part of the continuing argument about tactics and strategy going on in the Church of England in the larger battle over sexual morality. William Taylor argues one way, Lee Gatiss of the Church Society another; and Edward Lord (‘C.E. Lord OBE’ as he styles his post) has launched a public attack on the Rev Taylor, which is part of Mr Lord’s campaign to be elected to the General Synod. As Amanda reminds us above with the link, Mr Lord is known by his middle name Edward. He is a strong supporter of Stonewall, describing… Read more »
Aside from posting on Musk’s CSAM site Lord sounds like a brilliant person. What’s troubling is that I suspect you intended much of your description to be damning.
It’s only damning if you take a dim view of these things. Everything I said is objectively true and is from Mr Lord’s own postings. Check them for yourself, then tell me what is ‘damning’ about them.
I don’t doubt they’re true; I don’t think they’re damning. I’d assumed you’d selected those particular facts because you thought they were. Was I wrong?
I think in honesty we need to recognise that it goes both ways. Temperamentally, some people are more comfortable with certainty, but others are more comfortable with ambiguity.
I can certainly see how one could take a personality inventory and note that in, e.g., Meyers-Briggs, there are judging and there are perceiving types, one preferring order and the other flexibility. But we have a right and a left hand, and also it depends a lot on just what we are talking about. “I have Jesus” and that is a certainty is not a statement a whole lot of people interested in eliminating ambiguity would make. Just who is this Jesus who I have, or who has me, is the obvious question. If he “has me,” what does that… Read more »
To the first post the answer seems because they don’t want to give up their buildings.
You could argue that they should leave ASAP (like I would), but I can understand why they don’t want to lose their buildings because there are false teachers in the church.
There is also the desire for control to consider. While inside the tent they can put a thumb on the scales of General Synod and manipulate the fuzzy middle by threats of leaving. It’s worked very well for them so far. They’ve been left alone to pick their own bishops and all attempts to treat LGBT folk better have been successfully booted into touch. Why would they quit the field?
But in the C of E, William Taylor is not the arbiter of what constitutes false teaching.
He never claims to be the arbiter of what constitutes false teaching. If you actually listen to what he says, he points out the plain meaning of scripture which defines false teaching.
Peter – it is what you and William Taylor believe is ‘obviously’ what the bible teaches. That is not the same. It is not clear to me how anyone in a tradition that takes human sin and fallenness so seriously could ever insist their particular view of the bible could never be wrong. It is worth noting, however, that not all conservative evangelicals make such claims. In his book, ‘People to Be Loved: Why Homosexuality is Not Just an Issue’ the respected conservative theologian Preston Sprinkle warns his readers, ‘there is no such thing as an unbiased reading of the Bible. We… Read more »
But that is only his understanding of what the scriptures teach. Others disagree, or at least place the emphasis differently.
Which sounds great, except I imagine William Taylor is a strong believer in the doctrine of sola fide – we are justified by faith alone. But a plain reading of Scripture when you get to James says: “You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone…For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead.” (James 2:24, 26)
No, the Bible is. Part of the issue with Charles Lord’s article is misdiagnosis. The cause of division in the church is because theological liberals are pursuing teachings that are contrary to Scripture are contrary to the clear teaching of the church throughout history on sexuality and marriage. Scripture teaches us that this issue is a salvation issue which is why the agree to disagree approach no longer works. That’s why this is false teaching. Both Christ and the apostles tell us to warn it and give us clear directions on how to deal with it. My main criticism of… Read more »
I honestly can’t see the point of this argument. Gareth claims that the Bible is the arbiter of what constitutes false teaching in the Church of England. Others point out that there are many different schools of interpretation of the Bible, so clearly, by itself, it can’t fulfil that role. Gareth claims that the people he calls ‘liberals’ are contradicting the clear teaching of scripture about sexuality. Others point out that it’s far from clear that Paul and other biblical authors had committed, faithful same-sex relationships in mind in those passages. Jesus’ teaching on divorce, non-violence, and selling your possessions… Read more »
I’d love it if these arguments were anything new. J.I Packer addressed these thoroughly in the article he wrote when he left the Anglican Church of Canada in 2002. The text is clear on this and always has been. That’s precisely why an affirming view is modern and hasn’t been held throughout Christian history. We should follow Christ in all of the areas you’ve mentioned and we should obey Christ in avoiding sexual immorality which He did condemn to a Jewish audience without qualification in Mark 7. Christians don’t believe that we have one life or live once I believe… Read more »
The text is clear and always has been that slavery is permissible. That’s why the anti-slavery view is modern and hasn’t been held throughout Christian history.
Do you realise how ridiculous your argument sounds?
The “sexual immorality” argument is circular.
Your claim fails because the New Testament makes it clear that slavery (man-stealing) is certainly not God’s positive will and if it can be done away with, it should be. So your opening assertion is mistaken. Secondly, even a little bit of research will show that douleia covered a wide range of statuses in the ancient Greco-Roman world. Remember that Paul regularly caled himself the doulos of Christ. It’s a mistake to see everything through the lens of plantation slavery. Thr reality was vastly more complex.
Now if only you could find the same degree of nuance, and sensitivity to evolving understanding of words and institutions across time, when it comes to human sexuality.
It is possible for some people to read Jim Packer and find his arguments conclusive, and for others to read the same arguments and not be persuaded by them. I read Robert Gagnon two decades ago and found him entirely persuasive. Later, I began to notice the holes in his arguments. ‘The text is clear on this and always has been.’ Gareth, I know that’s what conservatives sincerely believe. The biblical text is also clear that lending money at interest is wrong. But was lending money at interest in the ancient world the same as venture capitalism today? The text… Read more »
The Old Testament never forbade loans with interest, only from one Israelite to another. So interedt charging is not intrinsically wrong but was seen as a breach of thd familial covenant.
What mistakes did you discern in Gagnon’s work?
How far do you think you were influenced by your own family’s situation, of which you have often spoken here?
Well that certainly saves us all a lot of time.
You should save this response so you can just paste it in as necessary in the future Tim…
I might well do that, Gregor.
I agree, Tim. The same old arguments repeated ad nauseam. There was a previous post arguing that you don’t reason someone out of belonging to a cult. In any case it’s all theory. Perhaps we should judge by who’s following the teaching of Christ (love God, love neighbour) rather than who’s saying what we believe to be right doctrine. By that measure, many non-Christians would do better than many Christians- which is probably part of the reason why so many thinking people are not interested in church.
Good set of points, Tim. “Honestly, what is the point?” In some cases the point is the trolling/gaslighting of people on what is largely a gay friendly site. There is a dimension of dense insensitivity to it. I think of the song, Life Is A Carnival. With apologies to The Band one might say TA is a carousel. We wee ponies go round and round making the same presentation each time. TA’s excellent archive evidences the point. “Haven’t we all got more pressing things to do with our one wild and precious life?” I ask my myself the same question.… Read more »
“In some cases the point is the trolling/gaslighting of people on what is largely a gay friendly site.” It is interesting to see how people view the site and take it as self-evident. On the ad nauseum problem (TC above) and getting on with one’s life. Could that be unpacked? Is the idea that one gets along with one’s life and lets both sides have their views? Or, is it that being nauseated is bearable after all? I can’t get these two things together in my small brain. If nausea isn’t desired, what is the ecclesiological solution, or the solution… Read more »
As one Anglican Priest to another: I have learned from hard experience on TA that my giving the C of E advice is not generally well received. So I will pass on that question. As to what the TA community should do, my advice (tongue in cheek) would be ‘could we not just cut and paste?’ Every time same-sex issues come up, the same arguments are trotted out by the same people. Could we just take that as read? Personally, I can’t remember a time when my mind was changed by arguments on TA. However, my mind has been changed.… Read more »
I’m fine with that provided you accept that a substantial portion of people view this as a salvation issue and therefore not an agree to disagree on subject. The question is what do you do about that? From a conservative evangelical approach: It looks like at least one option is William Taylor’s approach, another is a softer version using flying bishops if you’re complementarian along with avoiding false teaching, another option is to jump ship. What won’t work is ostrich syndrome where we pretend this will go away. That’s why I’ve said I suspect the only option that will actually… Read more »
Tim
Well, you could at least enumerate the arguments thst made you chsnge your mind. But – as you have mentioned this before – how much did your own family’s experience change your thinking?
James, as I have said before, if you will search the blog posts on the Inclusive Evangelicals website you will discover that I have already done so. And of course my family’s experience influenced my thinking. No one’s theology is purely rational. But I think if you want the clearest arguments that persuaded me, you will find them in the writings of Karen R. Keen, especially ‘Scripture, Ethics, and the Possibility of Same-Sex Relationships’ and ‘The Word of a Humble God.’ I would also mention the loving and generous way I was treated (over a long period of time), as… Read more »
Behold, looping— reply to comments about the same old same old, with the same old same old. Not a single new insight, or even an old insight offered up from a new perspective. However, one thing we may have some agreement on, and this is to focus on something you have adverted to in the past, “TA exists in that C of E context”. That has become increasingly self evident in comparison with past chatter here. It is not a context I share. So, I suppose getting on with my life in my case means leaving the context to those… Read more »
Thanks, as I have also said in the past. To clarify. I am not limiting TA to a relevance for the CofE. Nor, am I noting some change on this matter as against earlier years. I am much more interested in the logic of an anglican way which historically traces back to the 16th century. “Will it bend or will it break?” Has it broken already, due to permutations over time, adjustments to a governing logic at the time of Henry’s supreme governorship, and now intractable positions. Establishment is unique in this context, vis-a-vis the wider communion. The battles inside… Read more »
How can the C of E arrest its decline? Not, I suggest, by emulating the Canadian Anglican church which is now down to under 100,000 uSa and facing extinction. But is this enormous decline a reflection as well of the demographic reality of Canada, in which nearly 50% of the population are either immigrants or the children of immigrants with no attachment to Anglicanism or even to Christianity?
In MCA Mennonite churches here in Edmonton, the growing congregations are ethnic minority churches largely made up of immigrants. The other MCA church that is growing, First Mennonite Church, is openly affirming. All Canadians except for Indigenous people are immigrants of descended from immigrants. I am a case in point, but I notice that few people think of me as an immigrant. I wonder why?
I guess the main point I’m making is that it would be wrong to suggest that ‘immigrant’ = ‘no attachment to Christianity’. I think a third of the student body at Regent College in any given year is from southeast Asian countries. We have a thriving Filipino congregation in Edmonton, and my last parish before retirement is about one-third African—including almost all the children in the Sunday School.
I don’t disagree that the CofE “emulating” the ACoC would be a bad idea (whatever that might mean) though of course that wasn’t my point.
If ’emulating the ACoC’ means ‘on the issue of same-sex marriage’, that wouldn’t be hard, since the Anglican Church of Canada has done precisely nothing on that issue.
I don’t know what the commentator had in mind. I think it was a comment about numerical size/decline.
Well, of course, no one is suggesting that the C of E imitate the Anglican Church of Canada in decline. But I don’t know what the numbers are. In Canada we’ve declined an average of 6.7% per year (average Sunday attendance) from 2017-2023 (the most recent year for which statistics are available – see here.). What is the comparable decline rate (in average Sunday attendance) over that time period for the C of E?
You’re begging the question. The issue is how the Bible is to be interpreted and applied, and what we choose to emphasise. The NT places at least as great an emphasis on unity as it does on chastity. In fact, Jesus said remarkably little about sexual sin, but quite a bit about unity. One of his final prayers for his disciples was ‘that they may all be one’.
Janet, Jesus said a great deal about sexual sin, warning against committing adultery in the heart, the eye that causes you to sin, porneia etc. He made one statement about unity, and several about false teachers, wolves in sheep’s clothing, the narrow road that leads to life, blind leaders of the blind, and such like. Simply on an easily verifiable statistical reckoning, your statement doesn’t stack up. But I notice it is a common rhetorical tactic for people to assert ‘Jesus said very little about X but quite a bit about Y.’ Such statements are usually false because they are… Read more »
You’re right, I should have phrased my comment more carefully. Jesus did not seem overeager to condemn sexual sin, and was not always detailed in what he did say. There is no agreement re what he meant by ‘porneia’, just that it seems to signify sexual uncleanness – whatever he meant by that. In reply to the disciples’ question about divorce he commented that God had relented, in the law of Moses, due to the people’s hardness of heart. That indicates an ideal rather than an absolute standard. And he refused to condemn either the woman caught in adultery or… Read more »
This. Is. Only. Your. Opinion!!!
Why is that so difficult to understand? That people can read the same texts (if they are even the same translations!), study the same historical periods, and come to different opinions about them? That what seems “self-evident” to one faithful Christian can, and often does, seems contradicted (or at least contested) to another just-as-faithful Christian?
“This is only your opinion”. I think not
Gareth, myself, most Christians worldwide today, all Christians throughout human history until about 1980 hold to the historic faith.
‘All Christians throughout human history’ is a huge claim to make. We can’t possibly know what ‘all Christians’ thought about any topic at all.
There is not a shred of evidence that any human society, anywhere at any time, has believed anything other than the fact that the fundamental unit of society is a union between one man and one woman.
It is a reality that is written into the DNA of human civilisation.
We cannot be gaslighted into accepting the notion that same sex unions are anything other than a novel idea held by a tiny fraction of the human population
Given that many cultures have polygamous traditions, some polyandrous, and a good number some recognition of people who don’t fit typical binaries of sex or sexuality it would appear to be you that is trying to gaslight people into accepting your Victorian understanding of sexuality.
I am doing nothing of the sort. I am pointing out facts.
Human society is based on the foundational and procreative unit of a life long union between one man and one woman.
It is delusional to reject that reality
I’d have thought it pretty clear that many societies have not followed this idea. It’s obviously not the case in much of the Old Testament, where a man can legally have many wives (and plenty more concubines too). And that continues to be the case in the Islamic world to this day, and no doubt in other societies too.
Simon,
You are taking what I said out of context.
The discussion was about SSM not polygamy
I don’t think that’s taking your comment out of context. You made a categorical assertion that marriage has always and everywhere been recognised as between one man and one women, monogamous and lifelong. And you use that to support your position on SSM. But the assertion is simply not supported by the clear record as well as by our own observation. One might summarize ypur argument as: I define marriage as this, and therefore anything else isn’t marriage, and therefore nobody else can break my definition, and I’ll ignore any counter-examples, because by definition they’re not marriage. That might seem… Read more »
You are putting words in my mouth, Simon.
On polygamy, it is obviously an aberration. The Old Testament is not a Manuel of Morals. People do horrible things in the OT.
If you were to put a thousand same sex couples of the same gender on an island with all the means to survive, that proto-society would be extinct in a single generation.
It has nothing to do with what I do or do not recognise.
‘On polygamy, it is obviously an aberration.’ Obvious to you. Not to the heroes of faith in the OT, though. ‘ If you were to put a thousand same sex couples of the same gender on an island with all the means to survive, that proto-society would be extinct in a single generation’ What a ridiculous argument. No one is suggesting that everyone should be in a same sex marriage! If a thousand people who felt called to singleness were in that situation, they would also be extinct in a generation, but you wouldn’t use that as an argument against… Read more »
Obvious to us all, Tim. You know perfectly well that polygamy is an aberration. One of the wearisome aspects of social media is that people jump into an exchange of which they were not part with some triumphal flourish by completely ignoring the context. Marriage between a man and a woman is the foundational unit of human civilisation. That has always been recognised across history and across all societies. It is the truth. To claim otherwise is to ignore the fact that I point out about an island full of same sex couples. Please can you acknowledge the basic fact… Read more »
‘You know perfectly well that polygamy is an aberration.’ Maybe I do, but history is bigger than me. Lamech, Abraham, Jacob, Esau, Saul, David, Solomon, Elkanah – these are just a few of the OT folks who had more than one wife. Nowhere does the text itself describe their marriages as aberrations. Yes, marriage between one man and one woman is laid out in Genesis 1, and it is then almost universally ignored throughout the rest of Genesis. To say ‘Marriage between a man and a woman is the foundational unit of human civilisation’ is to read modern western understandings… Read more »
Tim, I will be charitable and assume I have failed to be clear. I am not making a point about the bible. I am not making a point about christian marriage. I am not making a point about monogamy or any of the other bag load of points you raise. I am making a point about reality. If you take the basic unit of society away (a man and a woman who raise children) you have no society beyond one generation. That is it. People can spin the issue in every possible direction, but reality does exist and we must… Read more »
There are plenty of periods in history when men had little or no involvement with raising children, and children were raised by aunts and older siblings. What you seem to mean is that human reproduction requires (for now at least) a sperm and an ovum, and therefore a man and a woman, to conceive a pregnancy. You can certainly argue that societies function best when that man and woman stay together in a loving relationship and raise the child, but to say this is the “basic unit of society” is to ignore that for most of history this didn’t happen.
Polygamy is a particularly interesting one here given it has Old Testament precedent and some of us are old enough to remember when evangelical angicans in East Africa asked the Archbishop of Canterbury if they could continue the practice.
I think you’re in danger of disappearing up your own gaslight, Jo. As you know very well, Peter’s view of sexuality is the same one the catholic church has held for centuries.
I don’t believe it is, actually. I don’t believe the catholic church has held a consistent view of sexuality for centuries.
Peter’s view dates back to Aquinas, Augustine and Paul – some 600, 1400 and 1800 years before the Victorians.
I don’t think Aquinas, Augustine and Paul share a single unified view of sexuality, nor is it the same as those associated with the Victorian era.
In what way not? They certainly thought they were defining and defending Christian marriage as arising from the length and breadth of Scripture. I am unaware of places where Aquinas clarifies a different position than Augustine.
I’m impressed you managed to get such in depth knowledge of Paul’s intent based on scant references in his writings. Paul, to my knowledge, mentions children not at all in his references to marriage, yet Augustine considers them the highest good. I’m sure you’ll be able to tell me by some convoluted argument that they’re actually part of a seamless whole.
The tradition did not treat scripture in a manner in which an individual “Paul” is the norm for marriage. So the premise is faulty to begin with. Paul’s declarations are already incripted ones.
I am still curious how Aquinas and Augustine do not agree in their reading of Paul and the entire canon of scripture, when it comes to Christian marriage and their teaching.
We know generally speaking how they differ in emphasis, here and there. But on marriage?
I am an admirer of much of what was generally accomplished by the Victorians but it is a travesty of my position on biblical authority to label it as Victorian.
The late Victorians took a pick axe to the doctrine of biblical inerrancy and sufficiency.
No, you are wrong, Christians until about 1980 were all of the same opinion about everything, they only killed each other, put each other to the stake, fought wars, slaughtered indigenous people, had a common understanding of the role of relics, all understood the same meaning of grace, all accepted the same things about the sacrements and the role of the papacy, but for some trivial misunderstandings outside of scripture. I’m not sure Peter is a real person. i wish he would reveal himself. He is taking a heroic position. The boy stood on the burining deck, while all else… Read more »
Nigel.
Please read what I actually said. Marriage is the foundational unit of human society.
It does not belong to Christians. It is a universal ordinance for all of humanity. Your screed about Christians is an irrelevance to the point I am making.
You would certainly regard it as unacceptable for me to call you a stupid boy. Hold yourself to the same standard as you would expect of others.
I use my real name. I expect you to do the same. Then maybe we can share a pint and appreciate each other.
Don’t worry, I won’t ask you for a quick one, I am completely heterosexual myself.
I very much hope the moderators will not leave your unpleasant insinuation without a response.
Same sex attraction does not create a propensity to ask for “a quick one” as you crudely imply.
There are many things which is better to laugh at rather than take seriously. Did you never watched the Monty Python episode where he asked the policeman?
I apologise if I have offended you. I am lucky enough to have friends who tease me endlessly, particularly if I make pompous remarks, and we all need a joker or fool in our lives. I am much more interested in your background and experiences than in theology. How would you describe your personality (I am thinking Myers-Briggs or similar here). What are your social circles? Do your social circles share your views on these matters? Are you, in fact, ordained or a parish priest? Where? Where were you trained? For removal of doubt, I am not ordained. I have… Read more »
Nigel,
Thank is kind of you. Social Media is a mixed blessing but we must always remember there is a real person behind a post and I would not wish to leave you with a sense your olive branch has not been accepted.
I wish you every blessing
Peter
Thank you. I still do not know who, what, where or why you are. Maybe you have good reasons to be hidden. I have already had a blessing today – by the guy who runs a little snack shop at the bottom of Tattenham Corner, he does the best egg and bacon sandwiches, and he says ‘God bless’ to every customer. I have no idea of his religious beliefs, but he probably does more for the kingdom of God than anybody else in London! BTW, I take any such phrase as person to person, I have no regard at all for… Read more »
Despite the reams of documents we have about how Christians live and what Christians taught throughout history?
Don’t you think that if Christians affirmed same sex marriage from the first century we might have it written down somewhere?
Heck that same sex sexual relationships might even be advocated for and encouraged by God in Scripture rather than explicitly forbidden?
I suspect that might have been Peter’s argument.
Yes, this is why the equal marriage discussion in the CofE is taking so long and proving so difficult. The case for it has to be advanced on the basis of rigorous scholarship, reflecting exactly what scripture and tradition say and explaining the factors that cause a re-examination now to reach a different conclusion than in the past. That requires a lot of painstaking work. Much easier to pretend that the understanding the church had in 1960 was something it came by in about 1930 rather than 0030, and that in earlier times the church supported equal marriage, despite not… Read more »
“the case for equal marriage remains to be convincingly made. I’m pretty sure it can be, but until it is – properly – this is going to cause more and more difficulty and go absolutely nowhere.” I agree with your larger point. The case has not been made. But it does not sound like the case is going to be made in a way that convinces people. Most arguments turn on the a priori of “I know Gay couples and they are good people, and so forth.” Or, “I have Gay relatives.” The traditional position also knows this factor, but… Read more »
And once again, my question is, ‘convincing to who’? It is obvious that some people are convinced by them. Others are not. Many, many books have been written on the subject. Clearly, you do not find their arguments convincing. Equally clearly, others do. To say ‘This is not convincing’ is to purport to make an objective judgement. Surely it would be more honest to say, “I and my friends are not convinced by this.” Personally, I often find arguments offered by academics to be somewhat lacking in pastoral awareness and sensitivity—as is evidenced by the way you casually dismiss those… Read more »
I was responding to the language being used in the comment in question. It sounds like you are responding to him
I am an academic. I am also a pastor. To suggest these can’t overlap is problematical. God gave us a left and a right brain. Both are critical, as made in His image.
The Lord compassionate and merciful, slow to anger, who will by no means clear the guilty.
Long and painful stories are not the domain of the pastorally elect.
See my recent Le Grand Voyage: Life, Loss, Love (Cascade, 2026).
Blessings.
‘To suggest these can’t overlap is problematical’
I didn’t suggest that they can’t. I said ‘I often find…’ That is true.
I should add. It sounds like your complaint would be with those with loved ones in Gay relationships who love and pray for them. They also would not say that God has made clear from scripture his approval, nor would they necessarily claim that their identity has been given to them at birth. I think it is important to recognize that there is not just one kind of “compassionate” response for those with relatives in same-sex relationships. Just as there isn’t something like “academic thinking” over here and “pastoral thinking” over there. And that is also why I personally don’t… Read more »
So the pastoral perspective points one way and the scriptural perspective the other way.
I defer to your much greater knowledge in assessing the likelihood of finding a case for equal marriage within scripture, while reserving my intuitive guess that such a case might, with earnest study, be found.
Either way, I don’t think the discussion is taken forward by creative breakouts to church traditions that never were – however understandable the motivation to get the church over the line on this issue and uptodate with where society is at.
It’s worth pointing out that many of us don’t make this false distinction between what’s pastoral and what’s Scriptural.
Being pastoral means leading and encouraging people in the faith through the ups and downs of life.
It doesn’t mean accommodating what God has clearly spoken against.
It isn’t pastoral at all to encourage people in the sin that Christ died to save us from.
Yes, and that is why it’s so important to check where support for equal marriage comes from. Is it to be found within scripture and church history, interpreted in light of Jesus’ general approach, which was a mix of revolutionary and conservative? If not, how does the church proceed without building on sand?
I agree with your last paragraph. And in general benefit from your probing. Thank you.
Supporters of solemnising same-sex marriages in church often render the ‘good’ of procreation as ‘fruitfulness’, and gay couples can indeed raise children in ways that are not only fruitful but also precious in God’s sight. However, as Alison Milbank has posted on TA, a wife bearing her husband’s child is a particular gift of marriage arising from the sacramental act by which the two become one flesh. A gay couple opening their home to a child has moral and spiritual value; but while their union is in no wise second best, it does not participate in the same sacramental and… Read more »
I agree. Thanks for moving on to the obvious next question: what is Christian marriage. Carefully thought through.
Marriage that brings forth good fruit, in whatever form that may be.
Thank you.
Arguments like this are the reason I prefer not to engage with this issue any more on TA. I am the grandfather of two boys being raised in a same-sex marriage by two mothers. They are the children of my daughter. So I’m sorry, but I can’t help but take this personally. Theologians giving learned opinions that ‘while their union is in no wise second best, it does not participate in the same sacramental and creational ontology of the one‑flesh union from which procreation arises’ are a prime example of the sort of disembodied academic-speak that I was referring to… Read more »
Tim, in your umbrage you stop listening. This isn’t complicated argument! You have your way of dealing with your grandchildren. Others have their way. You support same-sex relationships and marriage and believe God does too. Others in a similar place with Gay relatives do not believe the same, but love their relatives all the same. I know a great many faithful Christians in precisely this category.
When Pope Francis said “who am I to judge?” he didn’t purport to dismantle the teaching of the Catholic Church. He was stating a deep truth consistent with that teaching.
Umbrage? No. Sadness, rather, and weariness. But I get that it’s hard to accurately identify emotions in the comment feed.
Anglican Priest has pointed out something useful here. You changed your mind because you wanted to based on your daughter and that’s typical in many cases. It isn’t that the Bible became less clear on this. It’s that you decided to change your view because you wanted to affirm your daughter’s sexuality and then found reasons as to why the traditional understanding of marriage was wrong in order to fit that. Believe it or not I’ve got great sympathy for that view. It comes in part from a positive motivation. I do think Anglican Priest is right to say that… Read more »
That the prompt for re-examining a tradition came from the collision of that tradition with reality does not make the subsequent re-examination invalid, nor does it mean changing your mind “because you want to”. That you disagree with how others interpret scripture doesn’t mean that only your interpretation is valid. In Christ there is neither male nor female, for example, yet you will no doubt find ways to twist this simple, scriptural statement to mean other than what it “clearly” says, because you *don’t* want to accept the implications.
It’s a question of authority and epistemology.
Who is more right?
God in His insight into creation and how best to live in it.
Or our perceptions fuelled by our own desires.
If we choose that path Scripture isn’t our authority any longer despite claims to the contrary.
Ultimately we’re back to the question at creation:
Did God really say?
Bear in mind whose mouth that came out of also.
The question “did God really say…?” is a problem in Genesis because it is asked disingenuously and to deceive. If it is never allowed to be asked sincerely then errors are permitted to continue to eternity. God is always right; that doesn’t mean that the church has always been right about God. Deus vult and all that.
‘I do think Anglican Priest is right to say that others can and do love their families whilst continuing to hold an orthodox view.’ I know. I did for at least ten years after my daughter came out. She’s a very patient woman. ‘You changed your mind because you wanted to based on your daughter and that’s typical in many cases.’ You seem to know me quite well, Gareth, which is interesting because I don’t know very much about you except that you hold to a conservative theology. I would never presume to make simplistic assumptions about how you came… Read more »
I am at a stage where I laugh at it all, but some do not have my sense of humour.
Thanks, Nigel.
“Arguments like this are the reason I prefer not to engage with this issue any more on TA.” Tim, have I not been reasonable? Eirenic? Catholic? Do I not have gay relatives? As a parish priest did I not pastor gay couples?
Tim, I have an incarnational faith that knows how moral teaching needs to be enfleshed in real lives and real communities. I am also an Anglican, so maybe my take on ‘catholicity’ will not be the same as someone who breaks bread in a congregationalist church.
Apologies – I meant ‘doctrine’, not ‘moral teaching’. I welcome same-sex civil marriage, including that of Tim Chesterton’s daughter. But it was church marriage I was referring to – a distinction that Tim appears not to make.
No, it’s Anthony Archer.
I think you’ll find that it isn’t.
My point entirely.
So true, even today.
The Body of Christ is surely the people. The Son of Man had nowhere to lay his head (Luke 9. 57-58).
It’s also a question of integrity, surely?
I’m not sure any of those who were advocating for change had any qualms about lacking integrity when they opposed the doctrine they promised to uphold? I don’t think they are lacking integrity. They are arguing that they shouldn’t lose their buildings for holding to apostolic truth as others depart from it. It should be the other way around. I think their plan is to wait until they are forced out or until the trajectory of the church turns in the other direction as theological liberalism dies out. I’d argue there’s a lot more we could be doing in the… Read more »
Do they need to loose their buildings? Why not come to an agreement with the diocese, leave the C of E but lease the building from the diocese.At least it was save us from all this fruitless wrangling.
If (strictly hypothetically) Mr Taylor were to resign the living, a successor would need to be appointed with a parish church. I suppose this could be achieved by merging SHB with another parish, declaring SHB redundant for C of E worship and then leasing it to the Taylorites or whatever his new church is called
Simon,
I doubt your fever dream gets us anywhere
Well said Charles Lord. I wonder whether if, at all, William Taylor will deign to reply. I would go further to ask now that Mr Taylor has declared “impaired communion” and renounced the authority of Bishops and those who he is set to ignore and walk away from, how can he justify living in a Rectory and expecting his pension to be paid in due course by the Church he is avowedly out of communion with on account of the “false teaching” he is so keen to preach about? Those who for other sincerely held convictions have tried to take… Read more »
From the logic of William Taylor’s interpretation of Titus 3.9-11 engagement with Charles Lord seems unlikely. Indeed any engagement would contradict the thrust of Taylor’s sermon, it seems to me.
But Charles Lord’s piece isn’t really about engagement or dialogue, is it? Or have I missed something? It read like a piece of political positioning for his GS candidacy, coupled with political manoeuvre against candidates linked to William Taylor’s church.
‘expecting his pension to be paid’ – there are plenty of others who will even now be receiving their pensions while e.g. crossing the Tiber.
William Taylor has been a member of the Church of England Pension scheme for years. He is perfectly entitled to his pension.
The ownership of Church property is far from clear. They certainly do not belong to the bishops, or General Synod, or the Church Commissioners.
William Taylor is also going nowhere. Neither he nor St Helen’s Bishopsgate are leaving the Church of England
I seem to remember reading that back in the 1960,s when a meeting of Evangelicals was taking place at All Soul’s Langham Place during the Incumbency of the Revd Dr John Stott, Dr Martyn Lloyd Jones a Welsh Congregationalist Minister who was then Minister of the City Temple Church in London was preaching at Dr Stott’s invitation and in the course of his Sermon he counselled Anglican Evangelicals present to break from the Authority of the Church of England and its Bishops and go their own way. Dr Stott was horrified by what he was hearing in his own Church… Read more »
The cage of modernism? Glad we (under 70) have escaped that – some cages were more gilded than others.
Reading Charles Edward Lord’s piece reminded me how ecclesiology really has become the poor relation. At a recent ordination in a parish church, an ordinand asked the Vicar “Is it alright if Paul joins in the laying on of hands.” Paul is a Baptist minister. What was especially concerning about this was that the Vicar wasn’t sure either – despite being in orders for over ten years. The bishop’s response was not recorded. The Ordinal notes: “ordination to the priesthood involves incorporation into the college of presbyters of the diocese”. Does this matter? No, if collegiality means grey clergy and a… Read more »
The problem is that PYO doctrine which several bishops are engaged in doesn’t work, eclessia just falls apart as dreams and interpretation of dreams take hold.
The Church’s doctrine of marriage remains unchanged, so I don’t understand what you are getting at.
Perhaps those bishops who imagine and advocate that Holy Matrimony can be expanded to encompass same-sex couples?
Do Anglicans accept Baptists as Christians equal to themselves? Do they accept Baptist ministers as equal ministers of the Gospel? Or do they think they are better?
I hope Anglicans accept all Christians and their ministers as equals. But you have just made my point about ecclesiology.
Anglicans do accept Baptists as equal Christians. It’s highly unlikely an Anglican bishop would be expected to lay hands in the course of a Baptist ordination, since this would not be in accord with their ecclesiology. It’s fairly conventional these days for Roman Catholic bishops to attend the ordinations of Anglican bishops, but again they wouldn’t be expected to lay hands in the act of ordination. The question is what we can share that falls within an ecumenical ecclesiology. And on that front, Evensong can be a great gift.
The technical answer (re. ministers) is no – since Baptists are not in the apostolic succession. In practice many of us (most of us?) do of course accept Baptist ministers as equally valid ministers alongside us.
Charles: so your ‘technical answer’ is at variance with your practice and, I assume, your spiritual convictions. Do you see the problem?
We think we are different, at least, in that ordination as a Presbyter is conferred by laying on of hands by an episcopally consecrated bishop, assisted by episcopally ordained presbyters. If you open that up to all who self identity as ‘ministers’, whatever the origin or nature of their commissioning, then chaos ensues.
Yes, I know the legal theory, but I was really getting at the incongruence of actual practice and the spiritual pride that underlies a lot of thinking. Further, the Roman Catholic Church declared Anglican orders ‘null and void’ in 1890, and denied that Anglican bishops stand in Catholic order. So who are Anglicans to look down on Baptist minsiters?
People who think Saepius Officio made a better argument than Apostolicae Curae? Given that the latter was based on special pleading and proven falsehoods (the “Nag’s Head Fable”) that’s hardly a stretch. Besides, Apostolic Succession is hardly the only relevant point to consider. Baptist ministers do not accept the existence of a three-fold order of bishops, presbyters and deacons, or indeed the concept of ordination itself. Baptist teaching consciously and deliberately does not claim in appointing ministers to be doing what the universal church has done throughout history because it holds that practice to be in error. It’s apples and… Read more »
Thank you Jo B. The Common Worship Ordinal is the go to source for our ecclesiology. It develops 1662’s take on apostolic succession and sets it within the apostolicity of the whole Church. As for the laying on of hands by the presbyterate, this can only be done by priests in full Communion with the CofE, ideally with most of them being priests of the same diocese as the ordinand. Although, this – despite the Ordinal entering it’s 20th year – is catching on only patchily.
An Anglican priest who wishes to minister in the Roman Catholic Church must first be ordained. So RCs do not accept Anglican orders. The only Anglicans who consider their orders to be ‘real’ and Baptists to be ‘unreal’ are Anglo-Catholics – but since RCs don’t accept Anglican orders, the ACs are out on a limb
Nothing to deal with real or unreal. Anglicans accept Baptist ministers on the same terms that Baptists accept their ministers – as Baptist ministers. You have set up a straw man.
Actually it’s only evangelicals who seem to have an issue with the idea that some people are ordained priests and some aren’t. The reality of ordained ministry and the importance of the historic episcopate as part of that are pretty essential to Anglicanism.
The temerity of quoting Scripture at conservative evangelicals – ‘they don’t like it up ‘em Captain Mainwaring’. Mr Lord would have my vote if I were eligible to cast my ballot.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcbfrq1bQZ0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZYA7qHSDu0
What terrifies me is the half-smile he maintains throughout. Frequently found in Etonians educated at Cambridge.
Has he ever worked with normal or impoverished people?
A bit more searching found this:
https://survivingchurch.org/2021/06/09/reflections-on-the-bishopsgate-letter/
Nigel,
Play the ball, not the man
I don’t care if someone has any balls or not. I assume your comment was a joke and you forgot to put it in quotation marks with a smile at the end. ps. I was influenced/converted many years ago by Jonathan Fletcher and attended the round church. Although I am myself public school educated, I always had a suspicion of a certain type of public school person – humility seemed to be completely absent. Luckily at my school pupils were fairly normal. I was never invited to Iwerne. I was not a member of the tennis club. Maybe more seriously… Read more »
Nigel,
The expression play the ball, not the man is an illusion to football. It means do not kick the footballer. It is not a quotation and therefore does not require quotation marks. It was not intended as a joke
You choose to make a number of personal insinuations about William Taylor. They are unwarranted.
Actually, after my run in Battersea Park and thinking about this more, it is all about the man and psychology, and very little to do with theology and scripture. It is very little, indeed, to do with evangelicanism. It is to do with a certain type of public school culture and the personalities it creates. It’s funny – I was educated at a major/minor public school (Marlborough), which was decent and was fairly liberal. Admirable headmaster (John Danby). I am grateful to it and the teachers there. James Newcome and Nick McKinnell I knew quite well, James was in my… Read more »
You need to broaden your horizons.
Taylor belongs to a theological school that is international in its reach and goes back hundreds of years.
Disagree with the theology if you must. The notion that it is all about English public school culture is simply ridiculous.
Those bishops that support same sex marriage which is against the church doctrine are not asked to leave the C of E, yet those clergy that do are asked to leave. So why not ask Mr Lord to leave. Surely a more relevant question,
You have misunderstood the question. No-one is asking William Taylor to leave because he takes a conservative line on sexuality. The issue is that he has removed himself from relating to his own bishop etc.
And what is this doctrine of marriage of which you speak? Where can i find it in the creeds? Whereas Trinitarian subordinationism, beloved by some conevos, is explicitly repudiated by Nicea.
Charles Read asks: Where can I find this doctrine of marriage in the creeds?
Charles: where can you find bishops? or canons? or a host of other things you think necessary? Be careful you are not hoist by your own petard.
Have a look at Canons A5 and B30, plus the BCP.
Which bishops support same sex marriage? I can only think of the last Bishop of Salisbury.
An open letter to Charles Lord, Dear Charles. I am a lay minister in the Church of England and therefore have an interest in your critique of Revd William Taylor. May I urge you to attend a morning service at St Helen’s when William Taylor is preaching. Over coffee, you will have the opportunity to raise your questions with him which I am sure he will be glad to answer. William Taylor is a fine preacher, but there is only so much anybody can do in a thirty minute sermon – answering your questions is obviously beyond the scope of… Read more »
Why does St Helen’s Bishopsgate remain in the Church of England? Because it still believes and teaches the received doctrine of the Church of England. The existence of heresy among some bishops doesn’t change that fact. The Church of England did reach a low point this week when the Archbishop of Canterbury awarded some honour to a Pakistani imam who bestowed a title on Osama bin Laden and said suicide bomberd against British troops in Afghanistan was a good idea. The award was hastily withdrawn when media reports came out but so far, the Archbishop has not apilogised or resigned.… Read more »
The Archbishop’s office didn’t do their due diligence, for which they are answerable. But, to add to context, the recommendation to give this honour to the man in question was made formally by the Primate of the Church of Pakistan (to Justin Welby when he visited Pakistan while still serving as Archbishop).
She’s too busy organising an apology for slavery- something which even in the early-mid 1700’s the church was only tangentially involved with.
“Tangentially involved”? Is that one of those irregular verbs?
I’m innocent
You’re tangentially involved
He/she/they have been paid from the public purse to free the people they enslaved
The CofE has had centuries of benefit from the labour of enslaved people and did little to challenge that institution or make restitution to the people whose labour they benefitted from.
What utter tosh! See below please. If anyone expects me ( as a non slave owner) to make reparations to people who are not slaves but for something that happened c 300 years ago, then they will lose me from this church.
Involved enough to merit a little repentance
Nope- hardly involved at all. The South Sea Company was transporting slaves for the Spanish and my reading is that although said company was a sort of Ponzi Scheme of its day, it didn’t make all of its money from slavery.
This may provide some helpful data so people can make their own judgements. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/sep/16/church-of-england-enslavement-reparations-debate And as for the South Sea Company, a linked article says this: “As part of a 1713 peace treaty, Queen Anne agreed with Spain’s King Philip V that Britain would be awarded the asiento – an agreement to deliver a stipulated 4,800 enslaved African men to Spain’s American colonies every year. . Anne announced it triumphantly in the House of Lords: “I have insisted and obtained, that the asiento or contract for furnishing the Spanish West Indies with Negroes, shall be made with us for the… Read more »
What is your source for this information? All of Tahir Ashrafi’s publications and statements and interviews have been made in the Urdu language. Are you familiar with this language? Or do you just regard your Daily Telegraph as the mediator of all truth? Over fifteen years ago Tahir Ashrafi, who is not just ‘a Pakistani imam’, but the Reisul Ulema, the most senior clergyman, in Pakistan, made a rhetorical point that the offense given to Pakistani muslims by Britain honouring Salman Rushdie with a knighthood might be equivalent to the offence given to the UK were Pakistan to award the… Read more »
I think the idea of bringng an equivalence between Salman Rushdie and Osama bin Laden is extraordinary.
‘Exuberant’ indeed. I have alternative words.
It is nit an equivalent between two persons. It was an equivalence of potential public outrage caused. Do try thinking a bit harder – and dare I suggest – putting aside some of your prejudices.
Tahir Ashrafi’s advocacy on behalf of Pakistan’s religious minorities, particularly Christians, is well documented. Where his record is somewhat ambivalent is over Shi’a Muslims and particularly Ahmadiyya Muslims. The UK has around 2.7 million Muslims of South Asian heritage. Time to put away our preconceptions and get to know our neighbours better?
I heard about this first from Gavin Ashenden, then the BBC. In general I don’t get my news from the Daily Telegraph, although that wouldn’t be a problem to me. I read The Jewish Chronicleas well. It’s clear to me that Ashrafi hates the apostate Salman Rushdie and was a supporter of Osama bin Laden – even “the exuberant manner of rhetoric … in Urdu discourse maked this clear” – just follow through the logic of your statement: writing ‘The Satanic Verses’ in Pakistani Muslim eyes is as bad as the September 11th atrocities in western eyes. Yes, they really… Read more »
Gavin Ashenden. A very balanced source then. And the Jewish Chronicle !
The rhetorical question was ‘ How would the UK feel if Pakistan gave a public award to Osama Bin Laden.
One question to ask, when a controversial remark is dug up from someone’s past, is why this was not remarked on at the time.
See this interview with the Primate of the Church of Pakistan, who says that Lambeth’s withdrawal of the reward has been deeply embarrassing and damaging to Christians in Pakistan. https://anglicanmainstream.org/article/full-transcript-of-interview-with-moderator-of-church-of-pakistan/
This article just goes to show that Lambeth Palace should stop acting like a para-government, bestowing gongs on people like the King in the New Year Honours. I think it was Welby who started this nonsense -even giving Queen Elizabeth an “award”! The interview also shows how terrifying it is to be a Christian in Pakistan when mobs, inflamed by ‘blasphemy’ allegations, will come and destroy your home or your church or your very life. Even children are not safe from mobs. Lambeth Palace actually makes things worse for Christians there by its incomprehension of Indic and Islamic culture, with… Read more »
Ashrafi was recommebded by the church of Pakistan for this award. He has been highly critical of the abuse of the blasphemy laws.
The best challenge to false teachers (themselves falsely regarding others as such) I have seen for a long time. The apostate St Helen’s Bishopsgate (strange given what ought to be a congregation with intellect) is put in the dock by a City fellow. It’s Rector will not reply, partly because he can’t, and partly because the arrogance of ‘my’ interpretation of Scripture must prevail. I hope the next Bishop of London will challenge this nonsense.
How should the next bishop of London act in challenge, Anthony?
I hope everyone suggesting that William Taylor should leave, because he views the bishops as false teachers are as quick to say that everyone should leave who calls the bishops ‘homophobic teachers’.
St Helen’s and similar congregations remain in order to retain their buildings along with clergy stipends, housing and pensions. Those are perhaps obvious reasons but another, equally important, reason is in order to retain their influence. Whatever they may think of the current state of the denomination they know that to leave the C of E would be to lose their influence. There have been many previous secessions from the C of E; those that still exist have dwindled to the point of irrelevance.. A noisy opposition group in a large denomination has far more influence that a small evangelical… Read more »
You are spot on, John. As a lifelong Anglican, now in my 7th decade, I reflect that this latest display of semi-detached ‘disgruntled’ behaviour is not new at all. I well remember it from university and church life in the early 1980s. Same sense of superiority and certainty, claims of biblical authority and a patronising and withering view expressed towards any bishop whom they considered not to be ‘sound’ or ‘keen’.
sense of superiority and certainty, patronising, withering….
yes, a result of a certain type of public school education.
Do they realise the harm they do because of their shameful behaviours?
The patrons of St Helens are the Merchant Taylors Company. I wonder how they view the parish, though I suppose patronage doesn’t count for much now?
On 19c Secessions from the Church of England there is Grayson Carter’s Oxford monograph. Some are now extinct and the Free Church of England a very small body.
I suspect the prime movers at the next vacancy will be the PCC, the Parish reps, and the wider Conservative Evangelical community. Not the Patrons or Diocese.
I would be interested to have a comment on this from an Archdeacon or canon Lawyer. Presumably in the vacancy the Church Wardens PCC etc on the basis of a Parish Profile come to a mind about a preferred candidate. Assuming the Patron is happy the name goes to the Bishop. It is probably unlikely the Bishop would refuse to appoint but if then the Bishop and Archdeacon are were told the Parish does not recognise their authority and don’t want to grant them access to perform the induction and institution what happens then? An interesting question??
St Helens remains because there is no reason it should leave.
Its rector has laid out a whole bunch of reasons which, if actually believed rather than being pious posturing, compel departure. The luke-warm, neither in nor out, neither hot nor cold, position tells us exactly which of the two it is.
Jesus – Luke warm? I don’t think so.
I was talking about William Taylor, not Jesus.
True, but I was thinking about Jesus when I read your post – pious posturing, neither in nor out. But definitely not luke warm.
It’s funny how certain things stick in one’s mind. back in about 1975, I took my Dad (who came from a more Anglo-Catholic background) to attend the Sunday morning round church service. Jonathan Fletcher was preaching. He preached on the verse from Genesis about the heel of the serpent. JF said that Luther considered this to be the most blessed verse in the bible, or something similar. My Dad was somewhat caustic, and said he could think of many more blessed verses.
https://www.lutheranforum.com/blog/0dhqlya0ltxw51tgydj7ho9sfanhf2
is there any link between cults and autism?
Dear Mr. Lord, I read your recent open letter to William Taylor with more than passing interest. You write with the sharp administrative clarity of someone who understands institutional structures, and on one crucial point, I believe you are entirely correct. You are logically correct to expose the deep ecclesial and institutional contradiction at the heart of remaining within the Church of England while simultaneously declaring its leadership to be false teachers. As you rightly point out, “congregationalism with selectively imported bishops” is a profound structural incoherence. You cannot structurally repudiate a bishop’s spiritual authority, withhold financial support, and bypass… Read more »
Without going into the minutiae of St Helen’s Bishopgate and Rev William Taylor, like many, I, as a liberal Catholic, rather than an evangelical, at times despair of the Cof E and its leadership as I’m sure the NT churches did when they disagreed with Paul! However, we need to remember the Declaration of Assent which clergy have to agree every time they accept a new position – ‘which faith the Church is called upon to proclaim afresh in each generation’. For me, proclaiming afresh means that the Gospel needs to be contextualised so that 21st century people can see… Read more »
I admire your decision to act according to your conscience.
You are not entitled to say your choice is the only choice available to the orthodox
“You are not entitled to say your choice is the only choice”. Nor are you.
David,
I have never, at any point, said everybody should do one thing or another regarding the current crisis in the Church of England.
Your admonition is poorly judged
Peter, you repeatedly claim your view of the bible text in the Orthodox view. You deny others theirs.
You are conflating two entirely separate matters.
My comment to “former vicar” was in relation to his choice to leave the Church of England – obviously a matter of conscience and not doctrine.
The actual doctrine of the church is a different category.
The older I become, the more I become aware of the attractiveness to a large minority of human beings of behaviour that presents as cultic practice. The marks of such behaviour are well documented and worth being familiar with in these turbulent times. It’s a sad fact that those who are part of a cult are extremely resistant to reason and logical argument as well as promoting a very strong ‘us and them’ mentality which makes any meaningful social interaction extremely challenging. Any direct challenge simply re-affirms and strengthens a persecution narrative that in turn drives deeper cultic behaviour patterns.… Read more »
This. Arguing using logic is pointless, whether in politics, religion, or bringing up children. We see this many times within TA – when questions are asked, to analyse their binary viewpoint in a spirit of inquiry, we get no answer. Maybe I over emphasise, there are some here who start with what seems to be a binary position, but after a bit they relax. What is the way to deal with cults? To be fair, I see plenty of Anglo-Catholic cults. Have conservative evangelicals alway been like this? In my student days, a few were, but others were reasonably sensible.… Read more »
If that were true that might be helpful. I’ve responded to plenty of comments here engaging quite a bit. The frustration is that we’re at an impasse. One side holds to the traditional understanding of the Scriptures. The other side suggests that there’s some new understanding we need to have of them despite the fact it clearly disagrees with the text. The reality is that you don’t get to change Christianity and expect everyone else to suggest that novel teaching is somehow wonderful. If you expect that then yes you’re going to be disappointed. It doesn’t change the fact that… Read more »
Yes you have, it has been a joy.
If I may:
One side holds to an understanding of the Scripture it labels “traditional.”
Others hold to understandings of Scripture that the first side labels “new” “non-traditional” “novel” “heterodox” “false” “destructive” “cause of division” (I could go on with the ad hominems hurled my way, but I don’t have all day).
In 1998, Ship of Fools’ “Mystery Worshipper” visited the breakaway group which carried on the “Nine O’Clock Service” for a while outside the C of E, after it was shut down. I think that group has fizzled out.
http://www.ship-of-fools.com/mystery/1998/026Mystery.html
Charles Lord has his own agenda, clear from his GS election address, but he is dreaming if he thinks the Diocese of London is going to expel one of its largest churches. It simply can’t afford to do so. When push comes to shove, it isn’t going to vote for death. Compare what is happening south of the river. One of the largest churches in Southwark diocese, Dundonald Church, left the C of E without much ruffling, because it is entirely self-funded and owns its own buildings. If you listen to William Taylor on youtube, he points out that bishops… Read more »
Do St Helen’s contribute to the diocese? I thought not. Compared with most dioceses London is pretty financially robust.
If you put aside the fraud of £5.2 millions by Martin Sargeant, which led to some churches closing.
Interesting . Which churches?
I don’t know. I think I read that in a wikipedia account of the fraud/theft.
Perhaps someone in the diocese might comment. I don’t think it is true. The theft was from various parochial charity accounts I think. The diocese of London is v lucky ( and this is why the majority of parishes have their own priest and haven’t been amalgamated) owing to the amount of money that can be gained from letting,car parking etc. And the fact some parishes esp in central London still have substantial endowments plus the existence of charities like the City Parochial Charities, the St Pancras Burial Trust which supports churches north of the Euston Rd. and others.
I am struggling to recollect any closure or disposal schemes which have been published or made by the Pastoral and Closed Churches Division in respect of London diocese since news of the Sargeant affair broke. Indeed, I don’t believe that there have been any. However, I appreciate that the publication of a closure or disposal scheme is not necessarily the same as running a church down or letting it go to waste so that it falls into a condition where such a scheme can be made quite easily at some point in the future.
Bishops and their helpful or not so helpful opinions come and go. Anyone remember John Robinson? But if one believes in the permanence of the faith delivered to the saints, as long as you’re not deposed or imprisoned for preaching it, you’ll carry on. And if you are, you’ll still try. Woe is me if I do not preach the Gospel.
Here we go again….
I think we need a “First ammendment to the sixty nine articles” along the lines of the USA’s with their constitution: “The Church of England shall make no law respecting an establishment of sexual orientation, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….”
Maybe we should only allow ourselves the luxury of arguing about sexuality once we have helped eradicate child poverty in the UK?
The poor will be forever with us unfortunately. Maybe to stop the church disappearing down rabbit holes like this one.
Sorry- 39 articles. That’s Grade Inflation for you!
William Taylor has said on a Youtube interview that the hierarchy of the Church of England eventually comes round to accepting facts on the ground when it sees it has nowhere else to go. He cites the example of the abandonment of clerical dress in the C of E. This used to a red line for some. Then evangelicals dropped it – and the C of E went along with it. He said the men who were ordained as deacons by the REACH South Africa bishop will get jobs in Church of England parishes willing to employ them – and… Read more »
This appears to be a confession of what I have always suspected – the posturing about leaving is simply a mechanism to force other into submitting to conservative views. When it ultimately fails and conservatives back down all the sturm and drang over “apostate bishops” and “salvation issue” will vanish as if it never was.
Jo
What a travesty of what James actually said !
Where did he say he was leaving? It is Charles Lord who is telling him to leave.
All this chat about William Taylor as a preacher. I don’t go to worship to hear a sermon. I go to receive bread and wine. It’s a bonus if the sermon is helpful.
I like a good sermon but tend to switch off after about 20 minutes.
Both and surely? “apostles’ teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer”. Bread and wine can be found at the supermarket of you choice if that is all you require…😉
I go for services of the Word mainly.
It would be interested to know how often Holy Communion is celebrated at St Helen’s. They have no permanent Communion Table.
That appears to be a breach of Canon F2 which clearly doesn’t contemplate use of a temporary or movable table. Its position, if disputed, is to be decided by the Ordinary, i.e., the diocesan bishop – although not sure quite how SHB would interpret either requirement …
Canon F2 says: ‘In every church and chapel a convenient and decent table, of wood, stone, or other suitable material, shall be provided for the celebration of the Holy Communion, and shall stand in the main body of the church or in the chancel where Morning and Evening Prayer are appointed to be said. Any dispute as to the position where the table shall stand shall be determined by the Ordinary.’
Nothing says it has to fixed and immovable.
Perry Butler stated that SHB “have no permanent Communion Table”. I suppose if a movable table is lawful (that very much depends on the interpretation of “shall stand”, its position would have to be pre-determined: the bishop isn’t going to be on call to decide at every service.
If anyone here has relevant knowledge, it would be interesting to learn what happens at SHB.
St Helens is serious about the bible and the bible is serious about the Lords Supper.
I can see no reason for you to suggest otherwise
So how do you explain the fact that the services listed on the St Helen’s website is full of details of sermon series, bible studies, talks, prayer meetings, fellowship and study groups. But there is not one mention anywhere of holy communion at all. If I only had their website to go on I would not know the Lord’s Supper existed. I struggle to call that ‘serious’.
A look at pictures of the interior of the church is instructive. The church was restored by the architect Quinlan Terry. The pulpit is central, all seating facing it. It reminds me of a Dutch Reformed Church.
Are you suggesting you would prefer it if the seating was facing away from the pulpit ?
You also omit to mention that the pulpit is in exactly the same position it occupied prior to Quinlan Terry’s restoration.
Of course not. But I suspect before the restoration the Church had a fixed communion table. Does anyone know? It’s removal is surely suggestive.
Perry, Nobody has asked me to speak on behalf of St Helens, so I do not want to give any impression that I am doing so. I attended the church for ten years which spanned the period of the restoration. The reason for restoration was an IRA bomb. There was no “hidden agenda”. We would all much rather the bomb had not been detonated for obvious reasons. There will, inevitably, be the suggestion that St Helen’s used the opportunity to do things it should not have done. You will obviously know that every inch of the restoration was subject to… Read more »
Yes, me too.
Really, David.
I attended St Helen’s for ten years. The Lords Supper is celebrated on a regular basis.
The idea that they have abandon the Reformation and the BCP is ridiculous
Only an insider (like you were) would know that Peter. I wonder why. The overwhelming focus – including the position of the pulpit – is on the Word. I don’t know how make my point.
That’s a bit tribal. I am just pointing out a matter of fact which is that St Helen’s have done nothing radical with either the pulpit or the seating.
Too much is being made of the HC schedule which they follow.
There are plenty of parishes where HC is celebrated once a month at most. Nobody would treat that as grounds for concern. (For the avoidance of doubt, I do not know the current HC interval at St Helen’s. )
You are barking up the wrong tree with the notion you are onto something significant by monitoring their church calendar
I would treat it as grounds for concern. The canons stipulate that Holy Communion should be celebrated at least once every Sunday in every benefice.
What evidence do you have that HC is not being celebrated in the St Helens parish at that interval – and there is no canon stipulating how the occasion of the sacraments should be promulgated.
Just asserting that if it is not in their online calendar it must not be happening will not do
I was not talking about St Helen’s. I was talking about the plenty of parishes you refer to where HC is celebrated once a month or less. In fairness, this was common for much of the eighteenth and nineteenth Century. More regular celebrations of Holy Communion were first championed by those influenced by the evangelical revival before those of the Oxford Movement persuasion. Daniel Wilson of St Mary’s Islington introduced an 8 AM Sunday communion service for those parishioners too poor to afford pew rents for the later service. John Wesley also commended frequent communion.It may be that the canons… Read more »
Simon,
My observation is that clergy would be delighted to preside at the Lord’s table far more than is practical.
Perhaps a quite word with the Church Commissioners is needed to get them to spend money on parish clergy who, I am certain, will be glad to provide the ministry of the Word and the Sacrements as often as possible.
Hello Peter In convent, the eucharist is celebrated every day, because it is the central act of devotion, in union with the supreme and sacrificial devotion of our Lord Jesus Christ. It is the heart of covenant love between God and God’s people, as we enter into the great baptism of Christ in bread and wine, and the present grace of God. I agree that the sad reality is that with priests having to provide Holy Communion in multi-parish benefices, many lay people – and particularly those without transport – only receive the sacrament once a month, especially if they… Read more »
Well, it’s probably not the place for you, David.
I was merely asking how often the eucharist is celebrated at St Helen’s. I don’t know? Do you?.It is unusual not to have a fixed communion table. Many churches have a weekly eucharist. Does St Helen’s? Word and Sacrament are equally important in the Anglican tradition.
I attended St Helen’s for ten years. The Lords Supper is celebrated on a regular basis.
The idea that St Helen’s does not understand the Reformation Sacrements is an eccentric and rather mischievous red herring
My church celebrates Christmas “on a regular basis”. It’s a particularly uninformative phrase, and its repeated use begins to feel a little evasive.
“A little evasive” – what on earth do think there is to hide !
St Helen’s holds to the historic and apostolic understanding of the practice of the sacraments.
A mountain is being made out of a molehill, for reasons that are a mystery
I go to receive the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ (“under the appearance” yada yada). Oh, and to sing! [Am tenor in St Michael’s Carmichael CA choir]
ITA re the sermon.
I am as liberal they come but arguing that SHB should have left the church seems to me a bad faith position. That does not build up Jesus.
I dislike their teaching but I rejoice that they have managed to remain within the family.
‘My confidence is not in the certainty of being right, but rather on the grace and mercy of God, before whom I have sought truth as best I can.’ I came across this many years ago and it has remained the most liberating and non-anxious guide to the journey of faith and truth I know.
Interesting to note that nobody here seems to be familiar with Edward Lord (everyone is calling him Charles). I’ve known about him for many years. https://sex-matters.org/posts/the-legal-system/edward-lord/
Oh dear! https://celord.com/ i was a bit confused by their biographical notes until I read at the bottom Charles Edward’s pronouns are ‘they/them/their’ It’s funny, our athletics club asks for sex on becoming a member, and somebody recently (the first time ever) responded non-binary or similar. Problem is England Athletics, with whom we have to register athletes, has male/female at birth. So we have to go back to the athlete and ask what sex they were assigned at birth. Slight double entendre when I wrote our athletics club asks for sex on becoming a member, shades of Frankie Howerd but… Read more »
Amanda, I am not sure what point you are making and why? When someone’s initials are CEL, they sign themselves ‘Charles Edward Lord’ at the end of this blog (or anywhere else) and we are not told, or know, otherwise, the most reasonable assumption is that they expect to be called by their first name, is it not?
“They sign themselves” …..? A curious way to talk about one man. Amanda’s point is that Edward Lord is indeed well known as a Stonewall activist and a forthright opponent of “transphobics”, in particular Kathleen Stock, for many years. Lord also described himself (in the link Amanda gives) as ‘bi’ and ‘non-binary’, and a candidate for General Synod.
Pretending not to understand the use of singular ‘they’ regarding someone who considers themselves non-binary is not terribly becoming. You don’t find it “curious”, you don’t like it because of the implied acknowledgement of Lord’s non-binary identity.
‘Identity’ doesn’t mean ‘who or what I think I am’, it means ‘who are what I am’. It’s a statement of ontology, not feeling or desire. That is why we rightly talk about cases of ‘mistaken identity’. As far as human beings are concerned, there is no such thing as ‘non-binary identity’, there are just beliefs people have about themselves which may or may not be correct.
It’s like health: a person may feel fine but actually have a terminal illness.
It’s also a terrible solecism to say ‘they’ and themselves’ when talking of an individual human being.
Singular ‘they’ has been around longer than singular ‘you’. It is neither ungrammatical or ill-mannered. As I suspected you just reject the existence of non-binary people and are searching for an excuse to insist on assigning them a pronoun you prefer.
Speking for myself, I was only ‘not understanding’ because i didn;t know they were non-binary beforehand.
I don’t think I have ever come across anybody else who signs themselves in that way. I do not live a sheltered life.
It really doesn;t matter. I just didn’t know beforehand. I had no idea who they were. It seemed a bit affective to me.
The Church of England is not a federation of independent churches. St Helen’s is not an independent private members club, nor is it a private concern, free to affiliate or defiliate at will. So there is simply no mechanism whereby St Helen’s could “leave” the C of E and nobody or no body to make such a decision. Any such purported decision by the PCC would be ultra vires. Charles Edward Lord suggests candidates who are “members”, as he puts it, of St Helen’s should refer to their rector’s position, as if they were somehow responsible for his views or… Read more »
Progressives who post on this site need to refrain from double standards.
I have had progressives throw up their hands in distress and storm off the site because I have suggested they need to get out more or something equally anodyne.
Yet a progressive telling me I’m a stupid boy is evidently perfectly fine.
If progressives want to take their case forward they need to win hearts and minds and double standards are not the way to do that.
You just called anyone who disagrees with your bizarre take on anthropology “delusional”. Please consider the log in your own eye.
Seriously.
If I said you were a stupid woman you would be appalled and I doubt the moderators would publish the comment.
Stop treating comment about an idea as the same thing as personal insult directed at an actual person
You blatantly called me and others delusional! You don’t have a leg to stand on here.
Please read what I actually said.
I said that rejecting the fact that a union between a man and a woman is the foundational unit of society is delusional. I am commenting on general ideas.
What you personally think is entirely a matter for you.
You are treating critical thought as a personal insult. That is a basic category error.
If people lose, or abandon the distinction between general analysis of belief and personal insult, they are reversing the age of reason
This is sophistry. If I have stated I reject a view and you say rejecting that view is delusional you are calling me delusional. Nobody reading could plausibly take it otherwise.
It is not all about you.
I do not know you, I was not addressing myself to you in my comment to Janet Fife.
I made a general observation that human society is founded on marriage between one man and one woman. We all know that is the truth.
It is delusional to pretend otherwise. That is just a statement of fact.
You want to claim I have made some kind of personal insult directed at you. I have done nothing of the sort.
It is not fact. Human society depends on variety, and the dedicated single teacher (to give one example) has been for a long time foundational in education.
The widowed have also been foundational.
It is when you talk about truth and facts that the problems start arising.
It’s a personal opinion not supported by the evidence. “We all know” that claiming personal opinions as facts is delusional.
I think nuance is missed. I did not call you a stupid boy. I made an analogy with the boy standing alone on the burning deck while all else had fled. I think that is similar to your position. I then added the quip ‘stupid boy’ which I always found funny. For the record, I don;t think you are stupid, nor do I consider you to be a boy, but I do recognise that you have like everybody else, some challenges. That is why I offered to buy you a pint and have a laugh over all this ridiculous chatter.… Read more »
Just wanted to put a word in for Bishop Andrew Rumsey’s fine piece. Mysteriously, Charles Lord’s has cornered all the comments so far. Perhaps the best response to William Taylor is actually hidden in Bp Andrew’s.
‘Love is a garden sprinkler’? Might have to wait a while until the hosepipe ban is lifted.
If people want to pick a fight with St Helen’s it is not exactly difficult to find a contentious issue.
If your intention is to have a go at them, you could at least pick a matter on which there is an actual division.
We are not living in the age of the Tudors. We are not divided over the issue of the Lord’s Supper.
There would appear to be a difference of opinion between Mr Taylor and Dr Gatiss, according to the Church Times:
https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2026/25-september/news/uk/city-of-london-churches-sever-ties-with-bishops
Yes, there is, and it’s all part of the continuing argument about tactics and strategy going on in the Church of England in the larger battle over sexual morality. William Taylor argues one way, Lee Gatiss of the Church Society another; and Edward Lord (‘C.E. Lord OBE’ as he styles his post) has launched a public attack on the Rev Taylor, which is part of Mr Lord’s campaign to be elected to the General Synod. As Amanda reminds us above with the link, Mr Lord is known by his middle name Edward. He is a strong supporter of Stonewall, describing… Read more »
Aside from posting on Musk’s CSAM site Lord sounds like a brilliant person. What’s troubling is that I suspect you intended much of your description to be damning.
It’s only damning if you take a dim view of these things. Everything I said is objectively true and is from Mr Lord’s own postings. Check them for yourself, then tell me what is ‘damning’ about them.
I don’t doubt they’re true; I don’t think they’re damning. I’d assumed you’d selected those particular facts because you thought they were. Was I wrong?
God is the Judge of what is good or bad, not you and not I.
There is no such thing as truth (outside of Jesus). Embrace uncertainty.
That’s really the issue, isn’t it? Some people can’t live w/o “certainty”, then insist others recognize their “certainty.”
I have Jesus (rather, I hope Jesus has me!), and that’s all the certainty I need…
I think in honesty we need to recognise that it goes both ways. Temperamentally, some people are more comfortable with certainty, but others are more comfortable with ambiguity.
I can certainly see how one could take a personality inventory and note that in, e.g., Meyers-Briggs, there are judging and there are perceiving types, one preferring order and the other flexibility. But we have a right and a left hand, and also it depends a lot on just what we are talking about. “I have Jesus” and that is a certainty is not a statement a whole lot of people interested in eliminating ambiguity would make. Just who is this Jesus who I have, or who has me, is the obvious question. If he “has me,” what does that… Read more »