Colin Coward Unadulterated Love How do we change the House of Bishops?
Robert Thompson ViaMedia.News Where’s My Bishop?
Michelle Burns Guarding the Flock The Church Doesn’t Have a Confessional Problem. It Has a Culture Problem.
Simon Robinson The Warrington Guardian Bishop of Warrington reflects on inclusion and Pride service
We are called to walk with God not each other. Ending up in exile together might sound like unity, but is never a good option.
Walking with God and walking with each other are not an either/or when living the Gospel.
If people want to walk in the faith that we’ve received from Christ and the Apostles people are more than welcome to walk with us.
If people want to walk another way, we wish them well, we pray for them and hope they return to the faith.
Exactly so, which is why Jesus prayed to his father that his disciples may be one. Unity comes through walking with God, not each other. Isreal’s exile serves as a warning of what happens when scripture is neglected.
But we also have Jesus’s words (Mark 2.27) “The Sabbath was made for humankind, and not humankind for the Sabbath.” A strict interpretation of the law is not necessarily appropriate always and everywhere.
Was Jesus legalistic with the rich young ruler when He said there is a cost of discipleship?
The ruler walked away sorrowful, should Jesus have compromised the gospel and affirmed a love of money instead?
As far as I see it, we welcome all to walk together if they want to follow Jesus.
Our unity is in Christ, if people want to walk in another direction we wish them well, pray for them and hope they return.
No, he wasn’t being legalistic. He was challenging him to put the kingdom of God first.
As each one of us is also challenged to put the kingdom of God first — to share in God’s loving compassion and reconciliation, which, as Jesus said, is the key to the kingdom of God.
Since large parts of the Hebrew scriptures were written from an exilic or post-exilic point of view, and even the Torah probably did not reach the shape we know today until the exile or afterwards, it’s a little problematic to claim that the exile shows what happens when scripture is neglected.
The exilic authors/editors of Scripture held the view that the exile was caused by Judah’s disobedience of God’s statutes, didn’t they? The very statutes, which existed in written form before the exile (I Kings 22), that they preserved/redacted as Hebrew Scripture, along with other materials. So Adrian’s claim, perhaps simplistically put, has some validity.
I’m not sure the term ‘scripture’ is helpful, though. I would have been entirely happy if Adrian had said ‘Torah’ (which, so I’m told, is probably better translated as ‘instruction’ than ‘law’) rather than ‘scripture.’ And given the fact that the majority were probably illiterate, they would mostly have experienced the Torah with their ears rather than their eyes.
I guess my problem is that my modern evangelical community tends to equate ‘neglect of scripture’ with ‘neglect of private Bible reading’ – a practice which would have been impossible for most people throughout most of Christian history.
People often point to a disaster as affirming there opinion of all that’s wrong with the world. It’s not that long ago a CofE Bishop blamed gay people for flooding (Carlisle, if memory serves?) It’s nonsense.
Do you think the prophets and scribes were promulgating ‘nonsense’ when they ascribe the sufferings of God’s people to their neglect of His laws? It seems to me to be rather a central strand of OT theology.
It’s a strand Jesus repudiates in discussing the Tower of Siloam.
You are right that mysticizing the causes of bad events, which can happen to anyone, is not useful and can be offensive, especially if people are scape-goated for them. But Jesus came to fulfil the law and prophets, not to abolish them, making it unlikely he would have repudiated a strand of thought underlying the entire book of Jeremiah. Random disasters differ from the negative consequences of repeated bad decisions made by a nation. Repudiating the latter would involve repudiating cause-and-effect, effectively repudiating the entirety of modern justice systems, the whole of natural science, medicine and engineering, and much of… Read more »
The inevitable consequence of bad decisions is distinct from punishment. If you drive drunk and wrap your car round a tree that isn’t a punishment for driving drunk. The ban from driving in court afterwards is the punishment. Likewise increased flooding, droughts and wildfires may be an inevitable consequence of the damage we’ve done to the climate, but it’s not a punishment. Even if we take literally the claims of divine retribution in Jeremiah, rather than them being an attempted rationalisation, unless we get a similarly direct revelation from a divinely appointed prophet I’m going to go with Jesus on… Read more »
Apparently a punishment is the imposition of an undesirable or unpleasant outcome upon an individual or group, as a response for breaking a norm or rule. So one might view negative consequences of bad actions as natural punishments. Definitions aside, though, Jesus could be direct… “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and decorate the monuments of the righteous, saying, ‘If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ Thus you witness against yourselves that you are sons of… Read more »
Hang on, let me make sure I’ve understood this properly.
You’re claiming that the Israelites weren’t sent into exile for their sin even though God Himself said this was why they did?
I can hold to that being true, and also that the Tower of Siloam didn’t fall because of the sins of those who died.
Even then though in Luke 13:5 straight afterwards Christ Himself says that that event should still encourage us to repent or we’ll likewise perish.
A warning to be taken seriously I suspect.
God is *reported* to have said. Besides, modern claims along these lines always seem to be about sex. They’re never about lack of care for the poor or injustice or even the idolatry of money and status at the heart of our culture.
Surely the outcome of that is eventually atheism or agnosticism?
If we can’t trust anything that is revealed in Scripture can we really know anything about God?
If that’s the case why is Christianity worth bothering with?
I think a Biblical view is a lot more coherent than this.
Insisting that everything in the Bible is accurate is utterly incoherent. It leads to abject nonsense like believing the earth is unmoving, flat and 6000 years old, and that π is 3. It does violence to the text and ignores what it tells us about the history of people’s evolving understanding of God. Atheism is a far more likely outcome of insisting on inerrancy than of careful consideration of why and how texts are written. God neither arises from nor is bound by scripture, and elevating the text to infallibility is just as much an error as elevating the Papacy… Read more »
So what’s the yardstick for determining what God has spoken? How do we conclude that one text is from God and another isn’t? Ultimately if we can’t trust Scripture it’s entirely arbitrary and based on our preferences rather than His. I struggle to see how that was what Christ wants for us given that He said the Scriptures are unbreakable (John 10:35). Surely the outcome of that is that we ourselves are the arbiters of truth rather than God? If so we’re already effectively at atheism and yeah I definitely think that following Christ and listening to Him first is… Read more »
The text is written by real flesh-and-blood people, apart from the commandments given to Moses. Those people belong to the community of faith and were inspired by the spirit, but being people will get some detail wrong.They are writing in different styles, and recognising what is history, what is poetic, what is literal is important to understanding them (eg there are two different creation stories at the start of Genesis, a big hint that they are not literal accounts). None of that prevents a thoughtful person, faithfully seeking God’s voice, from getting considerable understanding from reading scripture; and given the… Read more »
I’m not saying that all Scripture is intended to be read literally, but I am saying that all Scripture is intended to be read according to its genre.
I also don’t dispute that Scripture was written by human authors by the inspiration of the Spirit. Namely it’s all God breathed.
I do however believe that all Scripture is true and I believe that God speaks clearly.
That’s the difference I think.
I don’t think that’s quite what the Church of England has classically held, not since the reformation anyway. Here, for example, is what Article 6 of the 39 Articles has to say: Article 6. Of the Sufficiency of the holy Scriptures for salvation Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the holy Scripture we do understand… Read more »
So that’s where it gets interesting. How do you determine what’s true and what’s false in Scripture? Jo B has literally said that the direct words of the Lord that we have quoted in Scripture aren’t true. Following on from this, how can we clearly say that any of Scripture is true if we have no yardstick to determine what’s false? It seems like a more coherent worldview is simply to say that what God has spoken by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit is true. Also – I heavily doubt we agree on what’s necessary for salvation. Ultimately the… Read more »
So are you saying that the earth is stationary and has corners, and is 6000 years old, or does your “read[ing] according to its genre” allow you to wriggle out of these demonstrable falsehoods?
Gareth presumably believes, as do I, that scripture teaches clearly that scripture is ‘God breathed’. Thus it can be ‘read therein’ and ‘proved thereby’ that scripture witnesses to its own God breathed authority. The point about Article 6 isn’t to argue that there are some things in scripture that are necessary for salvation and some things in scripture that aren’t. It’s to argue that anything – if ever claimed to be an undeniable article of Christian faith – whether that’s papal infallibility, immaculate conception, Marian assumption, anthropogenic climate change, the immutability of transexual identity, or the holiness of same-sex sexual… Read more »
Thank you. The BCP containeth much wisdom! And it is notable that many ‘Anglicans’ who claim the Bible as proving their position seldom refer to it (let alone follow it liturgically!)
Not sure what you mean by ‘true’, particularly when you say it should not be read literally.
Why is that so difficult?
Poetry can declare truth about God as can parables that Jesus told.
Neither of which are to be taken solely in literal terms otherwise most of Christ’s parables would be simply agricultural advice and no more.
That’s why Scripture is read according to its genre.
The problem however is the discussions we’re having aren’t about interpretation, but around what Scripture people think they should dismiss because they presume to know better.
But it’s also clear that most of us do not feel bound by large sections of the Old Testament codes. Most of us don’t follow the dietary laws, nor laws about ritual cleanliness. And we can get rather squeamish about some things that were seen as direct commands of God, such as the complete annihilation of various non-Hebrew people. This sort of thing indicates that we don’t necessarily accept the plain meaning of scripture, but rather we are led to discern a different interpretation.
Yes because we have a decent covenant theology.
Christians have read and still read the Old Testament in the light of Christ and in the light of the New Testament.
Note that isn’t the same thing as saying the Old Testament isn’t true. It is saying that Christ fulfilled the law.
Yet the Apostles teach the Old Testament is God breathed and written for our instruction.
“Christians have read and still read the Old Testament in the light of Christ and in the light of the New Testament.”
So you are happy to claim this for yourself and those who agree with you, but not allow others to do so too! I think I am in pretty much complete agreement with your comment to which this is a reply. But it leads me to different conclusions.
I’m not sure what you’re claiming I claim? I’m saying that God has revealed Himself consistently (and clearly) in the Scriptures and we interpret it as a holistic whole. So yes, we read the Old Testament in the light of Christ (the very one it is pointed towards). Yet Christ and the Apostles are clear that we need to flee from sin and turn to Him. Those with affirming theology aren’t simply arguing that Christ fulfilled the law, they are arguing that the teachings of Christ and the Apostles should also be done away with because they’ve decided they should… Read more »
Gareth, as I understand it, while acknowledging that the Bible consists of texts of different genres, which need to be interpreted accordingly — you use the example that Jesus’ parables offer not agricultural but spiritual advice (I guess via analogical, poetic literary devices) — once this basic interpretation is done, you hold that there is no further interpretation required of any scriptural texts, but rather, their meaning is clear, and consistent with your understanding of the will of God.Therefore, if I read the same texts and arrive at a different understanding, while you may be too polite to put it… Read more »
“I’m not sure what you’re claiming I claim?” The sentence that I previously quoted, namely: “Christians have read and still read the Old Testament in the light of Christ and in the light of the New Testament.” That’s what we all do. And to take a further sentence of yours: “they are arguing that the teachings of Christ and the Apostles should also be done away with”. Again that’s what very many people do. For example, very many people have set aside the clear teaching of Jesus against divorce. That’s something that would have been unthinkable a hundred years ago,… Read more »
Some brief thoughts to close on my end. – I don’t believe that the OT is false. The root of the conversation were having is because Jo B claimed that God didn’t send the Israelites into exile for their sin… despite God Himself saying so. – In such a scenario how can we have any confidence that anything in Scripture is true? – We should seek to live a godly life in Christ Jesus. That means following Him. I am in agreement that this should also apply to our view of divorce and remarriage. – The argument that we should… Read more »
You’re missing the key point – we have a scripture that *says* God said he sent the Israelites into exile. Why is it reasonable to insist this was a direct description of what happened rather than a search for an explanation of a terrible event? If you go the Croick Kirk you can see evidence that some of the victims of the Clearances similarly felt they had been subject to divine judgement.
If your faith is so fragile it requires the whole of Hebrew scripture to be true to survive then I’m sorry for you.
So is it true in the same sense the Dosteoevsky’s The Brother Karamazov or The Idiot is true? [I certainly think both novels say a lot of true things about human nature and our relationship to God.]. Or maybe somewhere in between? Are Nietszche’s aphorisms ‘true’. He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss also gazes into you. Truth is indeed elusive. What did Jesus mean by saying He is The truth? What is meant by ‘In the beginning was The… Read more »
Dostoevsky aside. This isn’t particularly complicated. How do you read any book? What was the authors intention? The Psalms are written as poetry and song. They contain truth about God. The gospels are written as testimony about what happened to Christ they teach us the truth about who He is and why He came and what He did for us. The apostolic letters are written as instruction and encouragement to the churches. All of which are true even if they convey truths in different ways. This is why we spend time to try and understand the world the Scriptures are… Read more »
Nobody here is “rubbishing” scripture. I’m simply allowing for the fact that not everything in the Bible is dictated by God. Understanding the world into which scripture was written includes accepting that people looked for meaning in tragedy and attributed it to divine action, using prophetic styles to match up cause and effect.
Inerrancy (and clarity) claims are invented out of whole cloth to support sola scriptura and deny the primacy of the Holy Spirit working through the church to lead us into all truth, and to provide a framework for supporting comfortable bigotries.
I don’t think using words like ‘bigotries’ is a way forward for respectful discussion. Moreover, it will lead nowhere, but merely entrench.
Given that I’ve been falsely accused of apostasy in this discussion, why is it now you’re concerned about respect?
i agree with alomost all you say, but sometimes it can come across differently. ‘contain truth about God’ yes ‘teach us the truth about who He is and why he came and what He did for us’ yes ‘convey truths in different ways’ yes ‘the truth of scripture’ – going on to more shaky ground. ‘inspired infallible word of God’ – inspired yes, infalllible, questionable ‘God reveals Himself truthfully’ yes, as a whole and with our minds and tradition I’m not even a regular church goer. There are no doubt many tomes and viewpoints about scripture, which the majority of… Read more »
I’ll bow out here. Being a respected theologian doesn’t make marital unfaithfulness okay. I hope he repented of this and turned to Christ. There’s nothing praiseworthy about this: Barth not only pursued a long-term romantic courtship with Kirschbaum but also invited her to live with him and his family. This put incredible strain on his relationship with his wife, Nelly, who wasn’t oblivious. In fact, her depression was so severe that at one point she put an ultimatum to Barth: either Kirschbaum moves out of the house, or Nelly would do the unthinkable and divorce him. Barth, ever committed to… Read more »
i was mainly focussing on his work in understanding the nature of the Word of God, but his personal life does have some similarities with other non-traditional relationships. This extends to others’ views on those relationships.
I hoped my comment might have led you to read a bit more of what Barth wrote, butmaybe you dismiss it because he was imperfect, as are we all, and there is no imperfection more castigated than sexual imperfection.
You’re presenting a false dichotomy and ignoring the problem with inerrancy. Apart from anything else the Bible isn’t one thing. The veracity of the Gospels is not the same as that of the “history” in the Hebrew scriptures. And you’re misusing John 10:35, it’s a conditional statement trapping those Jesus is disputing with using their own claims, not affirming those claims. This sort of proof texting is yet another reason why Bibliolatry is so dangerous. Jesus is not recorded as having promised inerrant scripture; he is recorded as having promised that the Spirit would guide the church. Those who cling… Read more »
Trite exegesis, Jo, and woefully inadequate (or essentially absent) whole-bible hermenuetics.
Loath as I am to wade into another debate (an abiding temptation on this site!) it may be helpful to remind ourselves of Jo B’s example of ‘natural disaster as divine intervention’ at issue here. According to Wikipedia’s entry on the former bishop of Carlisle ‘In July 2007, following widespread storms over parts of the United Kingdom, Dow stated that he believed the resulting flooding (in which several people were killed) was an act of divine retribution, the result of God’s “strong and definite judgement” on the “moral degradation” of British society. In particular, he blamed the economic exploitation of… Read more »
You can’t have “whole-bible hermeneutics” because the Bible is not a single text. Pretending it is is the root of a lot of trite nonsense.
You have put your finger on the root of your catastrophic apostasy from anything recognisable as classic christianity.
Bibliolatry is not “classic Christianity” it’s a recent heresy that needs to be repented of and consigned to history.
There are only two possible entities that might help credibly identify what ‘classic Christianity’ actually is: (i) the bible itself and (ii) the catholic church.
The catholic view (Dei Verbum Article 12) is that the books of Scripture teach solidly, faithfully, and without error that truth which God wanted put into writings for the sake of salvation.
So classic Christianity is shaped by scripture and has a high view of it.
Historians might make a decent fist of it, and I suspect the Orthodox would heartily dispute Rome’s claims to authority.
Loving God means loving what He’s said.
If we don’t respect His words then I suspect we don’t love Him.
I don’t see how that is idolatry at all, particularly given the main way we know anything about God is through the Scriptures.
Describing the humble, prayerful, scholarly, patient listening to God by attending obediently to the divine address in the whole of scripture – which is the work of any truly Christian theologian – as ‘bibliolatry’ would be inaccurate.
Yet classic christianity, whether expressed in classic Roman, Anglican or Protestant formularies, hold the scriptures IN TOTO as the paramount verbal witness of God’s revelation. Making an hermeneutic which embraces the whole Bible essential.
I fear that once again the discussion has focussed on detail. It doesn;t matter whether ‘punishment’ involves God or the courts of law. It don’t matter whether acts of man result in divine retribution or not. What matters is understanding that himan behaviours result in consequences, and a godly prayerful examination of those behaviours will reveal those consequences. Obvious rather important contemporary issue – climate change. If we understood that every time we take a trip in a car, or turn on our computer, or take a flight, or purchase goods, or purchase food which requires road or sea or… Read more »
In short, God works through us. If there is any divine retribution, it is executed through the actions and inactions of humans.
Courts can be seen as such a divine mechanism – almost!
Joke. Vicar walks past a man weeding his front garden and planting flowers. Vicar says ‘Between you and God, you are doing a wonderful job’ to which the man answers ‘you should have seen it when it was God alone’.
Maybe not a joke but a deep theological insight.
Why change the House of Bishops just because they didn’t vote as you felt they should?
Because I don’t want to be a member of a denomination where there are first and second class priests and first and second class laity. I expect moral leadership from my bishops and I am not getting it.
Who are these First and Second Class people?
Priests who know how to unfold a corporal correctly and priests who don’t.
The ones who are allowed to solemnise their legal marriage in Church and those who are not. And those who are allowed to be considered for ordination regardless of their marriage, and those whose marriage has barred them from following a calling from God.
The debate involves what marriage is, and who could be called by God to do what. No one is allowed to be considered for Ordination regardless of their marriage, they are all expected to comply with church standards regarding marital status.
What do you think is the authority for these “Church Standards” ?
You are asking me to believe in a “Loving God” who creates a minority of human beings with a need to sexuality love someone of their own gender and then forbids them to express that love. Homosexuality isn’t a moral choice it is overwhelmingly something you are born with and it harms nobody. The God I experience through the Gospels is a God of Love, a God who loves as all not a God who divides us into first and second class human beings.
So you want moral leadership from Bishops who agree with your personal idea of what is morally right? Is that not you wanting to lead the Bishops, by choosing only one’s who will say what you already believe?
Rather, bishops who don’t champion things, like homophobia and misogyny, that are morally reprehensible. It’s no different from not wanting bishops who are warmongers or racists.
We formally had Church of England Bishops who approved of slavery. Do you think my disagreement with slavery is just “my personal idea” ?
Homophobia should be a matter that goes beyond personal opinion. Just as with slavery, homophobia divides human beings into first and second class human beings. Those who are entitled to celebrate their lifelong love for a partner in Church and those denied that right. If you are homophobic then you deny the fundamental equality of all children of God. You are correct. This should not be a matter of personal opinion.
Ian has been a wonderful priest and pastor, whether as a college chaplain in Oxford, guardian of the shrine at Haddington; vicar of Old St Paul’s where his gift for crossing boundaries meant an Anglo-catholic catholic church built a real relationship with Ps and Gs, a church of a very different tradition. Someone whose grace and pastoral sensibility was at the heart of his ministry at Edinburgh Cathedral and in his episcopal ministry. It was absolutely characteristic of Ian that he invited Richard Holloway to preach at his consecration, something the Church of England would sadly have been unable to… Read more »
Is this comment linked to the correct thread?
Apologies – yes, im not quite sure how it ended up here! Im from the 1960s after all and dont always press the right buttons!
Lol! I’m 1956 vintage!
Why would the CofE be incapable of inviting Richard Holloway to preach (as a guest preacher)?
Because he might preach the truth.
A good question and maybe ive done the CofE a disservice. I’d love to think that Richard would be welcome in C of E pulpits. I still haven’t forgotten the preaching seminars that he andTimothy Radcliffe did at Cuddesdon, and indeed the University Mission Richard Holloway led on which I was one of the mission team (invited by Ian Paton). A remarkable experience of packed venues listening to a master at work.
Is he also on the naughty step of former senior prelates who do not have PTO, along with Carey, Williams, Welby, Hope, Sentamu, Davies and John?
Must have been some pilgrimage Father!
It was indeed and my wife and I bless Ian for it and go back to Taizé often ourselves to this day!
Has this been posted in the wrong place?
Thank you to Michelle Burns for reminding us where the real safeguarding problems lie. Whilst GS is fretting about the confessional box they’re diverting attention away from the institutional failings.
Perhaps this is a “both/and” set of problems, not an “either/or” set of problems.
The fact that there are real institutional failings does not preclude the seal of the confessional also being a real problem.
You make a valid point Simon, but I gained the impression from the article that there was little or no evidence that the seal of confession had caused any harm. It may be that I’ve misjudged the tenor of the article. My fear is that we may lose a pearl of great value here to solve a problem that doesn’t really exist. I’ve gently reminded all penitents that God’s forgiveness does not protect them from the earthly consequences of their shortcomings. If you steal from a supermarket your theft may have been captured on CCTV; confessing the theft to a… Read more »
It is priest-on-priest seal of confessional that arouses concern amongst those I know – too much ‘marking own homework’. Moreover Church now seen to playing down priestly abuse, as witnessed by recent safeguarding course which had zero examples of bad priests in its scenarios, only laity
Yes, the scenario is certainly carefully chosen. In my group, we kept our counsel and then laughed wrily about it offline afterwards as The Elephant in the Room. I assumed that they chose a straightforward vanilla scenario simply to demonstrate the process but a scenario with dimensions of power dynamics and subtle spiritual abuse would have been more realistic. I mentioned it in my course feedback, but there was no prospect of changing anything.
It is said that both Keith O’Brien and Ted McCarrick would make their confessions to junior clergy who knew too much as a means of ensuring their silence.
A priest hearing another priest’s confession would have to be conscious of appropriate boundaries and responsibilities. Most serving bishops wouldn’t hear a priest’s confession and very few clergy would want to make their confession to their bishop in any event, so there is no other option for priests who value the sacrament of reconciliation.
“All those who hold the Bishop’s licence or have permission to officiate as priests are able to hear confessions in extremis, but for those who make themselves generally available to hear confessions the Bishop requires that the priest should have completed a training course and entered their name and contact details on the register of those authorised to administer the Sacrament of Reconciliation.” This seems excellent practice from Southwark Diocese. I’m not sure what the practice is elsewhere, but I for one valued the ministry of senior priests – in the case of Exeter Diocese, deans Richard Eyre and Keith… Read more »
We urgently need someone to do a forensic examination of how Church of England bishops are appointed. The Bench of Church of England Bishops is out of line with the Houses of Laity and Clergy. Who decides who appointed as bishops and how are the selectors appointed? Britain as a nation has decided on full equality for our lesbian and gay citizens but our established church continues to be homophobic. If the Church of England refuses to marry lesbian and gay couples in church then it should be disestablished. There is precedent for this. The Anglican Church in Wales was… Read more »
Since the Church is established, if the General Synod disagrees with Parliament then ultimately Parliament must prevail. Privatisation (i.e. disestablishment) hardly helps.
Re the Bishops being out of line, they are not very much so as all 3 houses were close. But since bishops tend to be both older and more experienced than the average (I.e. formed longer ago) they might be expected to be more conservative than the other houses.
But the Synod is not the Church. Most Church members can vote for their MP but very few have any influence on Synod.
“…(T)he Synod is not the Church.” Indeed. For all the handwringing on here about what synod did or didn’t do, my parishioners barely notice the nonsense of synod. For which I give many thanks.
Indeed. For many (most?) churchgoers, the church is the church they attend. What happens at deanery, archdeaconry, episcopal area, diocesan, provincial or national level is largely irrelevant.
That is spot on! The average Grunt like me give it scant attention. And why should we? I was Denery Synod rep for best part of 30 years; a complete waste of my time.
The C of E at the grassroots is deeply congregationalist, although still wants to be subsidised by the rest of the institution which they give scant regard to.
All this is already known. The CNC process and people appointed to it has been explained in detail by Anthony Archer and others many times, but objectors regularly revert to ‘red herring’ hobby-horses about the King, Prime Minister and disestablishment.
The Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appointment_of_Church_of_England_bishops sets it all out. Since 2007 the prime minister and therefore the King have to rubber stamp the committee’s choice. General Synod has the power to change the process if it wishes … if any parliamentary approval is required it would be more or less automatic. Disestablishment would make no difference. I sense that what David would prefer is for the prime minister to take back the authority to make appointments and then to make those along particular lines. In that regard the PM would be representing “the nation”. That’s what used to happen. The fact… Read more »
Sir Bernard, a real polity bouillabaisse, au fil du temps. I wonder what the architects (such as they were, in the 16th century) would make of the present CofE. Trade-off after trade-off. Monarch, PM, CNC, Synod, College of Bishops, etc. As you say, a sort of demi-establishment joins the other demi-s. Best regards to you.
The real question is why, if the Church of England is making its own appointments, it persists with this opaque and dysfunctional process rather than moving to elections like many other churches in the Anglican Communion.
The Church of England is the established Church in England. This gives it symbolic significance. Bishops sit in our upper house of Parliament and crown our head of state. I think it is completely unacceptable for the Church of England to be established when as a country we have decided to abandon the moral evil of homophobia. If the Church of England wishes to continue to be homophobic it should do so a disestablished church.
I’m afraid i am still struggling, and it seems I am not alone; some seem to stop after item (a). Item (d) of the proposal states: (d) recognises that this includes views that affirm and views that reject the position that there are no fundamental objections to being in such a relationship and that such a relationship can be entirely compatible with Christian discipleship and ministry. My questions are: what is ‘this’ referring to? Theological perspectives as described in item (c) ? item (c) has already stated there is a range of theological perspectives. So why is it necessary to… Read more »
These questions have prompted me to ponder whether it was wrong to vote for the motion in that form. All the criticism of the Archbishop of Canterbury could well have been misconceived. Has anyone really thought this out in depth?
Well, Thinking Anglicans seem to now have done so — but to what end? As far as the rest of the world is concerned, the story remains that the CofE came out against gay people (again) and it’s hard to argue that fact is it not?
It might seem so. There’s the possibility, which I think the question which Nigel Goodwin validly raises, that people, including Thinking Anglicans contributors, might have got it wrong. As Nigel points out, much of the comment here (and I suspect elsewhere) never considered the motion beyond paragraph (a). That isn’t thinking through in depth. What is really needed is an impartial account of what happened from someone actually present. I find the bishops’ abstentions possibly significant.
I’m not arguing that the amendment wasn’t poorly worded — indeed I don’t understand why it was necessary in the first place, as according to the author of the original motion it was intended to be a simple for or against question, echoing the 1975 motion re the ordination of women. But imagine if the C of E was still debating that question — how much legitimacy would it retain as the national church? But no need to imagine, because the effect of the current situation is basically the same. In either case, the finer points of procedural debate would… Read more »
I have added a general comment about the original Motion and the General Secretary’s response. What happened subsequently is far from clear.
i know, it is a disaster all round.
One of my very old software design books had a story. How do you spell banana? The best way is to write banananana and then remove the redundant letters.
Clauses (b), (c), (d) should have been removed, and (a) would have passed.
As a by product it brings into grave doubt the processes of amendments at the GS.
A legal mind should have been brought in and several days elapsed while they reviewed the motion.
Interestingly, if just the same motion had been brought, but presented in the order (c), (d), (a), I’d guess many contributors to TA would have demanded it be voted down. One’s eye is always drawn to the top of the page.
Maybe there should be another voting option – to reject a motion because its meaning is unclear. The existing categories put voters in the position of being in favour, against or ambivalent about a proposal – which is fine when its meaning is clear but leads to misunderstandings when it isn’t.
Someone could have proposed ‘move to next business’ because the motion was not fit for purpose.
So should synod members have valued the rest of the world’s opinion more than logic and rationality?
Good question.
I think some clear messages from the ABC and other leaders is very necessary.
As they say, if in a hole, stop digging, and if you do continue to dig, make sure the s(oil) does not fall back on your head.
The rest is history.
That’s not the point. The rest of the world’s opinion (at least legally) matched the church’s on this question until relatively recently. And I’m not aware that the opponents of changing opinion in the church to this day are arguing on the grounds of logic and rationality, but on the grounds of scripture and tradition… which they claim are beyond opinion — or rather, their opinion; for did not Augustine say “Whoever, then, thinks that he understands the Holy Scriptures, or any part of them, but puts such an interpretation upon them as does not tend to build up this… Read more »
Quite. He made similar comments on the interpretation of scripture as science, and how it makes Christians appear ridiculous and is a blocker to salvation.
Yes, this is an issue that requires theological insight, kindness and clarity of thought. Very clearly setting out opposing views can sometimes create division and offence, and some ambiguity can be helpful. Neither approach was going to work well on this occasion, which brings to mind Ronan Keating’s song ‘You say it best when you say nothing at all‘. If synod has nothing useful to say, it’s perhaps best to leave it at that.
These are crucial points. My take on the fiasco was that the PMM was never a serious exercise in theological thought. It was always primarily an act of protest at the closure of LLF, and an attempt to lay down a marker for the future. In terms of both content and process it had woeful shortcomings, and I hope that Synod will be wise enough to resist any similar upcoming shenanigans. Given the predominance of activists among its membership (normal people couldn’t bear it, so don’t stand for election), I don’t think it will.
That’s your interpretation, personally I think the original motion was a good one aimed at providing Synod with an opportunity to extend a pastoral olive branch to the LGBT+ people in the church whose lives had been dissected and trampled on through the LLF process. The amendment that became the final motion looks very much like a magnanimous and typically Anglican approach of recognising that there are differences of opinion in certain areas but we can live with that. The majority of the clergy and laity supported that approach, which is consistent with most people I know in the pews… Read more »
A motion that says ‘We believe X and we believe a valid opinion is not to believe X’ lacks meaning.
Better to say ‘We have yet to agree on X, and when we do, we’ll let you know’.’
When Jesus said ‘Let your yes be yes and your no no’, he did not add ‘but acknowledge that yes might validly be no’
A motion that says ‘We believe X and we believe a valid opinion is not to believe X’ lacks meaning.
But surely that is exactly where we are with women priests and bishops. It is the settled teaching of the church that women priests are valid, but to believe that women priests are not valid is also an acceptable position the church. People holding to both, mutually contradictory, teachings should be helped to flourish within the church.
If that is the way we approach the women priests issue, why not try the same for same-sex relationships?
Thank you John, I support your view totally. Yes the motion was a bit of an imperfect fudge, but that is exactly how the church operates at its best, living with ambiguity to embody pastoral sensitivity. And sometimes synod can embody this. And let us not forget the constraints Helen King and her supporters worked under. This was a private member’s motion from the floor of the house going against the conservative views of a significant power group in synod, and against the views of many of the bishops, and the secretariat, who wanted to maintain total control of the… Read more »
It’s called processing the process — trying to achieve a majority for a pressure group purely using the rules of debate without any resort to theology or finding a consensus. Causing chaos and confusion is one way of achieving it, along with name calling (as regularly expressed in TA) and banging on windows designed to silence other views. if bishops hadn’t voted against this motion they would have effectively handed over control of the church to this pressure group with dire consequences.
Calling a spade a spade is not “name calling”.
You can’t reasonably expect people to dance around the truth and call it “a metallic object with a sincere theological conviction that digging should take place”.
If one goes to General Synod Papers (TA 25th June) for 13th July, Helen King’s original Motion (later to become paragraph (a) of the much discussed Amended Motion) will be found in Document GS2455 A. This was followed by the Secretary General Explanatory Note GS2455 B which contains at paragraph 13 these words:
“In summary, the passage of this motion would express the view of this Synod but would not effect any change to doctrine, law or teaching. However, it could introduce some ambiguity and confusion, with potential implications for practice.”
Thank you. I don’t think the Secretary General displayed much forensic analysis.
It also ignores how it would seen in the outside world, which is a vital aspect.
Note that the Secretary General’s note refers to Helen King’s original motion, not the amended version. I have no idea whether any analysis on the amended version was shared prior to voting.
The issue remains – a legalistic approach, or an approach which prioritises removing blockers to coming to Christ and the Church.
I hoped I made it clear that the General Secretary’s explanatory note referred to the original motion. It was published on TA three weeks before the amendments were conceived by GS members. I reiterate my point that the bishops who abstained (rather than voted either way) might hold the key to some of this.
Yes, I was just emphasising. In that context, it seems remarkable. What is there not to like in clause (a)? I cannot understand at all his conclusion. It doesn;t make any sense. Some ambiguity or confusion? That all baptised, believing and faithful persons regardless of sexual orientation are full members of the Body of Christ ? Conservative evangelicals, for example, would not have any problem with this statement, from what I understand. The Pope (this one or the previous) would not have any problem. It demonstrates there are some elephants in the room. Or else SNAFU Aha – i have… Read more »
This is a fascinating quote, Rowland, thank you. It expresses the corporate view not only of the bishops, but of the central secretariat. It might explain why certain bishops voted against the motion. It’s an interesting comment about ambiguity and practice, but it seems to me to be expressing double standards. Within the Church of England there is extensive ambiguity and variation around the practice of administering the Eucharist, of ministerial vestments, of conducting liturgy, of admitting women to positions of leadership. Yet such ambiguity and variation is accepted, and deviations from authorised protocols are rarely enforced. Yet when it… Read more »
Again, the General Secretary was referring to the original motion, i.e. clasue (a) alone. In thatcontext, it seems remarkable. Clause (c) covered the issue of a variety (ambiguity) of practice (‘right ordering’). Simon, in your post above, you quote from (d) the ‘views that affirm…’ but do not quote the part which says ‘views that reject…’. Clause (d) was deeply problematic. Everything useful was covered in clauses (a) – (c). I have no idea, but my guess is that if clause (d) had not been included, (a) – (c) would have passed, including bishops. So let’s not jump to unsubstantiated… Read more »
Sorry, I got it wrong, Helen’s original motion was not clause (a), but a form of clauses (c) and (d) without the ‘reject’. My bad.
But my overall view is that there should have been a motion whih included only clauses (a) – (c) and that such a motion would have sent out an important message.
I’m afraid I think this is incorrect. Here is the original motion:
https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2026-06/gs-2455a-same-sex-relationships-compatibility-with-christian-discipleship.pdf
Possibly you are referring to the first amendment – I haven’t the time to check that out and details aren’t readily available in convenient form, hence my complaint about the standard of reporting – or non-reporting.
Sorry also on my part. I have linked the original motion and mistakenly thought it was paragraph (a). This only emphasises even more strongly why the whole matter calls for a factual, impartial and chronological account of what happened.
Shows how confusing it all was!
Why on earth was such a shambles allowed to proceed?
Nigel, if clause (d) had not been included it might well have passed, but if clause (d) had not been included we would not have had a Synod motion asking us to affirm that intimate same-sex relationships can be considered within the bounds of Christian teaching, which was the point of the debate.
Without clause (d) we would simply be restating current teaching, and what is the point of that.
Agreed, but it would have avoided the current debacle and the headlines ‘Bishops reject same sex relationships’.
The clause (d) both affirmed and rejected. So what was the point of that?
To be honest, I think I am done with this debate. It is simply a shambles, and maybe somebody is thinking of damage limitation but somehow I doubt it.
Frankly, the situation and most of the discussion (so much of it just speculation) have been shambolic and all kinds of conclusions drawn without any detailed knowledge or analysis of what happened on the day.
In fact, TA has had many comments over the last year about the unacceptability of the ‘mutual flourisihing’ of those who do and do not accept women’s ordination. Apparently, mutual flourishing was a wholly unacceptable concession to conservatives, which has caused immense difficulties and should never be repeated.
So is mutual flourishing actually OK after all – in which case, when is Bishop North going to start running the Diocese of Sheffield?
Or is is not OK – in which case, why is this approach being advanced as a way forward of resolving disagreements over LGBTQI+ issues?
Because it’s a temporary ‘stalking horse’ to open the door for revisionism first as an option and later becoming compulsory? To begin a transition period leading up to the hegemony of revisionist thought, when holding to traditional orthodoxy will no longer be tolerated as one ‘legitimate’ perspective, but rather be prohibited as ‘bigoted’, ‘outdated’ and ‘unjust’?
Surely not. I believe you’ve got that totally wrong …
But hang on, I believe it’s also legitimate to believe you’re totally right!
Is that completely clear?
Nobody is going to force you into a same-sex marriage. You will always be free not to enter into one as a matter of conscience, just as you’re free not to marry someone of a different religion. What may change is that trying to turn your personal choices into an absolute moral imperative will no longer meet widespread approval. Frankly there’s more Biblical support for not marrying non-Christians than there is for not marrying people of the same sex.