Sarah Mullally Archbishop of Canterbury Being the Church in Turbulent Times – Archbishop Sarah’s address to Porvoo Primates
Colin Coward Unadulterated Love To achieve the full inclusion in Anglican life and ministry of married LGBTQI+ people
Andrew Brown Church Times Why the ever-shrinking episcopal talent pool?
Mr Brown’s question may be answered very easily. Clerical incomes were tied to returns from the land, so when agricultural rents collapsed in the 1870s (due to the flood of cheap grain from the steppe and prairie) clerical incomes followed and absent a modest hiatus during WW1 the real value of stipends continued to fall for more than a century. In parallel Oxford and Cambridge colleges had revised their statutes to laicise most/all of the fellowships which had been reserved to clergy, and where the colleges led the more prestigious schools followed. The phenomenon of the clerical magistrate had also… Read more »
There have always been people of talent who have a genuine vocation, and who are not completely ruled by ambition. Please God, there always will be.
“The profession ceased to be desirable to people of talent.” And a good thing too. The 18th and 19th centuries were littered with clergy who believed nothing, hired curates to do their ministry and spent their time making amazing discoveries in botany, archaeology, linguistics etc but not doing anything discernible as Christian ministry. The New Testament expectation is ministers who are given sufficient to live on (1 Tim 5:18) but it is not an avenue to enrichment and comfort. In a worldly sense my academic and banking career may hopefully be proof of my ‘talent’ but my last 20 years… Read more »
Oh to return to the golden age of episcopal talent – just remind me again when that was…
Why is so much of this place obsessed with homosexuality?
I’m an out gay priest but even I wonder at Colin Coward’s prolific output on LGBTQIA+ matters and the CofE. Barring any future dramatic developments hasn’t it all been said a thousand times before? The CofE is institutionally homophobic, we know that, do we need to reprise our disappointment/outrage twice a week?
More a concern than an obsession, I think, and more with spiritual equality and scriptural authority than with sane sex attraction in itself. There is such divergence of opinion that the Church often seems about to split, and the dispute spreads into all manner of corners. People keep wanting to find the words which will demonstrate the truth of the matter and end the rancour, not that these are the same thing. So it looks like an unreasonable obsession but isn’t really.
It is really tedious, isn’t it?
Unity is a reward for good performance, not bad performance. If everyone did their job well, unity would follow. But disunity is the fruit of dysfunction and without attending to the root of the problem any plea for unity is wasted breath and energy in any organisation. Just calling the organisation a church doesn’t solve the problem.
There was disunity in many of the churches Paul founded – hence his need to write them letters encouraging unity, forgiveness, tolerance etc, and chiding party spirit. Does this mean Paul was doing his job badly?
I’m not sure I follow the logic here as a response. Could you explain?
Adrian suggested that disunity is the result of poor performance. I pointed out that there was disunity in many of Paul’s churches, and wondered if Adrian regards that as evidence of poor performance on Paul’s part. Hope that helps.
Paul is writing to fledgling congregations which, at Corinth for instance, are moving across two entirely different cultures and consciences, from gentile practices–that would appall Jews, Jewish Christians–to a new Christian way of life. In some cases, this acute challenge isn’t in evidence (Philippians is a prime example). So I was wondering whether using Paul in the context of AC’s comment was a good example.
Thanks for clarifying.
Yes, I’m well aware of the contexts Paul was writing to. I’m suggesting that ‘unity is a reward for good performance’ is too much a blanket statement – there can be all kinds of reasons for disunity. Including e.g. a fledgling church ministering across different cultures; and the ‘good performance’ of a prophet who challenges the status quo.
Maybe I should stop using the Socratic method on TA, it’s so often misunderstood.
We’ve had this my Father is the gardener discussion before – good fruit/performance good branch, good vine; bad fruit/performance, bad branch, branch cut off to maintain good vine. But I was interested in the ABC misusing this metaphor in the way she did. It’s like Bishop Snow and Archbishop of Canterbury during LLF not knowing what the nature of the disagreement was and it looked like they had deliberately turned from the truth by not doing their theological homework first. It sounds like the current ABC is doing exactly the same thing. 5 more years ….
Not sure that’s the problem but I take your point.
Adrian I struggle with the language of reward and performance here – and the implication that there is a simple way of being united if we are all doing it ‘right’. Clearly, then and now, it is not that straight forward. Unity is a relational, not ‘performance’ issue (whatever that is). It requires managing conflict constructively. Conflict itself is not wrong either. It is necessary when new questions need to be facing and new understanding is required. Conflict is part of the process by which we manage significant issues together. It requires grace, wisdom and the respecting of different convictions… Read more »
Adrian is right though in one significant area.
Where does unity come from?
What are we united in?
If it isn’t the gospel of Jesus Christ then it’s not worth bothering surely?
Human machinations to manufacture unity where it doesn’t exist won’t work.
If we decide to depart from the gospel then unity disappears.
“Unity is a reward for good performance” suggests a transactional, Trumpian God.
i was referring to biological performance, which is not transactional.
Correction biological performance is transactional but not in a Trumpian way!
Re Colin Coward. Did I not read somewhere that where marriage for “LGBTQI+” people is indeed possible, only a small percentage choose to get married? Does someone know the statistics? That’s the general population. I’d also be curious how many marriages of “LGBTQI+” people in TEC there were last year. It’s easy to imagine that if what is denied was no longer denied, it would have an outsized effect. I’m not sure that stats confirm that.
It is surely unjust that those who choose to get married – no matter how many or how few – are forbidden. Since when do statistics dictate moral justice?
We are not TEC here in England. We are the Church of England, where secular marriage for same sex couples is legal and statistics are kept and can be researched by you, should you wish. I not that your use of the offensive quotation marks around “LGBTQI” people. Your use of them is offensive to those of us who respect the love and commitment shown by LGBTQI+ people and allies who have learnt not to post offensive comments of progressive forums. I would avoid posting offensive, toxic comments conservative Christian forums. Being publicly offensive is tragically the norm for so… Read more »
Colin,
Your comment is disproportionate.
Anglican Priest’s post falls entirely within the range of reasonable speech and your extravagant criticism of him does you no credit.
What puzzles me is why a category asserted by one party must be regarded as some sort of universal fact. Scare quotes function to remind everyone that I am just referring to an opinion held by a party and wanting to represent that clearly. Why is that considered “publicly offensive,” “toxic” and so forth?
There has been an obvious push-back here at TA against lumping these groups under one acronym line-up.
Others question the categories themselves.
This is the world we live in. One cannot just wave a wand and demand everyone follow.
Unless you have some history with Anglican Priest, I suggest you are vastly overreacting. I would be interested in rough statistics on marriage rates for both same sex and opposite sex couples, and what proportions are done in church. If we assumed that same sex couples are equally likely to want a church wedding as an opposite sex couple, then we could estimate roughly how many same sex couples want a church wedding. (X/Y*Z). What is that number? Not huge, I suggest. Aha – i see dr.primose and Anglican Priest have given some statistics. But these do not distinguish secuar… Read more »
Just on “LGBTI+” in quotes. You cannot simply by fiat declare as fact that this grouping, which you robustly lump together, is agreed upon more broadly. Scare quotes mean that this is an assertion on your part, but not universally agreed. We have seen, e.g., on this forum a firm rejection of this grouping in favor of just the first three letters. If you want to criticize conservatives and speak of “traditional” I suspect they are well use to this by now.
Sorry, I left out “Q.”
Oh no!!
I can’t even remember what the Q is for, let alone the I and +.
I seem to recall hearing that T people don’t like being put together with LGB people?
The westward position.
The best medicine is laughter.
‘Q’ stands for ‘queer’. ‘+’ includes any other variants. I hope your laughter is of the kind, not the mocking, sort.
Of course it is. I think the absurdity of the human condition should be laughed at continuosly. I could write a long article on the absurdity of labels, and how LGBTQI+ is a monumental absurdity, but somehow I can’t be bothered, it has been done before, including those who claim one or more of those letters.
What is the ‘B’ for?
Bisexual.
So how is ‘Queer’ different from ‘Bisexual’? How do ‘Queer’ people define their sexual attractions? What do they amount to? Genuine question – I am puzzled by the term, as historically ‘queer’ was just a slang word for homosexual.
You are right. In the 1920s “queer’ used to be a slang term used by homosexuals about themselves, but then it became a term of abuse, and then it was reclaimed by gay activists as a mark of pride, pushing back and reclaiming the word, and then it moved into a whole range of academic studies. But, in general, queer is a non-specific word including a wide range of “transgressive” ways of being, whereas bisexuality is one specific form within the umbrella. Queer is a “suitcase” word, like”Christian’. People can throw whatever meaning they want into it and carry it… Read more »
Well, if ‘queer’ means anything you want it to, it’s not very helpful, is it? I thought the point of the initials was to designate minority sexual attractions – although attraction to minors isn’t allowed to be one of these, is it? If ‘queer’ doesn’t have a sexual meaning, but refers to a “transgressive” way of “being” (being what? a vegan? a communist? a Satanist?), the word is useless and needs to be retired from this discussion.
That’s why I made the point about them word Christian. There are lots of words that can mean whatever you want then to mean, and lots of often mutually incompatable definitions of Christianity. Does that mean we are going to retire the word Christian from discussion?
I think you would have to ask the people identifying themselves by those terms what they meant by it. Of course, it might not be appropriate to question them – why not just accept them without needing to know their sexuality?
The idea that words are used without any referential meaning but what a person using them wants you to believe? Charitably, in what kind of Christian world does this make sense? God spoke. His son is his word. There is one well known instance of a word without reference in the story of Ruth. The unknown man who fails to marry Ruth because he’s have to deal with the rules of inheritance cutting him out. The Hebrew text speaks of him as (English equivalent) ‘mister so and so.’ The man whose name got lost to time. It is a sad… Read more »
How is ‘mister so and so’ a word without reference?
Janet, If people insist they have a ‘queer identity’, I have a right to know what they mean, lest I be accused of acting unjustly toward them. So what does it mean? This is what a representative website states: ‘The word means different things to different people. For some, it’s an insult, while for others, it’s a reclaimed term used to describe sexual and gender identities outside the heterosexual or cisgender “norms.” Some might use it to reject categories like gay, bisexual, or lesbian, whilst others might use it to embrace fluidity in their identity. It can also be linked… Read more »
But James, that website does not say that a word can mean anything! It simple shows that context is crucial. Don’t you understand that?
If someone claims to have a queer identity, you can take it they don’t believe ‘queer’ to be offensive. So you can be confident in referring to them as queer without insulting them. Why do you need to know more? If you say that you are heterosexual, do you expect to be questioned as to exactly what you mean by it?
Your encounter with them may be relaxed enough that you can both freely discuss your sexual identities and their outworking in your lives – but if not, why not just leave it alone?
On a purely technical note, someone who identfies themselves as a ‘Nword’ may not always appreciate being addressed as such. Context, as you say, is paramount.
I know black people in US who refer to each as such, but i would not myself use the word.
My daughter, who knows about these things, says it stands for “Questioning”. So there!
Here in the UK the term (meme? symbols?) LGBTQI+ is widely – and indeed broadly – accepted and used, including in the mainstream media, without recourse to scare quotes. It isn’t a matter of ‘fiat’ on Colin’s part. I can see, therefore, why the quotes would seem offensive to some who have spent a lifetime battling prejudice. However, you are right in saying the agreement, though widespread, is not universal. At least two of my gay friends think their issues are quite different from those of trans and intersex people, and I imagine some intersex and trans people might also… Read more »
It depends which of the mainstream media you choose to read. I only read The Guardian myself, but I understand other media outlets may exist.
I mock the means of communication, not the people.
It doesn’t matter whether it’s in the UK, US, North Pole, or wherever. Broadly accepted is in the eye of the beholder. I put it in scare quotes because I am representing a position held by the writer in question, and we are in a space where there is not universal agreement, or even broad agreement, that such an acronym listing is self-evidently true. No, it represents a position held by an advocate for the idea.
If that is the reason for the scare quotes, why not put them around every word? Or are you confusing *words, *concepts and *reality?
Janet, just to clarify, there are also a huge number is us who are entirely happy to regard the LGBTQ+ family as a collective where we have many similarities, and we help each other against common prejudices that we face.
Which is entirely appropriate. There is increasing biological evidence that the causes of transgenderism and homosexuality are similar and overlapping.
In our Diocese of Edmonton we have a sub-grouping of our justice committee called ‘Queerly Beloved’, made up of queer people. They told us what acronyms were best, and the only difference was that some went with ‘LGBTQI+’ and some added ‘2S’, to indicate ‘two-spirited’, a common indigenous term for gay and lesbian people.
The people concerned told us what they wanted to be called. That’s what we call them.
I think it’s hard to deal with same-sex marriage in isolation without considering the collapse of marriage across the board. According to Marriage Foundation, a UK group: “Just over half of all Gen Z men and women will ever marry, according to our new analysis of marriage data from the Office for National Statistics. “On present trends, 58 percent of Gen Z women and 56 percent of Gen Z men (born 1997 onwards) will ever marry, compared to 56-67 percent of millennials (born 1981-1996), 62-82 percent of Gen X (born 1965-1980), and 77-96 percent of boomers (born 1946-1964). “Marriage rates… Read more »
“I think it’s hard to deal with same-sex marriage in isolation” — see my Gallup quote below.
most BTQIA+ can enter full matrimony, and the latter be solemnised by the CofE.
You forgot the L
Last I looked, marriage between two women was impossible in the CofE.
Bravo. But some in the LGB category do not agree to the longer listing.
And some of us think that any identitarian classification of humans into separate silos is a marxian or ‘marxian’ construct (when treated as fundamental rather than heuristic), which condemns politics and intellectual discourse to a sisiphean struggle between competing groups. Only the transformation of humanity into the unity and holiness of the redeemed people of God can bring eternal justice and peace.
Thank you. I agree. Hence my use of scare quotes.
Exactly. It is insulting to the soul.
I haven’t met many heterosexual trans people …
That, I suspect, says more about you than it does about trans people.
Friendly fire?
I don’t think I have met any trans people in my professional life, at least not knowingly.
It may be that different professions have a different proportion of trans people.
I worked with a gay person once.
Met a few L or B ladies.
I have not led a particularly cloistered life.
Doesn’t mean to say I have any issues with LGBTQI+ people at all – I am talking only about their rarity.
Spot on! 2% of the population according to the last census.
Is that the right metric? What we have seen in recent decades has been the collapse of church weddings in general (and for a wide range of reasons. When I was a priest in Harrogate I took at least 50 weddings a year but even there that is no longer the case.
Over the specific point of same sex weddings, the issue is that we have worked so hard to alienate same sex couples that unsurprisingly they aren’t very interested in what I have to offer.
FWIW.
Gallup “About one in 10 LGBT adults in the U.S. (9.6%) are married to a same-sex spouse, with a slightly smaller proportion (7.1%) living with a same-sex domestic partner. Half of LGBT adults have never been married, while 11.4% are married to an opposite-sex spouse and 9.5% are either divorced or separated. Overall, less than 1% of U.S. adults are married to a same-sex spouse.”
TEC does not break out the number of marriages performed in the LGBTQI+ group. I am not sure why not.
This shows the problem with such statistics, and asking questions based on numbers only. Without doing qualitative research alongside the quantitative, and asking about motivations for (or against) LGBTQ+ marriage, any answer could be misleading. Your Gallup research suggests that 11.4% of LGBT adults are married to opposite-sex spouses, presumably due to social or religious pressures, and we are not told whether the 9.5% divorce or separation rate is from LGBTQ+ relationships, or from opposite sex relationships that have broken down due the incomptatbility. Within the UK there will be a significant cohort of people in long-term healthy relationships who… Read more »
i agree, getting the right numbers to the right questions is very difficult if not impossible. But let’s at least start with the right questions. Number of regular church attendance is ?? proportion of overall population. Number of LGBT adults is a ?? proportion of the general population. Number of LGBT who attend church regularly is ??? Number of LGBT adults in a civil parternship we know. Possibly. Number of LGBT adults who are already in a civil partnership who wish a full church wedding is ?? Number of priests who are in LGBT relationships who wish to be in… Read more »
Where is that quote somebody posted recently by Hardy in Jude the obscure? Aha. Allan Sheath.
“Good God – the eastward position, and all creation groaning!”
Never read it, maybe I should, but somehow I fear it will too much affect me.
And let us recall that the point of this discussion is the premise that not allowing for same-sex (no scare quotes) marriage must be remedied. I was simply noting that even where it is offered, it is striking what a small percentage are interested. I recall all the commotion around this issue in TEC (I was a priest in the Diocese of Dallas). Dallas was forced to make provision via flying bishop since the Ordinary could not himself be forced against his conscience nor the clergy. I would guess that in the end most same sex couples in the Dallas… Read more »
There are twelve thousand parishes in England.
If SSM Rites were introduced into the Church of England tomorrow there would be no more than a handful of such Services per parish – if that.
In reality many parishes would have no such Service from one year to the next.
On such grounds do the revisionists seek to upend a denomination that has served England – and the world – for hundreds of years.
“On such grounds do the revisionists seek to upend a denomination that has served England – and the world – for hundreds of years.”
The same could also be said the other way. If there’s unlikely to be such a wedding in their church why worry so much about it? Why worry so much about what other consenting adults get up to in bed?
This issue is not and never has been about what people do in their bedrooms.
People reject the authority of scripture in all sorts of ways on all sorts of matters.
The issue is the authority of scripture.
Simon,
I must add, in parentheses, that I respect and admire your commitment to open debate and free speech. Sadly a lost virtue in too many private and public spaces
Surely the issue isn’t the ‘authority’ of Scripture, but rather its interpretation? Hermeneutics – how we understand and interpret Scripture – is what we seem unable to agree about.
I completely agree Fr John. And the striking thing about the evangelical tradition Peter and I inhabit is that a faithful and passionate commitment to the authority of scripture has never stopped us falling out over its meaning and interpretation. The ‘authority of scripture’ becomes the ‘authority of my interpretation of scripture’.
David,
I wish you well personally, but you and I do not inhabit the same evangelical tradition.
That’s me out of the way then. And Fr John’s comment?
I was not dismissing you in the way you imply, David.
You chose to name me and assert that we inhabit the same tradition. I am entitled to respond.
The hermeneutical argument is sophistry.
The bible is as clear as day on the issue that has divided the Church of England.
We can accept or reject what it obviously says.
Peter You are illustrating exactly what I said tends to happen in our evangelical tradition when we disagree.
David, your last sentence describes your own position perfectly: hyper-Quakerism. “The historical consensus is wrong, I alone am correct.” Also known as Autopapalism – because not even popes claimed this power of infallible interpretation that broke with sacred tradition. But hyper-Quakerism has achieved this in our day.
The issue can be presented both ways. Some people argue about the meaning of the text, some reconcile themselves to accepting the authority of scripture even though it makes no sense to them, some to saying that they consider scripture to be mistaken. My former Bishop, Steven Croft, asked, as I recall, the penetrating and startling question ‘What else don’t we do because Leviticus forbids it?”
Why didn’t he ask that penetrating and startling question about Romans and 1 Corinthians?
Or even answer it himself as an overseer of the church!
Surely the authority of scripture is invoked to determine – amid controversy – what activity ‘in bedrooms’ is sacred, is permitted, is forbidden, is an abomination
Surely most churches do not worry about it? Certainly my local church never did, and I remember discussing in the pub after a pcc with the vicar that nobody worries what people get up to in bed, and we both laughed.
Usually people get up to very little in bed, certainly not as much as they hope and others forecast.
That is a shameful suggestion.
If the case for extending sacramental marriage to same-sex couples was beyond dispute, then justice would demand it be done – irrespective of numbers.
Quite.
You make the point with force and clarity that the matter would have to be beyond dispute to merit acceptance – a test that a novel and radical new occasional office for marriage signally fails to pass.
For the record, I would welcome “a novel and radical new occasional office” for same-sex couples (PLF+?) as long as it is distinct from sacramental marriage/holy matrimony.
i would certainly welcome that, while there is a longer period of discernment. What the actual practical difference is, is maybe open to interpretation. Do you think God gives a damn about the difference?
The practical difference would indeed be open to interpretation – and, given the strength and organisational abilities of the Conservative Evangelicals, that’s why it’s not going to happen. God may not give a damn about the difference, but they do – as does the received tradition of the Church Catholic.
Only the exclusionist faction is insisting on an “upending”. Equal marriage in the CofE could happen tomorrow and, outside the marriage ceremonies and a small uptick in people feeling able to return to the church having despaired at its institutionalised injustice (and an equally small uptick in people stomping off in a huff over not being able to impose their interpretation of scripture on the whole church), nothing would noticeably change. The Gospel would continue to be preached and the sacraments duly administered, just as they have been elsewhere in the Anglican Communion.
That is a pretty tendentious reading of recent history.
If the world wide Anglican Communion shares your analysis then I’m a Dutchman.
The Episcopal Church in the US has followed your recommended course, and far from ‘nothing noticeably changing’, it has become almost invisible. The latest statistics only underline this relentless decline. Like the Swedenborgians, it may continue for another 20 years or so but it has become statistically insignificant. The same thing has happened to the Church of England, though not as dramatically.
Was TEC not declining previously? I’d call this post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy but that would require the alleged effect to follow the alleged cause in the first place.
I note that ACNA, which has followed the proposed conservative path, is not exactly booming either, nor is it a beacon of unity. It turns out that just agreeing on wanting to exclude gay people from the sacraments isn’t enough.
About 1.54 million Americans identify as Episcopalians. In the early 60s that figure was about 3.4 million. Usual Sunday attendance is about 415 k. In 2013 that figure was c. 600k. The median age of Episcopal congregations is sixty. Here are the details: Ministries News | Episcopal Church Reports Fewer Baptisms, Slight Parish Decline | Christianity Daily
Could you explain what you mean here? Whatever you may think of it, from the date of its inception, ACNA has grown, not declined.
I suppose it would resist as quickly as Evangelicals in England the notion of “exclusion” as the signature, instead of shared views on the clarity of scripture, BCP, mission and so forth.
For avoidance of doubt, in the US, I am canonically resident in TEC.
ACNA has grown by merger – it’s simply mopped up other schismatics. Besides, if TEC is “almost invisible” ACNA, with a quarter the attendance, must be even harder to see.
ACNA began in 2009. It claims about 1000 parishes and about 130,000 ‘members’. I don’t know what it’s usual Sunday attendance is. It doesn’t have historic sources and in many cases had to abandon buildings. As a onetime teacher of hisotry, I would caution Anglicans about describing other Christians as ‘schismatics’ – those who live in glass cathedrals should not throw stones,
That would be a valid point if I were Henry VIII or Thomas Cromwell.
If you are happy to live with the consequences of their decisions, you should own their name. If I sincerely believed all that Catholicism teaches is true, I should become a Catholic. But I don’t.
Your post clearly implied that, as TEC has declined, so too ACNA.
I was responding, that’s not accurate.
Now you have changed tack.
TEC’s decline in manifest and no Bishop in TEC operates without attention to this. Anyone following TEC’s recent history knows this full well.
Nigel, For information, I probably would not want a church marriage now, but David and I did undertake a civil marriage back in 2016 when the law made it possible. Going through three different commitment ceremonies might be acceptable, but a fourth would be excessive. We did not need the civil marriage to cement our relationship, that was achieved by the covenant service, and the civil partnership gave us legal protection. But we went through the civil marriage for the very reasons shown here, to be seen to be doing it, to create facts on the ground, and to be… Read more »
I don’t think you can infer religious or social coercion from 11.4% of LGBT people being in opposite-sex marriages. Bisexual people (like my spouse) may end up with a partner of either sex, and trans people can be gay, straight or bi so (regardless of how sex is defined for these purposes) it would be entirely reasonable to expect some of them to choose an opposite sex spouse.
Thanks Jo, I accept your clarification willingly. There’s will be a mix of people in that number, but it still makes the point that bare numbers alone will not be sufficient to answer the question, we need to understand what sort of people are involved, and the reasons for marriage (or not getting married).
But I would still argue that a reasonable proportion of those 11.4% might well be gay people getting married for various social pressures. It still happens, although less so than before.
Best wishes.
‘regardless of how sex is defined’ is exactly the problem: should one partner of the same biological sex identifiy as someone of the opposite sex, the church is officially willing to bless their marriage. The CofE has no problem overlooking material reality provided the gender binary is maintained, it’s almost farcical.
There have been several comments scattered about above about whether ACNA is growing or declining. That depends on what the starting point is.
If one starts in 2022, ACNA says its membership increased from 118,281 to 129,868. https://anglicanchurch.net/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/FINAL-FOR-PRINT_ACNA-Mission-Index-2026.pdf
But if one starts in 2017, there has been a decline from 134,593, the figure ACNA reported then. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglican_Church_in_North_America#cite_ref-dropbox.com_161-0
The LGBTQ question within the church is just a matter of time, remembering there was once opposition to females becoming priest’s then later Bishops. I think the church needs to adapt and welcome more diversity into the fold rather than preaching about love and forgiveness while being homophobic and discriminatory. I was sickend watching someone after the Synod vote being interviewed on camera almost giddy with excitement that the vote failed. That attitude is why the church has empty seats on a Sunday. Married members of the LGBTQ are being turned away with such disgust at the though of leading… Read more »
Not sure how long it will be before UK follows other European countries & makes secular state entirely responsible for legal marriage ceremonies. This would leave the many religions (& non-religions) in our multi-cultural state to do whatever they want in their optional additional ceremonies, without impacting on law of the land.
Indeed even now I wonder what proportion of married people who attend church never went through a church wedding, I suspect it is quite high.
“That attitude is why the church has empty seats on a Sunday.”
A bromide whose ship has sailed.
There is zero factual evidence to back this up.
People don’t decide to come to worship the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit because the church has changed its teaching on same-sex marriage.
Well it’s sorry state we find ourselves in, a loving church that feels very homophobic toward one side in favour of the other isn’t very christian, I remember at theological college one student made the argument that maybe Christ was Gay for surrounding himself with men and sleeping in the garden.
The tutor almost flew across the room at him in a fit of rage! its the same in our church no one is allowed to smile, make comment or make changes. the church is dead and needs a major reform to survive
We see this when any changes in worship approaches or music is proposed. The congregations may be as conservative as the vicars.
I stopped playing the organ when members of the congregation objected to my playing a modern fantasie on adeste fidelis at the end of the carol service. Shock Horror!
I never bothered after that. Hours of practice and they get upset.
The vicar loved it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SYH6DNAP7k