Mark Ireland ViaMedia.News Now is Not The Time to Cut Clergy Posts!
Stephen Parsons Surviving Church The Struggle to find Safeguarding Justice in the C of E.
Peter Ould Psephizo What will the new General Synod look like?
Victor Lee Austin The Living Church The Parish as a School of Friendship
Peter Ould identifies the two parties comprising the General Synod as being ‘Evangelical’ or the ‘Human Sexuality Group’. He ascribes their respective monikers as being ‘Orthodox’ or ‘Revisionist’. An equally biased description could suggest the two groups consist of “the Homophobes” and “the Enlightened”.
Have the Anglo-Catholics gone completely, now?
I gather Trad Catholics number 31: 2bps 12 clergy 17 laity.
I think there are plenty of Anglo-Catholics, but most of them support the ordination of both women and men, rather than just men.
And there are a number of evangelicals in the Human Sexuality Group – and the Evangelical Group on GS (EGGS) won’t now allow evangelicals who support same-sex partnerships to be part of EGGS.
Why does believing that marriage is between a man and a woman make a person a ‘homophobe’? It is a hate filled remark, that causes a great deal of distress and hurt to sincere Christians.
Marriage IS between a man and woman. Permitting same-sex couples to avail themselves of this institution affects ‘straight’ married men and women (and their children) not one jot. Many sincere LGBT Christians would like a Church marriage. A great deal of distress is caused to these Christians by homophobic people who think they have a monopoly on Christian Love and belief.
No mention of the distress caused to those who hold sincerely to the belief that marriage is between a man and a woman by being called a ‘homophobe’. I wonder why?
Similarly, I don’t mind distressing those prejudiced against people of colour and calling them racists.
Bob, it’s fine for individuals to decide that they’re only prepared to marry someone of the opposite sex and most choose that option, either because they’re straight or because they have religious beliefs that restrict them to heterosexual marriage; but it is homophobic to try and stop others from making the choice of a same sex marriage. Our understanding of sex and sexuality has moved on; so we don’t allow young teenage girls (children) to be sold off to much older men, we permit the remarriage of divorcees contrary to Jesus’ explicit ban on such unions. In several Anglican provinces… Read more »
I have no problem believing that marriage is between a man and a woman. I also believe that marriage is between a man and a man, and a woman and a woman. What should define marriage is things like mutual loving behaviour and consent, not the gender of the participants. Perhaps arguing to exclude same sex couples from the immense benefits of marriage can also be seen as a hate filled remark, that causes a great deal of distress and and hurt to sincere Christians, those many sincere Christians that would like to get married but can’t because they are… Read more »
I did not refer to anyone else or their beliefs using the word hate. Labelling people because of their sincerely held views on marriage with a negative, emotive word such as ‘homophobe’ is hateful, and in no way builds up the body of Christ.
You’ve just used the word ‘hateful’. You introduced hate into the discussion, have done it twice and then denied doing it.
Mark 10:9 says, “Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” The Bible is clear: it is God marries a couple, not any priest. The wedding ceremony is simply an extended prayer asking God to recognise a marriage. You are certainly entitled to believe that God won’t recognise the prayers of same sex couples but denying same sex couples even the opportunity to petition God because they are same sex is homophobic. The Bible is full of instances where God has relented in the face of prayer. Even if you believe that God doesn’t normally recognise same sex… Read more »
Expressing the sincerely held view that marriage is between a man and a woman is not homophobic. Labelling people who hold sincerely to the view that marriage is between a man and a woman with such an emotive word does not build up the body of Christ.
But if you read what I said, I didn’t say that expressing a view that marriage is between a man and a woman is homophobic. What I described as homophobic is denying wedding services to same sex couples so that God – not you – can decide whether they are married. There is a big difference.
Bob, I suspect I have quite different views on these issues to you, but in this case I agree with you, that just because a Christian believes in conscience and faith that marriage should be restricted to a man with a woman… does not automatically make that person a ‘homophobe’. I believe the Bible condemns man-man sex (and indeed any sex outside of marriage). If a person in conscience believes the Bible is the authoritative view of God on all issues it mentions, then I understand that, and that does not mean they hate people, though they disagree with what… Read more »
Peter Ould has produced an interesting analysis of the General Synod results. One aspect, though, seems unclear. He deduces the views of the ‘average person in the pew’ from the votes for the lay members of synod. However, the electorate for the lay members are the members of Deanery Synods, not members of the Church as a whole, and he produces no evidence that they reflect the view of the average person in the pew. I have no idea whether or not they do, but I suggest that this would need consideration before his conclusion on the views of the… Read more »
Quite so, I noticed that as well. He also suggests that the main reason ‘orthodox’ candidates have done well is that their grouping has been more effective at using the STV voting system, ensuring that second preferences go to other preferred candidates rather than ‘leaking’ to the other side. This does not support his claim that ‘people in the pews’ aren’t seeking change. It simply indicates that conservatives have organised their voters among the deanery laity more effectively. Anyway, I’m disappointed but not surprised by the voting results.
Mr Ould says increased turnout is good news for the democratic process. In the case of the laity there is no democratic process. He goes on to deduce the opinion of the average person in the pew from the (supposed) opinions of their representatives. How democratic is that? The ordinary person in the pew, let alone the ordinary person in the street, had no vote and so our representatives are in no position to tell us what we do or do not think. As with the 1928 Prayer Book so with LLF, our representatives have no regard for us or… Read more »
The “ordinary person in the pew” has every chance to provide input to the process. If they are on their parochial electoral roll (or equivalent) they can vote at their APCM every three years for deanery synod reps, and even propose candidates or stand for election. Yes, it’s an indirect democracy, and it’s open to abuse by special interest groups trying to ensure their supporters stand and are elected.
The entire process of electing lay representatives to General Synod in the CofE reminds me of the original US Constitutional method of choosing Senators. The people of the individual states elected their state legislatures who then chose the Senators, by whatever method was permitted within their own rules.
It was seen that this process was rife with abuse and corruption and, although it took 125 years, the Constitution was amended to allow direct election of Senators. Perhaps it is time for the Church of England to take a similar step.
I believe that every person on the electoral role should have a direct vote on who represents them at General Synod. The present system reminds me of the layered Soviet systems that actually distanced decision making from the people. In my view, every person on the electoral role should have a direct vote, and should have the right to raise questions on a public Synod forum where the most ‘liked’ questions required mandatory response from the House of Bishops or an individual Synod member, with further right to ask follow up questions. The more you ‘layer’ democracy, the more distance… Read more »
Mark Ireland is right (although not necessarily for the reasons he gives). I am in favour of lay presidency for the Eucharist but I think that people getting married, burying a loved one or baptising a child want an ordained minister. As do the sick and struggling who seek reassurance, guidance and prayer. That’s the public face of the Church of England which draws people in.
Kate, I totally disagree about lay presidency as I see it as a denial of all that we believe as Anglicans in respect of the threefold ministry. On funerals, as a lay minister, just back from conducting one, my ministry has never been challenged nor has anyone ever objected to me taking a funeral, and my ministry is greatly appreciated. Funerals are something which authorised lay ministers can do exceedingly well and often have more time and flexibility than our hard-pressed clergy.
I am not sure I agree with you Kate. If lay presidency, why not lay ministry? In the non-eucharistic contexts that you list I think the overriding criteria that people want is competence, measured in aspects such as empathy, communication skills, reliability and such-like. In many parishes Licensed Lay Ministers already have a significantly busy and well valued funeral ministry, and lay pastoral assistants and other lay people visit the sick and the dying for companionship and prayer. There is a role for an ordained minister in the parish, but it may well be to lead, train and delegate; and… Read more »
Peter Ould suggests that people in the pews have supported “orthodox” more than “revisionist” candidates, but the vast majority of people in the pews have not been able to vote at all. It is the lay members of Deanery Synods who make up the electoral college for lay members of General Synod.
As a new member of General Synod (Oxford), I find the tone of Peter Ould’s analysis quite depressing. I hope that the new Synod comes to a recognition that we have been elected to serve the whole church and not just the part of it which is most congenial to us. I said in my election communications that we need to recognise who is in the room, and not pretend they don’t exist, or wish them out of existence. Think how much energy would be released for mission if we simply stopped fighting each other (in the name of God… Read more »
What difference does it make who is, and who is not, “in the room”, whatever that even means? Who gets to define who counts as “in the room” and who is dismissed as “out of the room”? Let us pray, in confidence, that this Synod will be the last, and that such divisive attitudes will be swept away forever.
“In the room” – the members of the General Synod are a more diverse group in various ways than many imagine. There are problems about representation and so on, of course, and the work of From Lament to Action is also an important thing we have to do. Of course this Synod will not be the last – excepting the return of Jesus, there is no realistic plan in prospect to do something different. I would rather the Synod did its proper job than it were abolished. Divisive attitudes are but a symptom of human sinfulness, and abolishing them is… Read more »
While not a statistician, I am an American, and so have been subject to the slings and arrows of multiple pollsters and prognosticators down the years. While it may well be that Peter Ould is correct that any action of Synod requiring a 2/3 majority is unsustainable, it seems to me that the accuracy of his other predictions remain to be proven. In particular, the fairly large number of members of Synod whose “party” is unknown leaves open the question of where they might align; not unlike the number of “undecideds” in a political context. So I am more content… Read more »
The old adage about lies and statistics means that numbers can be manipulated to support any old prejudice, For instance, Peter Ould once asked if the UK Government bans gay conversion therapy, why don’t they ban astrology, AA, homeopathy and cosmetic surgery? Ould is a fan of the discredited statisticians Stanton Jones and Mark Yarhouse whose claims about gay conversion are not academically or medically accepted. Perhaps Mr Ould’s analysis of the Synod’s composition is as suspect as his other prognostications,
https://www.premierchristianity.com/home/why-the-governments-knee-jerk-ban-on-gay-conversion-therapy-fails-to-understand-the-real-issues/1813.article
I’m not sure how relevant the views of “ordinary people in the pews” are. Presumably they are statistically likely to be the least theologically literate and therefore neither intellectually nor morally superior.
Since when was truth decided democratically?
Are you saying that God is more likely to reveal the truth to the “theologically literate” and that being “theologically literate” makes people morally superior? Seriously?
I suspect you know full well that’s not what I’m saying. Read what I wrote again before your fingers start furiously tapping away. Exploring deep theological questions takes, like it or not, a measure of theological literacy. This is important when engaging with scripture, reason and the tradition of the Church. Elevating the opinion of those who are least likely to possess that level of literacy is perverse. There is at times a fetishisation of the “people in the pews” as if they are uniquely endowed with spiritual wisdom. I don’t buy that.
Like clergy each person in the pews is an individual with their own relationship with God. Some of them will be people of deep spiritual wisdom, others less so. The same is true for clergy because it isn’t necessarily tied into what you refer to as theological literacy. The two people I have met who I felt had the most spiritual wisdom were both laity, living in a smallish village and attending the local church. One had an evangelical background and turned to God and her Bible throughout the day. The other was elderly and quiet and spent her day… Read more »
Totally agree, Sarah. Wisdom and capacity to love (and make wise decisions) are not restricted to Theology A-levels, degrees, doctorates. The real issue is relationship with God, opening our hearts to the love of God, capacity to let that love flow out to others. Ordinary people in the pews are just as capable of that wisdom, and indeed – through lived experience in day to day life may gain even more lived out wisdom and insight than people whose lives have been sheltered in libraries (though of course academics also have lives). Jesus taught his disciples that wisdom could be… Read more »
Nobody is suggesting limiting the contribution of the people in the pews, I am merely stating that their views should not trump those of the clergy, who have been called to lead the flock. Otherwise why have priests at all? Why train them in theology if it’s all about a subjective “relationship with God”? While once upon a time the Church perhaps neglected the laity, now it’s swung the other way and many people seems to disdain solidly trained theologians as square, stilted and not possessed of the Spirit. Read Ephesians 4:11-16.
Evidently.
We should be lamenting that we have become so tribal and seem to relish in the battle ahead between one group and another. Such a shame we have forgotten there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, Venite nor Worship Song… would that we could be one in Jesus Christ who transcends labels. So sad that we are yet again descending into the self-defeating mire of bitter binary politics. No-one outside the church is interested in these pointless discussions….
Not only is no-one outside the church interested, but they will remain outside the church while it continues its tribal and other culture wars. Hardly any millennials are in church, and therefore also their children. The average age of a congregation is increasing; probably near 65 today. Those electing lay members to the General Synod are probably even older on average. This level of division in the church is iniquitous, but will continue for the foreseeable future. The irrelevance of the Church of England is fast becoming reality. One solution to the marriage equality debate within would be for Parliament… Read more »
Perhaps the Supreme Governor might be advised on health grounds to not touch the General Synod’s opening with a 2m bargepole. Maybe a stament along these lines, based on Her Majesty’s recent staement in relation to Northern Ireland and her speech at the opening of the last General Synod might be promulgated: “The General Synod of the Church of England came into being in 1970 under the Synodical Government Measure 1969, replacing an earlier body known as the Church Assembly, and today marks an insignificant day for the Church of England. This day reminds us of our complex history, and… Read more »
Knowing that the author of ‘Fizzo’ is a fellow-thinker with David Ould, his presentation of David’s theory on the bi-lateral composition of the new C. of E. General Synod is no surprise. To say that his fellow opponents of same-sex relationships on General Synod ought to be considered ‘Orthodox’ and the rest of them ‘Revisionist’ (just because they prefer the non-sexist and non-homophobic theology of ‘Inclusive Church) is just a wee bit irrational – not to say misleading. As a relative of a self-proclaimed ‘ex-Gay’ himself, I find it ironic that Mr. Ould should believe that anyone who is intrinsically… Read more »
Father Ron, I think we need to be careful here and make a clear distinction between a person’s innate sexual identity, and a person’s sexual behaviours. What defines a person’s sexuality is not who they have sex with, but who they fall in love with. Changing behaviour is one thing, and actually quite easy and common. Changing one’s core sexual drive is another thing entirely, and the two should not be confused. It is quite common for sexual activity to be opposed to core sexuality for various reasons. It is entirely possible for a person whose core innate sexuality is… Read more »
You are quite right, Simon, about the ontological nature of our basic sexual-orientation, which is not to be confused with the possibility of acting outside of that sexual ‘identity’. For instance; a highly-sexed heterosexual inmate of the prison system (I spent some time as a prison chaplain so I know this for a fact) – because of the uni-sex environment of prisons – has been known to consort, sexually, with another prisoner of the same gender. Also, the whole idea of basic ‘sexual-orientation’ (as I know only too well) is not necessarily inclusive of genital, sexual activity; but mostly concerns… Read more »
Thank you, Ron, for your usage of the word ontological.
In my own research and writing I have been searching for a word to use to denote this fundamental deep level of a person’s sexual orientation which, as you describe, is not necessarily reflected in a person’s actual behaviour or activity.
Describing the “ontological” nature of a person’s sexual-orientation might well be the word I need. I am grateful.
The author is Peter Ould, not David. Peter is the twin brother of David. The latter is based in Australia. Peter is based in the UK.
Thankyou, ‘Pete’. Mea Culpa! Having had knowledge of both Oulds, both on the conservative side of the sexuality arguments, I made the mistake of confusing the Sydney-sider (David) with the ‘ex-Gay’ (Peter) – whose article was being discuss on ‘Fizzo’.
I think you are confusing the Oulds, Father. One is an anti-gay minister produced by Sydney Diocese. . The other an anti-gay, ex-gay minister from the CofE. Since they are twins holding identical antediluvian views, the confusion is understandable.
I agree with you about the absurdity of trying to change someone’s sexuality. I hope you also see the similar absurdity in trying to change someone’s sex. Both conservatives and liberals on this issue seem to be in gigantic knots of irrationality.
I am comfortable discussing homosexuality because that is something I have some knowledge of. I am much more hesitant about discussing transgender issues, where I was to be respectful and careful of the feelings of transgender people. Nevertheless I wonder if there is some link between how we deal with the two issues. When it comes to homosexuality I have argued, above and elsewhere, that one needs to maintain a clear distinction between the inner reality of how one experiences one’s own sexuality, and how one presents that to the outer world in activities and behaviours. The inner experienced reality… Read more »
I think, Barrie, you may be confusing ‘sex’ with ‘gender’. These are two different aspects of our human being, each of which has its own biological and physiological complications. What really matters is how the individual person perceives the integrity of their own situation, as any reputable therapist will attest to.
I agree, sex cannot be changed but what people perceive to be someone’s sex, even to the extent of putting that incorrect assessment on a birth certificate, may not actually be a person’s sex. Chromosomes, sex characteristics etc don’t make a person’s sex. What does isn’t known yet, just as we don’t yet understand what makes a soul so the concept ought to be one which is easy for Christians to understand.
Where is Prof Stanley Monkhouse when we need him?
I’m lying on the sofa watching Shetland and enjoying the worst upper respiratory tract infection I’ve had for a long time. But somehow I don’t think that’s what you’re interested in. I think the institutional churches have no business being involved in sexuality/gender issues. Holy Scripture says nothing that convinces me that they should. I am no respecter of St Paul. I marvel that people care what the churches say: they must be very anxious about the afterlife. For what it’s worth, here are my thoughts on the matter. Development of Sexuality Structure The gonads of the early embryo can… Read more »
I might add that reports of homosexuality in (other) animals are common. Furthermore, there are species in which males become female during the life cycle, and, less common, vice versa. Of course if you don’t believe that humans are animals, chordates, vertebrates, apes, primates, none of this matters.
Many thanks for a brilliant and knowledgeable reply! I hope your infection clears soon.
I agree. Thank you Stanley. That focus on development in the womb is fascinating and helpful.
It reinforces an understanding of the immense potential for people to be born with a wide variety of anatomical or psychological characteristics which are at some intermediate or mixed stage between fully male or fully female.
And rather than force such people to live within an outdated binary concept of “male” or “female”, surely we should be asking how do we help people to develop and flourish, making best use of whatever sex and gender characteristics life has dealt them.
Get well soon.
Fr, you might be interested to read: https://ramblingrector.me/2018/05/15/project-nokabolokoff/
Emasculation Clinics are a superb idea. I don’t fancy attending myself, particularly if anaesthetic isn’t used. Your proposals should form part of every Anglican’s theological training before they submit to the scalpel.
What you are professing is modern-day Lysenkoism.
Just seen our draft Diocesan budget, where we’ll be asked to approve a 15% cut to clergy posts over the next 5 years. In the maths about the ‘savings’, no mention is made of the impact on church attendance, and therefore parish share, that comes when you cut stipendiary clergy. There’s some research on the effect of long interregnums which suggests a permanent loss of membership of 10-15%, and that’s just from a vacancy of 6 months or more (they’re usually twice this long). Our Diocese would save large chunks of lost parish share/members simply by streamlining the vacancy process,… Read more »
The disconnection between thinking about money and about operational effectiveness is one reason that the so-called strategic thinking of the Church of England so often substandard. Curacies are also being shortened to save money, and how a short curacy interrupted by COVID equips someone for a lifetime of ministry is yet to be tested.
Two related things that seem to have passed this post. The election of deans to GS in Canterbury province yielded two gay priests, and one very gay friendly. More intriguingly there was only one nominee for two places in York province – the excellent Nicola Sullivan. Strange times!
I suggested to friends some time ago that the Church of England was, in a sense, the tribes, and not the fictional “middle ground”. I now find myself wanting to do my best to occupy the “middle ground” which, according to my earlier thesis, does not really exist. I just lament that we are in a season where our surrounding society takes us less seriously than we take ourselves.
I agree Mark. In my life time the traditions in the C of E have moved apart. Once there was considerable overlap and you could say the tribes were emphases on a sort of definable core: sense of being the National Church; committment to parish and a broadly parochial pastoral strategy.; much less liturgical diversity; clergy trained in a more similar way ( GOE etc); greater participation in Chapter etc, the tribes themselves having less hard edges and less language of “whose sound”. It least it seemed so!